AnonDOG
@208.66.x.x
| Re: How are local wisps affected 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 |
