Technically, how is the canopy as redundant as a T1? I am trying to convince customers of the reliability
In my opinion Canopy is very redundant if deployed right and maintained.
Neither a T1 nor a Canopy link is, by itself, redundant. As far as reliability, I’d say a T1 is more reliable; it’s a simpler technology, so there’s less to go wrong; it’s an older technology, so the potential problems are better known; it’s more stable, in that there aren’t software updates every 6 months.
The primary reason, however, is that a T1 operates in a more controlled environment. The 4 wires carrying a T1 signal has to deal with crosstalk, but it doesn’t have to deal with some unknown party deciding to use the same frequency on the same 4 wires. That’s essentially what any RF technology has to deal with on an unlicensed band.
A Canopy network can best compete with T1s on cost. But if your competitor is provisioning the T1s using newer DSL equipment, you may have a tougher time competing.
To second Teknix’s comments, nothing by itself can be redundant. When talking about redundancy of networking, the only time something is redundant is when you have an exact duplicate of what you are talking about waiting to take over if the first fails.
Redundant power := having a generator waiting for the power company to fail
Redundant server := having a second identical server waiting for the first to fail
Redundant hard drive := having a second drive waiting for the first to fail (RAID 1)
Thusly, the only redundant data circuit (be it a T1, DSL circuit, or wireless link) is a circuit with a clone lying in wait for disaster.
AWB50 probally should use the term “reliable” instead. RF links have many, many more variables then copper circuits (RF conditions, terrain, weather, interference, etc), which make them (IMHO) inherently less reliable then copper circuits.
We provide several kinds of broadband: Wireless, DSL, and dedicated T1s. If a customer comes to us requireing five nines, then we quote a T1. But if a hiccupp can be tolerated here and there, then the MUCH less expensive DSL or wireless would be the better idea.
Sorry to contradict you, but I find I’m able to be redundant all by myself. Sometimes I’m even repetitiously redundant.
ahull wrote: To second Teknix's comments, nothing by itself can be redundant.
True, I should have qualified....
Within the scope of networking, nothing by itself can be redundant.
I do find that I periodically find myself being redundantly redundant when I find myself being redundant in a repetitiously redundant manor. heh