All are respectable products, all intending to serve the market need at their intended value proposition.
WHAT I REALLY took from your detailed post Tom and the posts of many others these past few days is that, quite simply, Alvarion is doing an inadequate job of showing our value to WISPs. While we often might yield the best total result (very time-saving <ergo cost justifying> installation and solid performance with top set'n'forget reliability), we are often the last thing tried by many WISPs. In other words, other things get in the way of our getting a shot at the business from the start. That's the thing I am working to solve. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:15 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Real World comparison of Trango-staros-Alvarion My conclusion was that Alvarion was the safest bet. (award winning caliber) They could provide performance, time efficiency, and capable to gather equivellent accurate realtime testing data, via Alvarion EQ and SNR readings. However, there are many factors in selecting a radio, and "safest bet", is not always the true need. Sometimes its the best compromise to meet multiple needs. What can't you do without? I currently have more Trango and StarOS backhauls on my network, for what ever reason. My point in the post is that, if a provider realizes the true characteristics of the various products, and is honest with themselves on what the true need/value of a specific link is, or true need of the provider, they can make the best choice for each case. Every product has its value, or it would be discontinued. I will clarify further... In this particular case, StarOS won. And I see that there will be many cases in the future where StarOS will win again. But it brought forward a limitation, that will likely influence me not to use it for many cases where it is not apppropraite to take the risk of using it. In this particular case, the Atlas PTP was least attractive, as it does not have real-time SNR capabilty, which is a valuable tool, and this particular case Dual-Polarity had no additional value, since the noise floor on the other pol (verticle) was way to high and consistent. The original AP link actually had been in place as a PTMP for several years, and we knew the Verticle Pol competitors were there first, so I had no intentions of wanting to step on their links. In the future, I know there will be links, that I will not justify doing without real-time SNR statistics. But these comments do not negate the value of Trango PTPs. There are many cases where Trango Atlas, will likely be the best compromise to meet all needs. Trango still delivers best value per mb (price), with Dual-Polarity flexibilty, and best of class testing tools. The other issue, that comes up is channel center freqs. The Atlas PtPs fits nicely into my existing network, because they operate at full capacity on the same channel options, as my Trango PtMPs. But will Trango PtMP, stay my primary PtMP, for new deployments? That has not been determined. If I chose an alternate PtMP solution based on Atheros, that uses different channel center freqs, the Alvarion(Atheros) PTPs may better fit, into the network. 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, September 27, 2006 11:18 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Real World comparison of Trango-staros-Alvarion >I don't know, I like Alvarion EQ, but I'm sure that the gist I got > from Tom's post was that the only vendor he could trust to get the > job done right because of the available test tools was Trango. > > Am I off base there, Tom ? > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Brad Larson > Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 10:47 AM > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Real World comparison of Trango-staros-Alvarion > > Thanks Tom, Your findings are in line with what many Alvarion operators > also > enjoy. Ease of installs and low operational costs. Brad > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 3:28 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: [WISPA] Real World comparison of Trango-staros-Alvarion > > The link: 4.5 miles, 1 Big fat building in the way, barely unable to clear > the roof. Noise floor high. > Limits: Noise Floor to high for PtMP Trango, based on obstruction. > Stats: rssi -75 & -78, noise -79 or worse on Horiz, Vert worse, RSSI > almost > 15db below calculations due to NLOS ) > Solution: Install PTP to get more gain on AP side, Add OFDM to help with > obstruction. > > Trango 5830 was invaluable to determine what was going on. It's built-in > survey command was able to determine the noise floor on all channels > accurately, and home in on the fact that the link was marginal because of > gear that used a 20Mhz channel half way between Trango's channels. > > StarOS w/ 28 dbi PAcwireless on both sides- Got -55 & -60 rssi. Good > link, > but it was not perfect, with 1 out of 20 large ping packets with high > latency. It would regularly negotiate down to 36mbps or 18 mbps on one > side. > > StarOS w/ 28db on one side, and 23dbi on other side- Got -60 & -65 rssi. > Excellent / Perfect link. Stayed constant at 54 mbps, with a very rare > negotiation down to 48mbps or 36mbps. We believe this is becaue one of two > reasons, reflections off the building right back at us, or the wide > beamwidth of lower gain antenna to help use multi-path to optimize OFDM. > We > often felt 19-23 dbi antenna ideal for OFDM. This put us above the noise > of > > most of the channels, and narrowed our beam compared to PtMP to reduce > noise. OFDM clearly helped to not lose rssi due to the building > obstruction, and gain was not received solely from higher gain of PTP > antennas. > > The problem with STAROS-V3... We ran survey, and picked up ZERO > interference > > or devices, but yet we know that there is lots of interfering devices out > there. The "Quality" reading was pointless at either 100% or 13% with very > little correlation to what the link actual performance was. Hard setting > modulation, to 24mbps, left the link unusable, even when Quality of 100 > was > shown. When we put modulation on auto, every thing worked well. SNR was > only available on client side, and not accurate, reading only a -95 (which > may have been average, but not peak noise, based on Trango scans). > Basically, with the STAROS box, we were left totally in the dark, on what > the noise environment was. We really missed the detail of the Trango > tools, > > and not sure what we would have done, if we had not had a Trango on site > simultaneously gathering test results. We learned via the Trango, that we > could have survived the noise with a 10 Mhz channel, that the StarOS > allowed, but we would not have known where that was without the Trango > test > results. We relied on End to End large pings to determine link state > during > > tests, and were glad to see the addition of Iperf embedded in StarOS for > more strenuous testing afterwords. > > The end result... We left the StarOS installed for a perfect link, and > defined many possible options should interference need to be battled in > the > future. We saved a bunch on hardware, costing us under $1000 in equipment > for the link, and delivered the highest quality link, as any gear could > offer. > > But this brings me to my point of this post. What was the true cost of > this > job? I spent a day installing Trango PTMP. I spent a day isntalling > StarOS, > both with two engineers. I lost a months revenue, delaying my trips > between > upgrades and tests. > > At a price, All these headaches could have been avoided. Most likely > Trango > > Atlas PTP would have solved the problem and given us the benefits of > Trango > testing tools, and OFDM, and price under $3000. But there was some risk > in > trying that solution. In the past we've had difficulty in high noise > environments, and/or to high of RSSI. We did not have an Atlas on hand to > test. > > We took the time to do a test with Alvarion B40 that we had on hand. The > Alvarion picked up the noise in its survey. The Alvarion gave us accurate > SNR readings that we could use to best plan the link configuration. And > the > link quality was perfect as well using the 28dbi and 23 dbi antennas. So > had I used the Alvarion VL to begin with, I would have saved our company > two > > days in labor, and would have had all the tools that I needed to install > the > > link easilly the first time and to adapt in the future. Alvarion clearly > would have been the winning choice. It gave me confidence that in future > jobs IF I had to design a link in advance blind, I could order an > Alvarion, > > and it likely would best be qualified to complete the job successfuly. > > I ended up keeping the StarOS in place. The reason was two fold. 1) I > already spent the time, so why not save the money on equipment. And > secondly, at the AP side, I wanted to add a second radio card. Because I > switched the link to PTP, the other client that was being served via the > PtMP, still needed to be served. For $100, I was able to add the second > card, and install a second sector to serve that subscriber still. (two > sectors for the price of one). > > Every product has its value. You be the judge on what product will best > suit > > your next project. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:48 PM > Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon > > > Patrick, ditto on the 3650 band. However the reality is that self and > external > interference in the UL world is all too common. You say UL bands or at > least VL doesn't need GPS capability because of so much capacity. If > you want I can get you a list of wifi/trango/etc.-to-Canopy 'converts' > that will tell you otherwise. > Licensed carriers use GPS to greatly diminish what we experience as common > day > interference problems. IMO I can't blame the FCC for not giving more > spectrum than they have as we've already trashed what we've been given. > Lastly, what Moto did was brought GPS sync to the UL world however as > standard option and in very economical form factor, not expensive > chassis and such. If you haven't already, get your VL guys with your > WIMAX guys and you could have a clear winner down the road! :) > > Jon Langeler > Michwave Tech. > > Quoting Patrick Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Jon, >> >> For sure I'm all over GPS for all licensed (world of small channels) and >> when there is a small amount of spectrum to work with in UL. For >> example, in the coming 3650MHz band, GPS should be a must for PMP. Same >> with scaled 900 (we offer it there). It is just not needed with VL. What >> for? It already gives massive capacity without any re-use. Even with GPS >> and re-use I do not think Canopy can get close to the amount of capacity >> VL can offer. Frankly, even if we had it for VL no one would buy it. >> >> No argument from me on the scheduled MAC front, except to the extent >> that in UL it needs to come with good interference mitigation (not >> talking about self-inflicted interference) techniques to make it useful. >> >> Patrick >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Jon Langeler >> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 10:37 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon >> >> Hey Patrick, GPS...there's many reasons and it's not a canopy vs >> alvarion debate from my standpoint, more so a scheduled mac(canopy, >> wimax, 3G...) vs unscheduled(wifi, VL, currently Trango). I'd predict >> that as wisp education progresses, they will realize the power of >> scheduled mac and GPS support. By then maybe the rest of the BreezeMAX >> code will have made way to the VL engineers and everyone can be happy >> :-) >> >> Jon Langeler >> Michwave Tech. >> >> Patrick Leary wrote: >> >>> Jon, >>> >>> Why is that the case? You really think GPS on Canopy is some cool >>> feature? Canopy must have GPS to function. Without it, it kills itself. >>> It is all to prevent self-inflicted interference (remember, Canopy does >>> not even have ATPC) and to allow for channel re-use. Other systems, >> like >>> VL, do not need it. It provides far more capacity than Canopy, so it >>> does not need to re-use channels and with basic channel planning you >>> don't have issues with self-interference. >>> >>> Patrick Leary >>> AVP WISP Markets >>> Alvarion, Inc. >>> o: 650.314.2628 >>> c: 760.580.0080 >>> Vonage: 650.641.1243 >>> >>> >> >> -- >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> >> >> ************************************************************************ >> ************ >> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by >> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & >> computer viruses(192). >> ************************************************************************ >> ************ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ************************************************************************ >> ************ >> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by >> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & >> computer viruses(42). >> ************************************************************************ >> ************ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ************************************************************************ **** > ******** >> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by >> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & >> computer viruses. >> > ************************************************************************ **** > ******** >> >> >> >> -- >> 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/ > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.8/455 - Release Date: 9/22/2006 > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > ************************************************************************ **** > ******** > This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer > viruses(192). > ************************************************************************ **** > ******** > > > > > > > > > ************************************************************************ **** > ******** > This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer > viruses(43). > ************************************************************************ **** > ******** > > > > -- > 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/ > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.8/455 - Release Date: 9/22/2006 > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ ************************************************************************ ************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(191). ************************************************************************ ************ ************************************************************************ ************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42). ************************************************************************ ************ ************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************************ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
