Last I knew, it was by year's end or maybe 1Q2009. They've already released some of the products they've been talking to me about.
---------- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -------------------------------------------------- From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:38 AM To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 > That would be great... but is there a time frame? > > Travis > Microserv > > Mike Hammett wrote: >> There are companies out there working on non-802.11 3.65 GHz systems that >> provide the same spectral efficiency as WiMAX, but without the WiMAX hype >> price tag. >> >> >> ---------- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> >> From: Travis Johnson >> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 8:30 AM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: [WISPA] 3.65 >> >> >> Matt, >> >> I agree. We are looking at the same thing... putting up some 3.65ghz AP's >> on our "bigger" towers and moving heavy usage customers to that. However, >> until base stations are less than $8k, the WiMax people can keep spending >> money on advertising, trade-shows, etc. telling us how great they are, >> I'm not going to buy. >> >> When you can buy a licensed microwave radio link for $8k (less antennas), >> and you know the company is making money, there is no reason 3.65ghz base >> stations have to be $8k+. >> >> Hopefully at some point, they will wake up and realize there is an entire >> market they are missing. >> >> Travis >> Microserv >> >> Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: >> I'm with Travis on this, with the exception of using StarOS instead of >> Mikrotik. It is nice to have a set of standard, mature tools such as >> radius, cbq/iptable rules and standard, non-vendor specific hardware to >> work with instead of having to use a limited, proprietary system limited >> to a single vendor. I've deployed/consulted on 802.11 a/b/g networks >> representing 8000+ CPE units and it can be made to work just fine as >> long as it is managed properly. Travis is a pro, and he has the >> experience to design his network in such a way as to maximize the >> performance of his equipment. There are many others out there having >> the same success. >> >> FWIW, I believe the most logical next step is to start moving heavy >> usage customers over to 3.65 WiMAX gear starting next spring. I think >> we are near the threshold of what is going to be possible with >> unlicensed equipment - barring some kind of amazing breakthrough. I >> foresee a need to deploy smaller and smaller cells to maintain the >> desired performance level. It helps to have 10mhz channel sizes >> available to maximize the utilization of existing spectrum, but even >> that is starting to get awfully crowded. Whitespaces sure would help. >> >> I spent the last two years putting up 802.11a based APs across my entire >> service area and migrating customers from 2.4 to them to get the higher >> ARPU from faster speeds and VOIP service. I foresee spending the next >> two years deploying licensed backhauls and 3.65 APs starting with the >> high traffic areas and working out to the fringes. Its the neverending >> story. >> >> Matt Larsen >> vistabeam.com >> >> >> >> Travis Johnson wrote: >> Hi, >> >> We don't use DHCP. Every single customer gets a real, static IP address. >> We also a assign a static IP address to every radio (for management). >> >> When I posted the question a month ago about how to force an SM to >> connect to a specific AP on a tower, the only answer was "color code". >> This isn't really an option, as that means the installer has to change >> the color code in the field. All of our current radios are setup and >> ready to connect to ANY tower and ANY AP on that tower without the >> installer doing anything in the field. >> >> And how does first level tech support even find the correct radio in the >> AP list for a customer on the phone? They have to scroll through 160 >> people to find them by MAC address? >> >> Yes, Canopy is a slower radio in today's world. 14Mbps of total >> throughput on a 20mhz channel is SLOW. Using Mikrotik I can get 30Mbps >> (double the speed) on the same channel size. Or I can use a 10mhz >> channel and get 15Mbps. And all these speeds can be delivered via upload >> or download or any combination, I don't have to set a specific -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
