Lonnie,
I think you've done a great job with StarOS. You found a need and went
after it with true entrepreneurial zeal. And you've done it all from
that remote slice of mountain paradise. I bet your town is proud of you
too, since you are a great local success story and a perfect example of
the possibilities for smart people in small towns in a global
marketplace. I suspect your lifestyle has been majorly elevated since
you launched it and that's all well-earned! I remember you pre-StarOS!
You got nothing but my respect.
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 Lonnie Nunweiler
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 8:40 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Real World comparison of Trango-staros-Alvarion
I agree that Tom's findings are accurate and mirror the real world,
even to the conclusion --> they use our gear at the end of the
exercise. It just means we'll have to work on our installation and
troubleshooting tools.
Lonnie
On 9/27/06, Brad Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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/
>
--
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/
--
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/
