I just can't find it on peoples websites... Gino Villarini wrote: > everywere , we have about 5 APs deployed ... > > > Gino A. Villarini > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > > > > ________________________________ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Brian Rohrbacher > Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 10:08 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] WiMax delays? > > > Is the 400 series available? And where? > > 3-dB Networks wrote: > > I've always found the argument that Canopy is a poor steward of > the spectrum > interesting... > > Canopy allows channel reuse with GPS sync. Canopy is also more > likely to > deliver that same sustained throughput in a variety of > conditions no 802.11 > based system will. If I also started thinking about it I'm sure > I could > think of gear that uses wider channels (Proxim comes to mind) to > deliver > less throughput. > > The problem is roughly modulation. Compare 802.11b to Canopy > instead of > 802.11G. Motorola's OFDM product, the Canopy 400 series... > delivers 21Mbps > in a 10MHz channel... I'd say that's pretty efficient. Double > that to 20MHz > and you will have the Canopy 430 Series at 40Mbps. Advantage > Canopy gives > you 14Mbps in a 20MHz Channel. So from a innovation standpoint > Motorola has > taken the same amount of spectrum and doubled the throughput... > and from a > spectrum use perspective they are now going to deliver near that > coveted > 54Mbps mark... but still allowing for channel reuse, etc. > > I think one of the more interesting case studies has been > deploying 20 > Access Points on one tower in the 5.8GHz Band. Try that with > any other > system. > > Daniel White > 3-dB Networks > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Butch Evans > Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 12:09 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] WiMax delays? > > 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. > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/ > >
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
