Scriv
Travis Johnson wrote:
Hi,I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for the last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless links that have that type of reliability?I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any wireless list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground up starting in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning installing two new AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where it doesn't.Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote:I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure.Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if they don't believe it too.-Matt Travis Johnson wrote:Tom,The original postition and question was "are you comparing your wireless service to telco T1". After your posts, it's obvious that you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are able to save the customer $xx per month by using wireless, then there is an advantage. If you can provide other services, then there is an advantage. However, comparing a half-duplex system to a full-duplex system and saying they are the same is... not correct.If you had the choice between running a full-duplex wireless system and half-duplex, which would you do? :)If you could purchase a land-based connection to go from point A to point B for $500 per month, or rent roof-top space at point A and point B for $500 per month, which would you choose? ;)Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote:Travis, I'd love to perform your test. Send me the CD.Understanding that I will provision the customer at 3 mbps on our first hop router, using Trango 10mbps PtMP radio link, and that your CD test will generate 1500mbps of data transfer.There are three seperate issues here. 1) One user's connection able to effect another user's connection, and 2) On one particular link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under normal opperation within acceptable use policy, and 3) On one particular link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under a Denial of Service situation.With any type of broadband, if the capacity of a link is saturated, it results in packet loss and performance loss for the individual's connection. Its up to the end user to protect against violation of acceptable use policy like viruses that deliver abnormal PPS, or any queueing needed to allow fair priority of data type on the LAN side of the link. These problems can also all be solved with a feature rich client side router before plugging to our Broadband, regardless of the Duplex of our link. In other words, The same performance problems will result on a full Duplex link, if one direction gets saturated, and that same direction traffic will result in packet loss, and all communication generally requires some communication in each of the direction for traffic to flow in one direction. So where the problem may be worse with Half Duplex, the problem still exists in some capacity with Full Duplex. I'd argue that its possible to generate enough pps on a Full Duplex Link in one direction, that will overload the processing power of the radio CPU, and the other direction still getting horrible performance even with no traffic passing in that other direction even though Full Duplex, because no CPU time is available for it. Unless each direction has its own CPU, which is not likely. This is an issue of whether the radio used can handle the number of PPS sent to it in high DOS situations.I'd also argue under this situation 4000 pps 1500 mbps, that the customer's use of the circuit in any capacity when a DOS of that type was happening, would be not possible, and justify immediate tech action to resolve, regardless of whether one direction of traffic was usable. I;ve never met a company where having one direction traffic only was acceptable or tolerable.You did however hit on an important clarification. A half duplex link can not distinguish on its own wether upload or download traffic at a given moment is priority or more important to the subscriber. When there is a large demand for legitimate broadband, why would the data in one direction be any more priority than the other, when capacity is reached? Either way the customer is compromised in throughout needs one direction or another. Doesn't it really mean that the customer needs more total bandwidth? Is it any more important that mail was sent and not received? Full Duplex is one way for a customer to solve that problem, and reserve bandwdith in one direction. But does that really solve the problem? Maybe if the circuit's intended use is for 100% VOIP a symetrical application. But not many circuits are used for that purpose. And if I really wanted to, I can set my bandwdith management to be seperate for upload and download, and immulate a Full Duplex connection, over the half duplex link. But what it really says to me is the importance that customers have front end queuing / IP prioritization when using bi-directional sensitive applications such as VOIP.Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message ----- From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless BroadbandHi,If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and download something at the same time across that same link using the same CPE connection.If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different story.Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote:Travis, We do not see that on our network.One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be significantly noticed. When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell site, this does not happen.I'm referring to using Trango 5830s.You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products. With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction. For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of greater capacity.The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and Duplex.SLAs, Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc.the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith. So we find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because they have fewer congestion times.The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on a PRIORITY basis.Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message ----- From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless BroadbandMatt,This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop.Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote:3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO.-Matt Travis Johnson wrote:Tom,Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote:Chris, I agree with your finding.But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with.For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that "High Speed Internet" was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify "High Speed Internet" as much with DialUP service as they do with "Broadband". And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort?Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality?We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better.Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services.In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term "High Speed Internet"?Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as "High Speed Internet", since customers best identify with that term?Maybe we should be branding our service as "Wi-Fiber". or Maybe "Ethernet Internet Access" (of course like end users will know what Ethernet means.)Its a tough call because if we called our service "Fiber" or "T1" we'd most likely be liars based on their true definitions.Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on.All though "Broadband" may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly. Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media type of delivery of Internet Access.Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband----- Original Message ----- From: "chris cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless BroadbandWe conducted a few focus groups here. Most of the attendees were in the 18-24 yr. age bracket. It was amazing how many didn't identify with the word broadband. The words they responded to best were 'high speed internet" Wireless was way down the list. Too much confusion withcellular.That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term eventually. Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world. It will be worth trading on the word eventually. The other part of this is that we are building brands as wireless providers, so it makes sense to keep that in the mix until the world catches up. In 95-96 I was out trying to sell people on the words internet, email and website. Those words didn't register then but they are now a permanent part of the American lexicon and in the American brain. The word wireless and what itrepresents will eventually do the same. chris -----Original Message-----From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OnBehalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless BroadbandAgreed excellent point (wireless scares and confuses people), except....Why associate your service with DSL, a low grade $39 a month service, asadvertized by Verizon?Why not associate it with T1 or just Broadband, higher quality services?If you associate it with DSL, then your are also associating it with thesame quality and price. They think you are ripping them off charging$150 amonth when they can get it for $39 a month down the street. When inaccuality you are saving them 70% off their T1 line.Let me share a case that happened just yesterday. I got a call for DSL,they currently had voip and data on a T1, and they were looking for aDSLline to transfer the Internet Data to, to free up bandwidth on their T1fortheir VOIP. It was a 15 minute close over the phone, since we had theMTUbuilding lit, and represented we could have their new circuit installedthe following day. I represented we were selling broadband, a T1 replacement. Imade the mistake of leavingthe labeling of the contract heading as"WirelessBroadband Agreement". The customer saw Wireless and didn;t sign, andaskedto cancel order. I'm now likely going to win the client back, after mostofyesterday on the phone answering questions from everyone under the sun.Theproblem was the customers computer consultant, had used Wireless inTexas,and had nothing but troubles. He stated tons of Lightning relatedelectricalproblem that disrupted service regularly. (It was a Wifi service he was using, there.) The question they asked me was, why is my service able tocompare againt T1 apposed to DSL, to justify the higher price? Theylookedat it as a lower grade service. My solution however, was a high end service. It was an Engineered 30 mbps TDD 4 mile link with a Direct pathfrom the building to my core fiber peering point. I even have fiber inthebuilding at $500, but don't use it, because the fiber has 4-5 hops to mytransit location compared to my wireless that is a direct shot andbypassesmany points of failure. I'll probably still get the business but aftermuch sales agrevation and providing a good number of references.So its a valid point that Wireless does still scare some people. AndPoorquality Wireless providers ruin the rep for the good quality WISPs. Butmybigger point is that some customers actually think DSL is more reliablethanan engineered wireless link used to replace Fiber and T1s. So branding Wireless as DSL, does not helpthe industry, it lowers the value of whatwe do.I've been plaqued by this problem, as my company name is... "RapidDSL".Itgets me the leads, but it also starts every sales call out with why I'm charging more than $50 a month for my service, that I generally get$150-$500 a month for.We now market our service as "Broadband" period. It has made all the difference. We don't lie about using wireless, its plastered all overourwebsite. But why advertise something that just confuses everyone andcosts everyone time to sort out. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadbandgreat point! :) Scott Reed wrote:Who says the L in DSL must be Line? Call it Digital Subsciber Linkandit works for the customer and uses our normal language for the radioconnection. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net <http://www.nwwnet.net/> *---------- Original Message -----------* From: Rick Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 00:39:48 -0400 Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband > We find we can NOT sell our service as "Wireless Broadband" > > As soon as we market it to customers as DSL or just plain > "High Speed Internet", we start scoring. >> Too many in this area have been educated against "Open WIFI"> being BAD... > > The cable we install to the radio is a "line", right ? > It carries digital signals, right ? > It allows our customer to become a "subscriber", right ? > > DSL... ;) > > KyWiFi LLC wrote: > > >I'm noticing more and more WISP's selling their wireless > >broadband service as "DSL" or "Wireless DSL". I know > >that 75% of the people who call our sales number have > >a difficult time understanding what Wireless Broadband is.> >They already know what DSL is and that is what the majority > >of them ask for so I would be interested in hearing everyone's> >opinions on the pros and cons of a WISP labeling their > >wireless broadband service as "DSL, wDSL or Wireless DSL" > >instead of "Fixed Wireless, WiFI or Wireless Broadband". > > > >If the masses are more familiar with the term DSL then I > >think we would generate more sales leads by advertising > >our (WISPs') broadband as DSL instead of Wireless > >Broadband. I'm sure the local telco would just love to see> >all of us selling "DSL". Are there any legalities to this? Does> >wireless broadband qualify as DSL or a form of DSL in the> >eyes of the law? Is it legal for a WISP to sell their wireless> >broadband service as DSL? > > > > > >Sincerely, > >Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder > >KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky > >http://www.KyWiFi.com <http://www.kywifi.com/> > >http://www.KyWiFiVoice.com <http://www.kywifivoice.com/> > >Phone: 859.274.4033 > >A Broadband Phone & Internet Provider > > > >============================== > >Wireless Broadband, Local Calling and > >UNLIMITED Long Distance only $69! > > > >No Taxes, No Regulatory Fees, No Hassles > > > >FREE Site Survey: http://www.KyWiFi.com <http://www.kywifi.com/> > >============================== > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ *------- End of Original Message -------*-- 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/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.2/280 - Release Date: 3/13/2006-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
