"new auto remote Reboot device"
You should go unplug it again to take the new auto remote reboot device
to a radio that needs it. :) LOL
Tom DeReggi wrote:
Travis,
Can you provide the Sysinfo screen for your Quest T1 router, showing 3
years please.
Could you please post the "sysinfo" of the 5800 radio showing an
uptime of 48 months
My mistake. It has never failed in 4 years, however, it has been taken
down by me for scheduled maintenance. I forgot, I took the link down
about a year and a half ago for 30 seconds, so I could plug it into a
new auto remote Reboot device. However, 567 days aint bad.
#> sysinfo
[Hardware Version] 8002
[FPGA Version] 02103000 [Checksum] 7ADD5AB6
[Firmware Version] AP 1p11H8002D03100301 [Checksum] EF3391FF
[Device ID] 00 01 DE 00 31 C7 [Base ID] 1 [AP ID] 2
[System Up Time] 567 day(s) 18:06:04
[Radio Temperature] 31 C
[Opmode] ap [Default Opmode] ap [Opmode Start] 30 sec
[IP] 10.0.1.2 [Subnet Mask] 255.255.255.0 [Gateway] 10.0.1.1
[Httpd Port] 80 [Httpd Status] listen
[Telnetd Port] 23 [Telnetd Status] connected (10.0.1.1,53208)
[Tftpd] disabled
[MIR Threshold] off [MIR Threshold Kbps] 4096
[Active Channel] 6 v 5836 MHz
[RF Rx Threshold] -80 dBm
[RF Tx Power] 22 dBm
Channel Table: (MHz)
[Ch#01] 5736 [Ch#02] 5756 [Ch#03] 5776 [Ch#04] 5796 [Ch#05] 5816
[Ch#06] 5836
[Ch#07] 5260 [Ch#08] 5280 [Ch#09] 5300 [Ch#10] 5320 [Ch#11] 5340
[Ch#12] 5736
[Ch#13] 5736 [Ch#14] 5736 [Ch#15] 5736 [Ch#16] 5736 [Ch#17] 5736
[Ch#18] 5736
[Ch#19] 5736 [Ch#20] 5736 [Ch#21] 5736 [Ch#22] 5736 [Ch#23] 5736
[Ch#24] 5736
[Ch#25] 5736 [Ch#26] 5736 [Ch#27] 5736 [Ch#28] 5736 [Ch#29] 5736
[Ch#30] 5736
[Broadcast Packet] pass
[Remarks] ap-2, ap-rockville
Success.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message ----- From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Tom,
Could you please post the "sysinfo" of the 5800 radio showing an
uptime of 48 months... I've never seen one over 10 months (even with
over 100 Trango AP's running now). :)
Repair time for any down T1 lines has been less than 24 hours...
usually 1-2 hours.
Travis
Microserv
Tom DeReggi wrote:
Travis,
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?
Yes. I have a 12 mile backhaul using PtMP Trango 5800s, From
Rockville, Md to Vienna, VA, that has not went down in 4 years.
This year I had lost some high end subs in DC, due to excessive
outages over a 6 month period. They bailed, because they doubted
wireless, however, the ironic part was the fiber carrier was the
faught. The Fiber partner had outages 5 to 2 ratio.
2 Outages Wireless, itemized as:
1 outage was due to antenna moving - repaired 2 hours.
1 outage interference and required channel change - repaired 30
minutes.
5 Outages - Fiber carrier, itemized as:
1. Serious Peering problem (level 3). - repair time 1 week
2. Fiber converter failure -packet loss - Fiber carrier could
not respond for 8 hours, I performed the prepair while waiting for
their tech.
3. Bad cell in battery backup - 4 hours, a second outage
required for repair, 10 minutes.
4. Fiber end got dirty by airborn dust -packet loss -
Intermittent problems 2 weeks while carrier denied a problem. I
performed repair and put new end on cable.
5. Fiber carrier outage- fiber cut some where.
For comparisons, both links wireless and Fiber were PtP links.
Many T1s are delivered over Fiber now.
Wireless can be just as reliable.
Now I'll ask... Can you Qwest T1 deliver 10 mbps? How long did it
take to get installed? For any of your T1s that did fail, what was
the repair time?
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 Broadband
Hi,
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 Broadband
Matt,
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 Broadband
We 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 with
cellular.
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 it
represents will eventually do the same.
chris
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:13 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Agreed excellent point (wireless scares and confuses
people), except....
Why associate your service with DSL, a low grade $39 a
month service, as
advertized 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 the
same quality and price. They think you are ripping them
off charging
$150 a
month when they can get it for $39 a month down the
street. When in
accuality 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 a
DSL
line to transfer the Internet Data to, to free up
bandwidth on their T1
for
their VOIP. It was a 15 minute close over the phone,
since we had the
MTU
building lit, and represented we could have their new
circuit installed
the
following day. I represented we were selling broadband, a T1
replacement. I
made the mistake of leavingthe labeling of the contract
heading as
"Wireless
Broadband Agreement". The customer saw Wireless and
didn;t sign, and
asked
to cancel order. I'm now likely going to win the client
back, after most
of
yesterday on the phone answering questions from everyone
under the sun.
The
problem was the customers computer consultant, had used
Wireless in
Texas,
and had nothing but troubles. He stated tons of Lightning
related
electrical
problem that disrupted service regularly. (It was a Wifi
service he was
using, there.) The question they asked me was, why is my
service able to
compare againt T1 apposed to DSL, to justify the higher
price? They
looked
at 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 path
from the building to my core fiber peering point. I even
have fiber in
the
building at $500, but don't use it, because the fiber has
4-5 hops to my
transit location compared to my wireless that is a direct
shot and
bypasses
many points of failure. I'll probably still get the
business but after
much
sales agrevation and providing a good number of references.
So its a valid point that Wireless does still scare some
people. And
Poor
quality Wireless providers ruin the rep for the good
quality WISPs. But
my
bigger point is that some customers actually think DSL is
more reliable
than
an engineered wireless link used to replace Fiber and
T1s. So branding
Wireless as DSL, does not helpthe industry, it lowers the
value of what
we
do.
I've been plaqued by this problem, as my company name
is... "RapidDSL".
It
gets 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 over
our
website. But why advertise something that just confuses
everyone and
costs
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 Broadband
great point! :)
Scott Reed wrote:
Who says the L in DSL must be Line? Call it Digital
Subsciber Link
and
it works for the customer and uses our normal language
for the radio
connection.
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/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/
