Travis does bring up an important issue regarding uptime.
It has been proven that Wireless can be a reliable technology, the flaw is
not the RF.
Expecially PtP links engineered between two points on an ISPs network,
controlled by an ISP.
The problem however come in on the other side of the link. Can we control
the factors on the customer side, that can effect reliabilty? And is it cost
effective to do so?
Some examples:
1. A landscaper cut the CAT5 cable on the side of the house.
2. Poor electrical causes frequent radio lockup or Linksys's to loose
configs.
3. A cleaning crew, unplugs routers in MTU building electrical closet, so
they can plug in their vacume.
4. A customer gets a Virus, and sends traffic patterns that manages to force
lockups on AP regularly.
5. A roofer desides to setup a temp work center in front of our rooftop SU
dish antenna. Packet loss every 3 minutes, when goes to grab another bunch
of shingles or what ever.
Many of these problems are less prone to happen with T1 lines, but it has
nothing to do with technology, it has to do with deployment trends and
characteristics. As a result, in some cases, short outages could occur more
frequently. Thats why its so important that WISPs continue to push the many
other valuable positives of Wireless that the technology uniquely gives,
making it all worth it.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Matt,
Now you are comparing $150,000 point to point licensed microwave links
with $150 CPE point to multi-point links?
Travis
Microserv
Matt Liotta wrote:
We haven't been in business for 3 years, but yes we have wireless links
that have 100% uptime. How many years did this entire country depend on
wireless links for long distance prior to fiber optics? The M in MCI
isn't microwave for no reason.
-Matt
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 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/