jdubber
join:2006-10-03
Napa, CA
| How are local wisps affected
I was wondering how local wisps were affected when bigger companies take over and offer free wi-fi service, such as the google wireless in San Francisco and also the town of Mountain View in California. Please respond if you are familiar with this as a large company may be offer free service in a town where I work for a local wisp. |
|
viperm
Carpe Diem
Premium
join:2002-07-09
Winchester, CA
| Is it Earhlink?
We have ET here in Anaheim. Its not an issue we offer faster and more consistent PTMP connections etc. You are comparing apples to oranges. The Muni concept will never outperform the WISP model, but these bigger companies still dont see that and eventually they will see the bigger picture.
There are still going to be areas that they will not be able to hit and or the thruput of the thier Tropos nodes or whetever they are using are going to to be the weak link as thruput is max 11 megs (in reality 5.5 megs) as 802.11 is 1/2 duplex.
SO I dont see how they can sell a dedicated 1.5 connection to a business customer and offer an SLA like we do. If that customer is downloading or uploading all the time its going to keep that node busy and affecting the QOS to other customers who have dedicated services off that node.
To me the Muni deals are only going to work for the casual surfer or smaller business possibly but never going to work for a tier 1 business customer.
--
ComTrain Certified Tower Climber. American Tower Certified approved contractor |
|
polk5
join:2001-12-29
New Orleans, LA
1 edit | I would agree to above but: Once these Co's spend millions of dollars to build a City out and realize that the tropo's just do not cut it, then all they have to do is ditch the tropos and turn to a wisp model. The main infrastructure will be canopy clusters all over the place. Why wouldnt they do this?
That being said, I think my customer service will always be better than a large corporation. So, I am not going to say I am not concerned but I really dont think it will affect my business. Take my alarm business for instance. I can compete heads up with ADT, Brinks and the other big guys all day long. I guess this is what keeps the small businesses going in the good ol USA. |
|
viperm
Carpe Diem
Premium
join:2002-07-09
Winchester, CA
| reply to jdubber
I would normally agree with you but Canopy still is a dirty and noisy device that is still not capable of doing what is needed in a city wide deployment in my opinion..
The # 1 reason is that you would need more of them because range is an issue and cities are trying to do things on a budget. Why use canopy when you can use say XYZ device with greater range, better thruput, better capabilities and you need less per city.
I.E. Why spend $5 million in gear when you can spend $2.5 million for better gear and better performance? ( these are just made up examples but you get my point)
In the end its a money thing with the cities as well as the company doing the deployment be it Earthlink, Google, or any ohter ISP that wants to put skin in the game the less thy have to pay to deploy the better the model looks and its all about ROI!
--
ComTrain Certified Tower Climber. American Tower Certified approved contractor |
|
polk5
join:2001-12-29
New Orleans, LA
| The only way I can imagine to get the best coverage over a complete city with what I know about is canopy. Or it would have to be another gear that uses the sync method so you would not interfere with yourself while trying to cover as much as possible. I agree with you that canopy would not be able to handle the throughput on a tier1 business model. So, maybe trying to cover a (complete) city is just not feesible at this time with the technology available. I constantly get asked by certain areas for service. As much as I would like to have every block in the city covered, if the numbers do not justify a pop I pass on it. Of course I have this option. The Muni deals are forced to try to cover it all. |
|
viperm
Carpe Diem
Premium
join:2002-07-09
Winchester, CA
| reply to jdubber
There is other equipment out there I just dont want to mention. I am sure you all can figure it out, SYNC is not the magic bullet to prevent interference. If you plan your paths correctly, adjust your sectors, allow for proper fade margin, and plan out your frequencies there should be little to no problems.
What happnes is people get in a rush and dont do a proper analysis of the areas they want to deploy and account for the noise and or any other obstacles until they are knee deep into thier project and its to late to backout..
It just takes proper planning thats all and that takes time as well as some money but peope tend to forget to do this..
We get people telling us all the time OOHHH deploy here or go there. We tell them there is a reason we dont I.E. to much noise, environment is not condusive to the wireless model etc or sometimes it does make sense but once again a percieved nice clean area maybe littered with noise that you can do nothing about and no solution you come up with will work..
--
ComTrain Certified Tower Climber. American Tower Certified approved contractor |
|
korym
Go Wisp's
ExMod 1999-03
join:1999-12-23
Richmond, VA
clubs:
| said by viperm  :We get people telling us all the time OOHHH deploy here or go there. We tell them there is a reason we dont I.E. to much noise, environment is not condusive to the wireless model etc or sometimes it does make sense but once again a percieved nice clean area maybe littered with noise that you can do nothing about and no solution you come up with will work.. Or maybe it's just too damn expensive. 
--
WISP Directory : WISP News : Start a WISP |
|
sbrown
join:2006-07-17
Sandy, OR
| reply to jdubber
Muni-ISPs that are run by big companies do not work well, in my opinion...
We are a WISP and a city - basically our local phone company didn't want to get a larger DSLAM for DSL, so we installed our own in their CO... Then we deployed WaveRider 900Mhz. Now we are deploying a Wifi system (not Tropos, but an designed system) We aren't trying to do it for the lowest cost, we are trying to do it for a reasonable cost.
So, we aren't going to cover our entire town in WiFi this year, but we are rolling it that way.
So the muni-ISP model CAN work, it is just a matter of having a good business model. |
|
AnonDOG
@208.66.x.x
| reply to viperm
quote:
I would normally agree with you but Canopy still is a dirty and noisy device that is still not capable of doing what is needed in a city wide deployment in my opinion..
Canopy is no less, or more, noisy or dirty than any other system, proprietary or otherwise. Canopy expects to be able to use the entire spectrum. So do most WiFi based WISPs who will not only use the entire spectrum but who will use it with both horizontal and vertical polarization... in my opinion ...
quote:
The # 1 reason is that you would need more of them because range is an issue and cities are trying to do things on a budget. Why use canopy when you can use say XYZ device with greater range, better thruput, better capabilities and you need less per city.
Well, because bi-level FSK is pretty robust. It takes a licking and keeps on ticking. It requires a lower fade margin.
quote:
I.E. Why spend $5 million in gear when you can spend $2.5 million for better gear and better performance? ( these are just made up examples but you get my point)
I would get the point if the point were correct. Personally I use other hardware than Canopy for backhauls. I have not found it to be superior, except that it can function to a lower RSSI than Canopy. Otherwise, I can see why I might purchase a Canopy only backhaul system. The jury is still out on that one.
quote:
In the end its a money thing with the cities as well as the company doing the deployment be it Earthlink, Google, or any ohter ISP that wants to put skin in the game the less thy have to pay to deploy the better the model looks and its all about ROI!
This is a good point, except that there is a point when you decide that reliability is more important than your ROI date.
Polk has a good point. You want to cover a city, you cover it with TDMA/Synchronous Access systems. Nothing else is really survivable. Collision based systems can not deliver the guaranteed bandwidth that is required on the large scale without also delivering the guaranteed self-interference that is available with collision sensed systems |
|
public
join:2002-01-19
Santa Clara, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to jdubber
said by jdubber :I was wondering how local wisps were affected when bigger companies take over and offer free wi-fi service, such as the google wireless in San Francisco and also the town of Mountain View in California. Please respond if you are familiar with this as a large company may be offer free service in a town where I work for a local wisp. Mountain view, a rather flat bay side urban expanse is largely served by Comcast and SBC/ATT/NSA, albeit with spotty coverage. WISPs operate mostly in the coastal hills where there is no other service.
Not many WISPs are brave or foolish to take on the incumbents who can repair or extend cables and offer $12 service. |
|
