Considering my name comes up here several times I guess I should reply....
Tom DeReggi wrote:
So there is no misunderstanding. My original comment was based on
radios like early WMUX, that used the whole spectrum range.
I have nothing against high capacity radios 100mbps FDX and Higher. I
don't have anything against selecting higher capacity radios when
needed, or chosing a radio that is less efficient because it is the
only radio capable to meet the need, or required to get the job done.
Where my beef is, is using an unefficient radio to accomplish
something when an efficient radio is available to deliver equivellent
speed (at a reasonable cost). Price is not everything. As WISPs we
have a responsibility to do the best job we can. We are not obligated
to sacrifice, but we are obligated to live by example and do the best
we can, with consideration of others in the environment. If someone
is doing that, I have no beef, regardless of the technology that is used.
Unfortunately you are not going to get the same latency with a half
duplex radio. So latency is one issue. Another is security. Using
something that is proprietary also makes your network more secure. So
those are 2 good issues to coinsider why to not use something like a
Trango for large scale backhaul.
My post was not about wether PTP or PTMP or any specific radio or
deployment design was more efficient than another, and irrelevent
because there is a requirement for all types that have issues more
important than the efficiency. My point was what ever method was
chosen, the provider should be aware to install the most efficient
system possible that does not have a significant trade off, within
reason.
But what do you consider a significant tradeoff???
I'd always recommend a 100mbps FX radio that used 32 mhz of spectrum
over one that used 100Mhz of spectrum.
That's fine as long as it meets your business model. But is the 100
Mhz. is more economical and I am not using that spectrum, then why not
use it??
There are so many people that just put up links, and then say if I
don't have problem with interference thats all that matters. That is
selfish and foolish.
What should they do?? Assume that they are causing interference and
what??? Shut down??? I think the best you can do is design a system
within your knowledge base and budget.
Its not true that interference is bi-directional.
I know that...
The high gain system is going to kill the lower gain system.
Usually. C/I is obviously important.
The responsible thing to do is.... to do a channel scan/survey to see
the free-est channel, and then broadcast on that channel, with the
intent to avoid interference to others.
But you know that's not a given...
It is clear as day what is and isn't good etiquette, and those that do
not follow it, will ultimately loose in my prediction. In my earlier
days, if I felt interference, I just switched to another channel to
avoid the conflict, an advantage Trango gave me easilly.
Exalt does that in 1 Mhz. channels. And you can switch polarities via
software also.
But we don't do it anymore, we hold our ground. If our link is up,
and we see new interference on it, we go after the interferer until
they move.
What does "go after" mean????
I can tell you, if someone puts up a radio using all 100mhz of
spectrum, and it happens to cross one of our cellsite or subscribers
taking them down, the offendor's link will be taken down (made
unusable) within 24 hours, that I promise and guarantee. Why do I say
that, because I'm follow your advise Bob, business is business.
Wait a minute......That is willful interference. I do not condone
"willful" interference. So that is not my advise. I don't condone that
nor should anyone else associated with WISPA. You should be searching
them out and working out the issue.
What comes around goes around. I got a radio on the shelf that I call
the Equalizer ready and waiting, and 200 class A/B roof tops to create
a ligitimate PtP link to take it down. NOBODY is above/invulnerable
to interference. And a tech is fooling theirself is their strategy is
they are always going to deploy smarter than the next guy. We all have
the same gear available to us.
The length of this industry depends on the players. We can rush our
selves to extiction or we can preach and follow etiquette.
The length of this industry has to do with competition. If Bill Gates
can put up a satellite tomorrow and feed everyone 50 Mb with 1 ms of
latency for $19/month, the WISP industry is DEAD! I don't care how you
designed your system or how considerate you were to others.
Bob, I also use narrow beam 2ft antenna with low tx power for short
PTPs to avoid interference, and sometimes that works well enough (even
with spectrum wasting radios). But not always. Sometimes it send a
large number of reflections bouncing all across the city which are
adative to all the other noise sources. I'd still argue using a radio
that is more efficient will have less risk, if one is available that
can meet the need.
The problem with using a radio that uses full 100mhz is that there is
no way to immediately resurrect interference, with no channel to run
to, without contacting the interferor.
See my Walmart comments......... Unfortunately sometimes you can talk
to the competition until they are blue in the face and nothing will
happen.
This forces your interfered with to resort to desperate measures to
resolve the interference on their own link. It brings out the worse in
your newly created enemy. Its best to allow your apponent a mechanism
to cure the problem without being required to taking you down back,
and asking questions later. Its about conflict avoidance not winning a
conflict.
Agreed...But that is not going to win all the wars unfortunately.. It's
the gentlemens way to do things but not everyone in business is a gentleman.
The truth is its almost impossible to tell whether you will interfere
with some one else. The reason is that you can scan for noise, but you
can't tell what equipment the other party is using , what noise floor
they require to opperate, or the distance of their link. Again if
you scan first, and the channel is empty, there is no issue here. But
I find it rare in DC to find ANY channel that is "EMPTY".
Oh..Oh......Then I guess you won't be too happy if I tell you I have
deployed 5 Exalt links in Wash. DC. 100 Mb 5 Ghz....... <g>
The challenge is usually what do I have to do to get over the noise
floor. A 2ft dish still have a beamwidth of minimum 6deg, which
covers a lot of territory indense Urban america.
You can only do the best you can with what you can afford.
My reply was not directed towards your response. It was directed to the
thread in general. With unlicensed equipment there is going to be
interference. And there are going to be companies that will go out of
business because they can't compete wether it financially or with
spectrum. Business is the oportunity to create something that will
provide for others as well as for the owner. The federal government
believes competition is good as we all know from the
telco/LEC/CLEC/DLEC/ELEC/FLEC...etc, etc situation. But you and I as
small business do not want competition (I surely don't...excuse me for
being greedy :-)). If I was in the position, while it is not "nice"
play, I would do everything in my power to use up as much of the
spectrum as possible to keep others out. The oil companies do it every
day. So do the pharmaceutical companies. As do others What the
hell...look at Canopy. Do you think Motorola cares if they interfere
with everyone and their brother??? No....They care about market share
at any legal means possible.
And that's BIG business.....
:-)
Have a great day....I have to go install another Exaly link in NYC and
I'm late...
-B-
Rant done.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Moldashel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Matt Liotta wrote:
Matt Liotta wrote:
Its not greedy; efficient maybe, but not greedy.
Whoops... meant inefficient.
-Matt
100 Mb FD on a 32 Mhz. channel.....That's not bad.....
Besides...get the GPS syc option and you can tie in a handful of
links on the same channel. That makes them very efficient....
-B-
--
Bob Moldashel
Lakeland Communications, Inc.
Broadband Deployment Group
1350 Lincoln Avenue
Holbrook, New York 11741 USA
800-479-9195 Toll Free US & Canada
631-585-5558 Fax
516-551-1131 Cell
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
Bob Moldashel
Lakeland Communications, Inc.
Broadband Deployment Group
1350 Lincoln Avenue
Holbrook, New York 11741 USA
800-479-9195 Toll Free US & Canada
631-585-5558 Fax
516-551-1131 Cell
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
