Best of the ISP-Lists

News

Will EarthLink's Muni Architecture Fail?

Members of the ISP-Wireless list say that good municipal networks can be built, but not with Tropos, not with the architecture that EarthLink is advocating, and certainly not in New Orleans' facility poor, high interference environment.

[June 12, 2006]

They're the experts. The people running the local Wireless ISPs who exchange hints and tips on our ISP-Wireless list. They've built networks, and they're worried about what they see as EarthLink's inevitable failure, about how it could affect the WISP business and the well intentioned but possibly misled city employees who've bought into EarthLink's Tropos and Motorola architecture.

The WISPs say that Motorola is solid, but Tropos is not.

In the middle of a discussion about EarthLink's plans for New Orleans, TS posted a link to Jack Unger's dissection of Tropos' claims in a google forum.

For many WISPs, Unger is the guy who taught them how to build a WISP, and who also wrote the book (Deploying Wireless WANs pub. by Cisco Press).

Unger is even handed and usually very polite, but he is clearly worried about Tropos' marketing:

I don't hate Tropos personally; I just hate the way that they market their product. Their product isn't "bad". When Tropos is deployed in a mesh that serves a limited number of people who need only a limited amount of throughput in a low-interference environment, Tropos will do a fine job, but when deployed to deliver high-througput broadband wireless service to large numbers of people in a high-noise environment (like in Philly or San Francisco), Tropos' hype, balony, and smoke-and-mirrors style is going to:

1. Cause many high-level City IT employees to lose their jobs when their network doesn't meet their communities' expectations.

2. Cause large network deployers like Earthlink and Google to experience very public and very embarrassing wireless network failures.

3. Cause broadband wireless progress to be substantially set back when people see that wireless performance doesn't live up to it's promises.

. . .

Disclaimer: I do NOT sell wireless equipment and NOBODY has paid me to write and to post this e-mail.

JL was worried about EarthLink's use of spectrum:

I just saw this posted at dslreports at noon today, and read more here. My day was going real good before seeing this. Since I am using Canopy, I'm thinking and hoping I'll be okay, for a while anyway. Shouldn't my clusters sync up with theirs? Or can you have too much canopy in one area?

I have played with some mesh and have been a WISP for several years. I just cannot see their city wide network being a success. I have been wrong before. We had Bell try Americast here a few years back. It was a wireless TV service. After dumping a fortune in it they realized that with the buildings, trees, and other obstructions it was just not going to be successful. You're talking a lot of money to build out a network like this. How could they ever justify a ROI even if it did work? I don't get it. Guess we'll see.

TS added:

It is a little hard to see how this is a priority in nawlins give the other things going on there. Having said that, Earthlink's main job post-installation will be to manage expectations. I note the article talks about "up to 300 Kbps" bandwidth, which certainly gives them a lot of wiggle room when the actual user experience during peak use will probably be kinda like a CDPD modem, at least if they use the same mesh equipment they've spec'd in Philly.

RL agreed:

From my experience, there is no technology out there that will provide a huge connection, low speed network that will work without seriously prioritizing traffic and fall to its knees before the use of the high bandwidth subscribers. It's simply amazing that these cities are buying into this and spending huge taxpayer dollars without having to build a trial system!!!! It wouldn't work for a 10 block area! How do they convince people that it would work for a whole city? Not with realistic loading!

[JH replied] "Actually, they did build a trial system in Philadelphia but I don't know how rigorous any testing was. "

TR had some pertinent questions:

So what are the terms of the "Ordinance" ? Are they granting them unlimited easements? Do they need a mesh network? It's a small city, and last I heard there were many already delivering services. So did I hear this right, New Orleans just approved a plan to interfere with all the existing relief efforts in place offering alternate broadband connectivity to needy residents? That makes a lot of sense. First a hurricane comes in and wipes out communications. Then government makes decisions to wipe out the relief broadband? It will be an interesting proof of Earthlink's true colors. Will they deploy in a WISP-friendly manner?

JL replied:

I have a call into them since Wednesday. Still waiting to hear back from the operations dept. Someone e-mailed me Thursday and said I would be contacted. I figured it would be a week or so until I hear from them. It would be hardto deploy a system like this and be WISP-friendly wouldn't you agree?

GW was suspicious:

I don't think they were friendly as a dial up competitor, so why would they be friendly as a WISP competitor? Probably leave a little opportunity on the table in the beginning to allow the wisps to, as Peter R. says "Drink the Punch", and let them in, then whammo, try and pull the rug out from under us. My opinion, and I could be wrong.

TR was cautiously optimistic:

I'm not against Earthlink partnerships. I think it's helpful for the industry, having a money company in it to fuel the growth. But the secret is going to be not letting the goliath dictate the rules and be in control. I believe the local WISP needs to stay in control and dictate the terms. I believe the local WISP has the power to do so, in their local backyards. We'll see, it will be interesting.

Sector antenna deployments (with front to back) will always have more survivability than Omni deployments no matter how much power the Omni radios use. I also love it when a company standardizes on certical polarized solutions. That leaves at least 50 percent of the airwaves (horizontal pol) for the test of the real WISPs. In a way, that's WISP-friendly right off the bat, unless you are a Motorola or Alvarion shop.

LN said that innovative spectrum schemes can also protect a WISP against interference:

By using 5 MHz channel width and 5 MHz channel spacing, you get 11 channels from 2412 MHz to 2462 MHz that DO NOT overlap, like the 20 MHz wide channels do. Seriously, you can put 11 units on a tower and expect decent performance from all of them, or use 5 or 6 and leave some bandwidth for the other guys. A normal 20 MHz system cannot see these connections, thus you have an extra layer of security.

JL turned philiosophical:

I have become a Motorola shop since Katrina. It was a great thing, because I would not have survived any other way, with the interference here. Bell still does not have circuits up at many of the cell towers in the general New Orleans area. The cellcos are hammering horizontal because the small city network and myself are using canopy. I just had one very large WISP here say adios. Probably got tired of the interference, I'm guessing. Lose a competitor and gain a bigger one. It's the American way, I guess. LOL

One of the cell carriers actually admitted to re-flashing their radios in order to get more power. They were way over legal limits. . . . Once they got their 900 MHz radios powered up enough, they interfered with the military gear down here. They were shut down immediately. I think they were fined for that one.

—End