On Mon, 24 Nov 2008, Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: >If you hang out over at [EMAIL PROTECTED] you will find more than >a hundred WISPs, many of them very small operations from 100-1000 >subscribers that are 100% canopy. And generally speaking they are >kicking butt and taking names in their markets. I disagree that >Canopy is not marketed to the smaller WISPS. It costs a little
Perhaps I stated my point in the wrong way. It would be more accurate to say that Canopy WISPs tend to be larger. This was not a "smack" against Canopy. It was, actually, a compliment to their ability to do the things they do in a junk spectrum like the 2.4GHz band. As for their focused marketing toward smaller WISPs or not, I can only say that if you took a poll of WISPs of all sizes, you'd find more larger WISPs using it than the smaller guys. So if it's a matter of focus from their marketing department or not, I'd have to say that their take rate is better among those that are not "new startups" or "smaller" (how you define those 2 groups may be different than my definition). And, for what it's worth, I AM on the Moto list. ;-) >And they are still innovating. If you reread my post, this is exactly what I was complimenting them about. >It is funny how the Canopy product line is so polarizing in this >industry. There are many things that Canopy does well. There are some things that they do not. Until recently, Motorola was making comments to the FCC that could not be interpreted in any way other than they did not like unlicensed broadband. You can read their older comments (as recently as 2-3 years ago) and reach your own decisions about that. This company policy seems to have changed. Specifically, their comments on TVWS seemed to be very much on the side of unlicensed use. At least some of them did. I didn't read all of their comments. As for the technology, Canopy has been a poor steward of the spectrum. At least in the eyes of many other WISPs. Their system works very well, but used a lot of spectrum (more than 802.11x) and didn't deliver equivalent throughput. This, too, has changed somewhat and seems to be a work in progress. Another reason many folks are not happy with Canopy is the reality that you cannot co-exist with them. While this is not a bad thing for Canopy users, anyone else is stuck with their wider channels and difficult to avoid noise. >I don't understand human psychology well enough to even begin to >explain why this is such a polarizing topic. Cognitive dissonance >seems to come into play. Some of the reasons are mentioned above. I am sure other reasons exist. Personally, I don't agree with all the reasoning, but some of it I do. -- ******************************************************************** * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering * * http://www.wispa.org/ * WISPA Board Member * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * ******************************************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
