Hi,
I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this
discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;)
This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data
on any of these radios:
Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail
Dual polarity
10Mbps (auto up/down ratio)
Easy management (CLI and web)
$149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles)
Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974)
C/I advantage
Fixed up/down ratio
$490 CPE ($737 advantage)
Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail)
36Mbps and 40,000pps
$1,000 CPE
For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over
2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has worked
very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop repeater
locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, WISPs,
etc.) within 100 yards of each other.
Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of
radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is
"full". We attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site
survey at this location.... across the entire 2.4ghz band, the "average"
signals ranged from -25 to -55 at the best. :(
Travis
Microserv
Jon Langeler wrote:
Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not only
extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We started using
canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 trango SU between 3
different towers since beta. I just hate to see fellow wisp protest
that there isn't a good product and struggle when their actually is a
pretty darn good one...and on top of that has an upgrade path in it's
vision, it keeps getting better.
ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ is
fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also
suffer from increased latency and less throughput during those
retransmissions. Not good if you want to support VOIP and keep
customers happy. Having a low C/I means the system will be stable more
often and maintain a lower retrans. Trango's ARQ is not even an option
in the 5800 model which is what you and I probably have a decent
percentage of in our Trango networks. Having a low C/I requirement
affects other things like increases the range of a product. I'm laying
out facts, you can convince yourself of whatever you want...
Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.
Tom DeReggi wrote:
Nice try, but I've found that comment to be not at all true. I have
often chosen to avoid canopy user's channels, but because I am a good
WISP neighbor, not because I had to. Why fight if you can
cooperate. On a SPEC sheet Canopy does boast the lowest C/I. But
Trango's specified C/I was reported before considering ARQ. And
Trango has always underspec'd their spec sheets. C/I is not nearly
as relevant as SNR resilience anyway. With Arq, we've easilly ran
links as low as 4 db above the average noise floor, reliably. There
is VERY little difference between the Trango and Canopy C/I in real
world usage. The Trango just adds more polarities as more options to
work around it, when needed. One of the reasons we like Trango is
its resilience to noise, that gives us the abilty to fight it out and
stand our ground. The Foxes w/ DISH, have excellent ARQ and
resilience to Noise, within their range and LOS.
When we start to have trouble with Trango, is when we start to push
the limits of the technology. Its a LOS technology that we attempt
NLOS with. My arguement is also not that we can't be the last man
standing. Its that when the battle happens the customer sees it, and
the customer does not tolerate it. IF a Canopy and Trango went to
war, one might survive a little better than the other, but ultimately
both customers would feel the interference the majority of the time.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
