Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
I spent an hour or so yesterday on the phone with the Director of Sales for Exalt. We are working on getting one of their backhauls in for testing now. From the specs... I like that I can deploy it similar to Canopy backhauls because of the sync. I like that it is a tri-band radio like the Trango Atlas. I like that it has software switchable polarization like the Trango Atlas. I like that it has multiple choices for channel width. I dislike that it takes a 64Mhz channel to get 100Mbps full duplex. -Matt Bob Moldashel wrote: OK...Lets have a review.. It does not use the whole band. It has GPS sync so you can use multiple links on the same channel. That makes it efficient... It works for the application.. There is a big difference of opinion here regarding spectrum usage. My way of seeing it is as follows. 1. I always install links with the largest possible antennas to keep my beamwidth as narrow as possible regardless of distance. In NYC I consistently use 2' antennas for links one mile or less. 2. We use only the power we need to do the job. Many of our links are running 0-5 dB of output at the radio. 3. We always mount antennas using rooftop structures or adjacent buildings to shield us from others. 4. Interference happens. We have not had any interference with FD constant carrier radios. Period. Another position is why should several users be allowed to use equipment that eats up the band passing say a simple video stream and such?? How is that efficient They are eating channels running a couple of megs.I'm eating it running 100 Mb FD. How about the WISP's that are using 120* sector antennas and throwing RF all over the place every time one of his 3 subscribers decides to use their system?? How is that spectrum efficency??? Or the guy that uses an omni and the 1 watt amp??? I can go on and on. The spectrum is limited. That sucks. But business is business and it is important to do what is necessary to provide for your business at the most cost effective manner possible. Is WalMart going to be considerate of you if you have a little 5 10 store on the next block??? Of course not. And why??? Because they are serving the masses at a price that the masses want and that is what it takes to serve the masses. Will some of the 510 operators go out of business because they can't compete?? Sure they will. Its called competition. And that is just what Matt is doing. If he has the demand then he needs to do what is necessary. If his business model does not allow him to purchase expensive licensed equipment over cheaper unlicensed equipment then so be it. That's business. I came from the 2 way radio industry. I fought the beast (Nextel) for several years before it finally killed the 2-way radio industry. I was somewhat fortunate because we did predominately Public Safety and Government accounts. We were the ones to get up at 2AM on a Sunday to fix a base station while all the 2-way shops that were doing 9-5 business customers were home sleeping. When nextel killed 2-way dispatch all the other radio shops decided to start fixing Public safety and Govt customer equip. The labor rate went from $100 per hour to $40 per hour just so guys could survive. Many went out of business. Am I upset??? Sure. Did I plan for my future?? Sure. We turned on big time to microwave 12 years ago when most of you didn't even know about it. As such we have avoided the dreaded Nextel monster. Am I going to be able to do what I am doing forever??? Of course not. I am already planning my next transition. If most of you guys think you are going to be WISP's 10+ years from now I think you need to re-examine your business plan I am sure that many will be unhappy with this rant but I think it needs to be real food for thought. If I was in business and i needed 100 Mb FD of throughput between locations I'll be damned if I am going to spend extra money for equipment so I don't interfere with someone else in the future. PLEASE NOTE*I AM NOT ENDORSING INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE BY ANYONE. So please don't say I am Good luck! -B- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
And, how much do you like the price? Travis Matt Liotta wrote: I spent an hour or so yesterday on the phone with the Director of Sales for Exalt. We are working on getting one of their backhauls in for testing now. From the specs... I like that I can deploy it similar to Canopy backhauls because of the sync. I like that it is a tri-band radio like the Trango Atlas. I like that it has software switchable polarization like the Trango Atlas. I like that it has multiple choices for channel width. I dislike that it takes a 64Mhz channel to get 100Mbps full duplex. -Matt Bob Moldashel wrote: OK...Lets have a review.. It does not use the whole band. It has GPS sync so you can use multiple links on the same channel. That makes it efficient... It works for the application.. There is a big difference of opinion here regarding spectrum usage. My way of seeing it is as follows. 1. I always install links with the largest possible antennas to keep my beamwidth as narrow as possible regardless of distance. In NYC I consistently use 2' antennas for links one mile or less. 2. We use only the power we need to do the job. Many of our links are running 0-5 dB of output at the radio. 3. We always mount antennas using rooftop structures or adjacent buildings to shield us from others. 4. Interference happens. We have not had any interference with FD constant carrier radios. Period. Another position is why should several users be allowed to use equipment that eats up the band passing say a simple video stream and such?? How is that efficient They are eating channels running a couple of megs.I'm eating it running 100 Mb FD. How about the WISP's that are using 120* sector antennas and throwing RF all over the place every time one of his 3 subscribers decides to use their system?? How is that spectrum efficency??? Or the guy that uses an omni and the 1 watt amp??? I can go on and on. The spectrum is limited. That sucks. But business is business and it is important to do what is necessary to provide for your business at the most cost effective manner possible. Is WalMart going to be considerate of you if you have a little 5 10 store on the next block??? Of course not. And why??? Because they are serving the masses at a price that the masses want and that is what it takes to serve the masses. Will some of the 510 operators go out of business because they can't compete?? Sure they will. Its called competition. And that is just what Matt is doing. If he has the demand then he needs to do what is necessary. If his business model does not allow him to purchase expensive licensed equipment over cheaper unlicensed equipment then so be it. That's business. I came from the 2 way radio industry. I fought the beast (Nextel) for several years before it finally killed the 2-way radio industry. I was somewhat fortunate because we did predominately Public Safety and Government accounts. We were the ones to get up at 2AM on a Sunday to fix a base station while all the 2-way shops that were doing 9-5 business customers were home sleeping. When nextel killed 2-way dispatch all the other radio shops decided to start fixing Public safety and Govt customer equip. The labor rate went from $100 per hour to $40 per hour just so guys could survive. Many went out of business. Am I upset??? Sure. Did I plan for my future?? Sure. We turned on big time to microwave 12 years ago when most of you didn't even know about it. As such we have avoided the dreaded Nextel monster. Am I going to be able to do what I am doing forever??? Of course not. I am already planning my next transition. If most of you guys think you are going to be WISP's 10+ years from now I think you need to re-examine your business plan I am sure that many will be unhappy with this rant but I think it needs to be real food for thought. If I was in business and i needed 100 Mb FD of throughput between locations I'll be damned if I am going to spend extra money for equipment so I don't interfere with someone else in the future. PLEASE NOTE*I AM NOT ENDORSING INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE BY ANYONE. So please don't say I am Good luck! -B- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
throughput backhaul options Matt Liotta wrote: Matt Liotta wrote: Its not greedy; efficient maybe, but not greedy. Whoops... meant inefficient. -Matt 100 Mb FD on a 32 Mhz. channel.That's not bad. Besides...get the GPS syc option and you can tie in a handful of links on the same channel. That makes them very efficient -B- -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Not sure which radios your reffering to as not being FCC certified but you should dig deeper than the surface. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 7:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Gigacom product is the only one that you can get any real long distance out of depending on the freq. They have licensed radios that perform very well in the rainforest of South America at very long distance. 60k or 40 miles for some applications at speeds of up to a Gig. One of if not the best Gig. radio on the mrkt. Those radios aren't FCC certified. And no, I won't being using an experimental license until they are certified like the sales person suggested. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Again, since we only run PtP gear our signal well exceeds everyone else's. That's my point. You feel it doesn't matter because your signal is stronger and you initially survive. The Ostrage syndrom, if I stick my head in a hole and don't see it, it must not be there. Or the I care about me mentality. The point is, it doesn't stay that way. Soon your competitor has a PTP to, but now at an even higher signal above yours. Before you know it, you both are escalating to 4ft dishes and heavy duty mounts, and hit with bills for second trips by installation constractor to install them, and negotiations with property owners to install them, etc. Again, if you aren't interfering with other, and spectrum is free, my arguement does not apply. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options Tom DeReggi wrote: Matt, If you live in a remote area, with no potential interferers, then my comment does not apply. But last I heard you were deploying in the middle of Urban Atlanta and possibly Urban DC, with the potential for many interferers eventually. We mostly deploy in urban areas, but we do a good bit of rural as well. We don't really run into interference from others; mostly self-interference from putting too many links on a site. Again, since we only run PtP gear our signal well exceeds everyone else's. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Tom DeReggi wrote: If our link is up, and we see new interference on it, we go after the interferer until they move. I can tell you, if someone puts up a radio using all 100mhz of spectrum, and it happens to cross one of our cellsite or subscribers taking them down, the offendor's link will be taken down (made unusable) within 24 hours, that I promise and guarantee. Why do I say that, because I'm follow your advise Bob, business is business. What comes around goes around. I got a radio on the shelf that I call the Equalizer ready and waiting, and 200 class A/B roof tops to create a ligitimate PtP link to take it down. NOBODY is above/invulnerable to interference. And a tech is fooling theirself is their strategy is they are always going to deploy smarter than the next guy. We all have the same gear available to us. The above both in your suggested course of action and the fact that you state it on a public mailing list easily searchable by Google almost ensures a law suit should you ever take your suggested course of action. There are numerous better ways to deal with interference and/or competitors. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Travis Johnson wrote: And, how much do you like the price? I haven't gotten final pricing yet, but I was led to believe it was comparable to Orthogon. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Bob, Great rant! Coming from the same industry you have I totally agree. You have to face the facts unpleasant as they may be. This reminds me of the old saying My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts! Too many start up WISP's have this viewpoint and won't pay attention to folks like you who have been down this wireless road time and time again. History does repeat itself, for those who have not been in this game long enough to have lived it, they should take advice from those like you have already learned the lessons at least once if not twice before Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: Bob Moldashel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:43 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options OK...Lets have a review.. It does not use the whole band. It has GPS sync so you can use multiple links on the same channel. That makes it efficient... It works for the application.. There is a big difference of opinion here regarding spectrum usage. My way of seeing it is as follows. 1. I always install links with the largest possible antennas to keep my beamwidth as narrow as possible regardless of distance. In NYC I consistently use 2' antennas for links one mile or less. 2. We use only the power we need to do the job. Many of our links are running 0-5 dB of output at the radio. 3. We always mount antennas using rooftop structures or adjacent buildings to shield us from others. 4. Interference happens. We have not had any interference with FD constant carrier radios. Period. Another position is why should several users be allowed to use equipment that eats up the band passing say a simple video stream and such?? How is that efficient They are eating channels running a couple of megs.I'm eating it running 100 Mb FD. How about the WISP's that are using 120* sector antennas and throwing RF all over the place every time one of his 3 subscribers decides to use their system?? How is that spectrum efficency??? Or the guy that uses an omni and the 1 watt amp??? I can go on and on. The spectrum is limited. That sucks. But business is business and it is important to do what is necessary to provide for your business at the most cost effective manner possible. Is WalMart going to be considerate of you if you have a little 5 10 store on the next block??? Of course not. And why??? Because they are serving the masses at a price that the masses want and that is what it takes to serve the masses. Will some of the 510 operators go out of business because they can't compete?? Sure they will. Its called competition. And that is just what Matt is doing. If he has the demand then he needs to do what is necessary. If his business model does not allow him to purchase expensive licensed equipment over cheaper unlicensed equipment then so be it. That's business. I came from the 2 way radio industry. I fought the beast (Nextel) for several years before it finally killed the 2-way radio industry. I was somewhat fortunate because we did predominately Public Safety and Government accounts. We were the ones to get up at 2AM on a Sunday to fix a base station while all the 2-way shops that were doing 9-5 business customers were home sleeping. When nextel killed 2-way dispatch all the other radio shops decided to start fixing Public safety and Govt customer equip. The labor rate went from $100 per hour to $40 per hour just so guys could survive. Many went out of business. Am I upset??? Sure. Did I plan for my future?? Sure. We turned on big time to microwave 12 years ago when most of you didn't even know about it. As such we have avoided the dreaded Nextel monster. Am I going to be able to do what I am doing forever??? Of course not. I am already planning my next transition. If most of you guys think you are going to be WISP's 10+ years from now I think you need to re-examine your business plan I am sure that many will be unhappy with this rant but I think it needs to be real food for thought. If I was in business and i needed 100 Mb FD of throughput between locations I'll be damned if I am going to spend extra money for equipment so I don't interfere with someone else in the future. PLEASE NOTE*I AM NOT ENDORSING INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE BY ANYONE. So please don't say I am Good luck! -B- -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Matt, Is it 64 Mhz in both directions (full 64Mhz TX), or 32 mhz in each direction (one for TX one for RX)? If 32Mhz in each direction, I'd argue pretty darn efficient for 100mbps FDX. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:18 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options I spent an hour or so yesterday on the phone with the Director of Sales for Exalt. We are working on getting one of their backhauls in for testing now. From the specs... I like that I can deploy it similar to Canopy backhauls because of the sync. I like that it is a tri-band radio like the Trango Atlas. I like that it has software switchable polarization like the Trango Atlas. I like that it has multiple choices for channel width. I dislike that it takes a 64Mhz channel to get 100Mbps full duplex. -Matt Bob Moldashel wrote: OK...Lets have a review.. It does not use the whole band. It has GPS sync so you can use multiple links on the same channel. That makes it efficient... It works for the application.. There is a big difference of opinion here regarding spectrum usage. My way of seeing it is as follows. 1. I always install links with the largest possible antennas to keep my beamwidth as narrow as possible regardless of distance. In NYC I consistently use 2' antennas for links one mile or less. 2. We use only the power we need to do the job. Many of our links are running 0-5 dB of output at the radio. 3. We always mount antennas using rooftop structures or adjacent buildings to shield us from others. 4. Interference happens. We have not had any interference with FD constant carrier radios. Period. Another position is why should several users be allowed to use equipment that eats up the band passing say a simple video stream and such?? How is that efficient They are eating channels running a couple of megs.I'm eating it running 100 Mb FD. How about the WISP's that are using 120* sector antennas and throwing RF all over the place every time one of his 3 subscribers decides to use their system?? How is that spectrum efficency??? Or the guy that uses an omni and the 1 watt amp??? I can go on and on. The spectrum is limited. That sucks. But business is business and it is important to do what is necessary to provide for your business at the most cost effective manner possible. Is WalMart going to be considerate of you if you have a little 5 10 store on the next block??? Of course not. And why??? Because they are serving the masses at a price that the masses want and that is what it takes to serve the masses. Will some of the 510 operators go out of business because they can't compete?? Sure they will. Its called competition. And that is just what Matt is doing. If he has the demand then he needs to do what is necessary. If his business model does not allow him to purchase expensive licensed equipment over cheaper unlicensed equipment then so be it. That's business. I came from the 2 way radio industry. I fought the beast (Nextel) for several years before it finally killed the 2-way radio industry. I was somewhat fortunate because we did predominately Public Safety and Government accounts. We were the ones to get up at 2AM on a Sunday to fix a base station while all the 2-way shops that were doing 9-5 business customers were home sleeping. When nextel killed 2-way dispatch all the other radio shops decided to start fixing Public safety and Govt customer equip. The labor rate went from $100 per hour to $40 per hour just so guys could survive. Many went out of business. Am I upset??? Sure. Did I plan for my future?? Sure. We turned on big time to microwave 12 years ago when most of you didn't even know about it. As such we have avoided the dreaded Nextel monster. Am I going to be able to do what I am doing forever??? Of course not. I am already planning my next transition. If most of you guys think you are going to be WISP's 10+ years from now I think you need to re-examine your business plan I am sure that many will be unhappy with this rant but I think it needs to be real food for thought. If I was in business and i needed 100 Mb FD of throughput between locations I'll be damned if I am going to spend extra money for equipment so I don't interfere with someone else in the future. PLEASE NOTE*I AM NOT ENDORSING INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE BY ANYONE. So please don't say I am Good luck! -B- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
are adative to all the other noise sources. I'd still argue using a radio that is more efficient will have less risk, if one is available that can meet the need. The problem with using a radio that uses full 100mhz is that there is no way to immediately resurrect interference, with no channel to run to, without contacting the interferor. See my Walmart comments. Unfortunately sometimes you can talk to the competition until they are blue in the face and nothing will happen. This forces your interfered with to resort to desperate measures to resolve the interference on their own link. It brings out the worse in your newly created enemy. Its best to allow your apponent a mechanism to cure the problem without being required to taking you down back, and asking questions later. Its about conflict avoidance not winning a conflict. Agreed...But that is not going to win all the wars unfortunately.. It's the gentlemens way to do things but not everyone in business is a gentleman. The truth is its almost impossible to tell whether you will interfere with some one else. The reason is that you can scan for noise, but you can't tell what equipment the other party is using , what noise floor they require to opperate, or the distance of their link. Again if you scan first, and the channel is empty, there is no issue here. But I find it rare in DC to find ANY channel that is EMPTY. Oh..Oh..Then I guess you won't be too happy if I tell you I have deployed 5 Exalt links in Wash. DC. 100 Mb 5 Ghz...g The challenge is usually what do I have to do to get over the noise floor. A 2ft dish still have a beamwidth of minimum 6deg, which covers a lot of territory indense Urban america. You can only do the best you can with what you can afford. My reply was not directed towards your response. It was directed to the thread in general. With unlicensed equipment there is going to be interference. And there are going to be companies that will go out of business because they can't compete wether it financially or with spectrum. Business is the oportunity to create something that will provide for others as well as for the owner. The federal government believes competition is good as we all know from the telco/LEC/CLEC/DLEC/ELEC/FLEC...etc, etc situation. But you and I as small business do not want competition (I surely don't...excuse me for being greedy :-)). If I was in the position, while it is not nice play, I would do everything in my power to use up as much of the spectrum as possible to keep others out. The oil companies do it every day. So do the pharmaceutical companies. As do others What the hell...look at Canopy. Do you think Motorola cares if they interfere with everyone and their brother??? NoThey care about market share at any legal means possible. And that's BIG business. :-) Have a great dayI have to go install another Exaly link in NYC and I'm late... -B- Rant done. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options Matt Liotta wrote: Matt Liotta wrote: Its not greedy; efficient maybe, but not greedy. Whoops... meant inefficient. -Matt 100 Mb FD on a 32 Mhz. channel.That's not bad. Besides...get the GPS syc option and you can tie in a handful of links on the same channel. That makes them very efficient -B- -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Wow Tom. That comment is really out of character and your emotions must have gotten the best of you. Doing what you suggest with your Equalizer is going to get you in a boat load of trouble one day. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 8:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options Tom DeReggi wrote: If our link is up, and we see new interference on it, we go after the interferer until they move. I can tell you, if someone puts up a radio using all 100mhz of spectrum, and it happens to cross one of our cellsite or subscribers taking them down, the offendor's link will be taken down (made unusable) within 24 hours, that I promise and guarantee. Why do I say that, because I'm follow your advise Bob, business is business. What comes around goes around. I got a radio on the shelf that I call the Equalizer ready and waiting, and 200 class A/B roof tops to create a ligitimate PtP link to take it down. NOBODY is above/invulnerable to interference. And a tech is fooling theirself is their strategy is they are always going to deploy smarter than the next guy. We all have the same gear available to us. The above both in your suggested course of action and the fact that you state it on a public mailing list easily searchable by Google almost ensures a law suit should you ever take your suggested course of action. There are numerous better ways to deal with interference and/or competitors. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
state it on a public mailing list easily searchable by Google almost ensures a law suit should you ever take your suggested course of action. There are numerous better ways to deal with interference and/or competitors. I disagree. The reason is I have the right to install a Point to Point Link between any two buildings that I want. And if that is to pass low volume monitoring traffic so be it. If it happens to pass through a Competor's link so be it. Knowing that it passes a competitor's link and will take it down is irrelevent, as I can establish a legitimate need to install that link. I've made no threat to anyone for the specific case that arises, in that process, and I have a legitimate purpose other than to take someone down. I just don't care that I know someone will go down as a result, in that scenario. That is absolutely no different than the original installer that isntalled with ZERO care of who they were going to take down when they isntalled. The difference is the tables are turned and it forces the original party to take the burden of the cost, and motivate the interfering party to be more considerate, after they demonstrated that they originally did not have any consideration. I've never seen a case won where, Provider A takes down PRovider B, And then Provider B equalizes things to defend their link, and Provider A tried to SUE provider B, when Provider B was the original one that got Harmed by A. There would be absolutely no sympathy for the situation of Provider A. If anything, it could be argued by PRovider B, that Provider A initiated intentional harm, and knew you were there to harm you. That would be jsut as easy to prove as the reverse. Bringong attention to this type of thing in Court would jsut be foolish. It would be a different story If Provider B pointed directly at Provider A, in a way that it could be proven that the intent was solely to harm. Your mentality suggests that it is the burden of the person that gets interfered with to eat the cost to identify and source out the new interferer. It takes time and money to identify the person that interferes with me. I believe it is the New Entrant that has the responsibility to make sure they minimize the chances they will not step on an existing someone. Its also harder to prove intentional harm, when you haven't identified who the individual is that you are harming. Its a simple morality issue of... 1. Do on to others as you would want them to do for you. 2. when that fails, eye for an eye, to get them to think about rule 1. 3. when they find you, and the phone call comes in, work amicably to resolve. I'm not sure there is a better way to deal with interference. However, I am open to suggestions. The truth is, its rare that this methodology has to ever occur. The reason is that most WISPS and integrators respect etiquette. And we always first look if there is a more cost effective way to resolve the problem, such as narrow our antenna beam, or repointing around interference. And if we can easilly find the other party, we'd usually try an make a call first. But the problem occurs when, the other party is not easily found, (the antenna is easy to find, the responsible party isn't always in a timely manor), and the link quality can not be quickly be resolved. The provider that gets interferred with is desperate and has a client to answer to, and then extreme measures are needed. When at that point, its about survival, and setting an example, because the last thing you want is a loose canon integrator in town. I am not making any accusation of whether you are or are not deploying responsibly with etiquette, but simply defending my case of how interference gets dealt with in the real world. But the problem isn't me and my suggestions. I only had to use the equalizer once, and it was effective, and I even shared the cost of upgrading gear to make a resolutiuon to co-exist. What needs to be understood is there are a lot of players out there, and they are likely to respond the way that I suggested. The bully or I'm stronger approach just doesn't work in unlicensed, the only things that works is maximum effort to avoid interference. With that said I believe that this thread is getting way beyond the scope of what the original thread was. As the intent of the thread was whats a good 100mbps FDX radio, and it appears suggestions like Exalt, are going in the right direction, as responsible choices. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options Tom DeReggi wrote: If our link is up, and we see new interference on it, we go after the interferer until they move. I can tell you, if someone puts up a radio using all 100mhz
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
deployed 5 Exalt links in Wash. DC. 100 Mb 5 Ghz...g No, I'm happy to hear that, because you must be using thoughtful techniques, because They have not caused me interference that I am aware of, or atleast not that I have not been able to survive. The challenge is usually what do I have to do to get over the noise floor. A 2ft dish still have a beamwidth of minimum 6deg, which covers a lot of territory indense Urban america. You can only do the best you can with what you can afford. I agree. But it doesn't sound like you are installing cheap gear, and you have lots of option within what you can afford. My reply was not directed towards your response. It was directed to the thread in general. With unlicensed equipment there is going to be interference. And there are going to be companies that will go out of business because they can't compete wether it financially or with spectrum. I agree. Business is the oportunity to create something that will provide for others as well as for the owner. The federal government believes competition is good as we all know from the telco/LEC/CLEC/DLEC/ELEC/FLEC...etc, etc situation. But you and I as small business do not want competition (I surely don't...excuse me for being greedy :-)). If I was in the position, while it is not nice play, I would do everything in my power to use up as much of the spectrum as possible to keep others out. The oil companies do it every day. So do the pharmaceutical companies. As do others What the hell...look at Canopy. Do you think Motorola cares if they interfere with everyone and their brother??? NoThey care about market share at any legal means possible. I respect your honesty, and it may be a reality of competition, but Thats where I disagree. I do not believe there is anything wrong with installing gear, that you eventually plan to use, to reserve your space in your market. A perfect example is installing a full 360 degrees with 6 sectors of TDD always transmitting gear, even when you may only have 1 client one day one. The intent is to market and use the spectrum that you are operating on. Its even respectful to other players because it tells them where you are, so they can avoid interfering with you. But what you are suggesting is Spectrum Squatting, a technique that many WISPs use, but that I do not feels respects etiquette or a principle that any WISPA member should support. Wasting spectrum is probably the biggest disservice to consumers, the industry, the goal to deliver broadband to all America, and give consumer's choice. I recognize there are some grey lines on that topic. For example justifying a DSSS radio over a more efficient OFDM, because it may be the reality of last man standing in noisy competitive environements. Tom DeReggi And that's BIG business. :-) Have a great dayI have to go install another Exaly link in NYC and I'm late... -B- Rant done. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options Matt Liotta wrote: Matt Liotta wrote: Its not greedy; efficient maybe, but not greedy. Whoops... meant inefficient. -Matt 100 Mb FD on a 32 Mhz. channel.That's not bad. Besides...get the GPS syc option and you can tie in a handful of links on the same channel. That makes them very efficient -B- -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
OK...Lets look at this whole issue with one other twist. Let's say you need a large pipe to carry 100 Mb full duplex between 2 locations. You happen top have a $15K link sitting on the shelf that you could deploy. In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 miles away. What do you do??? Incur more expenses by buying another link that will not cause interference?? Do you pay the ILEC/CLEC?etc for a 100 Mb pipe??? Or do you put it up and just go with it??? I bet I know what most of you would do. Werger or not you will print it is another issue. But let's hear it. What would ya do?. -B- -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Your point is extremely valuble considering there are alot of people out there claiming to use point to point radios when in reality they are putting up a Multipiont ap and sm with the spray and pray mantality. ( extremly unengineered and poorly erenginered.) Some of those same people don't have any kind of safty program. Yet they want to hire someone else to take all the risk not pay them and have the audasity to point the finger at someone else when they have issues. Usually done because as you stated they only care about me and could really care less about the industry the customers or average Joe that is just trying to connect two offices that are miles or blocks apart that doesn't even fit on the competion platform. There are alot of start ups that do this. I can't tell you how many I have worked with. Some are members of this digest. Its the same old game of I'm and expert after only a yr or so in the industry. While thats great for an upstart that doesn't really have any competition it is a grave industry down fall. Unengineered or poorly engineered links end up eating alot of man hours troubleshooting. The spray and pray mantality has no place in our industry its for amatures. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options Considering my name comes up here several times I guess I should reply Tom DeReggi wrote: So there is no misunderstanding. My original comment was based on radios like early WMUX, that used the whole spectrum range. I have nothing against high capacity radios 100mbps FDX and Higher. I don't have anything against selecting higher capacity radios when needed, or chosing a radio that is less efficient because it is the only radio capable to meet the need, or required to get the job done. Where my beef is, is using an unefficient radio to accomplish something when an efficient radio is available to deliver equivellent speed (at a reasonable cost). Price is not everything. As WISPs we have a responsibility to do the best job we can. We are not obligated to sacrifice, but we are obligated to live by example and do the best we can, with consideration of others in the environment. If someone is doing that, I have no beef, regardless of the technology that is used. Unfortunately you are not going to get the same latency with a half duplex radio. So latency is one issue. Another is security. Using something that is proprietary also makes your network more secure. So those are 2 good issues to coinsider why to not use something like a Trango for large scale backhaul. My post was not about wether PTP or PTMP or any specific radio or deployment design was more efficient than another, and irrelevent because there is a requirement for all types that have issues more important than the efficiency. My point was what ever method was chosen, the provider should be aware to install the most efficient system possible that does not have a significant trade off, within reason. But what do you consider a significant tradeoff??? I'd always recommend a 100mbps FX radio that used 32 mhz of spectrum over one that used 100Mhz of spectrum. That's fine as long as it meets your business model. But is the 100 Mhz. is more economical and I am not using that spectrum, then why not use it?? There are so many people that just put up links, and then say if I don't have problem with interference thats all that matters. That is selfish and foolish. What should they do?? Assume that they are causing interference and what??? Shut down??? I think the best you can do is design a system within your knowledge base and budget. Its not true that interference is bi-directional. I know that... The high gain system is going to kill the lower gain system. Usually. C/I is obviously important. The responsible thing to do is to do a channel scan/survey to see the free-est channel, and then broadcast on that channel, with the intent to avoid interference to others. But you know that's not a given... It is clear as day what is and isn't good etiquette, and those that do not follow it, will ultimately loose in my prediction. In my earlier days, if I felt interference, I just switched to another channel to avoid the conflict, an advantage Trango gave me easilly. Exalt does that in 1 Mhz. channels. And you can switch polarities via software also. But we don't do it anymore, we hold our ground. If our link is up, and we see new interference on it, we go after the interferer until they move. What does go after mean I can tell you, if someone puts up a radio using all 100mhz of spectrum, and it happens to cross one of our cellsite or subscribers taking them down, the offendor's link will be taken down (made unusable) within
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Well, SOP in a case like this is to find a way to not cause catastrophic interference to anyone that was there first. Lets change your example a little bit. Lets make it a link that the E911 system uses. You gonna blow it offline just because you can? Should you do that? What would your reputation in the community be? Now lets go up another level. When you blow your competitor offline, what does that do the your industry's reputation? Did you really gain anything, in the long run, by doing so? Nope. You hurt him AND you shot yourself in the foot by causing more doubt about your technology choices. Then there's always that ol' fashioned notion of an eye for an eye, or do unto others. grin Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options OK...Lets look at this whole issue with one other twist. Let's say you need a large pipe to carry 100 Mb full duplex between 2 locations. You happen top have a $15K link sitting on the shelf that you could deploy. In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 miles away. What do you do??? Incur more expenses by buying another link that will not cause interference?? Do you pay the ILEC/CLEC?etc for a 100 Mb pipe??? Or do you put it up and just go with it??? I bet I know what most of you would do. Werger or not you will print it is another issue. But let's hear it. What would ya do?. -B- -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
You are still totally missing the point... In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 miles away. What do you do??? Thats not generally the outcome. If the little WISP down the street just goes away, there is no problem. But he doesn't because his whole livelihood is invested in his WISP business. What happens is after you wipe out the poor little WISP 2 miles away, the little WISP buys a big club (big radio) and wipes you out back, and smiles after he Wiped out the poor little you. This isn't a battle about 15K gear and cheap gear. Its been proven over and over again that cooperation is more effective than fighting a WAR. The BIG rich over confident provider no longer has the upper hand to bully the little poor WISP2, just because they are better funded. Its amazing what harm a $200 WARboard and 400mw card will do with a $180 3ft PAC Wireless dish. Not that I'm suggest attempt harm. I'm just saying WISP2 can now afford to grab just a big a club as you can. This is a REAL Risk, and equalizes the playing field. You play nice or everyone looses. I never said its not occasionally necessary to install over someone else. You do what you need to do, to get the link done. I simply suggested to avoid it when you can, unless their was just cause to do other wise. I just can't understand why participants on this thread have not grasped this simple principle. If you don't get it by now, I'm wasting my breath. I'm done with this one. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options OK...Lets look at this whole issue with one other twist. Let's say you need a large pipe to carry 100 Mb full duplex between 2 locations. You happen top have a $15K link sitting on the shelf that you could deploy. In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 miles away. What do you do??? Incur more expenses by buying another link that will not cause interference?? Do you pay the ILEC/CLEC?etc for a 100 Mb pipe??? Or do you put it up and just go with it??? I bet I know what most of you would do. Werger or not you will print it is another issue. But let's hear it. What would ya do?. -B- -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Oh Comon' Dude. A life safety system on unlicensed microwave??? What idiot would put the E911 system on Part 15 to begin with? That's just a lawsuit looking to happen. And as far as your second example...what happens when the other WISP is uneducated and builds a crappy system and his network is up and down and operates poorly?? What happens when the end user starts bitchin then??? What happens when Chavez stops selling us oil??? What happens when the mailman suddenly wants Saturdays off??? What happens.. If the competition gets blown off the air, I sell my service to the customer and work hard not to suffer the issues that he had with the prior provider. The customer in most cases goes with price and reliability, not type of service method. You know that :-) -B- Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Well, SOP in a case like this is to find a way to not cause catastrophic interference to anyone that was there first. Lets change your example a little bit. Lets make it a link that the E911 system uses. You gonna blow it offline just because you can? Should you do that? What would your reputation in the community be? Now lets go up another level. When you blow your competitor offline, what does that do the your industry's reputation? Did you really gain anything, in the long run, by doing so? Nope. You hurt him AND you shot yourself in the foot by causing more doubt about your technology choices. Then there's always that ol' fashioned notion of an eye for an eye, or do unto others. grin Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options OK...Lets look at this whole issue with one other twist. Let's say you need a large pipe to carry 100 Mb full duplex between 2 locations. You happen top have a $15K link sitting on the shelf that you could deploy. In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 miles away. What do you do??? Incur more expenses by buying another link that will not cause interference?? Do you pay the ILEC/CLEC?etc for a 100 Mb pipe??? Or do you put it up and just go with it??? I bet I know what most of you would do. Werger or not you will print it is another issue. But let's hear it. What would ya do?. -B- -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Tom, You have been responding to this whole thread like I have been attacking your position. I'm not. My statement in a summary... Efficient use of the spectrum has multiple positions. Unfortunately others may not fit into my business plan. I am not saying blow them off the air and not work with them. I am saying that if someone comes along and can't make their new service work because I occupy the whole band then that sucks to be him. There are going to be situations where people are going to get interfered with. If there wasn't, the Commission would have licensed the band as you know. There will be survivors and there will be descendants. I like being a survivor -B- BTW: The WAR board is not type accepted. But you know that. :-P Tom DeReggi wrote: You are still totally missing the point... In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 miles away. What do you do??? Thats not generally the outcome. If the little WISP down the street just goes away, there is no problem. But he doesn't because his whole livelihood is invested in his WISP business. What happens is after you wipe out the poor little WISP 2 miles away, the little WISP buys a big club (big radio) and wipes you out back, and smiles after he Wiped out the poor little you. This isn't a battle about 15K gear and cheap gear. Its been proven over and over again that cooperation is more effective than fighting a WAR. The BIG rich over confident provider no longer has the upper hand to bully the little poor WISP2, just because they are better funded. Its amazing what harm a $200 WARboard and 400mw card will do with a $180 3ft PAC Wireless dish. Not that I'm suggest attempt harm. I'm just saying WISP2 can now afford to grab just a big a club as you can. This is a REAL Risk, and equalizes the playing field. You play nice or everyone looses. I never said its not occasionally necessary to install over someone else. You do what you need to do, to get the link done. I simply suggested to avoid it when you can, unless their was just cause to do other wise. I just can't understand why participants on this thread have not grasped this simple principle. If you don't get it by now, I'm wasting my breath. I'm done with this one. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options OK...Lets look at this whole issue with one other twist. Let's say you need a large pipe to carry 100 Mb full duplex between 2 locations. You happen top have a $15K link sitting on the shelf that you could deploy. In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 miles away. What do you do??? Incur more expenses by buying another link that will not cause interference?? Do you pay the ILEC/CLEC?etc for a 100 Mb pipe??? Or do you put it up and just go with it??? I bet I know what most of you would do. Werger or not you will print it is another issue. But let's hear it. What would ya do?. -B- -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
The right thing to do is to coordinate the install with the wisp so you can monitor the exsisting link while installing the new and have plan B ready to go if there is a conflict. No harm no foul. That can be a challenge if you don't know the wisp is even there. I have done this repeatedly with Government agencies trying to use unlicensed gear in an ever growing wisp markets. For you non believers a spectrum scan gives you great insite into what is out there. So you can plan ( engineer ) around it. If done properly, 360* on a verticle, horizontal, and diagnal polarity. You get great results. You may find complete spectrum saturation...you may find nothing..What ever you do don't do anything the right way and don't invest any money to do it right either. What do most do. Well I don't think I need to cover that, your point is well made. In south America several yrs ago it was called the AMP WARs which some members of this digest still do today. Thats the kind of unprofessionalism I am talking about. Thats also why it confuses me that so call professionals will use the cheapest spectrum hogs on the market and then brag about how big thier customer base is just to save a dollar and then bitch when they have issues with performance because they short cut and didn't bother with doing the home work. Youv'e gotta love Fluff. CHEAPER doesn't mean BETTER I don't care how well it suites your pocket book. If you can't afford to do it right then don't do it. If that means you need to hire someone to figure it out for you then hire them, but make damn sure you pay them if you want thier help in the future. If your not willing to invest in yourself then what kind of msg are you sending to your customers.Just keep sending me y our check.. I'll have a tech look into first thing tomorrow. Another truck roll and more unessesary time and money spent. I bet with all the truck rolls, time and money spent on troubleshooting you could have bought a magic carpet to deliver the customers bandwidth personaly. Point being with all the money wasted you could have bought the better gear, had a better network, do I dare say, a reliable network. It all adds up to dollars and sense. Unfortunatly the guy with the dollars seems to be the guy missing the sense. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 7:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options You are still totally missing the point... In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 miles away. What do you do??? Thats not generally the outcome. If the little WISP down the street just goes away, there is no problem. But he doesn't because his whole livelihood is invested in his WISP business. What happens is after you wipe out the poor little WISP 2 miles away, the little WISP buys a big club (big radio) and wipes you out back, and smiles after he Wiped out the poor little you. This isn't a battle about 15K gear and cheap gear. Its been proven over and over again that cooperation is more effective than fighting a WAR. The BIG rich over confident provider no longer has the upper hand to bully the little poor WISP2, just because they are better funded. Its amazing what harm a $200 WARboard and 400mw card will do with a $180 3ft PAC Wireless dish. Not that I'm suggest attempt harm. I'm just saying WISP2 can now afford to grab just a big a club as you can. This is a REAL Risk, and equalizes the playing field. You play nice or everyone looses. I never said its not occasionally necessary to install over someone else. You do what you need to do, to get the link done. I simply suggested to avoid it when you can, unless their was just cause to do other wise. I just can't understand why participants on this thread have not grasped this simple principle. If you don't get it by now, I'm wasting my breath. I'm done with this one. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options OK...Lets look at this whole issue with one other twist. Let's say you need a large pipe to carry 100 Mb full duplex between 2 locations. You happen top have a $15K link sitting on the shelf that you could deploy. In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 miles away. What do you do??? Incur more expenses by buying another link that will not cause interference?? Do you pay the ILEC/CLEC?etc for a 100 Mb pipe??? Or do you put it up and just go with it??? I bet I know what most of you would do. Werger or not you will print it is another issue. But let's hear it. What would ya do?. -B- -- Bob Moldashel
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
I'll accept that reply, without disagreeance. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 8:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options Tom, You have been responding to this whole thread like I have been attacking your position. I'm not. My statement in a summary... Efficient use of the spectrum has multiple positions. Unfortunately others may not fit into my business plan. I am not saying blow them off the air and not work with them. I am saying that if someone comes along and can't make their new service work because I occupy the whole band then that sucks to be him. There are going to be situations where people are going to get interfered with. If there wasn't, the Commission would have licensed the band as you know. There will be survivors and there will be descendants. I like being a survivor -B- BTW: The WAR board is not type accepted. But you know that. :-P Tom DeReggi wrote: You are still totally missing the point... In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 miles away. What do you do??? Thats not generally the outcome. If the little WISP down the street just goes away, there is no problem. But he doesn't because his whole livelihood is invested in his WISP business. What happens is after you wipe out the poor little WISP 2 miles away, the little WISP buys a big club (big radio) and wipes you out back, and smiles after he Wiped out the poor little you. This isn't a battle about 15K gear and cheap gear. Its been proven over and over again that cooperation is more effective than fighting a WAR. The BIG rich over confident provider no longer has the upper hand to bully the little poor WISP2, just because they are better funded. Its amazing what harm a $200 WARboard and 400mw card will do with a $180 3ft PAC Wireless dish. Not that I'm suggest attempt harm. I'm just saying WISP2 can now afford to grab just a big a club as you can. This is a REAL Risk, and equalizes the playing field. You play nice or everyone looses. I never said its not occasionally necessary to install over someone else. You do what you need to do, to get the link done. I simply suggested to avoid it when you can, unless their was just cause to do other wise. I just can't understand why participants on this thread have not grasped this simple principle. If you don't get it by now, I'm wasting my breath. I'm done with this one. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options OK...Lets look at this whole issue with one other twist. Let's say you need a large pipe to carry 100 Mb full duplex between 2 locations. You happen top have a $15K link sitting on the shelf that you could deploy. In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 miles away. What do you do??? Incur more expenses by buying another link that will not cause interference?? Do you pay the ILEC/CLEC?etc for a 100 Mb pipe??? Or do you put it up and just go with it??? I bet I know what most of you would do. Werger or not you will print it is another issue. But let's hear it. What would ya do?. -B- -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Guys, We are now exceeding Orthogon's capacity on a regular basis. We are backhauling as much as we can with fiber, but that isn't an option in the suburbs. We have had good success with BridgeWave's products, but the distance is a problem. Any suggestions on a product that can do high throughput in the 5-10 mile range? I am looking for something that can easily exceed 100Mbps full duplex. I know the specs of the Orthogon Spectra and no it doesn't really get us past 100Mbps full duplex. 24Ghz unlicensed is looking like the sweet spot for us. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Replies below: Matt Liotta wrote: Guys, We are now exceeding Orthogon's capacity on a regular basis. Wow! Business must be good! We are backhauling as much as we can with fiber, but that isn't an option in the suburbs. We have had good success with BridgeWave's products, but the distance is a problem. Any suggestions on a product that can do high throughput in the 5-10 mile range? Look at licensed. I know that is obvious but I think it is the only way short of bonding Orthogons together. I thought the max distance for 70 GHz gbps radios was about 7 miles. It has been a while since I read the specs. I am sure the rain fade would be an issue here. There is actually much less attenuation of 70 GHz than there is at 60 GHz. There is a spike of absorption of 60 GHz where water molecules eat that signal. It gets better above 60 GHz. I believe that you can go through the air better with as high as 100 GHz than what you can with 60 GHz. Obviously there are other licensed options in lower frequency space as well. I know Charles has some experience running licensed high capacity backhaul. Charles, what do you run for backhaul over 100 mbps FDX? I am looking for something that can easily exceed 100Mbps full duplex. I know the specs of the Orthogon Spectra and no it doesn't really get us past 100Mbps full duplex. 24Ghz unlicensed is looking like the sweet spot for us. I thought 24 GHz unlicensed had limited bandspace which made the top end about 100 mbps FDX? I bet Bob Moldashel has hit this same wall before. What do you do in this situation Bob? He was one of the guys who helped put New York City data traffic back together after 911. Any thoughts Bob? Scriv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Are you looking at Unlicensed? I'm a fan of Mikrotik for high throughput, long distance links. With bonding you can easily get 100Mbps speeds, just keep adding links as your need grows. See this: 150 Mbps FDX, unlicensed, with failover http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Super_wireless_test -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: 12 December 2006 4:44 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options Guys, We are now exceeding Orthogon's capacity on a regular basis. We are backhauling as much as we can with fiber, but that isn't an option in the suburbs. We have had good success with BridgeWave's products, but the distance is a problem. Any suggestions on a product that can do high throughput in the 5-10 mile range? I am looking for something that can easily exceed 100Mbps full duplex. I know the specs of the Orthogon Spectra and no it doesn't really get us past 100Mbps full duplex. 24Ghz unlicensed is looking like the sweet spot for us. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
While I'm a fan of MikroTik, the test setup you show is not a viable solution in a real world deployment. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrea Coppini (AIR Networks) Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:27 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options Are you looking at Unlicensed? I'm a fan of Mikrotik for high throughput, long distance links. With bonding you can easily get 100Mbps speeds, just keep adding links as your need grows. See this: 150 Mbps FDX, unlicensed, with failover http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Super_wireless_test -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: 12 December 2006 4:44 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options Guys, We are now exceeding Orthogon's capacity on a regular basis. We are backhauling as much as we can with fiber, but that isn't an option in the suburbs. We have had good success with BridgeWave's products, but the distance is a problem. Any suggestions on a product that can do high throughput in the 5-10 mile range? I am looking for something that can easily exceed 100Mbps full duplex. I know the specs of the Orthogon Spectra and no it doesn't really get us past 100Mbps full duplex. 24Ghz unlicensed is looking like the sweet spot for us. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
170 Mb FD Dragonwave... About $20K Matt Liotta wrote: Guys, We are now exceeding Orthogon's capacity on a regular basis. We are backhauling as much as we can with fiber, but that isn't an option in the suburbs. We have had good success with BridgeWave's products, but the distance is a problem. Any suggestions on a product that can do high throughput in the 5-10 mile range? I am looking for something that can easily exceed 100Mbps full duplex. I know the specs of the Orthogon Spectra and no it doesn't really get us past 100Mbps full duplex. 24Ghz unlicensed is looking like the sweet spot for us. -Matt -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Agreed, 18GHz should fit the bill nicely for 100Mbps in the 5-10 miles range. 80GHz will do 100Mbps - 1000Mbps up to about 3-4miles. I hear 65GHz will do 100Mbps - 1000Mbps beyond 5miles. Of course it all depends on your acceptable uptime requirement. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:34 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options Replies below: Matt Liotta wrote: Guys, We are now exceeding Orthogon's capacity on a regular basis. Wow! Business must be good! We are backhauling as much as we can with fiber, but that isn't an option in the suburbs. We have had good success with BridgeWave's products, but the distance is a problem. Any suggestions on a product that can do high throughput in the 5-10 mile range? Look at licensed. I know that is obvious but I think it is the only way short of bonding Orthogons together. I thought the max distance for 70 GHz gbps radios was about 7 miles. It has been a while since I read the specs. I am sure the rain fade would be an issue here. There is actually much less attenuation of 70 GHz than there is at 60 GHz. There is a spike of absorption of 60 GHz where water molecules eat that signal. It gets better above 60 GHz. I believe that you can go through the air better with as high as 100 GHz than what you can with 60 GHz. Obviously there are other licensed options in lower frequency space as well. I know Charles has some experience running licensed high capacity backhaul. Charles, what do you run for backhaul over 100 mbps FDX? I am looking for something that can easily exceed 100Mbps full duplex. I know the specs of the Orthogon Spectra and no it doesn't really get us past 100Mbps full duplex. 24Ghz unlicensed is looking like the sweet spot for us. I thought 24 GHz unlicensed had limited bandspace which made the top end about 100 mbps FDX? I bet Bob Moldashel has hit this same wall before. What do you do in this situation Bob? He was one of the guys who helped put New York City data traffic back together after 911. Any thoughts Bob? Scriv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Matt, The Orthagon 600 series is supposed to do 300 mb on a 30 Mhz channel. I believe they do this using both vert and hor polarity. Is this the system you are out growing? Tim Kerns - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:39 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options While I'm a fan of MikroTik, the test setup you show is not a viable solution in a real world deployment. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrea Coppini (AIR Networks) Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:27 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options Are you looking at Unlicensed? I'm a fan of Mikrotik for high throughput, long distance links. With bonding you can easily get 100Mbps speeds, just keep adding links as your need grows. See this: 150 Mbps FDX, unlicensed, with failover http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Super_wireless_test -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: 12 December 2006 4:44 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options Guys, We are now exceeding Orthogon's capacity on a regular basis. We are backhauling as much as we can with fiber, but that isn't an option in the suburbs. We have had good success with BridgeWave's products, but the distance is a problem. Any suggestions on a product that can do high throughput in the 5-10 mile range? I am looking for something that can easily exceed 100Mbps full duplex. I know the specs of the Orthogon Spectra and no it doesn't really get us past 100Mbps full duplex. 24Ghz unlicensed is looking like the sweet spot for us. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
What distances do you need? 5 to 10 miles is a big swing for some gear What's your budget? A series of 60 gig radios might work well for ya. Certainly the Dragonwave 24 gig gear should do. You might also look at Harris or Microwave networks licensed gear. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:44 AM Subject: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options Guys, We are now exceeding Orthogon's capacity on a regular basis. We are backhauling as much as we can with fiber, but that isn't an option in the suburbs. We have had good success with BridgeWave's products, but the distance is a problem. Any suggestions on a product that can do high throughput in the 5-10 mile range? I am looking for something that can easily exceed 100Mbps full duplex. I know the specs of the Orthogon Spectra and no it doesn't really get us past 100Mbps full duplex. 24Ghz unlicensed is looking like the sweet spot for us. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Andrea Coppini (AIR Networks) wrote: Are you looking at Unlicensed? I'm a fan of Mikrotik for high throughput, long distance links. With bonding you can easily get 100Mbps speeds, just keep adding links as your need grows. See this: 150 Mbps FDX, unlicensed, with failover http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Super_wireless_test We won't use Wi-Fi radios for backhaul and we don't want to bond. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
I have a handful of these in NYC and Wash DC. They kick ass and the company backs them 150%. They are my first licensed choice. Ceragon is my second. -B- Bob Moldashel wrote: 170 Mb FD Dragonwave... About $20K Matt Liotta wrote: Guys, We are now exceeding Orthogon's capacity on a regular basis. We are backhauling as much as we can with fiber, but that isn't an option in the suburbs. We have had good success with BridgeWave's products, but the distance is a problem. Any suggestions on a product that can do high throughput in the 5-10 mile range? I am looking for something that can easily exceed 100Mbps full duplex. I know the specs of the Orthogon Spectra and no it doesn't really get us past 100Mbps full duplex. 24Ghz unlicensed is looking like the sweet spot for us. -Matt -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
fyi, I believe that it's oxygen that absorbs 60 gig. Not so much rain. Often companies tie 60 gig and FSO together for short hop very high speed redundant links. Each fades differently in different weather. Note, everything above 10 gig has rain fade, some bands just more so than others as I understand it. laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options Replies below: Matt Liotta wrote: Guys, We are now exceeding Orthogon's capacity on a regular basis. Wow! Business must be good! We are backhauling as much as we can with fiber, but that isn't an option in the suburbs. We have had good success with BridgeWave's products, but the distance is a problem. Any suggestions on a product that can do high throughput in the 5-10 mile range? Look at licensed. I know that is obvious but I think it is the only way short of bonding Orthogons together. I thought the max distance for 70 GHz gbps radios was about 7 miles. It has been a while since I read the specs. I am sure the rain fade would be an issue here. There is actually much less attenuation of 70 GHz than there is at 60 GHz. There is a spike of absorption of 60 GHz where water molecules eat that signal. It gets better above 60 GHz. I believe that you can go through the air better with as high as 100 GHz than what you can with 60 GHz. Obviously there are other licensed options in lower frequency space as well. I know Charles has some experience running licensed high capacity backhaul. Charles, what do you run for backhaul over 100 mbps FDX? I am looking for something that can easily exceed 100Mbps full duplex. I know the specs of the Orthogon Spectra and no it doesn't really get us past 100Mbps full duplex. 24Ghz unlicensed is looking like the sweet spot for us. I thought 24 GHz unlicensed had limited bandspace which made the top end about 100 mbps FDX? I bet Bob Moldashel has hit this same wall before. What do you do in this situation Bob? He was one of the guys who helped put New York City data traffic back together after 911. Any thoughts Bob? Scriv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
- Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:49:39 -0900 Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options 170 Mb FD Dragonwave... About $20K Hi Matt, I agree with Bob here, the Dragonwave solution is your ticket to reliable service at the speeds you require. -Dee Matt Liotta wrote: Guys, We are now exceeding Orthogon's capacity on a regular basis. We are backhauling as much as we can with fiber, but that isn't an option in the suburbs. We have had good success with BridgeWave's products, but the distance is a problem. Any suggestions on a product that can do high throughput in the 5-10 mile range? I am looking for something that can easily exceed 100Mbps full duplex. I know the specs of the Orthogon Spectra and no it doesn't really get us past 100Mbps full duplex. 24Ghz unlicensed is looking like the sweet spot for us. -Matt -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Tim Kerns wrote: The Orthagon 600 series is supposed to do 300 mb on a 30 Mhz channel. I believe they do this using both vert and hor polarity. Is this the system you are out growing? First of all, 300Mbps is an aggregate figure. Second, in a low latency deployment at 5-10 miles it is not possible to get full throughput on an Orthogon. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
John Scrivner wrote: Wow! Business must be good! That depends on your perspective. We have a ton of orders and are racing to service them all. The more we install the more capacity upgrades we have to do meaning even more installs. This kind of growth is extremely challenging because if it isn't done correctly we can destroy the company. Look at licensed. I know that is obvious but I think it is the only way short of bonding Orthogons together. I thought the max distance for 70 GHz gbps radios was about 7 miles. It has been a while since I read the specs. I am sure the rain fade would be an issue here. There is actually much less attenuation of 70 GHz than there is at 60 GHz. There is a spike of absorption of 60 GHz where water molecules eat that signal. It gets better above 60 GHz. I believe that you can go through the air better with as high as 100 GHz than what you can with 60 GHz. Obviously there are other licensed options in lower frequency space as well. I know Charles has some experience running licensed high capacity backhaul. Charles, what do you run for backhaul over 100 mbps FDX? Licensed doesn't make a lot of sense for us. We simply don't have the ability to predict where are growth is coming from. We routinely upgrade existing backhauls and/or reconnect our POPs together in different ways to increase our capacity and redundancy. With licensed we are forced to have a static configuration. I thought 24 GHz unlicensed had limited bandspace which made the top end about 100 mbps FDX? DragonWave seems to have a 24Ghz unlicensed product that can do 200Mbps full duplex. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
24 Ghz. won't do 5-10 miles. The other option is an Exalt 2.4 Ghz. or 5 Ghz radio. 100 Mb Full Duplex (Yes 2.4 Ghz.) for around $15-16K plus antennas -B- Matt Liotta wrote: John Scrivner wrote: Wow! Business must be good! That depends on your perspective. We have a ton of orders and are racing to service them all. The more we install the more capacity upgrades we have to do meaning even more installs. This kind of growth is extremely challenging because if it isn't done correctly we can destroy the company. Look at licensed. I know that is obvious but I think it is the only way short of bonding Orthogons together. I thought the max distance for 70 GHz gbps radios was about 7 miles. It has been a while since I read the specs. I am sure the rain fade would be an issue here. There is actually much less attenuation of 70 GHz than there is at 60 GHz. There is a spike of absorption of 60 GHz where water molecules eat that signal. It gets better above 60 GHz. I believe that you can go through the air better with as high as 100 GHz than what you can with 60 GHz. Obviously there are other licensed options in lower frequency space as well. I know Charles has some experience running licensed high capacity backhaul. Charles, what do you run for backhaul over 100 mbps FDX? Licensed doesn't make a lot of sense for us. We simply don't have the ability to predict where are growth is coming from. We routinely upgrade existing backhauls and/or reconnect our POPs together in different ways to increase our capacity and redundancy. With licensed we are forced to have a static configuration. I thought 24 GHz unlicensed had limited bandspace which made the top end about 100 mbps FDX? DragonWave seems to have a 24Ghz unlicensed product that can do 200Mbps full duplex. -Matt -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
My experience is showing about a max of 240 Mbps aggregate bandwidth for a link that long. My shortest link is about a quarter mile and is getting 283 Mbps. Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options Tim Kerns wrote: The Orthagon 600 series is supposed to do 300 mb on a 30 Mhz channel. I believe they do this using both vert and hor polarity. Is this the system you are out growing? First of all, 300Mbps is an aggregate figure. Second, in a low latency deployment at 5-10 miles it is not possible to get full throughput on an Orthogon. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
I can vouch for Dragon Wave. We have 2 11Ghz links, rock solid, Latency that rivals fiber. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC 320-256-WISP (9477) 320-256-9478 Fax -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options John Scrivner wrote: Wow! Business must be good! That depends on your perspective. We have a ton of orders and are racing to service them all. The more we install the more capacity upgrades we have to do meaning even more installs. This kind of growth is extremely challenging because if it isn't done correctly we can destroy the company. Look at licensed. I know that is obvious but I think it is the only way short of bonding Orthogons together. I thought the max distance for 70 GHz gbps radios was about 7 miles. It has been a while since I read the specs. I am sure the rain fade would be an issue here. There is actually much less attenuation of 70 GHz than there is at 60 GHz. There is a spike of absorption of 60 GHz where water molecules eat that signal. It gets better above 60 GHz. I believe that you can go through the air better with as high as 100 GHz than what you can with 60 GHz. Obviously there are other licensed options in lower frequency space as well. I know Charles has some experience running licensed high capacity backhaul. Charles, what do you run for backhaul over 100 mbps FDX? Licensed doesn't make a lot of sense for us. We simply don't have the ability to predict where are growth is coming from. We routinely upgrade existing backhauls and/or reconnect our POPs together in different ways to increase our capacity and redundancy. With licensed we are forced to have a static configuration. I thought 24 GHz unlicensed had limited bandspace which made the top end about 100 mbps FDX? DragonWave seems to have a 24Ghz unlicensed product that can do 200Mbps full duplex. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
How about Dragonwave 18ghz or 11ghz? I think they make a 200mbps product in both of those bands. Travis Microserv Bob Moldashel wrote: 24 Ghz. won't do 5-10 miles. The other option is an Exalt 2.4 Ghz. or 5 Ghz radio. 100 Mb Full Duplex (Yes 2.4 Ghz.) for around $15-16K plus antennas -B- Matt Liotta wrote: John Scrivner wrote: Wow! Business must be good! That depends on your perspective. We have a ton of orders and are racing to service them all. The more we install the more capacity upgrades we have to do meaning even more installs. This kind of growth is extremely challenging because if it isn't done correctly we can destroy the company. Look at licensed. I know that is obvious but I think it is the only way short of bonding Orthogons together. I thought the max distance for 70 GHz gbps radios was about 7 miles. It has been a while since I read the specs. I am sure the rain fade would be an issue here. There is actually much less attenuation of 70 GHz than there is at 60 GHz. There is a spike of absorption of 60 GHz where water molecules eat that signal. It gets better above 60 GHz. I believe that you can go through the air better with as high as 100 GHz than what you can with 60 GHz. Obviously there are other licensed options in lower frequency space as well. I know Charles has some experience running licensed high capacity backhaul. Charles, what do you run for backhaul over 100 mbps FDX? Licensed doesn't make a lot of sense for us. We simply don't have the ability to predict where are growth is coming from. We routinely upgrade existing backhauls and/or reconnect our POPs together in different ways to increase our capacity and redundancy. With licensed we are forced to have a static configuration. I thought 24 GHz unlicensed had limited bandspace which made the top end about 100 mbps FDX? DragonWave seems to have a 24Ghz unlicensed product that can do 200Mbps full duplex. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
NOo NO one should buy ANY radio anymore that uses the entire band and is always on. No more WMux fiascos needed. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:29 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options 24 Ghz. won't do 5-10 miles. The other option is an Exalt 2.4 Ghz. or 5 Ghz radio. 100 Mb Full Duplex (Yes 2.4 Ghz.) for around $15-16K plus antennas -B- Matt Liotta wrote: John Scrivner wrote: Wow! Business must be good! That depends on your perspective. We have a ton of orders and are racing to service them all. The more we install the more capacity upgrades we have to do meaning even more installs. This kind of growth is extremely challenging because if it isn't done correctly we can destroy the company. Look at licensed. I know that is obvious but I think it is the only way short of bonding Orthogons together. I thought the max distance for 70 GHz gbps radios was about 7 miles. It has been a while since I read the specs. I am sure the rain fade would be an issue here. There is actually much less attenuation of 70 GHz than there is at 60 GHz. There is a spike of absorption of 60 GHz where water molecules eat that signal. It gets better above 60 GHz. I believe that you can go through the air better with as high as 100 GHz than what you can with 60 GHz. Obviously there are other licensed options in lower frequency space as well. I know Charles has some experience running licensed high capacity backhaul. Charles, what do you run for backhaul over 100 mbps FDX? Licensed doesn't make a lot of sense for us. We simply don't have the ability to predict where are growth is coming from. We routinely upgrade existing backhauls and/or reconnect our POPs together in different ways to increase our capacity and redundancy. With licensed we are forced to have a static configuration. I thought 24 GHz unlicensed had limited bandspace which made the top end about 100 mbps FDX? DragonWave seems to have a 24Ghz unlicensed product that can do 200Mbps full duplex. -Matt -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: NOo NO one should buy ANY radio anymore that uses the entire band and is always on. No more WMux fiascos needed. Why not? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
We have done Dragon Wave with links over 20 miles at 18ghz. with 4 ft dishes.(23ghz is very low powered and would get you more then a few miles) We have seen a few minutes a year in rain fade as it is pushing the limits. There is now an high power unit that has about 10db more tx power then ours, they also have an 11GHz product which of course has fewer issues with heavy rain. Just be forewarned that a 4 or 6 foot dish at 18ghz has a beam width of less then 1deg and and fine tuning is time consuming and very touchy. They also have to be mounted on a very rigid structure so if it is going on a tower it has to be a hefty or the wind can easily play with your alignment. Excellent gear and service would recommend them. Erik Bob Moldashel wrote: 24 Ghz. won't do 5-10 miles. The other option is an Exalt 2.4 Ghz. or 5 Ghz radio. 100 Mb Full Duplex (Yes 2.4 Ghz.) for around $15-16K plus antennas -B- Matt Liotta wrote: John Scrivner wrote: Wow! Business must be good! That depends on your perspective. We have a ton of orders and are racing to service them all. The more we install the more capacity upgrades we have to do meaning even more installs. This kind of growth is extremely challenging because if it isn't done correctly we can destroy the company. Look at licensed. I know that is obvious but I think it is the only way short of bonding Orthogons together. I thought the max distance for 70 GHz gbps radios was about 7 miles. It has been a while since I read the specs. I am sure the rain fade would be an issue here. There is actually much less attenuation of 70 GHz than there is at 60 GHz. There is a spike of absorption of 60 GHz where water molecules eat that signal. It gets better above 60 GHz. I believe that you can go through the air better with as high as 100 GHz than what you can with 60 GHz. Obviously there are other licensed options in lower frequency space as well. I know Charles has some experience running licensed high capacity backhaul. Charles, what do you run for backhaul over 100 mbps FDX? Licensed doesn't make a lot of sense for us. We simply don't have the ability to predict where are growth is coming from. We routinely upgrade existing backhauls and/or reconnect our POPs together in different ways to increase our capacity and redundancy. With licensed we are forced to have a static configuration. I thought 24 GHz unlicensed had limited bandspace which made the top end about 100 mbps FDX? DragonWave seems to have a 24Ghz unlicensed product that can do 200Mbps full duplex. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
You need to look at Nera, Ceragon, and Gigacom. The Gigacom product is the only one that you can get any real long distance out of depending on the freq. They have licensed radios that perform very well in the rainforest of South America at very long distance. 60k or 40 miles for some applications at speeds of up to a Gig. One of if not the best Gig. radio on the mrkt. Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:44 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options John Scrivner wrote: Wow! Business must be good! That depends on your perspective. We have a ton of orders and are racing to service them all. The more we install the more capacity upgrades we have to do meaning even more installs. This kind of growth is extremely challenging because if it isn't done correctly we can destroy the company. Look at licensed. I know that is obvious but I think it is the only way short of bonding Orthogons together. I thought the max distance for 70 GHz gbps radios was about 7 miles. It has been a while since I read the specs. I am sure the rain fade would be an issue here. There is actually much less attenuation of 70 GHz than there is at 60 GHz. There is a spike of absorption of 60 GHz where water molecules eat that signal. It gets better above 60 GHz. I believe that you can go through the air better with as high as 100 GHz than what you can with 60 GHz. Obviously there are other licensed options in lower frequency space as well. I know Charles has some experience running licensed high capacity backhaul. Charles, what do you run for backhaul over 100 mbps FDX? Licensed doesn't make a lot of sense for us. We simply don't have the ability to predict where are growth is coming from. We routinely upgrade existing backhauls and/or reconnect our POPs together in different ways to increase our capacity and redundancy. With licensed we are forced to have a static configuration. I thought 24 GHz unlicensed had limited bandspace which made the top end about 100 mbps FDX? DragonWave seems to have a 24Ghz unlicensed product that can do 200Mbps full duplex. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Why not? Because its greedy. And when your competitors is unsensitive to the fact that you are greedy, he combats your spectrum/radio, and you or he has no where to go (spectrum wise) for a resolution, he will win because he doesn;t have customers yet, and you do, so you will move to protect your revenue. Basically by using the full band, you are guaranteeing that anyone that deploys has no choice but to fight you for spectrum, meaning any channel they choose will interfere with you. Sure you can go narrow beam antenna, but its jsut a matter of time until someone bangs into you. The question that one asks is WHY? If you ahve an option that doesn't take the whole band, why would you choose one that does? Those decissions don't usually make friends, and non-friends tend to interfere. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 4:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: NOo NO one should buy ANY radio anymore that uses the entire band and is always on. No more WMux fiascos needed. Why not? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Gigacom product is the only one that you can get any real long distance out of depending on the freq. They have licensed radios that perform very well in the rainforest of South America at very long distance. 60k or 40 miles for some applications at speeds of up to a Gig. One of if not the best Gig. radio on the mrkt. Those radios aren't FCC certified. And no, I won't being using an experimental license until they are certified like the sales person suggested. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Not only that, but is the GigE radio even available yet? Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Gigacom product is the only one that you can get any real long distance out of depending on the freq. They have licensed radios that perform very well in the rainforest of South America at very long distance. 60k or 40 miles for some applications at speeds of up to a Gig. One of if not the best Gig. radio on the mrkt. Those radios aren't FCC certified. And no, I won't being using an experimental license until they are certified like the sales person suggested. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Tom DeReggi wrote: Because its greedy. Its not greedy; efficient maybe, but not greedy. And when your competitors is unsensitive to the fact that you are greedy, he combats your spectrum/radio, and you or he has no where to go (spectrum wise) for a resolution, he will win because he doesn;t have customers yet, and you do, so you will move to protect your revenue. Basically by using the full band, you are guaranteeing that anyone that deploys has no choice but to fight you for spectrum, meaning any channel they choose will interfere with you. Sure you can go narrow beam antenna, but its jsut a matter of time until someone bangs into you. The above confuses me. In the situation where I have a PtP radio using the full band there is no colocation opportunity for a competitor on either side. That means the competitor would have be on a site near by to be affected by me and/or to affect me. If this hypothetical competitor doesn't have any customers then the deployment must be PtMP base station since a PtP wouldn't be very useful without a customer. Certainly the power output from a PtMP base station is going to be considerably less than my PtP link making it unlikely my equipment would be affected. Further, equipment that uses large channel widths tend to run simple modulations that have very good receive sensitivity. The question that one asks is WHY? If you ahve an option that doesn't take the whole band, why would you choose one that does? Those decissions don't usually make friends, and non-friends tend to interfere. When you put the question that way, sure, it seems silly. However, that assumes there is another option, which isn't necessarily the case. In fact, reading this thread so far seems to indicate that the available high throughput unlicensed radios have large channel widths. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Matt Liotta wrote: Its not greedy; efficient maybe, but not greedy. Whoops... meant inefficient. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Matt, If you live in a remote area, with no potential interferers, then my comment does not apply. But last I heard you were deploying in the middle of Urban Atlanta and possibly Urban DC, with the potential for many interferers eventually. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options Tom DeReggi wrote: Because its greedy. Its not greedy; efficient maybe, but not greedy. And when your competitors is unsensitive to the fact that you are greedy, he combats your spectrum/radio, and you or he has no where to go (spectrum wise) for a resolution, he will win because he doesn;t have customers yet, and you do, so you will move to protect your revenue. Basically by using the full band, you are guaranteeing that anyone that deploys has no choice but to fight you for spectrum, meaning any channel they choose will interfere with you. Sure you can go narrow beam antenna, but its jsut a matter of time until someone bangs into you. The above confuses me. In the situation where I have a PtP radio using the full band there is no colocation opportunity for a competitor on either side. That means the competitor would have be on a site near by to be affected by me and/or to affect me. If this hypothetical competitor doesn't have any customers then the deployment must be PtMP base station since a PtP wouldn't be very useful without a customer. Certainly the power output from a PtMP base station is going to be considerably less than my PtP link making it unlikely my equipment would be affected. Further, equipment that uses large channel widths tend to run simple modulations that have very good receive sensitivity. The question that one asks is WHY? If you ahve an option that doesn't take the whole band, why would you choose one that does? Those decissions don't usually make friends, and non-friends tend to interfere. When you put the question that way, sure, it seems silly. However, that assumes there is another option, which isn't necessarily the case. In fact, reading this thread so far seems to indicate that the available high throughput unlicensed radios have large channel widths. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Tom DeReggi wrote: Matt, If you live in a remote area, with no potential interferers, then my comment does not apply. But last I heard you were deploying in the middle of Urban Atlanta and possibly Urban DC, with the potential for many interferers eventually. We mostly deploy in urban areas, but we do a good bit of rural as well. We don't really run into interference from others; mostly self-interference from putting too many links on a site. Again, since we only run PtP gear our signal well exceeds everyone else's. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
The above confuses me. In the situation where I have a PtP radio using the full band there is no colocation opportunity for a competitor on either side. That means the competitor would have be on a site near by to be affected by me and/or to affect me. If this hypothetical competitor doesn't have any customers then the deployment must be PtMP base station since a PtP wouldn't be very useful without a customer. Certainly the power output from a PtMP base station is going to be considerably less than my PtP link making it unlikely my equipment would be affected. Further, equipment that uses large channel widths tend to run simple modulations that have very good receive sensitivity. Several of us on this list know how to shut down these large channel backhauls, and have done so when they have intentionally interfered with our operations. Be ready for someone to do the same to you if you try using a full-band backhaul. More than one operator who thought they would take over the entire band got a rude surprise when the gear suddenly didn't work anymore. 24ghz is a completely different story, as the beam sizes are very small and lots of colocation can take place. I think you are on the right track with the 24ghz solution. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Several of us on this list know how to shut down these large channel backhauls, and have done so when they have intentionally interfered with our operations. Be ready for someone to do the same to you if you try using a full-band backhaul. More than one operator who thought they would take over the entire band got a rude surprise when the gear suddenly didn't work anymore. 24ghz is a completely different story, as the beam sizes are very small and lots of colocation can take place. I think you are on the right track with the 24ghz solution. So you believe someone was intentionally interfering with your operations and your response was to do the same? I'm not sure what that has do with running this gear when one's intent is backhaul; not interference. When we sign a lease for a wireless colocation site we specify what frequencies we are using and agree not to interfere with an existing tenants. All future tenants must follow the same rules or risk being evicted. Tortuous interference is simply illegal and has civil penalties associated with it. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
It doesn't use the entire band... Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: NOo NO one should buy ANY radio anymore that uses the entire band and is always on. No more WMux fiascos needed. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Bob Moldashel wrote: You can do that now with 3 Ceragon or Dragonwave radios phased into 1 antenna with much better redundancy. If one link dies you still have the other two. How are you phasing the radios together without significant loss? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Matt Liotta wrote: Matt Liotta wrote: Its not greedy; efficient maybe, but not greedy. Whoops... meant inefficient. -Matt 100 Mb FD on a 32 Mhz. channel.That's not bad. Besides...get the GPS syc option and you can tie in a handful of links on the same channel. That makes them very efficient -B- -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
There is a matching network that goes on the rear of the antenna. At higher freqs the loss is much lower than on lower freqs. -B- Matt Liotta wrote: Bob Moldashel wrote: You can do that now with 3 Ceragon or Dragonwave radios phased into 1 antenna with much better redundancy. If one link dies you still have the other two. How are you phasing the radios together without significant loss? -Matt -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
OK...Lets have a review.. It does not use the whole band. It has GPS sync so you can use multiple links on the same channel. That makes it efficient... It works for the application.. There is a big difference of opinion here regarding spectrum usage. My way of seeing it is as follows. 1. I always install links with the largest possible antennas to keep my beamwidth as narrow as possible regardless of distance. In NYC I consistently use 2' antennas for links one mile or less. 2. We use only the power we need to do the job. Many of our links are running 0-5 dB of output at the radio. 3. We always mount antennas using rooftop structures or adjacent buildings to shield us from others. 4. Interference happens. We have not had any interference with FD constant carrier radios. Period. Another position is why should several users be allowed to use equipment that eats up the band passing say a simple video stream and such?? How is that efficient They are eating channels running a couple of megs.I'm eating it running 100 Mb FD. How about the WISP's that are using 120* sector antennas and throwing RF all over the place every time one of his 3 subscribers decides to use their system?? How is that spectrum efficency??? Or the guy that uses an omni and the 1 watt amp??? I can go on and on. The spectrum is limited. That sucks. But business is business and it is important to do what is necessary to provide for your business at the most cost effective manner possible. Is WalMart going to be considerate of you if you have a little 5 10 store on the next block??? Of course not. And why??? Because they are serving the masses at a price that the masses want and that is what it takes to serve the masses. Will some of the 510 operators go out of business because they can't compete?? Sure they will. Its called competition. And that is just what Matt is doing. If he has the demand then he needs to do what is necessary. If his business model does not allow him to purchase expensive licensed equipment over cheaper unlicensed equipment then so be it. That's business. I came from the 2 way radio industry. I fought the beast (Nextel) for several years before it finally killed the 2-way radio industry. I was somewhat fortunate because we did predominately Public Safety and Government accounts. We were the ones to get up at 2AM on a Sunday to fix a base station while all the 2-way shops that were doing 9-5 business customers were home sleeping. When nextel killed 2-way dispatch all the other radio shops decided to start fixing Public safety and Govt customer equip. The labor rate went from $100 per hour to $40 per hour just so guys could survive. Many went out of business. Am I upset??? Sure. Did I plan for my future?? Sure. We turned on big time to microwave 12 years ago when most of you didn't even know about it. As such we have avoided the dreaded Nextel monster. Am I going to be able to do what I am doing forever??? Of course not. I am already planning my next transition. If most of you guys think you are going to be WISP's 10+ years from now I think you need to re-examine your business plan I am sure that many will be unhappy with this rant but I think it needs to be real food for thought. If I was in business and i needed 100 Mb FD of throughput between locations I'll be damned if I am going to spend extra money for equipment so I don't interfere with someone else in the future. PLEASE NOTE*I AM NOT ENDORSING INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE BY ANYONE. So please don't say I am Good luck! -B- -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
BTW:: While we are talking responsibility and efficiency how many of you guys and gals drive SUV's, Pick-Up trucks, Vans and other 8 cylinder vehicles Put your hands up. You know who you are.. :-) -B- Bob Moldashel wrote: OK...Lets have a review.. It does not use the whole band. It has GPS sync so you can use multiple links on the same channel. That makes it efficient... It works for the application.. There is a big difference of opinion here regarding spectrum usage. My way of seeing it is as follows. 1. I always install links with the largest possible antennas to keep my beamwidth as narrow as possible regardless of distance. In NYC I consistently use 2' antennas for links one mile or less. 2. We use only the power we need to do the job. Many of our links are running 0-5 dB of output at the radio. 3. We always mount antennas using rooftop structures or adjacent buildings to shield us from others. 4. Interference happens. We have not had any interference with FD constant carrier radios. Period. Another position is why should several users be allowed to use equipment that eats up the band passing say a simple video stream and such?? How is that efficient They are eating channels running a couple of megs.I'm eating it running 100 Mb FD. How about the WISP's that are using 120* sector antennas and throwing RF all over the place every time one of his 3 subscribers decides to use their system?? How is that spectrum efficency??? Or the guy that uses an omni and the 1 watt amp??? I can go on and on. The spectrum is limited. That sucks. But business is business and it is important to do what is necessary to provide for your business at the most cost effective manner possible. Is WalMart going to be considerate of you if you have a little 5 10 store on the next block??? Of course not. And why??? Because they are serving the masses at a price that the masses want and that is what it takes to serve the masses. Will some of the 510 operators go out of business because they can't compete?? Sure they will. Its called competition. And that is just what Matt is doing. If he has the demand then he needs to do what is necessary. If his business model does not allow him to purchase expensive licensed equipment over cheaper unlicensed equipment then so be it. That's business. I came from the 2 way radio industry. I fought the beast (Nextel) for several years before it finally killed the 2-way radio industry. I was somewhat fortunate because we did predominately Public Safety and Government accounts. We were the ones to get up at 2AM on a Sunday to fix a base station while all the 2-way shops that were doing 9-5 business customers were home sleeping. When nextel killed 2-way dispatch all the other radio shops decided to start fixing Public safety and Govt customer equip. The labor rate went from $100 per hour to $40 per hour just so guys could survive. Many went out of business. Am I upset??? Sure. Did I plan for my future?? Sure. We turned on big time to microwave 12 years ago when most of you didn't even know about it. As such we have avoided the dreaded Nextel monster. Am I going to be able to do what I am doing forever??? Of course not. I am already planning my next transition. If most of you guys think you are going to be WISP's 10+ years from now I think you need to re-examine your business plan I am sure that many will be unhappy with this rant but I think it needs to be real food for thought. If I was in business and i needed 100 Mb FD of throughput between locations I'll be damned if I am going to spend extra money for equipment so I don't interfere with someone else in the future. PLEASE NOTE*I AM NOT ENDORSING INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE BY ANYONE. So please don't say I am Good luck! -B- -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
I thought that they did. How much do they use? - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:49 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options It doesn't use the entire band... Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: NOo NO one should buy ANY radio anymore that uses the entire band and is always on. No more WMux fiascos needed. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
http://www.exaltcom.com/ BTW: What kind of truck do you have :-P Marlon K. Schafer wrote: I thought that they did. How much do they use? - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:49 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options It doesn't use the entire band... Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: NOo NO one should buy ANY radio anymore that uses the entire band and is always on. No more WMux fiascos needed. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Oh, you are gonna love this! My truck is a '96 green Taurus wagon! Lots of room with all the seats folded down. It's easy to get the ladder on and off of. Gets almost 20 mpg even with the ladder on top. But oil pans are $500 a whack and I've got too many sites up in the sticks now so I need to get something different. That and the 240,000 miles on this one. LOL, all highway miles, I've only put ONE set of brakes on it! I also have an old Dodge Ram 50 pickup. Pickups don't work well for this stuff here though. Too hard to get to the front of the bed, things get rained on, stuff gets too hot in the summer and too cold in the winter. A van is really tall but still has low ground clearance, AND it wastes an amazing amount of vertical space. I think my next one will be a Durango or something around that size though. I need the ground clearance too often. My WIFE drives the 454cid 3/4 ton suburban! Nothing like 8000 lbs of metal to keep my family safe on the roads. grin But she usually only drives 5 to 7 miles per day so it's not as bad as you might think. I still use far more gas than she does. But I'll tell you what, when it's time to pull mom and dad's 28' house boat I've got the rig for it. And when the weather really sucks a guy can chain up all 4 corners of the suburban and walk through all but the worst. Next I'm gonna see if I can manage to find a snow plow for it. BUT, when I drive it I don't use up both lanes! Heck, it'll even fit (if I work at it :-) in a standard parking place! laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options http://www.exaltcom.com/ BTW: What kind of truck do you have :-P Marlon K. Schafer wrote: I thought that they did. How much do they use? - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:49 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul optio It doesn't use the entire band... Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: NOo NO one should buy ANY radio anymore that uses the entire band and is always on. No more WMux fiascos needed. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Bob, I tried to downsize last year, but the Toyota Prius I bought just couldn't pull the 27ft enclosed snowmobile trailer with snowmobiles inside... so I went back to a Chevy with a 6.0L and 4x4. It gets 8mpg while towing... but the batteries don't overheat. :) Travis Microserv Bob Moldashel wrote: BTW:: While we are talking responsibility and efficiency how many of you guys and gals drive SUV's, Pick-Up trucks, Vans and other 8 cylinder vehicles Put your hands up. You know who you are.. :-) -B- Bob Moldashel wrote: OK...Lets have a review.. It does not use the whole band. It has GPS sync so you can use multiple links on the same channel. That makes it efficient... It works for the application.. There is a big difference of opinion here regarding spectrum usage. My way of seeing it is as follows. 1. I always install links with the largest possible antennas to keep my beamwidth as narrow as possible regardless of distance. In NYC I consistently use 2' antennas for links one mile or less. 2. We use only the power we need to do the job. Many of our links are running 0-5 dB of output at the radio. 3. We always mount antennas using rooftop structures or adjacent buildings to shield us from others. 4. Interference happens. We have not had any interference with FD constant carrier radios. Period. Another position is why should several users be allowed to use equipment that eats up the band passing say a simple video stream and such?? How is that efficient They are eating channels running a couple of megs.I'm eating it running 100 Mb FD. How about the WISP's that are using 120* sector antennas and throwing RF all over the place every time one of his 3 subscribers decides to use their system?? How is that spectrum efficency??? Or the guy that uses an omni and the 1 watt amp??? I can go on and on. The spectrum is limited. That sucks. But business is business and it is important to do what is necessary to provide for your business at the most cost effective manner possible. Is WalMart going to be considerate of you if you have a little 5 10 store on the next block??? Of course not. And why??? Because they are serving the masses at a price that the masses want and that is what it takes to serve the masses. Will some of the 510 operators go out of business because they can't compete?? Sure they will. Its called competition. And that is just what Matt is doing. If he has the demand then he needs to do what is necessary. If his business model does not allow him to purchase expensive licensed equipment over cheaper unlicensed equipment then so be it. That's business. I came from the 2 way radio industry. I fought the beast (Nextel) for several years before it finally killed the 2-way radio industry. I was somewhat fortunate because we did predominately Public Safety and Government accounts. We were the ones to get up at 2AM on a Sunday to fix a base station while all the 2-way shops that were doing 9-5 business customers were home sleeping. When nextel killed 2-way dispatch all the other radio shops decided to start fixing Public safety and Govt customer equip. The labor rate went from $100 per hour to $40 per hour just so guys could survive. Many went out of business. Am I upset??? Sure. Did I plan for my future?? Sure. We turned on big time to microwave 12 years ago when most of you didn't even know about it. As such we have avoided the dreaded Nextel monster. Am I going to be able to do what I am doing forever??? Of course not. I am already planning my next transition. If most of you guys think you are going to be WISP's 10+ years from now I think you need to re-examine your business plan I am sure that many will be unhappy with this rant but I think it needs to be real food for thought. If I was in business and i needed 100 Mb FD of throughput between locations I'll be damned if I am going to spend extra money for equipment so I don't interfere with someone else in the future. PLEASE NOTE*I AM NOT ENDORSING INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE BY ANYONE. So please don't say I am Good luck! -B- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
20mpg? Big deal, I get pretty dang close to that (17-18mpg city) with my foot the in floorboard of my Excursion. This is my second Excursion...it is fast approaching 150k miles and running strong as new. Too bad Ford killed it. Of course it has the diesel with a few minor modifications...grin Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options Oh, you are gonna love this! My truck is a '96 green Taurus wagon! Lots of room with all the seats folded down. It's easy to get the ladder on and off of. Gets almost 20 mpg even with the ladder on top. But oil pans are $500 a whack and I've got too many sites up in the sticks now so I need to get something different. That and the 240,000 miles on this one. LOL, all highway miles, I've only put ONE set of brakes on it! I also have an old Dodge Ram 50 pickup. Pickups don't work well for this stuff here though. Too hard to get to the front of the bed, things get rained on, stuff gets too hot in the summer and too cold in the winter. A van is really tall but still has low ground clearance, AND it wastes an amazing amount of vertical space. I think my next one will be a Durango or something around that size though. I need the ground clearance too often. My WIFE drives the 454cid 3/4 ton suburban! Nothing like 8000 lbs of metal to keep my family safe on the roads. grin But she usually only drives 5 to 7 miles per day so it's not as bad as you might think. I still use far more gas than she does. But I'll tell you what, when it's time to pull mom and dad's 28' house boat I've got the rig for it. And when the weather really sucks a guy can chain up all 4 corners of the suburban and walk through all but the worst. Next I'm gonna see if I can manage to find a snow plow for it. BUT, when I drive it I don't use up both lanes! Heck, it'll even fit (if I work at it :-) in a standard parking place! laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options http://www.exaltcom.com/ BTW: What kind of truck do you have :-P Marlon K. Schafer wrote: I thought that they did. How much do they use? - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:49 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul optio It doesn't use the entire band... Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: NOo NO one should buy ANY radio anymore that uses the entire band and is always on. No more WMux fiascos needed. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
