Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents

[Tom DeReggi]

Charles,

You are full of all kinds of good posts this weekend. Glad to have you back 
on list!

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents

[Tom DeReggi]

> Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling?

Kick ASX  PTP systems. Both Tri-Band Atlases, and Licensed Links.  The have 
the potential to stay a price leader in Quality PtP.

As for the PTMP
To this day, I have never been able to get over the need to do scans on the 
fly from APs, to determine best channel to try.
The Atlas still gives us that, and makes it a long term contendor against 
all the other options.

I think Trango realizes they can't miss the PTP licensed market, (its to 
important) and that they need to stay focused on it.

What I don't understand is why they can't just write some quick firmware 
mods, and turn the Atlast PTP Ext into an Atlas PTMP AP?
I sure hope they don't give up on the MM5, even if it can't give us 
everything we want.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents


> Hi,
>
> You are correct... my mistake.
>
> However, the MM5 was going to be 5ghz along with an MM2 (2.4ghz) and MM9
> (900mhz)... but as you mentioned, the products have been discontinued.
> Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling?
> Their 5 year old product is getting slow, and is still very expensive. :(
>
> Travis
>
>
> Charles Wu wrote:
>> Travis,
>>
>> The Trango 5830 / 900 / 2400 were up/down-coverted 802.11b - not 802.11a 
>> systems
>>
>> The only 802.11a multipoint system that Trango had was MM5, and it is my 
>> understanding that (1) it was never for 900 MHz and (2) it has been put 
>> on hold / discontinued
>>
>> -Charles
>>
>> ---
>> WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
>> Coming to a City Near You
>> http://www.winog.com
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
>> Behalf Of Travis Johnson
>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:08 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
>>
>> What about Trango?
>>
>> Charles Wu wrote:
>>
>> So, what down converted 802.11a systems are there for 900?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mini-PCI:
>>
>> Ubiquiti
>>
>> Zcomax
>>
>>
>>
>> Vendor Solutions:
>>
>> Tranzeo
>>
>> Alvarion
>>
>> Vecima/WaveRider
>>
>> Wu-Wu Special*
>>
>>
>>
>> *We are doing some exploratory investigation =)
>>
>>
>>
>> -Charles
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>
>> From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:19 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Even thought this thread is a bit old, couldn't help but add my 2 cents
>>
>> (as there seems to be a resurgence of "puff" in this space)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> DISCLAIMER: I am also a vendor of various WiMAX 802.16d systems - so feel
>>
>> free to apply your necessary 'BS' filter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Spectral efficiency ( 4.85 gross bp/hz ) On a six sector
>>
>>
>>
>> configuration with only 25mhz of spectrum, you can effectively deliver
>>
>>
>>
>> approx 20mb per sector or 120 mb / per pop, 240 mb when all 50 mhz is
>>
>>
>>
>> supported. Support for thousands of subscribers is possible off the same
>>
>>
>>
>> BSU.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This isn't all too exciting, IMO - there are plenty of systems out there
>>
>> that have similar (if not better) spectral efficiency characteristics as
>>
>> to what the WiMAX 802.16d standard offers...also, with the uncertainties
>>
>> of 3650 licensing, which is, from an interference protection perspective,
>>
>> not that much different that Part-15, higher order modulation schemes
>>
>> don't do much in the presence of noise
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Case in point: Why does everyone keep using Canopy 900 MHz systems when
>>
>> you can get an 802.11a OFDM-based down-converted system that delivers 
>> 3-4x
>>
>> the throughput?  Well, it's a matter of what's actually going to work in
>>
>> the crowded 900 MHz band.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. multiple vendor support ( currently you have Redline, Aperto,
>>
>>
>>
>> Airspan, Alvarion, all with FCC approved equipment )
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The "concept" of interoperability is one of the most "oversold" features
>>
>> of WiMAX which needs to be explained...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Fictitious Scenario:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Say I had deployed Brand A system for my business users, and in order to
>>
>> enable VoIP services, I enable a variety of the more advanced MAC 
>> features
>>
>> (rTP for my VoIP)...I set up a variety of service flows that are
>>
>> customized to each user...blah blah blah
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Problem is, Brand A system, for whatever reason, didn't support UGS and a
>>
>> few esoteric servic

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Matt Larsen - Lists]

Travis Johnson wrote:
> Matt,
>
> I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. 
> Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available 
> for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using 
> Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are 
> finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does 
> work.
>
> How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP 
> with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I 
> have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to 
> the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control 
> the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the 
> AP (on the upload side).
>
> Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients 
> without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a 
> download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the 
> download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if 
> you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while 
> the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an 
> upload running.

Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming 
from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity 
of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I 
have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. 

>
> What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running 
> Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer 
> CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)
>

Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.  

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
>> Hi Travis,
>>
>> I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product.   I've 
>> been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with 
>> StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is 
>> pretty amazing at ANY price point.   I could say the same thing for the 
>> newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the 
>> Ubiquity price point just yet.
>>
>> It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich 
>> features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference 
>> resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus 
>> able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS 
>> platforms. 
>>
>> I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the 
>> Nanostation radios.  That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna 
>> mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly - 
>> and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would 
>> end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every 
>> feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at 
>> the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc).   No polling, 
>> but that is one of the most overrated features anyway.
>>
>> Matt Larsen
>> vistabeam.com
>>
>>
>> Travis Johnson wrote:
>>   
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some 
>>> new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could 
>>> shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti 
>>> quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this 
>>> coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these 
>>> companies can really have into a radio system (Trango, Canopy, etc.) 
>>> when Ubiquiti can sell a brand new product for $79 MSRP. Granted there 
>>> are not a lot of "bells and whistles", but honestly most of the WISP's 
>>> out there don't need that. If you can buy a radio for $79, you can put 
>>> whatever you need behind it (Cisco, Mikrotik, etc.) and still be less 
>>> than $200 for a nice CPE.
>>>
>>> I think Trango's first mistake was the "mesh" game they played for a 
>>> year. Then when they decide to get back into the game, they promise a 
>>> product that seems too good to be true... and now it turns out, it was. 
>>> So, they are now 2+ years behind everyone else in the R&D world, and 
>>> they are losing customers left and right. The licensed market may help 
>>> get them by for a while, but I don't think that is enough business to 
>>> sustain the company forever.
>>>
>>> Travis
>>>
>>> Charles Wu wrote:
>>>   
>>> 
 Travis,

 I agree with you 100%...I still think there's a huge opportunity in the 
 market right now that's being missed for a solid 2nd player (not Motorola 
 Canopy) in the last-mile access space

 However, neither you nor I run Trango

 If you step back and look at the situation, this discussion is pretty 
 interesting, coming from 2 people who really know Trango well-- we were 
 their 

Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents

[Tom DeReggi]

What the manufacturer's are missing is a very basic key principle.

Lets look at Blackberry for a second. Whats so good about them? Talking 
about a minimal weak layer of added value.  They offer "Push Email".  HUGE 
HUGE impact in productivity.
But the thing is this is not a new unique idea, nor is it a hard thing to 
implement.  Proabably anyone of us could write scripts on our own mail 
servers to do similar things to our Email users.
But because Blackberry is smart enough to realize that this tiny tiny 
enhancement make all the difference in the world, Blackberry is taking over 
the high end cell phone market.  I don't have stats, but I bet more Business 
users have Blackberrys than  Sprint and ATT direct plans.  (Note: Peter R. 
brought this up at last ISPCON.)

Wireless manufacturers need to realize the same thing. Little things make 
all the difference. The Wifi market is getting competitive nowadays with 
things like the NanoStation for $75.
But I tell you, that is the race to the bottom. ARG not another system with 
a 7db CPE antenna :-(

But for the quality market, a high end product is very much in demand still, 
and would sell itself.  I have never once flenched at paying $500-$700 for a 
CPE, in our urban markets.
I'm just tired of buying junk.

Ironically, I have a radio lnik that has been failing at one of my sites. 
I've replace everything twice. Still no luck, it locks up ever now and then. 
My solution was, I'm jsut going to replace it with another brand and avoid 
any further troubleshooting. Then this Email's point became evident. What 
was I going to put there? I could put canopy, but to slow, because I have 
two buildings to serve each one has a 5mbps FDX customer, plus a couple 
other small use subs.  I don't want to go PTP, because I ahve two buildings 
to hit, and I'm running out of available spectrum and space to mount 
antennas.  I considered Alvarion, but who wants to pay $7000 for the AP, and 
$3000 for 2 APs, in order to get 54mbps modualtions radios, and give the 
next 6 months of profit away?
I have alot of APs up there and lots of noise. I thought of putting OEM 
units, but with out the ability to do SCANS that pick up non-wifi, its to 
risky to not be able to manage my network fast enough.  At the end of the 
day, I left the Trango up there, and bought a $150 auto ping reboot device. 
My point being There are many products that give decent speed and decent 
price, but there wasn't one product on the market that I could find, that 
gave decend price and decent speed, that ALSO had the ability to do SCANs 
that picked up non-Wifi devices. This is a HUGE feature because it allows me 
to hear my other Trango APs, and lets me know what channel I can switch to 
that will less likely destroy one of my other links, if I run into 
interference, and ahve to switch channels.

My point is... I'd rather pay $500 for a CPE anyday of the weak, than give 
up that feature. It the Blackberry feature of Fixed Wireless gear.

  My point here is not to just defend Trango, but to iterate that there is a 
huge open market for quality CPEs and APs. It is NOT a saturated tough 
competitive market. Next to nobody is making a product to meet a WISP's full 
need. A single feature can justify a product's survivabilty.

Whats our alternateive? Buying a $10,000 WiMax AP?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents


> Travis,
>
> I agree with you 100%...I still think there's a huge opportunity in the 
> market right now that's being missed for a solid 2nd player (not Motorola 
> Canopy) in the last-mile access space
>
> However, neither you nor I run Trango
>
> If you step back and look at the situation, this discussion is pretty 
> interesting, coming from 2 people who really know Trango well-- we were 
> their largest distributor back before they got rid of the channel, and you 
> probably operate one of the largest Trango networks now
>
> That said, you've started building out your network with different access 
> solutions, and we're doing other stuff
>
> It looks like we've both moved on...
>
> -Charles
>
> ---
> WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
> Coming to a City Near You
> http://www.winog.com
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
> Behalf Of Travis Johnson
> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 5:02 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
>
> Charles,
>
> How about selling hundreds of AP's and thousands of SU's to a single 
> customer... and now that's gone.
>
> I understand selling a $10k radio has more profit than a few AP's and 
> SU's, but I am only ever going to buy a "few" of the $10k radio sets, 
> compared with literally thousands of SU's over the 

Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.

[Chuck McCown - 3]

Not true.  Not true at all.  Cable Companies are not rate of return 
regulated.  Every dollar they spend is below the line.  The ILECS are 
strictly regulated as to what can be spent above the line.  Tarrifed rates 
ONLY support tarrifed services.
- Original Message - 
From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.


> Why not?
>
> Isn't that kinda what Cable Cos and ILECs Do?
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Chuck McCown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 2:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>
>
>> The power company wants to take rate payer money and build a broadband
>> network that will contact each meter for the purpose of managing energy.
>> It
>> will also supply broadband to the homeowner if they want.  This should 
>> not
>> be allowed.
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "David E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:34 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>>
>>
>>> Chuck McCown wrote:
 Time to speak up.
>>>
>>> Anyone care to translate this for those among us who don't speak
>>> lawyerese, and who don't live/work in Indiana?
>>>
>>> David Smith
>>> MVN.net
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents

[Travis Johnson]

Tom,

Trango has already announced they have canceled the MM5 product.

Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:

  
Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling?

  
  
Kick ASX  PTP systems. Both Tri-Band Atlases, and Licensed Links.  The have 
the potential to stay a price leader in Quality PtP.

As for the PTMP
To this day, I have never been able to get over the need to do scans on the 
fly from APs, to determine best channel to try.
The Atlas still gives us that, and makes it a long term contendor against 
all the other options.

I think Trango realizes they can't miss the PTP licensed market, (its to 
important) and that they need to stay focused on it.

What I don't understand is why they can't just write some quick firmware 
mods, and turn the Atlast PTP Ext into an Atlas PTMP AP?
I sure hope they don't give up on the MM5, even if it can't give us 
everything we want.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents


  
  
Hi,

You are correct... my mistake.

However, the MM5 was going to be 5ghz along with an MM2 (2.4ghz) and MM9
(900mhz)... but as you mentioned, the products have been discontinued.
Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling?
Their 5 year old product is getting slow, and is still very expensive. :(

Travis


Charles Wu wrote:


  Travis,

The Trango 5830 / 900 / 2400 were up/down-coverted 802.11b - not 802.11a 
systems

The only 802.11a multipoint system that Trango had was MM5, and it is my 
understanding that (1) it was never for 900 MHz and (2) it has been put 
on hold / discontinued

-Charles

---
WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On 
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:08 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents

What about Trango?

Charles Wu wrote:

So, what down converted 802.11a systems are there for 900?





Mini-PCI:

Ubiquiti

Zcomax



Vendor Solutions:

Tranzeo

Alvarion

Vecima/WaveRider

Wu-Wu Special*



*We are doing some exploratory investigation =)



-Charles



- Original Message -

From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 

Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:19 PM

Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents







Even thought this thread is a bit old, couldn't help but add my 2 cents

(as there seems to be a resurgence of "puff" in this space)







DISCLAIMER: I am also a vendor of various WiMAX 802.16d systems - so feel

free to apply your necessary 'BS' filter











Benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz







1. Spectral efficiency ( 4.85 gross bp/hz ) On a six sector



configuration with only 25mhz of spectrum, you can effectively deliver



approx 20mb per sector or 120 mb / per pop, 240 mb when all 50 mhz is



supported. Support for thousands of subscribers is possible off the same



BSU.







This isn't all too exciting, IMO - there are plenty of systems out there

that have similar (if not better) spectral efficiency characteristics as

to what the WiMAX 802.16d standard offers...also, with the uncertainties

of 3650 licensing, which is, from an interference protection perspective,

not that much different that Part-15, higher order modulation schemes

don't do much in the presence of noise







Case in point: Why does everyone keep using Canopy 900 MHz systems when

you can get an 802.11a OFDM-based down-converted system that delivers 
3-4x

the throughput?  Well, it's a matter of what's actually going to work in

the crowded 900 MHz band.











2. multiple vendor support ( currently you have Redline, Aperto,



Airspan, Alvarion, all with FCC approved equipment )







The "concept" of interoperability is one of the most "oversold" features

of WiMAX which needs to be explained...







Fictitious Scenario:







Say I had deployed Brand A system for my business users, and in order to

enable VoIP services, I enable a variety of the more advanced MAC 
features

(rTP for my VoIP)...I set up a variety of service flows that are

customized to each user...blah blah blah







Problem is, Brand A system, for whatever reason, didn't support UGS and a

few esoteric service flow / packet filtering features, but at the time,

I'm really not too concerned because (a) my customers don't demand UGS

from me right now and (b) the concept of "WiMAX interoperability" story

gives me the conclusion that if I really need UGS, I could just buy /

upgrade to Brand X system and retain all of my Brand A CPEs that I've

deployed.







Now, 6 months later, I've deployed 50 CPE in the field, and

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Travis Johnson]

Matt,

Polling is a requirement for a system that will scale to larger number
of clients. I have Trango AP's that will only do 5Mbps total bandwidth,
yet we have loaded them up to their max clients (128) and have no
issues. Latency is less than 5ms to any client at any time, and the
bandwidth is smooth and consistent.

And although I have great respect for StarOS, the Mikrotik community is
at least 10x bigger than StarOS... it would make more sense for
Ubiquiti to load Mikrotik on the Nano's... ;)

Travis
Microserv


Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:

  Travis Johnson wrote:
  
  
Matt,

I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. 
Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available 
for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using 
Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are 
finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does 
work.

How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP 
with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I 
have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to 
the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control 
the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the 
AP (on the upload side).

Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients 
without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a 
download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the 
download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if 
you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while 
the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an 
upload running.

  
  
Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming 
from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity 
of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I 
have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. 

  
  
What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running 
Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer 
CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)


  
  
Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.  

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com
  
  
Travis
Microserv

Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:


  Hi Travis,

I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product.   I've 
been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with 
StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is 
pretty amazing at ANY price point.   I could say the same thing for the 
newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the 
Ubiquity price point just yet.

It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich 
features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference 
resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus 
able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS 
platforms. 

I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the 
Nanostation radios.  That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna 
mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly - 
and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would 
end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every 
feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at 
the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc).   No polling, 
but that is one of the most overrated features anyway.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com


Travis Johnson wrote:
  
  
  
Hi,

I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some 
new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could 
shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti 
quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this 
coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these 
companies can really have into a radio system (Trango, Canopy, etc.) 
when Ubiquiti can sell a brand new product for $79 MSRP. Granted there 
are not a lot of "bells and whistles", but honestly most of the WISP's 
out there don't need that. If you can buy a radio for $79, you can put 
whatever you need behind it (Cisco, Mikrotik, etc.) and still be less 
than $200 for a nice CPE.

I think Trango's first mistake was the "mesh" game they played for a 
year. Then when they decide to get back into the game, they promise a 
product that seems too good to be true... and now it turns out, it was. 
So, they are now 2+ years behind everyone else in the R&D world, and 
they are losing customers left and right. The licensed market may help 
get them by for a while, but I don't think that is enough business to 
sustain the company forever.

Travis

Charles Wu wrote:
  



  Travis,

I 

Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.

[Larry Yunker]

While the ILECs may have been unable to directly pass along the cost of
their broadband infrastructure to the consumer, they have successful engaged
in a reverse of the concept.  They have placed the burden of their dying
POTS infrastructure on their broadband subscribers.

ILECS have instituted tying agreements which essentially force broadband
subscribers into purchasing tariffed services. For example, if you want
$19.95/month DSL, you must-purchase the ILEC's $62/month all frills included
phone service package.  Of course, someone will cry out what about
"naked-DSL"?  Yes, it exists in most markets now, but it will cost you
roughly $50-$55/month for the same plan that you would get for $19.95/month
if you were so kind as to agree to subsidize ma-Bell's poor starving
land-line phone service.

Seems ironic doesn't it... the ILEC can't force its telephone subscribers to
pay for its broadband expansion through tariffed rates (it wouldn't work
because most people would get cell phones and ditch the land line before
they would agree to pay a bunch more for their land line), so ILECs work the
system backwards... people still want DSL, so lets force them to buy our
next-to-useless landline phone service in order to get our coveted broadband
service.

Unfortunately, I don't see people cutting their electric company service and
installing solar cells as a replacements anytime soon, so if the electric
company were to engage in broadband as suggested, it would be scary for all
other broadband carriers.

- Larry



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 10:53 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.

Not true.  Not true at all.  Cable Companies are not rate of return 
regulated.  Every dollar they spend is below the line.  The ILECS are 
strictly regulated as to what can be spent above the line.  Tarrifed rates 
ONLY support tarrifed services.
- Original Message - 
From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.


> Why not?
>
> Isn't that kinda what Cable Cos and ILECs Do?
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Chuck McCown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 2:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>
>
>> The power company wants to take rate payer money and build a broadband
>> network that will contact each meter for the purpose of managing energy.
>> It
>> will also supply broadband to the homeowner if they want.  This should 
>> not
>> be allowed.
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "David E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:34 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>>
>>
>>> Chuck McCown wrote:
 Time to speak up.
>>>
>>> Anyone care to translate this for those among us who don't speak
>>> lawyerese, and who don't live/work in Indiana?
>>>
>>> David Smith
>>> MVN.net
>>>
>>>
>>>


>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>


>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>


>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>


>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>


> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>


>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
-

Re: [WISPA] 900 MHz Foliage Penetration

[Mike Hammett]

So could the link work because both ends are 200'+ over the bulk of the 
middle?


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


- Original Message - 
From: "D. Ryan Spott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 900 MHz Foliage Penetration


> Yes.
>
> ryan
>
>
> On Jul 19, 2008, at 8:39 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
>> Is that elevation at the bottom?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "D. Ryan Spott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 10:01 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 900 MHz Foliage Penetration
>>
>>
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> Take a look at tranzeofaq.com. I have a pretty good example of a 2.75
>>> mile shot through trees with 6mbps throughput.
>>>
>>> ryan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 19, 2008, at 1:32 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>
 How much foliage penetration should I expect from a 900 MHz system?

 I'm looking at an area which has 30' - 50' thick tree lines every
 1/2 to 1.5 miles.  I'm looking at 13 dBi sector with an approx 24 dB
 radio (figure a dB or two for cable loss).  For CPE I'm looking at
 13 - 15 dB CPE antenna (the 18 dB was just too big and expensive)
 with 20 - 24 dB radios.

 Looking at the XR9 radios.


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



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] 900 MHz Foliage Penetration

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Mike Hammett wrote, On 7/20/2008 12:09 PM:
> So could the link work because both ends are 200'+ over the bulk of the 
> middle?
>   
I don't think it will work. We tried last year to get through some thick 
trees and couldn't do it even with a relay at the edge of the tree line.

We do have 900 deployed with trees.

Leon
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "D. Ryan Spott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 900 MHz Foliage Penetration
>
>
>   
>> Yes.
>>
>> ryan
>>
>>
>> On Jul 19, 2008, at 8:39 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>
>> 
>>> Is that elevation at the bottom?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "D. Ryan Spott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 10:01 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 900 MHz Foliage Penetration
>>>
>>>
>>>   
 Mike,

 Take a look at tranzeofaq.com. I have a pretty good example of a 2.75
 mile shot through trees with 6mbps throughput.

 ryan


 On Jul 19, 2008, at 1:32 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

 
> How much foliage penetration should I expect from a 900 MHz system?
>
> I'm looking at an area which has 30' - 50' thick tree lines every
> 1/2 to 1.5 miles.  I'm looking at 13 dBi sector with an approx 24 dB
> radio (figure a dB or two for cable loss).  For CPE I'm looking at
> 13 - 15 dB CPE antenna (the 18 dB was just too big and expensive)
> with 20 - 24 dB radios.
>
> Looking at the XR9 radios.
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>   

 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

 
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>   
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>> 
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>   




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Gino Villarini]

Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware.  
The oswave has polling...

gino

-Original Message-
From: Matt Larsen - Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

Travis Johnson wrote:
> Matt,
>
> I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. 
> Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available 
> for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using 
> Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are 
> finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does 
> work.
>
> How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP 
> with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I 
> have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to 
> the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control 
> the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the 
> AP (on the upload side).
>
> Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients 
> without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a 
> download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the 
> download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if 
> you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while 
> the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an 
> upload running.

Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming 
from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity 
of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I 
have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. 

>
> What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running 
> Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer 
> CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)
>

Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.  

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
>> Hi Travis,
>>
>> I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product.   I've 
>> been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with 
>> StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is 
>> pretty amazing at ANY price point.   I could say the same thing for the 
>> newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the 
>> Ubiquity price point just yet.
>>
>> It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich 
>> features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference 
>> resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus 
>> able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS 
>> platforms. 
>>
>> I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the 
>> Nanostation radios.  That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna 
>> mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly - 
>> and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would 
>> end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every 
>> feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at 
>> the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc).   No polling, 
>> but that is one of the most overrated features anyway.
>>
>> Matt Larsen
>> vistabeam.com
>>
>>
>> Travis Johnson wrote:
>>   
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some 
>>> new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could 
>>> shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti 
>>> quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this 
>>> coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these 
>>> companies can really have into a radio system (Trango, Canopy, etc.) 
>>> when Ubiquiti can sell a brand new product for $79 MSRP. Granted there 
>>> are not a lot of "bells and whistles", but honestly most of the WISP's 
>>> out there don't need that. If you can buy a radio for $79, you can put 
>>> whatever you need behind it (Cisco, Mikrotik, etc.) and still be less 
>>> than $200 for a nice CPE.
>>>
>>> I think Trango's first mistake was the "mesh" game they played for a 
>>> year. Then when they decide to get back into the game, they promise a 
>>> product that seems too good to be true... and now it turns out, it was. 
>>> So, they are now 2+ years behind everyone else in the R&D world, and 
>>> they are losing customers left and right. The licensed market may help 
>>> get them by for a while, but I don't think that is enough business to 
>>> sustain the company forever.
>>>
>>> Travis
>>>
>>> Charles Wu wrote:
>>>   
>>> 
 Travis,

 I agree with you 100%...I still think there's a huge opportunity in the 
 market right now that's being missed for a solid 2nd pla

Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents

[Gino Villarini]

Thay just need to add a couple of features to the t45...

Better ethernet configuration options

5 10 40 channels support

gino

-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:13 AM
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents

> Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling?

Kick ASX  PTP systems. Both Tri-Band Atlases, and Licensed Links.  The have 
the potential to stay a price leader in Quality PtP.

As for the PTMP
To this day, I have never been able to get over the need to do scans on the 
fly from APs, to determine best channel to try.
The Atlas still gives us that, and makes it a long term contendor against 
all the other options.

I think Trango realizes they can't miss the PTP licensed market, (its to 
important) and that they need to stay focused on it.

What I don't understand is why they can't just write some quick firmware 
mods, and turn the Atlast PTP Ext into an Atlas PTMP AP?
I sure hope they don't give up on the MM5, even if it can't give us 
everything we want.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents


> Hi,
>
> You are correct... my mistake.
>
> However, the MM5 was going to be 5ghz along with an MM2 (2.4ghz) and MM9
> (900mhz)... but as you mentioned, the products have been discontinued.
> Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling?
> Their 5 year old product is getting slow, and is still very expensive. :(
>
> Travis
>
>
> Charles Wu wrote:
>> Travis,
>>
>> The Trango 5830 / 900 / 2400 were up/down-coverted 802.11b - not 802.11a 
>> systems
>>
>> The only 802.11a multipoint system that Trango had was MM5, and it is my 
>> understanding that (1) it was never for 900 MHz and (2) it has been put 
>> on hold / discontinued
>>
>> -Charles
>>
>> ---
>> WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
>> Coming to a City Near You
>> http://www.winog.com
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
>> Behalf Of Travis Johnson
>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:08 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
>>
>> What about Trango?
>>
>> Charles Wu wrote:
>>
>> So, what down converted 802.11a systems are there for 900?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mini-PCI:
>>
>> Ubiquiti
>>
>> Zcomax
>>
>>
>>
>> Vendor Solutions:
>>
>> Tranzeo
>>
>> Alvarion
>>
>> Vecima/WaveRider
>>
>> Wu-Wu Special*
>>
>>
>>
>> *We are doing some exploratory investigation =)
>>
>>
>>
>> -Charles
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>
>> From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:19 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Even thought this thread is a bit old, couldn't help but add my 2 cents
>>
>> (as there seems to be a resurgence of "puff" in this space)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> DISCLAIMER: I am also a vendor of various WiMAX 802.16d systems - so feel
>>
>> free to apply your necessary 'BS' filter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Spectral efficiency ( 4.85 gross bp/hz ) On a six sector
>>
>>
>>
>> configuration with only 25mhz of spectrum, you can effectively deliver
>>
>>
>>
>> approx 20mb per sector or 120 mb / per pop, 240 mb when all 50 mhz is
>>
>>
>>
>> supported. Support for thousands of subscribers is possible off the same
>>
>>
>>
>> BSU.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This isn't all too exciting, IMO - there are plenty of systems out there
>>
>> that have similar (if not better) spectral efficiency characteristics as
>>
>> to what the WiMAX 802.16d standard offers...also, with the uncertainties
>>
>> of 3650 licensing, which is, from an interference protection perspective,
>>
>> not that much different that Part-15, higher order modulation schemes
>>
>> don't do much in the presence of noise
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Case in point: Why does everyone keep using Canopy 900 MHz systems when
>>
>> you can get an 802.11a OFDM-based down-converted system that delivers 
>> 3-4x
>>
>> the throughput?  Well, it's a matter of what's actually going to work in
>>
>> the crowded 900 MHz band.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. multiple vendor support ( currently you have Redline, Aperto,
>>
>>
>>
>> Airspan, Alvarion, all with FCC approved equipment )
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The "concept" of interoperability is one of the most "oversold" features
>>
>> of WiMAX which needs to be explained...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Fictitious Scenario:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Say I had deployed Brand A system for my business users, and in order to
>

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Butch Evans]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote:

>And although I have great respect for StarOS, the Mikrotik 
>community is at least 10x bigger than StarOS... it would make more 
>sense for Ubiquiti to load Mikrotik on the Nano's... ;)

First, there is not enough flash on the Nanos to hold MT.  IIRC, the 
flash on the nano is 4M (maybe 8?).  I can't recall exactly, but 
it's not enough either way.  That is the only thing that limits the 
ability to run MT on the Nano, as the remaining hardware is pretty 
close to the same thing as the RB133C.

-- 

*Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation *
*Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS *
*573-276-2879   *ImageStream   *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE   *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks*
*Mikrotik Certified Consultant  *Professional Technical Trainer*




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Travis Johnson]

The AirOS that comes on the Nanostations also has polling the issue
is having a product that is compatible and has the features that people
are already used to. Having Mikrotik on the Nano's would open up a
whole new world.

Travis

Gino Villarini wrote:

  Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware.  The oswave has polling...

gino

-Original Message-
From: Matt Larsen - Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

Travis Johnson wrote:
  
  
Matt,

I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. 
Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available 
for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using 
Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are 
finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does 
work.

How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP 
with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I 
have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to 
the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control 
the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the 
AP (on the upload side).

Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients 
without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a 
download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the 
download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if 
you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while 
the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an 
upload running.

  
  
Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming 
from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity 
of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I 
have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. 

  
  
What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running 
Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer 
CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)


  
  
Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.  

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com
  
  
Travis
Microserv

Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:


  Hi Travis,

I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product.   I've 
been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with 
StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is 
pretty amazing at ANY price point.   I could say the same thing for the 
newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the 
Ubiquity price point just yet.

It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich 
features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference 
resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus 
able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS 
platforms. 

I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the 
Nanostation radios.  That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna 
mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly - 
and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would 
end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every 
feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at 
the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc).   No polling, 
but that is one of the most overrated features anyway.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com


Travis Johnson wrote:
  
  
  
Hi,

I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some 
new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could 
shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti 
quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this 
coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these 
companies can really have into a radio system (Trango, Canopy, etc.) 
when Ubiquiti can sell a brand new product for $79 MSRP. Granted there 
are not a lot of "bells and whistles", but honestly most of the WISP's 
out there don't need that. If you can buy a radio for $79, you can put 
whatever you need behind it (Cisco, Mikrotik, etc.) and still be less 
than $200 for a nice CPE.

I think Trango's first mistake was the "mesh" game they played for a 
year. Then when they decide to get back into the game, they promise a 
product that seems too good to be true... and now it turns out, it was. 
So, they are now 2+ years behind everyone else in the R&D world, and 
they are losing customers left and right. The licensed market may help 
get them by for a while, but I don't think that is enough business to 
sustain the company forever.

Travis

Charles Wu wrote:
  



  Travis,

I agree with y

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Travis Johnson]

Butch,

You can order the Nano's with 16M of Flash, Ubiquiti has already stated
that on their forums. I think the bigger issue would be the CPU that is
in the Nano's would not be supported with any current MT builds. They
would have to build a new OS for that processor.

Travis
Microserv

Butch Evans wrote:

  On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote:

  
  
And although I have great respect for StarOS, the Mikrotik 
community is at least 10x bigger than StarOS... it would make more 
sense for Ubiquiti to load Mikrotik on the Nano's... ;)

  
  
First, there is not enough flash on the Nanos to hold MT.  IIRC, the 
flash on the nano is 4M (maybe 8?).  I can't recall exactly, but 
it's not enough either way.  That is the only thing that limits the 
ability to run MT on the Nano, as the remaining hardware is pretty 
close to the same thing as the RB133C.

  






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Jeromie Reeves]

Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?


On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware.  
> The oswave has polling...
>
> gino
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Larsen - Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM
> To: WISPA General List 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>
> Travis Johnson wrote:
>> Matt,
>>
>> I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part.
>> Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available
>> for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using
>> Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are
>> finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does
>> work.
>>
>> How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP
>> with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I
>> have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to
>> the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control
>> the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the
>> AP (on the upload side).
>>
>> Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients
>> without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a
>> download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the
>> download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if
>> you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while
>> the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an
>> upload running.
>
> Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming
> from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity
> of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I
> have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter.
>
>>
>> What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running
>> Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer
>> CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)
>>
>
> Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.
>
> Matt Larsen
> vistabeam.com
>> Travis
>> Microserv
>>
>> Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
>>> Hi Travis,
>>>
>>> I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product.   I've
>>> been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with
>>> StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is
>>> pretty amazing at ANY price point.   I could say the same thing for the
>>> newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the
>>> Ubiquity price point just yet.
>>>
>>> It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich
>>> features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference
>>> resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus
>>> able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS
>>> platforms.
>>>
>>> I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the
>>> Nanostation radios.  That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna
>>> mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly -
>>> and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would
>>> end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every
>>> feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at
>>> the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc).   No polling,
>>> but that is one of the most overrated features anyway.
>>>
>>> Matt Larsen
>>> vistabeam.com
>>>
>>>
>>> Travis Johnson wrote:
>>>
 Hi,

 I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some
 new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could
 shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti
 quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this
 coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these
 companies can really have into a radio system (Trango, Canopy, etc.)
 when Ubiquiti can sell a brand new product for $79 MSRP. Granted there
 are not a lot of "bells and whistles", but honestly most of the WISP's
 out there don't need that. If you can buy a radio for $79, you can put
 whatever you need behind it (Cisco, Mikrotik, etc.) and still be less
 than $200 for a nice CPE.

 I think Trango's first mistake was the "mesh" game they played for a
 year. Then when they decide to get back into the game, they promise a
 product that seems too good to be true... and now it turns out, it was.
 So, they are now 2+ years behind everyone else in the R&D world, and
 they are losin

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Butch Evans]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote:

>You can order the Nano's with 16M of Flash, Ubiquiti has already 
>stated that on their forums. I think the bigger issue would be the 
>CPU that is in the Nano's would not be supported with any current 
>MT builds. They would have to build a new OS for that processor.

I didn't know that.  It's good information to have.  However, the 
Crossroads platform is very similar in function, though it is only 
2.4GHz.  For the 5GHz, do you know the cost of a 16M unit?

-- 

*Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation *
*Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS *
*573-276-2879   *ImageStream   *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE   *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks*
*Mikrotik Certified Consultant  *Professional Technical Trainer*




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Butch Evans]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:

>Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has 
>support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to 
>support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get 
>Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?

My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that 
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is 
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with 
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that 
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4 
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available 
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 

*Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation *
*Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS *
*573-276-2879   *ImageStream   *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE   *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks*
*Mikrotik Certified Consultant  *Professional Technical Trainer*




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Butch Evans]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote:

>You can order the Nano's with 16M of Flash, Ubiquiti has already 
>stated that on their forums. I think the bigger issue would be the 
>CPU that is in the Nano's would not be supported with any current 
>MT builds. They would have to build a new OS for that processor.

The CPU is the same as the RB133C.

-- 

*Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation *
*Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS *
*573-276-2879   *ImageStream   *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE   *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks*
*Mikrotik Certified Consultant  *Professional Technical Trainer*




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Gino Villarini]

The oswave website says it supports the NS platform

-Original Message-
From: Jeromie Reeves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:38 PM
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?


On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware.  
> The oswave has polling...
>
> gino
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Larsen - Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM
> To: WISPA General List 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>
> Travis Johnson wrote:
>> Matt,
>>
>> I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part.
>> Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available
>> for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using
>> Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are
>> finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does
>> work.
>>
>> How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP
>> with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I
>> have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to
>> the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control
>> the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the
>> AP (on the upload side).
>>
>> Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients
>> without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a
>> download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the
>> download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if
>> you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while
>> the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an
>> upload running.
>
> Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming
> from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity
> of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I
> have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter.
>
>>
>> What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running
>> Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer
>> CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)
>>
>
> Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.
>
> Matt Larsen
> vistabeam.com
>> Travis
>> Microserv
>>
>> Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
>>> Hi Travis,
>>>
>>> I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product.   I've
>>> been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with
>>> StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is
>>> pretty amazing at ANY price point.   I could say the same thing for the
>>> newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the
>>> Ubiquity price point just yet.
>>>
>>> It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich
>>> features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference
>>> resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus
>>> able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS
>>> platforms.
>>>
>>> I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the
>>> Nanostation radios.  That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna
>>> mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly -
>>> and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would
>>> end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every
>>> feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at
>>> the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc).   No polling,
>>> but that is one of the most overrated features anyway.
>>>
>>> Matt Larsen
>>> vistabeam.com
>>>
>>>
>>> Travis Johnson wrote:
>>>
 Hi,

 I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some
 new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could
 shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti
 quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this
 coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these
 companies can really have into a radio system (Trango, Canopy, etc.)
 when Ubiquiti can sell a brand new product for $79 MSRP. Granted there
 are not a lot of "bells and whistles", but honestly most of the WISP's
 out there don't need that. If you can buy a radio for $79, you can put
 whatever you need behind it (Cisco, Mikrotik, etc.) and still be less
 than $200 for a nice CPE.

 I think Trango's first mistake was the "mesh" game they played for a
 year. Then when they dec

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Gino Villarini]

Afaik the latests Mk builds are ATheros cpu focused, all the latest mikrotik 
routerboards are  atheros based

gino

-Original Message-
From: Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:36 PM
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

Butch,

You can order the Nano's with 16M of Flash, Ubiquiti has already stated that on 
their forums. I think the bigger issue would be the CPU that is in the Nano's 
would not be supported with any current MT builds. They would have to build a 
new OS for that processor.

Travis
Microserv

Butch Evans wrote: 

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote:

  

And although I have great respect for StarOS, the Mikrotik 
community is at least 10x bigger than StarOS... it would make 
more 
sense for Ubiquiti to load Mikrotik on the Nano's... ;)



First, there is not enough flash on the Nanos to hold MT.  IIRC, the 
flash on the nano is 4M (maybe 8?).  I can't recall exactly, but 
it's not enough either way.  That is the only thing that limits the 
ability to run MT on the Nano, as the remaining hardware is pretty 
close to the same thing as the RB133C.

  




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Travis Johnson]

If I remember correctly, it was only like $10 or $20 more.

Here's the difference the Crossroads (which I have deployed) still
requires a PoE, antenna, pigtail, etc. bringing the cost up to over
$150... and then you are still stuck with a vertical or horizontal
system, and not FCC certified.

I know it wouldn't be hard for MT to build an OS for the Nano's... and
I also know that Ubiquiti has already tried talking to MT and they were
NOT interested... which does not make sense to me. If they could get
$40 per Nano from Ubiquiti, they would be making MORE money than
selling an RB411 or Crossroads board. They really need to look at the
bigger picture.

Travis
Microserv

Butch Evans wrote:

  On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote:

  
  
You can order the Nano's with 16M of Flash, Ubiquiti has already 
stated that on their forums. I think the bigger issue would be the 
CPU that is in the Nano's would not be supported with any current 
MT builds. They would have to build a new OS for that processor.

  
  
I didn't know that.  It's good information to have.  However, the 
Crossroads platform is very similar in function, though it is only 
2.4GHz.  For the 5GHz, do you know the cost of a 16M unit?

  






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Travis Johnson]

Really... I did not know that... I will contact Ubiquiti about getting
a 16M version so I can try and load MT on it. :)

Travis
Microserv

Butch Evans wrote:

  On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote:

  
  
You can order the Nano's with 16M of Flash, Ubiquiti has already 
stated that on their forums. I think the bigger issue would be the 
CPU that is in the Nano's would not be supported with any current 
MT builds. They would have to build a new OS for that processor.

  
  
The CPU is the same as the RB133C.

  






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.

[Chuck McCown - 3]

Not exactly true.  The POTS infrastructure rate of return is recovered 
through basic rates, NECA and USF settlements.  It truly supports itself 
nicely.  We do have to option of refusing to offer "Naked DSL".  But that 
extra revenue does not get applied to local loop support.  It goes in our 
pocket to be spent any way we want.


- Original Message - 
From: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.


> While the ILECs may have been unable to directly pass along the cost of
> their broadband infrastructure to the consumer, they have successful 
> engaged
> in a reverse of the concept.  They have placed the burden of their dying
> POTS infrastructure on their broadband subscribers.
>
> ILECS have instituted tying agreements which essentially force broadband
> subscribers into purchasing tariffed services. For example, if you want
> $19.95/month DSL, you must-purchase the ILEC's $62/month all frills 
> included
> phone service package.  Of course, someone will cry out what about
> "naked-DSL"?  Yes, it exists in most markets now, but it will cost you
> roughly $50-$55/month for the same plan that you would get for 
> $19.95/month
> if you were so kind as to agree to subsidize ma-Bell's poor starving
> land-line phone service.
>
> Seems ironic doesn't it... the ILEC can't force its telephone subscribers 
> to
> pay for its broadband expansion through tariffed rates (it wouldn't work
> because most people would get cell phones and ditch the land line before
> they would agree to pay a bunch more for their land line), so ILECs work 
> the
> system backwards... people still want DSL, so lets force them to buy our
> next-to-useless landline phone service in order to get our coveted 
> broadband
> service.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't see people cutting their electric company service 
> and
> installing solar cells as a replacements anytime soon, so if the electric
> company were to engage in broadband as suggested, it would be scary for 
> all
> other broadband carriers.
>
> - Larry
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 10:53 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>
> Not true.  Not true at all.  Cable Companies are not rate of return
> regulated.  Every dollar they spend is below the line.  The ILECS are
> strictly regulated as to what can be spent above the line.  Tarrifed rates
> ONLY support tarrifed services.
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>
>
>> Why not?
>>
>> Isn't that kinda what Cable Cos and ILECs Do?
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Chuck McCown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 2:37 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>>
>>
>>> The power company wants to take rate payer money and build a broadband
>>> network that will contact each meter for the purpose of managing energy.
>>> It
>>> will also supply broadband to the homeowner if they want.  This should
>>> not
>>> be allowed.
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "David E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:34 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>>>
>>>
 Chuck McCown wrote:
> Time to speak up.

 Anyone care to translate this for those among us who don't speak
 lawyerese, and who don't live/work in Indiana?

 David Smith
 MVN.net



> 
> 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

> 
> 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
> 
> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>
> 
> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireles

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Chuck McCown - 3]

I wonder if the chip could be changed to give you more memory.
- Original Message - 
From: "Butch Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations


> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote:
>
>>And although I have great respect for StarOS, the Mikrotik
>>community is at least 10x bigger than StarOS... it would make more
>>sense for Ubiquiti to load Mikrotik on the Nano's... ;)
>
> First, there is not enough flash on the Nanos to hold MT.  IIRC, the
> flash on the nano is 4M (maybe 8?).  I can't recall exactly, but
> it's not enough either way.  That is the only thing that limits the
> ability to run MT on the Nano, as the remaining hardware is pretty
> close to the same thing as the RB133C.
>
> -- 
> 
> *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation *
> *Network Engineering *MikroTik RouterOS*
> *573-276-2879 *ImageStream   *
> *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE   *
> *http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks*
> *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer*
> 
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.

[Chuck McCown - 3]

Most telcos, if faced with strong WISP or cable modem competition as well as 
ubiquitous cell phone coverage, will not force naked DSL because their 
customers have option.  Generally speaking the ILECs only force naked dsl in 
areas where there are no reasonable options.  That is one reason we do not 
serve any of our certificated areas with our WISP.
- Original Message - 
From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.


> Not exactly true.  The POTS infrastructure rate of return is recovered
> through basic rates, NECA and USF settlements.  It truly supports itself
> nicely.  We do have to option of refusing to offer "Naked DSL".  But that
> extra revenue does not get applied to local loop support.  It goes in our
> pocket to be spent any way we want.
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 10:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>
>
>> While the ILECs may have been unable to directly pass along the cost of
>> their broadband infrastructure to the consumer, they have successful
>> engaged
>> in a reverse of the concept.  They have placed the burden of their dying
>> POTS infrastructure on their broadband subscribers.
>>
>> ILECS have instituted tying agreements which essentially force broadband
>> subscribers into purchasing tariffed services. For example, if you want
>> $19.95/month DSL, you must-purchase the ILEC's $62/month all frills
>> included
>> phone service package.  Of course, someone will cry out what about
>> "naked-DSL"?  Yes, it exists in most markets now, but it will cost you
>> roughly $50-$55/month for the same plan that you would get for
>> $19.95/month
>> if you were so kind as to agree to subsidize ma-Bell's poor starving
>> land-line phone service.
>>
>> Seems ironic doesn't it... the ILEC can't force its telephone subscribers
>> to
>> pay for its broadband expansion through tariffed rates (it wouldn't work
>> because most people would get cell phones and ditch the land line before
>> they would agree to pay a bunch more for their land line), so ILECs work
>> the
>> system backwards... people still want DSL, so lets force them to buy our
>> next-to-useless landline phone service in order to get our coveted
>> broadband
>> service.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I don't see people cutting their electric company service
>> and
>> installing solar cells as a replacements anytime soon, so if the electric
>> company were to engage in broadband as suggested, it would be scary for
>> all
>> other broadband carriers.
>>
>> - Larry
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3
>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 10:53 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>>
>> Not true.  Not true at all.  Cable Companies are not rate of return
>> regulated.  Every dollar they spend is below the line.  The ILECS are
>> strictly regulated as to what can be spent above the line.  Tarrifed 
>> rates
>> ONLY support tarrifed services.
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:52 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>>
>>
>>> Why not?
>>>
>>> Isn't that kinda what Cable Cos and ILECs Do?
>>>
>>> Tom DeReggi
>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Chuck McCown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 2:37 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>>>
>>>
 The power company wants to take rate payer money and build a broadband
 network that will contact each meter for the purpose of managing 
 energy.
 It
 will also supply broadband to the homeowner if they want.  This should
 not
 be allowed.

 - Original Message - 
 From: "David E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 To: "WISPA General List" 
 Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:34 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.


> Chuck McCown wrote:
>> Time to speak up.
>
> Anyone care to translate this for those among us who don't speak
> lawyerese, and who don't live/work in Indiana?
>
> David Smith
> MVN.net
>
>
>
>> 
>> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
>> 
>> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>




>> ---

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Matt Larsen - Lists]

Travis,

I've got 802.11a APs with 90-100 subs on them without polling and 
customers are very happy.   I am one of them - as I have a 4meg 
connection at my house that does just about anything my Trango gear 
would do when I was using it.   Bandwidth control addresses nearly all 
of the issues that polling does in the implementations I have put 
together. 

As far as the MT community being 10x the size of the StarOS Community - 
it's not how big it is, it is what you do with it.   :^)

I've had plenty of experience with both StarOS and MT, and MT just 
doesn't have certain features that StarOS does.   StarOS has kickass 
Atheros drivers and a superior way of automating the provisioning and 
deployment.   MT does have a lot of other cool features, but I don't use 
them so they don't mean a lot to me.  

FWIW, the WAR-1 version of StarOS is stripped down to the point where it 
fits into 4meg of memory.   Probably wouldn't be hard to port it to the 
Nanos.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com 

Travis Johnson wrote:
> Matt,
>
> Polling is a requirement for a system that will scale to larger number 
> of clients. I have Trango AP's that will only do 5Mbps total 
> bandwidth, yet we have loaded them up to their max clients (128) and 
> have no issues. Latency is less than 5ms to any client at any time, 
> and the bandwidth is smooth and consistent.
>
> And although I have great respect for StarOS, the Mikrotik community 
> is at least 10x bigger than StarOS... it would make more sense for 
> Ubiquiti to load Mikrotik on the Nano's... ;)
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
>
> Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
>> Travis Johnson wrote:
>>   
>>> Matt,
>>>
>>> I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. 
>>> Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available 
>>> for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using 
>>> Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are 
>>> finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does 
>>> work.
>>>
>>> How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP 
>>> with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I 
>>> have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to 
>>> the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control 
>>> the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the 
>>> AP (on the upload side).
>>>
>>> Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients 
>>> without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a 
>>> download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the 
>>> download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if 
>>> you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while 
>>> the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an 
>>> upload running.
>>> 
>>
>> Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming 
>> from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity 
>> of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I 
>> have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. 
>>
>>   
>>> What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running 
>>> Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer 
>>> CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)
>>>
>>> 
>>
>> Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.  
>>
>> Matt Larsen
>> vistabeam.com
>>   
>>




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] 900 MHz Integrated Antenna Enclosure

[Jim Patient]

Arc Wireless has one but it is 12.5dBi as well.   It will fit the RB411, 
RB133, or RB532 but the enclosure isn't big enough for a RB433 board. 

We have these in stock.

Jim
jeffcosoho.com

Mike Hammett wrote:
> I've seen one by PacWireless and one by MTI.  Does anyone know of one with 
> greater gain than 12.5 dBi?
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>   




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.

[Larry Yunker]

Chuck,

I wasn't suggesting that the POTS tariffs were insufficient to support the
POTS infrastructure.  I was drawing the conclusion that most of the large
ILECs have opted to structure their DSL service offering so as to make a
service bundle the only "rational" way to purchase the DSL service.  The
cost differential between Naked-DSL and DSL+Phone is often such that it is
CHEAPER to buy the DSL+Phone.

Thus, the ILEC can force people to choose between continuing to subscribe to
POTS or not getting DSL at all.

As you note... YOU as a non-RBOC ILEC have the option of refusing to offer
"Naked DSL".  I should have been more clear with my initial comments.  My
assumptions are drawn upon the RBOCs (what's left of them).  I believe that
AT&T is under an agreement with the FTC which provides that they must
provide naked DSL in all markets in which they currently of DSL.  I wouldn't
be surprised if Verizon were not under the same sort of agreement.  These
were concessions made when negotiating the approval of the RBOC + LD
megamergers.  Since the RBOCs account for over 90% of the POTS service in
the U.S. I sometimes slip and refer to them generically as ILECs.  As you
validly point out, some independent ILECs continue to exist and have much
more flexibility in their service offerings.

- Larry



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 2:07 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.

Not exactly true.  The POTS infrastructure rate of return is recovered 
through basic rates, NECA and USF settlements.  It truly supports itself 
nicely.  We do have to option of refusing to offer "Naked DSL".  But that 
extra revenue does not get applied to local loop support.  It goes in our 
pocket to be spent any way we want.


- Original Message - 
From: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.


> While the ILECs may have been unable to directly pass along the cost of
> their broadband infrastructure to the consumer, they have successful 
> engaged
> in a reverse of the concept.  They have placed the burden of their dying
> POTS infrastructure on their broadband subscribers.
>
> ILECS have instituted tying agreements which essentially force broadband
> subscribers into purchasing tariffed services. For example, if you want
> $19.95/month DSL, you must-purchase the ILEC's $62/month all frills 
> included
> phone service package.  Of course, someone will cry out what about
> "naked-DSL"?  Yes, it exists in most markets now, but it will cost you
> roughly $50-$55/month for the same plan that you would get for 
> $19.95/month
> if you were so kind as to agree to subsidize ma-Bell's poor starving
> land-line phone service.
>
> Seems ironic doesn't it... the ILEC can't force its telephone subscribers 
> to
> pay for its broadband expansion through tariffed rates (it wouldn't work
> because most people would get cell phones and ditch the land line before
> they would agree to pay a bunch more for their land line), so ILECs work 
> the
> system backwards... people still want DSL, so lets force them to buy our
> next-to-useless landline phone service in order to get our coveted 
> broadband
> service.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't see people cutting their electric company service 
> and
> installing solar cells as a replacements anytime soon, so if the electric
> company were to engage in broadband as suggested, it would be scary for 
> all
> other broadband carriers.
>
> - Larry
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 10:53 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>
> Not true.  Not true at all.  Cable Companies are not rate of return
> regulated.  Every dollar they spend is below the line.  The ILECS are
> strictly regulated as to what can be spent above the line.  Tarrifed rates
> ONLY support tarrifed services.
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>
>
>> Why not?
>>
>> Isn't that kinda what Cable Cos and ILECs Do?
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Chuck McCown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 2:37 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>>
>>
>>> The power company wants to take rate payer money and build a broadband
>>> network that will contact each meter for the purpose of managing energy.
>>> It
>>> will also supply broadband to the homeowner if they want.  This should
>>> not
>>> be allowed.
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "David E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Travis Johnson]

Matt,

Having 90-100 subs on an AP that supports roughly 20Mbps of bandwidth
is different than an AP that supports 5Mbps with 128 subs. There is a
reason Trango, Canopy, Alvarion, and many others do a "polling"
system... it allows better, more effecient use of the available
bandwidth... especially for providers like me that sell a symmetrical
service (1meg x 1meg, 2meg x 2meg, etc.). So the upload is just as
important as the download.

Here's a test for you... take an AP without polling and start an upload
on a client that is 80% of the capacity of the AP and then try and surf
with another connected client and see how it "feels"... if it's even
possible. With the Trango AP's, we are able to use 95% of the rated
bandwidth on each AP before we see any issues (jitter, latency, etc.).
That just is not possible with a non-polling system (in upload or
download scenarios).

Travis


Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:

  Travis,

I've got 802.11a APs with 90-100 subs on them without polling and 
customers are very happy.   I am one of them - as I have a 4meg 
connection at my house that does just about anything my Trango gear 
would do when I was using it.   Bandwidth control addresses nearly all 
of the issues that polling does in the implementations I have put 
together. 

As far as the MT community being 10x the size of the StarOS Community - 
it's not how big it is, it is what you do with it.   :^)

I've had plenty of experience with both StarOS and MT, and MT just 
doesn't have certain features that StarOS does.   StarOS has kickass 
Atheros drivers and a superior way of automating the provisioning and 
deployment.   MT does have a lot of other cool features, but I don't use 
them so they don't mean a lot to me.  

FWIW, the WAR-1 version of StarOS is stripped down to the point where it 
fits into 4meg of memory.   Probably wouldn't be hard to port it to the 
Nanos.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com 

Travis Johnson wrote:
  
  
Matt,

Polling is a requirement for a system that will scale to larger number 
of clients. I have Trango AP's that will only do 5Mbps total 
bandwidth, yet we have loaded them up to their max clients (128) and 
have no issues. Latency is less than 5ms to any client at any time, 
and the bandwidth is smooth and consistent.

And although I have great respect for StarOS, the Mikrotik community 
is at least 10x bigger than StarOS... it would make more sense for 
Ubiquiti to load Mikrotik on the Nano's... ;)

Travis
Microserv


Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:


  Travis Johnson wrote:
  
  
  
Matt,

I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. 
Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available 
for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using 
Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are 
finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does 
work.

How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP 
with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I 
have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to 
the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control 
the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the 
AP (on the upload side).

Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients 
without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a 
download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the 
download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if 
you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while 
the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an 
upload running.


  
  Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming 
from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity 
of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I 
have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. 

  
  
  
What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running 
Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer 
CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)



  
  Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.  

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com
  

  

  
  



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


  






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 

Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.

[Chuck McCown - 3]

Yeah, I am always on the lookout for the ILEC comment here and there.
Our ILEC has 900 customers scattered over 12 counties of two states with 
about 800 miles of fiber.
We have 13 central office switches.  That is an average of about 70 
subscribers per CO switch.
We have 21 office codes/wire centers.  So, we don't really fit the mold of 
most ILECs but the same rules apply.
Running an ILEC this small forces one to master the whole regulatory 
landscape where the RBOCs have whole floors of office buildings devoted to 
single issues.
We have 5 times more WISP customers, all in RBOC, former RBOC or Frontier 
turf.
- Original Message - 
From: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.


> Chuck,
>
> I wasn't suggesting that the POTS tariffs were insufficient to support the
> POTS infrastructure.  I was drawing the conclusion that most of the large
> ILECs have opted to structure their DSL service offering so as to make a
> service bundle the only "rational" way to purchase the DSL service.  The
> cost differential between Naked-DSL and DSL+Phone is often such that it is
> CHEAPER to buy the DSL+Phone.
>
> Thus, the ILEC can force people to choose between continuing to subscribe 
> to
> POTS or not getting DSL at all.
>
> As you note... YOU as a non-RBOC ILEC have the option of refusing to offer
> "Naked DSL".  I should have been more clear with my initial comments.  My
> assumptions are drawn upon the RBOCs (what's left of them).  I believe 
> that
> AT&T is under an agreement with the FTC which provides that they must
> provide naked DSL in all markets in which they currently of DSL.  I 
> wouldn't
> be surprised if Verizon were not under the same sort of agreement.  These
> were concessions made when negotiating the approval of the RBOC + LD
> megamergers.  Since the RBOCs account for over 90% of the POTS service in
> the U.S. I sometimes slip and refer to them generically as ILECs.  As you
> validly point out, some independent ILECs continue to exist and have much
> more flexibility in their service offerings.
>
> - Larry
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 2:07 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>
> Not exactly true.  The POTS infrastructure rate of return is recovered
> through basic rates, NECA and USF settlements.  It truly supports itself
> nicely.  We do have to option of refusing to offer "Naked DSL".  But that
> extra revenue does not get applied to local loop support.  It goes in our
> pocket to be spent any way we want.
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 10:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>
>
>> While the ILECs may have been unable to directly pass along the cost of
>> their broadband infrastructure to the consumer, they have successful
>> engaged
>> in a reverse of the concept.  They have placed the burden of their dying
>> POTS infrastructure on their broadband subscribers.
>>
>> ILECS have instituted tying agreements which essentially force broadband
>> subscribers into purchasing tariffed services. For example, if you want
>> $19.95/month DSL, you must-purchase the ILEC's $62/month all frills
>> included
>> phone service package.  Of course, someone will cry out what about
>> "naked-DSL"?  Yes, it exists in most markets now, but it will cost you
>> roughly $50-$55/month for the same plan that you would get for
>> $19.95/month
>> if you were so kind as to agree to subsidize ma-Bell's poor starving
>> land-line phone service.
>>
>> Seems ironic doesn't it... the ILEC can't force its telephone subscribers
>> to
>> pay for its broadband expansion through tariffed rates (it wouldn't work
>> because most people would get cell phones and ditch the land line before
>> they would agree to pay a bunch more for their land line), so ILECs work
>> the
>> system backwards... people still want DSL, so lets force them to buy our
>> next-to-useless landline phone service in order to get our coveted
>> broadband
>> service.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I don't see people cutting their electric company service
>> and
>> installing solar cells as a replacements anytime soon, so if the electric
>> company were to engage in broadband as suggested, it would be scary for
>> all
>> other broadband carriers.
>>
>> - Larry
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3
>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 10:53 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>>
>> Not true.  Not true at all.  Cable Companies are not rate of return
>> regulated.  Every dollar they spend is below the line.  The ILECS are
>> strictly regulated as to what can be spent above the line.  T

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Chuck McCown - 3]

There used to be a graphic on one of the Canopy marketing pages showing the 
loading vs latency curves for polled vs non polled systems.  Lightly loaded 
802.11 will always do better but once you get up to 20 or 30 users, the polling 
type systems start to shine with their fixed latency.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Travis Johnson 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:20 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations


  Matt,

  Having 90-100 subs on an AP that supports roughly 20Mbps of bandwidth is 
different than an AP that supports 5Mbps with 128 subs. There is a reason 
Trango, Canopy, Alvarion, and many others do a "polling" system... it allows 
better, more effecient use of the available bandwidth... especially for 
providers like me that sell a symmetrical service (1meg x 1meg, 2meg x 2meg, 
etc.). So the upload is just as important as the download.

  Here's a test for you... take an AP without polling and start an upload on a 
client that is 80% of the capacity of the AP and then try and surf with another 
connected client and see how it "feels"... if it's even possible. With the 
Trango AP's, we are able to use 95% of the rated bandwidth on each AP before we 
see any issues (jitter, latency, etc.). That just is not possible with a 
non-polling system (in upload or download scenarios).

  Travis


  Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: 
Travis,

I've got 802.11a APs with 90-100 subs on them without polling and 
customers are very happy.   I am one of them - as I have a 4meg 
connection at my house that does just about anything my Trango gear 
would do when I was using it.   Bandwidth control addresses nearly all 
of the issues that polling does in the implementations I have put 
together. 

As far as the MT community being 10x the size of the StarOS Community - 
it's not how big it is, it is what you do with it.   :^)

I've had plenty of experience with both StarOS and MT, and MT just 
doesn't have certain features that StarOS does.   StarOS has kickass 
Atheros drivers and a superior way of automating the provisioning and 
deployment.   MT does have a lot of other cool features, but I don't use 
them so they don't mean a lot to me.  

FWIW, the WAR-1 version of StarOS is stripped down to the point where it 
fits into 4meg of memory.   Probably wouldn't be hard to port it to the 
Nanos.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com 

Travis Johnson wrote:
  Matt,

Polling is a requirement for a system that will scale to larger number 
of clients. I have Trango AP's that will only do 5Mbps total 
bandwidth, yet we have loaded them up to their max clients (128) and 
have no issues. Latency is less than 5ms to any client at any time, 
and the bandwidth is smooth and consistent.

And although I have great respect for StarOS, the Mikrotik community 
is at least 10x bigger than StarOS... it would make more sense for 
Ubiquiti to load Mikrotik on the Nano's... ;)

Travis
Microserv


Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
Travis Johnson wrote:
  
  Matt,

I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. 
Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available 
for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using 
Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are 
finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does 
work.

How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP 
with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I 
have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to 
the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control 
the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the 
AP (on the upload side).

Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients 
without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a 
download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the 
download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if 
you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while 
the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an 
upload running.

Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming 
from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity 
of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I 
have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. 

  
  What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running 
Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer 
CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)


Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.  

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com
  

  



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wir

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Matt Larsen - Lists]

I see where you are getting at, but it isn't really relevant, at least 
the way I have my network setup.   None of my customers have an upload 
that gets to even 40% (I don't do symmetrical upload, so the highest 
upload we offer is 2meg) and the access points handle it pretty easily 
at that rate. 

If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that 
polling is an important consideration.   It is pretty easy to work 
around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com


Travis Johnson wrote:
> Matt,
>
> Having 90-100 subs on an AP that supports roughly 20Mbps of bandwidth 
> is different than an AP that supports 5Mbps with 128 subs. There is a 
> reason Trango, Canopy, Alvarion, and many others do a "polling" 
> system... it allows better, more effecient use of the available 
> bandwidth... especially for providers like me that sell a symmetrical 
> service (1meg x 1meg, 2meg x 2meg, etc.). So the upload is just as 
> important as the download.
>
> Here's a test for you... take an AP without polling and start an 
> upload on a client that is 80% of the capacity of the AP and then try 
> and surf with another connected client and see how it "feels"... if 
> it's even possible. With the Trango AP's, we are able to use 95% of 
> the rated bandwidth on each AP before we see any issues (jitter, 
> latency, etc.). That just is not possible with a non-polling system 
> (in upload or download scenarios).
>
> Travis
>
>
> Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
>> Travis,
>>
>> I've got 802.11a APs with 90-100 subs on them without polling and 
>> customers are very happy.   I am one of them - as I have a 4meg 
>> connection at my house that does just about anything my Trango gear 
>> would do when I was using it.   Bandwidth control addresses nearly all 
>> of the issues that polling does in the implementations I have put 
>> together. 
>>
>> As far as the MT community being 10x the size of the StarOS Community - 
>> it's not how big it is, it is what you do with it.   :^)
>>
>> I've had plenty of experience with both StarOS and MT, and MT just 
>> doesn't have certain features that StarOS does.   StarOS has kickass 
>> Atheros drivers and a superior way of automating the provisioning and 
>> deployment.   MT does have a lot of other cool features, but I don't use 
>> them so they don't mean a lot to me.  
>>
>> FWIW, the WAR-1 version of StarOS is stripped down to the point where it 
>> fits into 4meg of memory.   Probably wouldn't be hard to port it to the 
>> Nanos.
>>
>> Matt Larsen
>> vistabeam.com 
>>
>> Travis Johnson wrote:
>>   
>>> Matt,
>>>
>>> Polling is a requirement for a system that will scale to larger number 
>>> of clients. I have Trango AP's that will only do 5Mbps total 
>>> bandwidth, yet we have loaded them up to their max clients (128) and 
>>> have no issues. Latency is less than 5ms to any client at any time, 
>>> and the bandwidth is smooth and consistent.
>>>
>>> And although I have great respect for StarOS, the Mikrotik community 
>>> is at least 10x bigger than StarOS... it would make more sense for 
>>> Ubiquiti to load Mikrotik on the Nano's... ;)
>>>
>>> Travis
>>> Microserv
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
>>> 
 Travis Johnson wrote:
   
   
> Matt,
>
> I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. 
> Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available 
> for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using 
> Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are 
> finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does 
> work.
>
> How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP 
> with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I 
> have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to 
> the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control 
> the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the 
> AP (on the upload side).
>
> Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients 
> without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a 
> download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the 
> download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if 
> you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while 
> the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an 
> upload running.
> 
> 
 Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming 
 from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity 
 of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I 
 have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. 

   
   
> What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Na

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Jeromie Reeves]

Where? I see LS2/5 and PS2/5 support but nothing for NS2/5. Searching
the forum I found:

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:38 pm from oswave
"We currently have no plans to port oswave to NS2/NS5."

And it goes on to ask why and also someone says if you order 1000 they
will (likely) do it.

I am not able to find it, can you post a link.

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The oswave website says it supports the NS platform
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeromie Reeves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:38 PM
> To: WISPA General List 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>
> Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
> support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
> support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
> Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware. 
>>  The oswave has polling...
>>
>> gino
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Matt Larsen - Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM
>> To: WISPA General List 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>>
>> Travis Johnson wrote:
>>> Matt,
>>>
>>> I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part.
>>> Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available
>>> for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using
>>> Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are
>>> finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does
>>> work.
>>>
>>> How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP
>>> with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I
>>> have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to
>>> the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control
>>> the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the
>>> AP (on the upload side).
>>>
>>> Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients
>>> without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a
>>> download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the
>>> download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if
>>> you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while
>>> the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an
>>> upload running.
>>
>> Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming
>> from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity
>> of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I
>> have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter.
>>
>>>
>>> What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running
>>> Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer
>>> CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)
>>>
>>
>> Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.
>>
>> Matt Larsen
>> vistabeam.com
>>> Travis
>>> Microserv
>>>
>>> Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
 Hi Travis,

 I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product.   I've
 been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with
 StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is
 pretty amazing at ANY price point.   I could say the same thing for the
 newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the
 Ubiquity price point just yet.

 It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich
 features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference
 resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus
 able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS
 platforms.

 I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the
 Nanostation radios.  That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna
 mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly -
 and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would
 end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every
 feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at
 the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc).   No polling,
 but that is one of the most overrated features anyway.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com


 Travis Johnson wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some
> new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could
> shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti
> quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this
> coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money som

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Gino Villarini]

All are the same platform, the differ only on the form factor and antennas

gino

-Original Message-
From: Jeromie Reeves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:19 PM
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

Where? I see LS2/5 and PS2/5 support but nothing for NS2/5. Searching
the forum I found:

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:38 pm from oswave
"We currently have no plans to port oswave to NS2/NS5."

And it goes on to ask why and also someone says if you order 1000 they
will (likely) do it.

I am not able to find it, can you post a link.

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The oswave website says it supports the NS platform
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeromie Reeves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:38 PM
> To: WISPA General List 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>
> Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
> support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
> support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
> Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware. 
>>  The oswave has polling...
>>
>> gino
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Matt Larsen - Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM
>> To: WISPA General List 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>>
>> Travis Johnson wrote:
>>> Matt,
>>>
>>> I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part.
>>> Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available
>>> for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using
>>> Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are
>>> finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does
>>> work.
>>>
>>> How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP
>>> with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I
>>> have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to
>>> the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control
>>> the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the
>>> AP (on the upload side).
>>>
>>> Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients
>>> without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a
>>> download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the
>>> download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if
>>> you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while
>>> the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an
>>> upload running.
>>
>> Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming
>> from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity
>> of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I
>> have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter.
>>
>>>
>>> What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running
>>> Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer
>>> CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)
>>>
>>
>> Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.
>>
>> Matt Larsen
>> vistabeam.com
>>> Travis
>>> Microserv
>>>
>>> Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
 Hi Travis,

 I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product.   I've
 been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with
 StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is
 pretty amazing at ANY price point.   I could say the same thing for the
 newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the
 Ubiquity price point just yet.

 It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich
 features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference
 resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus
 able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS
 platforms.

 I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the
 Nanostation radios.  That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna
 mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly -
 and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would
 end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every
 feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at
 the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc).   No polling,
 but that is one of the most overrated features anyway.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com


 Travis Johnson wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some
> new products in the market recently (Ubiquit

Re: [WISPA] 900 MHz Integrated Antenna Enclosure

[Mike Hammett]

I've used the Arc enclosure on 5 GHz before PW had the 24 dBi RooTenna.


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


- Original Message - 
From: "Jim Patient" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 900 MHz Integrated Antenna Enclosure


> Arc Wireless has one but it is 12.5dBi as well.   It will fit the RB411,
> RB133, or RB532 but the enclosure isn't big enough for a RB433 board.
>
> We have these in stock.
>
> Jim
> jeffcosoho.com
>
> Mike Hammett wrote:
>> I've seen one by PacWireless and one by MTI.  Does anyone know of one 
>> with greater gain than 12.5 dBi?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Matt Ferre]

Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
see why.

Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:

> >Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
> >support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
> >support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
> >Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?

My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Matt Ferre]

It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second.
Get just one customer with computer infected with some decent virus
and it will generate 5000 packets per seconds, which may account to
only 256kbps in raw traffic terms. But with regular Access Point this
will bring your AP to the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you
can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that
customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point
and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few
uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same.

Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses
some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX
to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really
good reason - performance.

Matt

> I see where you are getting at, but it isn't really relevant, at least
> the way I have my network setup.   None of my customers have an upload
> that gets to even 40% (I don't do symmetrical upload, so the highest
> upload we offer is 2meg) and the access points handle it pretty easily
> at that rate.
>
> If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that
> polling is an important consideration.   It is pretty easy to work
> around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however.
>
> Matt Larsen
> vistabeam.com



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Sales]

These post bring back memories from the Karlnet days of Karlnet vs. non
Karlnet systems :)

Michiana Wireless, Inc.
John Buwa, President
 
http://WWW.MichianaWireless.Com
574-233-7170
 
"Lose the wires, discover the speed, enjoy the freedom!"

*US Distributor for www.itelite.net Antennas*


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Matt Ferre
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:38 PM
> To: wireless@wispa.org
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
> 
> It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second.
> Get just one customer with computer infected with some decent virus
> and it will generate 5000 packets per seconds, which may account to
> only 256kbps in raw traffic terms. But with regular Access Point this
> will bring your AP to the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you
> can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that
> customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point
> and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few
> uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same.
> 
> Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses
> some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX
> to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really
> good reason - performance.
> 
> Matt
> 
> > I see where you are getting at, but it isn't really relevant, at
> least
> > the way I have my network setup.   None of my customers have an
> upload
> > that gets to even 40% (I don't do symmetrical upload, so the highest
> > upload we offer is 2meg) and the access points handle it pretty
> easily
> > at that rate.
> >
> > If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that
> > polling is an important consideration.   It is pretty easy to work
> > around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however.
> >
> > Matt Larsen
> > vistabeam.com
> 
> 
> ---
> -
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> ---
> -
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Gino Villarini]

Mk can buy nanostations in bulk, 

-Original Message-
From: Matt Ferre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:28 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
see why.

Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:

> >Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
> >support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
> >support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
> >Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?

My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Matt Larsen - Lists]

Never really had a major problem with this.  Just keep P2P apps limited 
at the core router, no intercell relay and connection limits per customer. 

It would be nice if there was a polling implementation that could be 
easily implemented with standards-based equipment instead of proprietary 
gear.  I'd certainly look at it, but just don't have a need for it now.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com

Matt Ferre wrote:
> It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second.
> Get just one customer with computer infected with some decent virus
> and it will generate 5000 packets per seconds, which may account to
> only 256kbps in raw traffic terms. But with regular Access Point this
> will bring your AP to the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you
> can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that
> customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point
> and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few
> uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same.
>
> Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses
> some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX
> to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really
> good reason - performance.
>
> Matt
>
>   
>> I see where you are getting at, but it isn't really relevant, at least
>> the way I have my network setup.   None of my customers have an upload
>> that gets to even 40% (I don't do symmetrical upload, so the highest
>> upload we offer is 2meg) and the access points handle it pretty easily
>> at that rate.
>>
>> If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that
>> polling is an important consideration.   It is pretty easy to work
>> around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however.
>>
>> Matt Larsen
>> vistabeam.com
>> 
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>   




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Sam Tetherow]

While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand 
why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware 
giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be 
manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are 
already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up 
the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with 
an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact 
unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less 
than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It 
would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend 
market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path 
would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as 
well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make 
$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS 
network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after 
manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this, 
especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti 
really expressed and interest in working with them.

Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Matt Ferre wrote:
> Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
> exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
> see why.
>
> Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
> their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
> they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
> software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
> situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
> ever.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
>
>   
>>> Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
>>> support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
>>> support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
>>> Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?
>>>   
>
> My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
> MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
> not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
> a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
> could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
> license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
> pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.
>
> -- 
> *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
> *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
> *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
> *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
> Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *
> 
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>   




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Sam Tetherow]

While I haven't tried it, wouldn't limiting packets per second cause the 
IP stack on the sending machine to back down just like limiting throughput?

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Matt Ferre wrote:
> It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second.
> Get just one customer with computer infected with some decent virus
> and it will generate 5000 packets per seconds, which may account to
> only 256kbps in raw traffic terms. But with regular Access Point this
> will bring your AP to the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you
> can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that
> customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point
> and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few
> uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same.
>
> Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses
> some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX
> to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really
> good reason - performance.
>
> Matt
>
>   
>> I see where you are getting at, but it isn't really relevant, at least
>> the way I have my network setup.   None of my customers have an upload
>> that gets to even 40% (I don't do symmetrical upload, so the highest
>> upload we offer is 2meg) and the access points handle it pretty easily
>> at that rate.
>>
>> If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that
>> polling is an important consideration.   It is pretty easy to work
>> around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however.
>>
>> Matt Larsen
>> vistabeam.com
>> 
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>   




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Matt Ferre]

MT can manufacture NS alike hardware if they only want to. They don't
have to buy it from Ubiquiti and making Ubiquiti (competing company?)
profit from it.


On 7/20/08, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mk can buy nanostations in bulk,
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Ferre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:28 PM
> To: wireless@wispa.org 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>
> Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
> exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
> see why.
>
> Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
> their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
> they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
> software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
> situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
> ever.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
>
>> >Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
>> >support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
>> >support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
>> >Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?
>
> My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
> MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
> not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
> a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
> could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
> license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
> pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.
>
> -- 
> *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
> *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
> *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
> *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
> Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *
> 
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Matt Ferre]

Not really because virus program will purposely keep opening new
connection. P2P apps will be doing the same.

On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While I haven't tried it, wouldn't limiting packets per second cause the
> IP stack on the sending machine to back down just like limiting throughput?
>
> Sam Tetherow
> Sandhills Wireless
>
> Matt Ferre wrote:
>> It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second.
>> Get just one customer with computer infected with some decent virus
>> and it will generate 5000 packets per seconds, which may account to
>> only 256kbps in raw traffic terms. But with regular Access Point this
>> will bring your AP to the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you
>> can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that
>> customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point
>> and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few
>> uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same.
>>
>> Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses
>> some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX
>> to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really
>> good reason - performance.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>>> I see where you are getting at, but it isn't really relevant, at least
>>> the way I have my network setup.   None of my customers have an upload
>>> that gets to even 40% (I don't do symmetrical upload, so the highest
>>> upload we offer is 2meg) and the access points handle it pretty easily
>>> at that rate.
>>>
>>> If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that
>>> polling is an important consideration.   It is pretty easy to work
>>> around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however.
>>>
>>> Matt Larsen
>>> vistabeam.com
>>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Matt Ferre]

Because that would:

1. affect sales of routerboard hardware which they have complete
control on, on which they already spent a lot of money for development
and which (obviously) they prefer to sell,

2. could potentialy lead to situation same as with x86 version of MT,
which was supposed to be dropped from development recently only
because 99% of the users use 'emule' free version instead of paying
for the license.

3. the low end market you refer to, which may look like they want to
buy $40 RouterOS, won't do it. They are low end and additional $40 for
software license is not what they will afford, not in any reasonable
quantity anyway. But they would just LOVE point two to happen, which
would then seriously help point 1 to happen.

StarOS was supposed to be ported to LS2 long time ago, there ever were
official announcements about it happening. But then, that never
happened. Wonder why (perhaps because StarOS too has their own
hardware to sell and same reasons as Mikrotik, perhaps only in smaller
amplitude).

Matt


On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.
>
> People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
> an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
> unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
> than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
> would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.
>
> If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
> market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
> would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
> well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
> $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
> network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
> manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
> especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
> really expressed and interest in working with them.
>
> Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...
>
> Sam Tetherow
> Sandhills Wireless
>
> Matt Ferre wrote:
>> Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
>> exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
>> see why.
>>
>> Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
>> their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
>> they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
>> software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
>> situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
>> ever.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
>>
>>
 Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
 support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
 support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
 Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?

>>
>> My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
>> MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
>> not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
>> a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
>> could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
>> license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
>> pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.
>>
>> -- 
>> *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
>> *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
>> *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
>> *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
>> Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> -

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Sam Tetherow]

The application layer knows nothing about congestion (packets or bytes), 
it is the network layers job to keep track of that.  If packets are 
getting dropped the IP stack should back off on all sends.  It shouldn't 
matter if they are small packets or large and it shouldn't matter what 
program is requesting that they be transmitted.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless


Matt Ferre wrote:
> Not really because virus program will purposely keep opening new
> connection. P2P apps will be doing the same.
>
> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   
>> While I haven't tried it, wouldn't limiting packets per second cause the
>> IP stack on the sending machine to back down just like limiting throughput?
>>
>> Sam Tetherow
>> Sandhills Wireless
>>
>> Matt Ferre wrote:
>> 
>>> It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second.
>>> Get just one customer with computer infected with some decent virus
>>> and it will generate 5000 packets per seconds, which may account to
>>> only 256kbps in raw traffic terms. But with regular Access Point this
>>> will bring your AP to the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you
>>> can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that
>>> customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point
>>> and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few
>>> uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same.
>>>
>>> Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses
>>> some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX
>>> to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really
>>> good reason - performance.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>   
 I see where you are getting at, but it isn't really relevant, at least
 the way I have my network setup.   None of my customers have an upload
 that gets to even 40% (I don't do symmetrical upload, so the highest
 upload we offer is 2meg) and the access points handle it pretty easily
 at that rate.

 If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that
 polling is an important consideration.   It is pretty easy to work
 around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com

 
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>   
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>> 
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>   




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Matt Ferre]

One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their'
version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the
momentum.

First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse
in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at
that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based
applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on
their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had
any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all
your problems.

Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At
that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.

Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely
similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.

And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.
>
> People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
> an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
> unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
> than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
> would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.
>
> If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
> market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
> would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
> well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
> $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
> network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
> manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
> especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
> really expressed and interest in working with them.
>
> Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...
>
> Sam Tetherow
> Sandhills Wireless
>
> Matt Ferre wrote:
>> Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
>> exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
>> see why.
>>
>> Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
>> their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
>> they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
>> software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
>> situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
>> ever.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
>>
>>
 Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
 support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
 support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
 Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?

>>
>> My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
>> MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
>> not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
>> a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
>> could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
>> license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
>> pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.
>>
>> -- 
>> *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
>> *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
>> *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
>> *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
>> Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Matt Ferre]

This only applies to already open TCP connections. If the application
keeps opening new TCP connections, or better, uses UDP flood on a
purpose, it will not be affected by dropped packets in any way.

On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The application layer knows nothing about congestion (packets or bytes),
> it is the network layers job to keep track of that.  If packets are
> getting dropped the IP stack should back off on all sends.  It shouldn't
> matter if they are small packets or large and it shouldn't matter what
> program is requesting that they be transmitted.
>
> Sam Tetherow
> Sandhills Wireless
>
>
> Matt Ferre wrote:
>> Not really because virus program will purposely keep opening new
>> connection. P2P apps will be doing the same.
>>
>> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> While I haven't tried it, wouldn't limiting packets per second cause the
>>> IP stack on the sending machine to back down just like limiting
>>> throughput?
>>>
>>> Sam Tetherow
>>> Sandhills Wireless
>>>
>>> Matt Ferre wrote:
>>>
 It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second.
 Get just one customer with computer infected with some decent virus
 and it will generate 5000 packets per seconds, which may account to
 only 256kbps in raw traffic terms. But with regular Access Point this
 will bring your AP to the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you
 can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that
 customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point
 and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few
 uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same.

 Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses
 some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX
 to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really
 good reason - performance.

 Matt



> I see where you are getting at, but it isn't really relevant, at least
> the way I have my network setup.   None of my customers have an upload
> that gets to even 40% (I don't do symmetrical upload, so the highest
> upload we offer is 2meg) and the access points handle it pretty easily
> at that rate.
>
> If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that
> polling is an important consideration.   It is pretty easy to work
> around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however.
>
> Matt Larsen
> vistabeam.com
>
>
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Travis Johnson]

MT doesn't know radio cards or antennas. They have proven their radio
card capabilities in the R52H world. About 3 months ago we ordered 50
R52H cards and saw a 50% failure rate right out of the box. There are
still people seeing that mess going on.

The question MT needs to ask themselves... are they are a hardware
company or software company? Cisco is a software company. I think MT is
a software company as well. They do not currently have a product that
is even CLOSE to the Nanostation in price... why not sell a MT license
for every one of those?

Travis

Matt Ferre wrote:

  MT can manufacture NS alike hardware if they only want to. They don't
have to buy it from Ubiquiti and making Ubiquiti (competing company?)
profit from it.


On 7/20/08, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  
  
Mk can buy nanostations in bulk,

-Original Message-
From: Matt Ferre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:28 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
see why.

Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:



  
Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?

  

My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


  
  


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


  






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Travis Johnson]

I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for the $119
price running ROS today. Who do I make the P.O. out to? :)

Travis
Microserv

Matt Ferre wrote:

  Because that would:

1. affect sales of routerboard hardware which they have complete
control on, on which they already spent a lot of money for development
and which (obviously) they prefer to sell,

2. could potentialy lead to situation same as with x86 version of MT,
which was supposed to be dropped from development recently only
because 99% of the users use 'emule' free version instead of paying
for the license.

3. the low end market you refer to, which may look like they want to
buy $40 RouterOS, won't do it. They are low end and additional $40 for
software license is not what they will afford, not in any reasonable
quantity anyway. But they would just LOVE point two to happen, which
would then seriously help point 1 to happen.

StarOS was supposed to be ported to LS2 long time ago, there ever were
official announcements about it happening. But then, that never
happened. Wonder why (perhaps because StarOS too has their own
hardware to sell and same reasons as Mikrotik, perhaps only in smaller
amplitude).

Matt


On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  
  
While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
really expressed and interest in working with them.

Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Matt Ferre wrote:


  Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
see why.

Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


  
  

  Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?

  

  
  My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

  




WISPA 

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Travis Johnson]

Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than
they currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying
hundreds per month of now).

If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software
ASAP.

Travis

Matt Ferre wrote:

  One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their'
version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the
momentum.

First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse
in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at
that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based
applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on
their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had
any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all
your problems.

Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At
that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.

Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely
similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.

And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  
  
While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
really expressed and interest in working with them.

Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Matt Ferre wrote:


  Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
see why.

Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


  
  

  Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?

  

  
  My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


W

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Matt Ferre]

R52H cards are made for Mikrotik by Compex. And these are exactly the
same cards as R52 ones (hardware wise) with calibration data pushed to
the limits. Or even further, one step too far, and perhaps that's why
you see such failure rate.

Cisco doesn't sell their software for generic x86 systems eventhough
they definitely could. Mikrotik used to sell their software for bare
x86 systems, but since then they decided it's better for them to sell
complete hardware+software solution. And I guess there must be a good
reason for that.


On 7/21/08, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MT doesn't know radio cards or antennas. They have proven their radio card
> capabilities in the R52H world. About 3 months ago we ordered 50 R52H cards
> and saw a 50% failure rate right out of the box. There are still people
> seeing that mess going on.
>
> The question MT needs to ask themselves... are they are a hardware company
> or software company? Cisco is a software company. I think MT is a software
> company as well. They do not currently have a product that is even CLOSE to
> the Nanostation in price... why not sell a MT license for every one of
> those?
>
> Travis
>
> Matt Ferre wrote:
>>
>> MT can manufacture NS alike hardware if they only want to. They don't
>> have to buy it from Ubiquiti and making Ubiquiti (competing company?)
>> profit from it.
>>
>>
>> On 7/20/08, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Mk can buy nanostations in bulk,
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Matt Ferre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:28 PM
>>> To: wireless@wispa.org 
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>>>
>>> Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
>>> exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
>>> see why.
>>>
>>> Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
>>> their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
>>> they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
>>> software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
>>> situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
>>> ever.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
> Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
> support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
> support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
> Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?
>
>>>
>>> My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
>>> MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
>>> not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
>>> a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
>>> could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
>>> license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
>>> pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
>>> *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
>>> *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
>>> *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
>>> Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISP

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Matt Ferre]

As long as you (and others) are actually buying these RB411s and
Crossroads instead of Nanostations they won't even consider doing it.

On 7/21/08, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they
> currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per
> month of now).
>
> If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP.
>
> Travis
>
> Matt Ferre wrote:
>>
>> One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their'
>> version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the
>> momentum.
>>
>> First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse
>> in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at
>> that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based
>> applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on
>> their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had
>> any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all
>> your problems.
>>
>> Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At
>> that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.
>>
>> Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely
>> similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.
>>
>> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
>> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
>> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
>> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
>> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
>> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
>>> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
>>> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
>>> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
>>> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
>>> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.
>>>
>>> People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
>>> an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
>>> unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
>>> than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
>>> would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.
>>>
>>> If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
>>> market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
>>> would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
>>> well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
>>> $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
>>> network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
>>> manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
>>> especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
>>> really expressed and interest in working with them.
>>>
>>> Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is
>>> interested...
>>>
>>> Sam Tetherow
>>> Sandhills Wireless
>>>
>>> Matt Ferre wrote:
>>>

 Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
 exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
 see why.

 Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
 their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
 they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
 software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
 situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
 ever.




 On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:



>>
>> Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
>> support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
>> support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
>> Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?
>>
>>

 My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
 MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
 not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
 a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
 could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
 pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

 -- 
 *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
 *Mi

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Japhy Bartlett]

Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book..  Remember
how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game?  How the company
that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard?

For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or
something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
code already written and being developed?

Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.

Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into
some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
"port" every stinking firmware flavor.

Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
business model .. ever?

And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this firmware
does X better".  Is there anything particularly different between
Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?

- japhy


>
> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.
>
>
>
> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
>> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
>> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
>> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
>> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
>> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.
>>
>> People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
>> an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
>> unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
>> than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
>> would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.
>>
>> If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
>> market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
>> would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
>> well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
>> $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
>> network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
>> manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
>> especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
>> really expressed and interest in working with them.
>>
>> Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...
>>
>> Sam Tetherow
>> Sandhills Wireless
>>
>> Matt Ferre wrote:
>>> Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
>>> exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
>>> see why.
>>>
>>> Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
>>> their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
>>> they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
>>> software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
>>> situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
>>> ever.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
>>>
>>>
> Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
> support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
> support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
> Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?
>
>>>
>>> My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
>>> MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
>>> not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
>>> a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
>>> could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
>>> license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
>>> pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
>>> *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
>>> *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
>>> *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
>>> Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *
>>> **

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Chuck McCown - 3]

I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this.

- Original Message - 
From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations


> Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book..  Remember
> how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game?  How the company
> that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard?
>
> For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
> card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or
> something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
> firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
> code already written and being developed?
>
> Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
> at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
> solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.
>
> Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
> of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into
> some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
> "port" every stinking firmware flavor.
>
> Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
> business model .. ever?
>
> And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this firmware
> does X better".  Is there anything particularly different between
> Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?
>
> - japhy
>
>
>>
>> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
>> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
>> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
>> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
>> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
>> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
>>> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
>>> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
>>> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
>>> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
>>> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.
>>>
>>> People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
>>> an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
>>> unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
>>> than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
>>> would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.
>>>
>>> If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
>>> market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
>>> would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
>>> well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
>>> $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
>>> network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
>>> manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
>>> especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
>>> really expressed and interest in working with them.
>>>
>>> Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is 
>>> interested...
>>>
>>> Sam Tetherow
>>> Sandhills Wireless
>>>
>>> Matt Ferre wrote:
 Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
 exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
 see why.

 Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
 their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
 they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
 software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
 situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
 ever.




 On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


>> Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
>> support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
>> support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
>> Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?
>>

 My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
 MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
 not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
 a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
 could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
 pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

 -- 

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Blair Davis]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  These post bring back memories from the Karlnet days of Karlnet vs. non
Karlnet systems :)

Michiana Wireless, Inc.
John Buwa, President
 
http://WWW.MichianaWireless.Com
574-233-7170
 
"Lose the wires, discover the speed, enjoy the freedom!"

*US Distributor for www.itelite.net Antennas*


  
  
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Matt Ferre
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:38 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second.
Get just one customer with computer infected with some decent virus
and it will generate 5000 packets per seconds, which may account to
only 256kbps in raw traffic terms. But with regular Access Point this
will bring your AP to the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you
can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that
customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point
and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few
uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same.

Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses
some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX
to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really
good reason - performance.

Matt



  I see where you are getting at, but it isn't really relevant, at
  

least


  the way I have my network setup.   None of my customers have an
  

upload


  that gets to even 40% (I don't do symmetrical upload, so the highest
upload we offer is 2meg) and the access points handle it pretty
  

easily


  at that rate.

If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that
polling is an important consideration.   It is pretty easy to work
around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com
  


---
-
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
---
-

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

  
  



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Blair Davis]

YES!


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  These post bring back memories from the Karlnet days of Karlnet vs. non
Karlnet systems :)

Michiana Wireless, Inc.
John Buwa, President
 
http://WWW.MichianaWireless.Com
574-233-7170
 
"Lose the wires, discover the speed, enjoy the freedom!"

*US Distributor for www.itelite.net Antennas*


  
  
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Matt Ferre
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:38 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second.
Get just one customer with computer infected with some decent virus
and it will generate 5000 packets per seconds, which may account to
only 256kbps in raw traffic terms. But with regular Access Point this
will bring your AP to the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you
can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that
customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point
and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few
uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same.

Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses
some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX
to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really
good reason - performance.

Matt



  I see where you are getting at, but it isn't really relevant, at
  

least


  the way I have my network setup.   None of my customers have an
  

upload


  that gets to even 40% (I don't do symmetrical upload, so the highest
upload we offer is 2meg) and the access points handle it pretty
  

easily


  at that rate.

If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that
polling is an important consideration.   It is pretty easy to work
around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com
  


---
-
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
---
-

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

  
  



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Mike Hammett]

They just copied someone else's card, though I forget now who.  It's in the FCC 
docs.


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


  - Original Message - 
  From: Travis Johnson 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 6:32 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations


  MT doesn't know radio cards or antennas. They have proven their radio card 
capabilities in the R52H world. About 3 months ago we ordered 50 R52H cards and 
saw a 50% failure rate right out of the box. There are still people seeing that 
mess going on.

  The question MT needs to ask themselves... are they are a hardware company or 
software company? Cisco is a software company. I think MT is a software company 
as well. They do not currently have a product that is even CLOSE to the 
Nanostation in price... why not sell a MT license for every one of those?

  Travis

  Matt Ferre wrote: 
MT can manufacture NS alike hardware if they only want to. They don't
have to buy it from Ubiquiti and making Ubiquiti (competing company?)
profit from it.


On 7/20/08, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  Mk can buy nanostations in bulk,

-Original Message-
From: Matt Ferre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:28 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
see why.

Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:

Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?
My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


  

--




  

  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
  

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Scottie Arnett]

DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few chipsets. They 
are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if Mikrotikl drops 
support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a new project starts very 
quickly to serve that need.

Scott

-- Original Message --
From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Date:  Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:19 -0600

>I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this.
>
>- Original Message - 
>From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "WISPA General List" 
>Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>
>
>> Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book..  Remember
>> how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game?  How the company
>> that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard?
>>
>> For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
>> card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or
>> something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
>> firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
>> code already written and being developed?
>>
>> Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
>> at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
>> solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.
>>
>> Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
>> of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into
>> some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
>> "port" every stinking firmware flavor.
>>
>> Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
>> business model .. ever?
>>
>> And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this firmware
>> does X better".  Is there anything particularly different between
>> Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?
>>
>> - japhy
>>
>>
>>>
>>> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
>>> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
>>> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
>>> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
>>> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
>>> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
 why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
 giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
 manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
 already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

 People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
 an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
 unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
 than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
 would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

 If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
 market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
 would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
 well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
 $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
 network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
 manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
 especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
 really expressed and interest in working with them.

 Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is 
 interested...

 Sam Tetherow
 Sandhills Wireless

 Matt Ferre wrote:
> Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
> exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
> see why.
>
> Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
> their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
> they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
> software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
> situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
> ever.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
>
>
>>> Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
>>> support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
>>> support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
>>> Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Blair Davis]

You know,

It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either...

It needs to be a client.  802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT,
dhcp client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough
for most of us.

A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size
needed.

Just a thought.

Travis Johnson wrote:

  
Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than
they currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying
hundreds per month of now).
  
If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software
ASAP.
  
Travis
  
Matt Ferre wrote:
  
One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their'
version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the
momentum.

First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse
in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at
that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based
applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on
their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had
any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all
your problems.

Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At
that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.

Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely
similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.

And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  

  While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
really expressed and interest in working with them.

Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Matt Ferre wrote:

  
Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
see why.

Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


  

  
Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?

  
  

My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired 

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Sam Tetherow]

I think for the most part those that would like something like this and 
have the skills to do it, don't have the time to do the initial work or 
support it.  It is easier to just buy StarOS or ROS, or buy equipment 
that already has the license for it.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
> I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this.
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>
>
>   
>> Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book..  Remember
>> how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game?  How the company
>> that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard?
>>
>> For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
>> card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or
>> something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
>> firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
>> code already written and being developed?
>>
>> Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
>> at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
>> solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.
>>
>> Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
>> of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into
>> some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
>> "port" every stinking firmware flavor.
>>
>> Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
>> business model .. ever?
>>
>> And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this firmware
>> does X better".  Is there anything particularly different between
>> Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?
>>
>> - japhy
>>
>>
>> 
>>> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
>>> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
>>> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
>>> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
>>> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
>>> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>   
 While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
 why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
 giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
 manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
 already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

 People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
 an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
 unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
 than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
 would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

 If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
 market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
 would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
 well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
 $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
 network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
 manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
 especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
 really expressed and interest in working with them.

 Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is 
 interested...

 Sam Tetherow
 Sandhills Wireless

 Matt Ferre wrote:
 
> Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
> exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
> see why.
>
> Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
> their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
> they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
> software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
> situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
> ever.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
>
>
>   
>>> Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
>>> support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
>>> support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
>>> Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?
>>>
>>>   
> My understanding (this is 

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Blair Davis]

Travis Johnson wrote:

  
I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for the $119
price running ROS today. Who do I make the P.O. out to? :)

If you were able to place a P.O for a 2-3 thousand licenses to fit the
NS 2/5 mikrotik would likely deal  Just show them the money.

But, what features do we really want in an NS version of mikrotik ROS? 

Travis
Microserv
  
Matt Ferre wrote:
  
Because that would:

1. affect sales of routerboard hardware which they have complete
control on, on which they already spent a lot of money for development
and which (obviously) they prefer to sell,

2. could potentialy lead to situation same as with x86 version of MT,
which was supposed to be dropped from development recently only
because 99% of the users use 'emule' free version instead of paying
for the license.

3. the low end market you refer to, which may look like they want to
buy $40 RouterOS, won't do it. They are low end and additional $40 for
software license is not what they will afford, not in any reasonable
quantity anyway. But they would just LOVE point two to happen, which
would then seriously help point 1 to happen.

StarOS was supposed to be ported to LS2 long time ago, there ever were
official announcements about it happening. But then, that never
happened. Wonder why (perhaps because StarOS too has their own
hardware to sell and same reasons as Mikrotik, perhaps only in smaller
amplitude).

Matt


On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  

  While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
really expressed and interest in working with them.

Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Matt Ferre wrote:

  
Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
see why.

Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


  

  
Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?

  
  

My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wirel

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Chuck McCown - 3]

Well, if there was a framework of working code, and a group to help write a 
spec, I am sure some of us would hack at some of it.  For example, a 
fraction of NAT or PPPoE or a filter or whatever could be done in bite size 
pieces.  I would love to write a small chunk.  I used to support myself 
writing code and still find it mildly theraputic when I seldom get the 
chance.  But I really have no clue as to how much ROS or any of the other 
products cost as we are a 100% canopy shop.
- Original Message - 
From: "Sam Tetherow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations


>I think for the most part those that would like something like this and
> have the skills to do it, don't have the time to do the initial work or
> support it.  It is easier to just buy StarOS or ROS, or buy equipment
> that already has the license for it.
>
>Sam Tetherow
>Sandhills Wireless
>
> Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
>> I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this.
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>>
>>
>>
>>> Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book..  Remember
>>> how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game?  How the company
>>> that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard?
>>>
>>> For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
>>> card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or
>>> something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
>>> firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
>>> code already written and being developed?
>>>
>>> Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
>>> at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
>>> solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.
>>>
>>> Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
>>> of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into
>>> some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
>>> "port" every stinking firmware flavor.
>>>
>>> Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
>>> business model .. ever?
>>>
>>> And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this firmware
>>> does X better".  Is there anything particularly different between
>>> Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?
>>>
>>> - japhy
>>>
>>>
>>>
 And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
 oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
 having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
 Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
 supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
 hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



 On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't 
> understand
> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick 
> up
> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.
>
> People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even 
> with
> an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
> unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 
> less
> than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
> would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.
>
> If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the 
> lowend
> market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
> would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware 
> as
> well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
> $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
> network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
> manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
> especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
> really expressed and interest in working with them.
>
> Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is
> interested...
>
> Sam Tetherow
> Sandhills Wireless
>
> Matt Ferre wrote:
>
>> Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
>> exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
>> see why.
>>
>> Who exactly would benefit from porting 

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Sam Tetherow]

But I'm not.  I never bought MT based clients precisely because they 
were too expensive.  While I would like to have the control to do all of 
the ROS things on the client radio I could not justify the expense of 
purchasing the components and assembling the final product to deploy.  
MT could have the software side of my CPE business if I could put it on 
a NS, but since they are more interested in the hardware, and the 
constant changing stream of hardware to boot, I have stopped deploying 
MT except in a pinch when I lose equipment and don't have an upgrade handy.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

> As long as you (and others) are actually buying these RB411s and
> Crossroads instead of Nanostations they won't even consider doing it.
>
> On 7/21/08, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   
>> Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they
>> currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per
>> month of now).
>>
>> If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP.
>>
>> Travis
>>
>> Matt Ferre wrote:
>> 
>>> One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their'
>>> version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the
>>> momentum.
>>>
>>> First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse
>>> in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at
>>> that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based
>>> applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on
>>> their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had
>>> any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all
>>> your problems.
>>>
>>> Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At
>>> that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.
>>>
>>> Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely
>>> similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.
>>>
>>> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
>>> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
>>> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
>>> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
>>> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
>>> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>   
 While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
 why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
 giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
 manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
 already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

 People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
 an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
 unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
 than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
 would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

 If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
 market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
 would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
 well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
 $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
 network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
 manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
 especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
 really expressed and interest in working with them.

 Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is
 interested...

 Sam Tetherow
 Sandhills Wireless

 Matt Ferre wrote:

 
> Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
> exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
> see why.
>
> Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
> their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
> they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
> software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
> situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
> ever.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
>
>
>
>   
>>> Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
>>> support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
>>> support them. I wonder how muc

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

[Charles Wu]

So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding Nanostations has peaked 
my interest...so, to satisfy my own curiosity,  I decided to do some research 
on Nanostations

(I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as 
I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market)

Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to 
being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with the 
Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those 
products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more 
"WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi

That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not running 
a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is Tranzeo, 
however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" (SL2) product 
still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features of the 
Nanostation and AirOS

If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in 
the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that 
$150 / CPE level

With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based WISP 
buy anything else?

-Charles

---
WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

You know,

It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either...

It needs to be a client.  802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp 
client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of us.

A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size needed.

Just a thought.

Travis Johnson wrote:
Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they 
currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per 
month of now).

If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP.

Travis

Matt Ferre wrote:

One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their'

version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the

momentum.



First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse

in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at

that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based

applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on

their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had

any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all

your problems.



Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At

that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.



Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely

similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.



And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit

oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and

having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see

Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik

supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of

hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.







On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand

why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware

giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be

manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are

already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up

the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.



People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with

an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact

unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less

than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It

would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.



If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend

market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path

would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as

well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make

$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS

network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after

manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,

especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti

really expressed and interest in working with them.



Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...



Sam Tetherow

Sandhills Wireless

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Sam Tetherow]

PPPoE, NAT and the queuing are all pretty much available as is in 
Linux.  The part that really needs to be written, it my opinion is the 
polling MAC which is not something many people are probably qualified to 
do.  It is not a trivial problem to get right, I'm not sure how much is 
out there that one could base their code on and I don't know too many 
people that are willing to alpha test live customers on one ;)

I think it would be cool, but I don't have the time to invest in it.  I 
would be happy to spend a bit of time working on other stuff, such as 
wrapping the queuing, nat or other bits, but to actually spend the time 
to implement a new MAC, I don't have the skills and don't see me having 
the time to acquire those skills to make it happen.  But if we find 
someone, count me in ;)

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
> Well, if there was a framework of working code, and a group to help write a 
> spec, I am sure some of us would hack at some of it.  For example, a 
> fraction of NAT or PPPoE or a filter or whatever could be done in bite size 
> pieces.  I would love to write a small chunk.  I used to support myself 
> writing code and still find it mildly theraputic when I seldom get the 
> chance.  But I really have no clue as to how much ROS or any of the other 
> products cost as we are a 100% canopy shop.
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Sam Tetherow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>
>
>   
>> I think for the most part those that would like something like this and
>> have the skills to do it, don't have the time to do the initial work or
>> support it.  It is easier to just buy StarOS or ROS, or buy equipment
>> that already has the license for it.
>>
>>Sam Tetherow
>>Sandhills Wireless
>>
>> Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
>> 
>>> I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this.
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
 Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book..  Remember
 how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game?  How the company
 that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard?

 For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
 card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or
 something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
 firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
 code already written and being developed?

 Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
 at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
 solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.

 Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
 of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into
 some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
 "port" every stinking firmware flavor.

 Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
 business model .. ever?

 And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this firmware
 does X better".  Is there anything particularly different between
 Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?

 - japhy



 
> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.
>
>
>
> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   
>> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't 
>> understand
>> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
>> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
>> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
>> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick 
>> up
>> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.
>>
>> People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even 
>> with
>> an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
>> unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 
>> less
>> than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
>> would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.
>>
>> If they worked with Ubiquiti they would ha

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Travis Johnson]

Yup... it's the Catch 22 scenario... :(

Travis


Matt Ferre wrote:

  As long as you (and others) are actually buying these RB411s and
Crossroads instead of Nanostations they won't even consider doing it.

On 7/21/08, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  
  
Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they
currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per
month of now).

If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP.

Travis

Matt Ferre wrote:


  One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their'
version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the
momentum.

First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse
in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at
that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based
applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on
their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had
any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all
your problems.

Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At
that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.

Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely
similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.

And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

  
  
While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
really expressed and interest in working with them.

Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is
interested...

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Matt Ferre wrote:



  Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
see why.

Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:



  
  

  Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?


  

  
  My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

[Sam Tetherow]

You've summed it up pretty good.  I have a few in the field and so far 
they are holding up well.  I've been buying the NS5s when I need new CPE 
equipment (and I can find someone who has them in stock).

For residential deployments they are currently my CPE of choice.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Charles Wu wrote:
> So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding Nanostations has 
> peaked my interest...so, to satisfy my own curiosity,  I decided to do some 
> research on Nanostations
>
> (I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as 
> I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market)
>
> Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to 
> being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with 
> the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those 
> products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more 
> "WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi
>
> That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not 
> running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is 
> Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" 
> (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features 
> of the Nanostation and AirOS
>
> If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in 
> the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that 
> $150 / CPE level
>
> With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based 
> WISP buy anything else?
>
> -Charles
>
> ---
> WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
> Coming to a City Near You
> http://www.winog.com
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>
> You know,
>
> It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either...
>
> It needs to be a client.  802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp 
> client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of 
> us.
>
> A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size 
> needed.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Travis Johnson wrote:
> Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they 
> currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per 
> month of now).
>
> If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP.
>
> Travis
>
> Matt Ferre wrote:
>
> One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their'
>
> version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the
>
> momentum.
>
>
>
> First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse
>
> in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at
>
> that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based
>
> applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on
>
> their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had
>
> any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all
>
> your problems.
>
>
>
> Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At
>
> that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.
>
>
>
> Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely
>
> similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.
>
>
>
> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
>
> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
>
> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
>
> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
>
> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
>
> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
>
> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
>
> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
>
> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
>
> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
>
> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.
>
>
>
> People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
>
> an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
>
> unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
>
> than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
>
> would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.
>
>
>
> If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
>
> market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
>
> would be perfect for their hardw

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Travis Johnson]

Why not just the normal, regular version? 

Blair Davis wrote:

  
Travis Johnson wrote:
  

I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for the $119
price running ROS today. Who do I make the P.O. out to? :)
  
If you were able to place a P.O for a 2-3 thousand licenses to fit the
NS 2/5 mikrotik would likely deal  Just show them the money.
  
But, what features do we really want in an NS version of mikrotik ROS? 
  
Travis
Microserv

Matt Ferre wrote:

  Because that would:

1. affect sales of routerboard hardware which they have complete
control on, on which they already spent a lot of money for development
and which (obviously) they prefer to sell,

2. could potentialy lead to situation same as with x86 version of MT,
which was supposed to be dropped from development recently only
because 99% of the users use 'emule' free version instead of paying
for the license.

3. the low end market you refer to, which may look like they want to
buy $40 RouterOS, won't do it. They are low end and additional $40 for
software license is not what they will afford, not in any reasonable
quantity anyway. But they would just LOVE point two to happen, which
would then seriously help point 1 to happen.

StarOS was supposed to be ported to LS2 long time ago, there ever were
official announcements about it happening. But then, that never
happened. Wonder why (perhaps because StarOS too has their own
hardware to sell and same reasons as Mikrotik, perhaps only in smaller
amplitude).

Matt


On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  
  
While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
really expressed and interest in working with them.

Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Matt Ferre wrote:


  Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
see why.

Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


  
  

  Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?

  

  
  My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.w

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

[Travis Johnson]

I agree. But the rest of us that are using a protocol like Nstreme on 
Mikrotik, would like another solution. We currently pay about $180 for a 
nice, professional looking Mikrotik CPE (including antenna, card, 
pigtail, PoE, etc). If we could get a NS for $80 and put a MT license on 
it for $40, that's a $60 saving per CPE... which adds up fast when you 
are doing hundreds of installs per month.

Travis
Microserv

Charles Wu wrote:
> So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding Nanostations has 
> peaked my interest...so, to satisfy my own curiosity,  I decided to do some 
> research on Nanostations
>
> (I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as 
> I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market)
>
> Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to 
> being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with 
> the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those 
> products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more 
> "WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi
>
> That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not 
> running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is 
> Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" 
> (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features 
> of the Nanostation and AirOS
>
> If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in 
> the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that 
> $150 / CPE level
>
> With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based 
> WISP buy anything else?
>
> -Charles
>
> ---
> WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
> Coming to a City Near You
> http://www.winog.com
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>
> You know,
>
> It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either...
>
> It needs to be a client.  802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp 
> client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of 
> us.
>
> A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size 
> needed.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Travis Johnson wrote:
> Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they 
> currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per 
> month of now).
>
> If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP.
>
> Travis
>
> Matt Ferre wrote:
>
> One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their'
>
> version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the
>
> momentum.
>
>
>
> First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse
>
> in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at
>
> that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based
>
> applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on
>
> their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had
>
> any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all
>
> your problems.
>
>
>
> Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At
>
> that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.
>
>
>
> Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely
>
> similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.
>
>
>
> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
>
> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
>
> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
>
> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
>
> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
>
> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
>
> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
>
> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
>
> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
>
> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
>
> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.
>
>
>
> People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
>
> an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
>
> unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
>
> than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
>
> would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.
>
>
>
> If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
>

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

[Blair Davis]

Charles,

I use tranzeo for my 802.11b/g clients since about 2 years ago or so.  I 
am now deploying the NS 2 as I can.get units and where approiate.  I 
will still use the tranzeo cpq-15, (think it replaced by the sl2 now), 
and the cpq-19 as needed.

Charles Wu wrote:
> So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding Nanostations has 
> peaked my interest...so, to satisfy my own curiosity,  I decided to do some 
> research on Nanostations
>
> (I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as 
> I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market)
>
> Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to 
> being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with 
> the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those 
> products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more 
> "WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi
>   
I'd agree with this.  I don't use that gear because an ap of mine might 
only have 6 clients and I can not justify the high AP costs and high CPE 
costs.
> That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not 
> running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is 
> Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" 
> (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features 
> of the Nanostation and AirOS
>   
IMHO, correct.  But for light duty residental users, they work well and 
allow us to keep the install costs down.
> If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in 
> the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that 
> $150 / CPE level
>   
I agree, and because of that, the crossroads has no appeal for me, yet.  
I am considering them as a path to netstream on 2.4GHz to replace my 
turbocell stuff, as most all of my turbocell gear was assembled by me.
> With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based 
> WISP buy anything else?
>   
Where its antenna gain is enought, I won't.  Where I need more gain, 
I'll use tranzeo
> -Charles
>
> ---
> WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
> Coming to a City Near You
> http://www.winog.com
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>
> You know,
>
> It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either...
>
> It needs to be a client.  802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp 
> client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of 
> us.
>
> A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size 
> needed.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Travis Johnson wrote:
> Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they 
> currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per 
> month of now).
>
> If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP.
>
> Travis
>
> Matt Ferre wrote:
>
> One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their'
>
> version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the
>
> momentum.
>
>
>
> First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse
>
> in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at
>
> that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based
>
> applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on
>
> their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had
>
> any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all
>
> your problems.
>
>
>
> Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At
>
> that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.
>
>
>
> Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely
>
> similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.
>
>
>
> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
>
> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
>
> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
>
> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
>
> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
>
> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
>
> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
>
> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
>
> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
>
> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
>
> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.
>
>
>
> People buying t

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Blair Davis]

Flash size and memory limits?

fitting it into 4Mbyt might be easier with some functions deleted.

Travis Johnson wrote:

  
Why not just the normal, regular version? 
  
Blair Davis wrote:
  

Travis Johnson wrote:

  
I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for the $119
price running ROS today. Who do I make the P.O. out to? :)

If you were able to place a P.O for a 2-3 thousand licenses to fit the
NS 2/5 mikrotik would likely deal  Just show them the money.

But, what features do we really want in an NS version of mikrotik ROS? 

Travis
Microserv
  
Matt Ferre wrote:
  
Because that would:

1. affect sales of routerboard hardware which they have complete
control on, on which they already spent a lot of money for development
and which (obviously) they prefer to sell,

2. could potentialy lead to situation same as with x86 version of MT,
which was supposed to be dropped from development recently only
because 99% of the users use 'emule' free version instead of paying
for the license.

3. the low end market you refer to, which may look like they want to
buy $40 RouterOS, won't do it. They are low end and additional $40 for
software license is not what they will afford, not in any reasonable
quantity anyway. But they would just LOVE point two to happen, which
would then seriously help point 1 to happen.

StarOS was supposed to be ported to LS2 long time ago, there ever were
official announcements about it happening. But then, that never
happened. Wonder why (perhaps because StarOS too has their own
hardware to sell and same reasons as Mikrotik, perhaps only in smaller
amplitude).

Matt


On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  

  While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
really expressed and interest in working with them.

Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Matt Ferre wrote:

  
Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
see why.

Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


  

  
Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?

  
  

My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *
*

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Travis Johnson]

But as I said earlier, Ubiquiti told me they make custom NS units that
have 16Meg of memory. I am waiting to hear back from them on pricing,
but I thought it was only like $10 more. ;)

Travis

Blair Davis wrote:

  
Flash size and memory limits?
  
fitting it into 4Mbyt might be easier with some functions deleted.
  
Travis Johnson wrote:
  

Why not just the normal, regular version? 

Blair Davis wrote:

  
Travis Johnson wrote:
  

I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for the $119
price running ROS today. Who do I make the P.O. out to? :)
  
If you were able to place a P.O for a 2-3 thousand licenses to fit the
NS 2/5 mikrotik would likely deal  Just show them the money.
  
But, what features do we really want in an NS version of mikrotik ROS? 
  
Travis
Microserv

Matt Ferre wrote:

  Because that would:

1. affect sales of routerboard hardware which they have complete
control on, on which they already spent a lot of money for development
and which (obviously) they prefer to sell,

2. could potentialy lead to situation same as with x86 version of MT,
which was supposed to be dropped from development recently only
because 99% of the users use 'emule' free version instead of paying
for the license.

3. the low end market you refer to, which may look like they want to
buy $40 RouterOS, won't do it. They are low end and additional $40 for
software license is not what they will afford, not in any reasonable
quantity anyway. But they would just LOVE point two to happen, which
would then seriously help point 1 to happen.

StarOS was supposed to be ported to LS2 long time ago, there ever were
official announcements about it happening. But then, that never
happened. Wonder why (perhaps because StarOS too has their own
hardware to sell and same reasons as Mikrotik, perhaps only in smaller
amplitude).

Matt


On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  
  
While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
really expressed and interest in working with them.

Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Matt Ferre wrote:


  Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
see why.

Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


  
  

  Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?

  

  
  My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Net

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

[Forrest W. Christian]

Charles Wu wrote:
> Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to 
> being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with 
> the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those 
> products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more 
> "WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi
>   
Well, you might be surprised how many Canopy/Trango/Alvarion wisps are 
deploying Nanostations where the RoI on a normal AP isn't in line.   
We're actually deploying Nanostations to cover those situations where 
you have 2-3 subs you can't see from any of your AP's, but a neighbor's 
house can see both one of your AP's and the subs.

Basically we're adding a Nanostation to a standard Canopy Install... so 
for the cost of the Nanostation, we gain the ability to cover those 
subscribers.

-forrest



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Blair Davis]

did not catch that.  all good.

on the other hand, they might make a 'client only' flash that fit in
the smaller space if they were worried about impacting their higher end
gear sales?

Travis Johnson wrote:

  
But as I said earlier, Ubiquiti told me they make custom NS units that
have 16Meg of memory. I am waiting to hear back from them on pricing,
but I thought it was only like $10 more. ;)
  
Travis
  
Blair Davis wrote:
  

Flash size and memory limits?

fitting it into 4Mbyt might be easier with some functions deleted.

Travis Johnson wrote:

  
Why not just the normal, regular version? 
  
Blair Davis wrote:
  

Travis Johnson wrote:

  
I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for the $119
price running ROS today. Who do I make the P.O. out to? :)

If you were able to place a P.O for a 2-3 thousand licenses to fit the
NS 2/5 mikrotik would likely deal  Just show them the money.

But, what features do we really want in an NS version of mikrotik ROS? 

Travis
Microserv
  
Matt Ferre wrote:
  
Because that would:

1. affect sales of routerboard hardware which they have complete
control on, on which they already spent a lot of money for development
and which (obviously) they prefer to sell,

2. could potentialy lead to situation same as with x86 version of MT,
which was supposed to be dropped from development recently only
because 99% of the users use 'emule' free version instead of paying
for the license.

3. the low end market you refer to, which may look like they want to
buy $40 RouterOS, won't do it. They are low end and additional $40 for
software license is not what they will afford, not in any reasonable
quantity anyway. But they would just LOVE point two to happen, which
would then seriously help point 1 to happen.

StarOS was supposed to be ported to LS2 long time ago, there ever were
official announcements about it happening. But then, that never
happened. Wonder why (perhaps because StarOS too has their own
hardware to sell and same reasons as Mikrotik, perhaps only in smaller
amplitude).

Matt


On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  

  While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
really expressed and interest in working with them.

Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Matt Ferre wrote:

  
Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
see why.

Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


  

  
Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?

  
  

My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

[Charles Wu]

Hi Blair,

A TR-CPQ-x has the following specifications

CPQ-N: $165
CPZ-19: $175 (integrated 19 dBi antenna)

+23 dBm Output Power Max
-85 dBm @ 11 Mbps
-72 dBm @ 54 Mbps
Features:
Client NAT with QoS (probably Wmm)

The Ubiquiti NS2 has the following specifications

NS2: $79.95 (integrated 10 dBi antenna with connector)

+26 dBm Output Power Max
-92 dBm @ 11 Mbps
-74 dBm @ 54 Mbps
Features:
>From a manual review perspective, AirOS seems to do miles more than what a 
>Trango CPQ can do

So...there's not way you're going to spend $100 on a 19 dBi patch and a 
pigtail...so, assuming availability wasn't an issue or you weren't sitting on 
stock...why would you even buy a Tranzeo?

-Charles



---
WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

Charles,

I use tranzeo for my 802.11b/g clients since about 2 years ago or so.  I
am now deploying the NS 2 as I can.get units and where approiate.  I
will still use the tranzeo cpq-15, (think it replaced by the sl2 now),
and the cpq-19 as needed.

Charles Wu wrote:
> So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding Nanostations has 
> peaked my interest...so, to satisfy my own curiosity,  I decided to do some 
> research on Nanostations
>
> (I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as 
> I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market)
>
> Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to 
> being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with 
> the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those 
> products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more 
> "WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi
>
I'd agree with this.  I don't use that gear because an ap of mine might
only have 6 clients and I can not justify the high AP costs and high CPE
costs.
> That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not 
> running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is 
> Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" 
> (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features 
> of the Nanostation and AirOS
>
IMHO, correct.  But for light duty residental users, they work well and
allow us to keep the install costs down.
> If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in 
> the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that 
> $150 / CPE level
>
I agree, and because of that, the crossroads has no appeal for me, yet.
I am considering them as a path to netstream on 2.4GHz to replace my
turbocell stuff, as most all of my turbocell gear was assembled by me.
> With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based 
> WISP buy anything else?
>
Where its antenna gain is enought, I won't.  Where I need more gain,
I'll use tranzeo
> -Charles
>
> ---
> WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
> Coming to a City Near You
> http://www.winog.com
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>
> You know,
>
> It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either...
>
> It needs to be a client.  802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp 
> client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of 
> us.
>
> A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size 
> needed.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Travis Johnson wrote:
> Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they 
> currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per 
> month of now).
>
> If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP.
>
> Travis
>
> Matt Ferre wrote:
>
> One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their'
>
> version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the
>
> momentum.
>
>
>
> First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse
>
> in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at
>
> that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based
>
> applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on
>
> their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had
>
> any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all
>
> your problems.
>
>
>
> Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At
>
> that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.
>
>
>
> Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely
>
> similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincid

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

[Matt Larsen - Lists]

Here are a few reasons to buy the Tranzeo

1)  3 year warranty
2)  Available stock - tried to buy a lot of Nanostations lately?Good 
luck getting them consistently.
3)  Tranzeo design has been through a few winters and hot summers.  
There are already some questions about the durability of the Nanos, 
especially in environments with lots of moisture or sea
4)  Proven, reliable firmware.  
5)  Tranzeo support

Might be some others, but that is off the top of my head.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com

Charles Wu wrote:
> Hi Blair,
>
> A TR-CPQ-x has the following specifications
>
> CPQ-N: $165
> CPZ-19: $175 (integrated 19 dBi antenna)
>
> +23 dBm Output Power Max
> -85 dBm @ 11 Mbps
> -72 dBm @ 54 Mbps
> Features:
> Client NAT with QoS (probably Wmm)
>
> The Ubiquiti NS2 has the following specifications
>
> NS2: $79.95 (integrated 10 dBi antenna with connector)
>
> +26 dBm Output Power Max
> -92 dBm @ 11 Mbps
> -74 dBm @ 54 Mbps
> Features:
> >From a manual review perspective, AirOS seems to do miles more than what a 
> >Trango CPQ can do
>
> So...there's not way you're going to spend $100 on a 19 dBi patch and a 
> pigtail...so, assuming availability wasn't an issue or you weren't sitting on 
> stock...why would you even buy a Tranzeo?
>
> -Charles
>
>   




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Mike Hammett]

I believe someone else on here said you can get them with 16 mb flash.


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


  - Original Message - 
  From: Blair Davis 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:34 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations


  Flash size and memory limits?

  fitting it into 4Mbyt might be easier with some functions deleted.

  Travis Johnson wrote: 
Why not just the normal, regular version? 

Blair Davis wrote: 
  Travis Johnson wrote: 
I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for the $119 
price running ROS today. Who do I make the P.O. out to? :)

  If you were able to place a P.O for a 2-3 thousand licenses to fit the NS 
2/5 mikrotik would likely deal  Just show them the money.

  But, what features do we really want in an NS version of mikrotik ROS? 


Travis
Microserv

Matt Ferre wrote: 
Because that would:

1. affect sales of routerboard hardware which they have complete
control on, on which they already spent a lot of money for development
and which (obviously) they prefer to sell,

2. could potentialy lead to situation same as with x86 version of MT,
which was supposed to be dropped from development recently only
because 99% of the users use 'emule' free version instead of paying
for the license.

3. the low end market you refer to, which may look like they want to
buy $40 RouterOS, won't do it. They are low end and additional $40 for
software license is not what they will afford, not in any reasonable
quantity anyway. But they would just LOVE point two to happen, which
would then seriously help point 1 to happen.

StarOS was supposed to be ported to LS2 long time ago, there ever were
official announcements about it happening. But then, that never
happened. Wonder why (perhaps because StarOS too has their own
hardware to sell and same reasons as Mikrotik, perhaps only in smaller
amplitude).

Matt


On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
really expressed and interest in working with them.

Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Matt Ferre wrote:
Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
see why.

Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


  Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?

  My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
*http://www.bu

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

[Blair Davis]

Long time, Charles!

All my 802.11bg problems are client talking to AP.  In all cases, the
client can hear the AP just fine.

Charles Wu wrote:

  Hi Blair,

A TR-CPQ-x has the following specifications

CPQ-N: $165
CPZ-19: $175 (integrated 19 dBi antenna)

+23 dBm Output Power Max
  

23dbm into a 19db antenna = 42dbm out (cpe to AP)


  -85 dBm @ 11 Mbps
-72 dBm @ 54 Mbps
Features:
Client NAT with QoS (probably Wmm)
  

Not an issue as I bridge to users router

  
The Ubiquiti NS2 has the following specifications

NS2: $79.95 (integrated 10 dBi antenna with connector)

+26 dBm Output Power Max
  

26dbm into a 10db antenna = 36dbm out (cpe to AP)

  -92 dBm @ 11 Mbps
-74 dBm @ 54 Mbps
Features:
>From a manual review perspective, AirOS seems to do miles more than what a Trango CPQ can do
  

Not an issue as I bridge to users router

Sometimes, I really need that extra 6db!

  
So...there's not way you're going to spend $100 on a 19 dBi patch and a pigtail...so, assuming availability wasn't an issue or you weren't sitting on stock...why would you even buy a Tranzeo?
  

Because, as I have aged, I find that I LOVE all-in-one radio/antenna
with NO connections exposed to the weather!  And no coax to kink... Or
fill with water... And no more Coax Seal or mastic!!  And from a
troubleshooting/repair standpoint it makes things so simple.  Swap the
radio, load the settings and you are out of there!

But, I still use Hyperlink 24db grids with the tranzeo CPQ-N as
needed.  I plan to use the NS 2 with them now, as needed, but it is
rare.  Most of the time, when I need that much extra, I put the user on
turbocell.  Soon to be netstream...


  
-Charles



---
WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Blair Davis
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

Charles,

I use tranzeo for my 802.11b/g clients since about 2 years ago or so.  I
am now deploying the NS 2 as I can.get units and where approiate.  I
will still use the tranzeo cpq-15, (think it replaced by the sl2 now),
and the cpq-19 as needed.

Charles Wu wrote:
  
  
So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding Nanostations has peaked my interest...so, to satisfy my own curiosity,  I decided to do some research on Nanostations

(I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market)

Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more "WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi


  
  I'd agree with this.  I don't use that gear because an ap of mine might
only have 6 clients and I can not justify the high AP costs and high CPE
costs.
  
  
That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features of the Nanostation and AirOS


  
  IMHO, correct.  But for light duty residental users, they work well and
allow us to keep the install costs down.
  
  
If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that $150 / CPE level


  
  I agree, and because of that, the crossroads has no appeal for me, yet.
I am considering them as a path to netstream on 2.4GHz to replace my
turbocell stuff, as most all of my turbocell gear was assembled by me.
  
  
With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based WISP buy anything else?


  
  Where its antenna gain is enought, I won't.  Where I need more gain,
I'll use tranzeo
  
  
-Charles

---
WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Blair Davis
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

You know,

It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either...

It needs to be a client.  802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of us.

A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size needed.

Just a thought.

Travis Johnson wrote:
Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per month of now).

If it's a busin

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

[Scottie Arnett]

Charles, we are a Canopy shop. I think most are looking at the ability to 
compete more profitably with DSL/cable...at least that is what I am after. Not 
counting the build out of lines/cable to the customer, the DSL/Cable Co's are 
out around $50 or less for the CPE end. I have not looked in a while, but about 
2 years ago I could get some used 24/48 port dslams for around $3,000...just 
saw a 48 port lucent stinger on ebay for $1500...so about the same price of a 
new 900Mhz Canopy AP.

While it cost us WISP alot less than DSL/Cable to build our infrastructure, 
they are out MUCH less for the CPE end and offering carrier class broadband. I 
am putting the cable buildout to the side, because they already had this done 
for telephone/TV and have that added revenue to pay for that already.

So, yes, a sub $100 CPE is what I am looking for. It may not be carrier class, 
but if it works...I am all for it.

just my thoughts,
Scottie Arnett 

-- Original Message --
From: Charles Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Date:  Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:11:58 -0500

>So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding Nanostations has 
>peaked my interest...so, to satisfy my own curiosity,  I decided to do some 
>research on Nanostations
>
>(I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as 
>I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market)
>
>Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to 
>being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with the 
>Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those 
>products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more 
>"WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi
>
>That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not running 
>a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is Tranzeo, 
>however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" (SL2) product 
>still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features of the 
>Nanostation and AirOS
>
>If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in 
>the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that 
>$150 / CPE level
>
>With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based 
>WISP buy anything else?
>
>-Charles
>
>---
>WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
>Coming to a City Near You
>http://www.winog.com
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis
>Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>
>You know,
>
>It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either...
>
>It needs to be a client.  802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp 
>client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of us.
>
>A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size needed.
>
>Just a thought.
>
>Travis Johnson wrote:
>Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they 
>currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per 
>month of now).
>
>If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP.
>
>Travis
>
>Matt Ferre wrote:
>
>One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their'
>
>version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the
>
>momentum.
>
>
>
>First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse
>
>in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at
>
>that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based
>
>applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on
>
>their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had
>
>any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all
>
>your problems.
>
>
>
>Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At
>
>that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.
>
>
>
>Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely
>
>similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.
>
>
>
>And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
>
>oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
>
>having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
>
>Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
>
>supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
>
>hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
>
>why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
>
>giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
>
>manufactured and shipped and warrantied to so

[WISPA] Tower Climber Salary

[John McDowell]

I'm looking for a replacement and have a fella on board I'm sending to
ComTrain.
What is a competitive climbing salary for someone just starting out?

-- 
John M. McDowell
Boonlink Communications
307 Grand Ave NW
Fort Payne, AL 35967
256.844.9932
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.boonlink.com






This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged.
Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee),
you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any
information contained in the message. If you have received the message in
error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing,
spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your
computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the
source, please contact the sender directly.



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Dennis Burgess]

Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86.  Seeing that 
they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform!  

Scottie Arnett wrote:
> DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few chipsets. They 
> are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if Mikrotikl drops 
> support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a new project starts very 
> quickly to serve that need.
>
> Scott
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> Date:  Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:19 -0600
>
>   
>> I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this.
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>>
>>
>> 
>>> Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book..  Remember
>>> how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game?  How the company
>>> that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard?
>>>
>>> For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
>>> card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or
>>> something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
>>> firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
>>> code already written and being developed?
>>>
>>> Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
>>> at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
>>> solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.
>>>
>>> Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
>>> of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into
>>> some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
>>> "port" every stinking firmware flavor.
>>>
>>> Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
>>> business model .. ever?
>>>
>>> And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this firmware
>>> does X better".  Is there anything particularly different between
>>> Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?
>>>
>>> - japhy
>>>
>>>
>>>   
 And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
 oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
 having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
 Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
 supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
 hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



 On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 
> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.
>
> People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
> an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
> unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
> than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
> would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.
>
> If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
> market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
> would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
> well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
> $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
> network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
> manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
> especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
> really expressed and interest in working with them.
>
> Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is 
> interested...
>
> Sam Tetherow
> Sandhills Wireless
>
> Matt Ferre wrote:
>   
>> Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
>> exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
>> see why.
>>
>> Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
>> their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
>> they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
>> software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
>> situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
>> ever.
>>
>>

Re: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary

[Charles Wu]

We pay a starting "tower climber" (he can climb and screw bolts) who shows up 
to work on-time everday, has a solid driving record, and a clean drug test -- 
$30-35k / year with full benefits including health, dental, 401k, etc depending 
on his level of experience -- even if he is Comtrain certified, we perform our 
own internal certification and training program with them for liability / 
insurance and general business operations purposes...(failing a drug test is 
cause for immediate dismissal)

After a year, as they've gained experience with radios / Rf / etc and done a 
good job...they'll be close $40k / year (which is where they stay until they 
can run a crew / become a foreman / run a project / etc)

That said, I've heard "tower dog" salaries starting at $12-15 / hour (no 
benefits), but we generally like to pay above the market average, as we've 
found that it pays off more in the longer term (less turnover, less employee 
problems, better people...etc)

That said, I'm in one of the largest population centers in the country, so YMMV

-Charles

---
WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John McDowell
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:34 PM
To: motorola; WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary

I'm looking for a replacement and have a fella on board I'm sending to
ComTrain.
What is a competitive climbing salary for someone just starting out?

--
John M. McDowell
Boonlink Communications
307 Grand Ave NW
Fort Payne, AL 35967
256.844.9932
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.boonlink.com






This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged.
Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee),
you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any
information contained in the message. If you have received the message in
error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing,
spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your
computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the
source, please contact the sender directly.



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Japhy Bartlett]

A sort of naive question:

Is the polling from tc particularly different?  Does it need to be
done via MAC and not IP?

dhcpd can easily assign IPs based on the client's MAC.

Do people just need a GUI on top of OpenWRT?

-j

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PPPoE, NAT and the queuing are all pretty much available as is in
> Linux.  The part that really needs to be written, it my opinion is the
> polling MAC which is not something many people are probably qualified to
> do.  It is not a trivial problem to get right, I'm not sure how much is
> out there that one could base their code on and I don't know too many
> people that are willing to alpha test live customers on one ;)
>
> I think it would be cool, but I don't have the time to invest in it.  I
> would be happy to spend a bit of time working on other stuff, such as
> wrapping the queuing, nat or other bits, but to actually spend the time
> to implement a new MAC, I don't have the skills and don't see me having
> the time to acquire those skills to make it happen.  But if we find
> someone, count me in ;)
>
>Sam Tetherow
>Sandhills Wireless
>
> Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
>> Well, if there was a framework of working code, and a group to help write a
>> spec, I am sure some of us would hack at some of it.  For example, a
>> fraction of NAT or PPPoE or a filter or whatever could be done in bite size
>> pieces.  I would love to write a small chunk.  I used to support myself
>> writing code and still find it mildly theraputic when I seldom get the
>> chance.  But I really have no clue as to how much ROS or any of the other
>> products cost as we are a 100% canopy shop.
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Sam Tetherow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:06 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think for the most part those that would like something like this and
>>> have the skills to do it, don't have the time to do the initial work or
>>> support it.  It is easier to just buy StarOS or ROS, or buy equipment
>>> that already has the license for it.
>>>
>>>Sam Tetherow
>>>Sandhills Wireless
>>>
>>> Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
>>>
 I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this.

 - Original Message -
 From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 To: "WISPA General List" 
 Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations




> Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book..  Remember
> how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game?  How the company
> that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard?
>
> For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
> card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or
> something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
> firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
> code already written and being developed?
>
> Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
> at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
> solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.
>
> Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
> of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into
> some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
> "port" every stinking firmware flavor.
>
> Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
> business model .. ever?
>
> And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this firmware
> does X better".  Is there anything particularly different between
> Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?
>
> - japhy
>
>
>
>
>> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
>> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
>> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
>> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
>> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
>> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't
>>> understand
>>> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
>>> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
>>> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
>>> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick
>>> up
>>> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.
>>>
>>> People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even
>>