[WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz
Ola everybody, I hope everyone had a great Christmas and New Year and are all ready for 2006, the year of the WISP :) When I have setup wireless in an area it has always depended on the Geographic's of the area as to if we deploy 2.4GHz or 5GHz and I have always decided that 2.4 should be used where NLOS could be an issue. This decision has always been based on the fact that the lower frequency will pass through trees a lot easier however I have recently read a white paper that suggests otherwise. Basically the document says that the higher the frequency, the better the scatter (the ability to bounce of and around objects). It also says that 5GHz is better at penetrating walls. So my question is, have I been basing some of our deployments on false information or am I missing something here? I know that in tests I have seen a more stable signal at 2.4GHz in a NLOS environment but is this just a fluke? Cheers, P. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.11/219 - Release Date: 02/01/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz
Paul, 5 GHz works NLOS in an urban environment. Bouncing around buildings, etc. Look at the success of Redline and Orthogon. OFDM and 5 GHz works well for them. An environment with trees is different. Trees absorb the signals, instead of bouncing them. Especially wet trees! We utilize 2.4 at every pop, mainly because of the low cost for deployment, and general coverage. We utilize 5 GHz frequently and also 900 MHz for NLOS issues. I hope this helps Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:44 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Ola everybody, I hope everyone had a great Christmas and New Year and are all ready for 2006, the year of the WISP :) When I have setup wireless in an area it has always depended on the Geographic's of the area as to if we deploy 2.4GHz or 5GHz and I have always decided that 2.4 should be used where NLOS could be an issue. This decision has always been based on the fact that the lower frequency will pass through trees a lot easier however I have recently read a white paper that suggests otherwise. Basically the document says that the higher the frequency, the better the scatter (the ability to bounce of and around objects). It also says that 5GHz is better at penetrating walls. So my question is, have I been basing some of our deployments on false information or am I missing something here? I know that in tests I have seen a more stable signal at 2.4GHz in a NLOS environment but is this just a fluke? Cheers, P. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.11/219 - Release Date: 02/01/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.10/218 - Release Date: 1/2/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz
My practical tests show that 2.4GHz works better in a rural Near LosS environment. This is using 802.11b/g vs 802.11a. I have had no luck with 5.3/5.8GHz in a rural Near/Non LoS environment. On the other hand, 5.8Ghz seems to be fine at range in LoS conditions. Go figure. Paul Hendry wrote: Just noticed that the document also says that 5GHz is better for passing through damp tree areas than 2.4GHz as 2.4GHz is very close to the O-H frequency which water is full of and therefore water absorbs 2.4GHz signals considerably more than 5GHz. If this is true then why is 2.4GHz better for tree NLOS environments than 5GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: 03 January 2006 11:48 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz I thought that was it but needed someone to clarify ;) What about 5GHz penetrating walls much better than 2.4GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Delp Sent: 03 January 2006 11:44 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Paul, 5 GHz works NLOS in an urban environment. Bouncing around buildings, etc. Look at the success of Redline and Orthogon. OFDM and 5 GHz works well for them. An environment with trees is different. Trees absorb the signals, instead of bouncing them. Especially wet trees! We utilize 2.4 at every pop, mainly because of the low cost for deployment, and general coverage. We utilize 5 GHz frequently and also 900 MHz for NLOS issues. I hope this helps Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:44 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Ola everybody, I hope everyone had a great Christmas and New Year and are all ready for 2006, the year of the WISP :) When I have setup wireless in an area it has always depended on the Geographic's of the area as to if we deploy 2.4GHz or 5GHz and I have always decided that 2.4 should be used where NLOS could be an issue. This decision has always been based on the fact that the lower frequency will pass through trees a lot easier however I have recently read a white paper that suggests otherwise. Basically the document says that the higher the frequency, the better the scatter (the ability to bounce of and around objects). It also says that 5GHz is better at penetrating walls. So my question is, have I been basing some of our deployments on false information or am I missing something here? I know that in tests I have seen a more stable signal at 2.4GHz in a NLOS environment but is this just a fluke? Cheers, P. -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz
The windows are probably low-E with a metalized film in the middle. Great radio reflector. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net The season is Christmas, not X-mas, not the holiday, but Christmas, because Christ was born to provide salvation to all who will believe! -- Original Message --- From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 10:07:47 -0500 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz We have a 5.8Ghz link where the antenna is directly behind concrete that works significantly better than through the windows in the same building. -Matt Blair Davis wrote: My practical tests show that 2.4GHz works better in a rural Near LosS environment. This is using 802.11b/g vs 802.11a. I have had no luck with 5.3/5.8GHz in a rural Near/Non LoS environment. On the other hand, 5.8Ghz seems to be fine at range in LoS conditions. Go figure. Paul Hendry wrote: Just noticed that the document also says that 5GHz is better for passing through damp tree areas than 2.4GHz as 2.4GHz is very close to the O-H frequency which water is full of and therefore water absorbs 2.4GHz signals considerably more than 5GHz. If this is true then why is 2.4GHz better for tree NLOS environments than 5GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: 03 January 2006 11:48 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz I thought that was it but needed someone to clarify ;) What about 5GHz penetrating walls much better than 2.4GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Delp Sent: 03 January 2006 11:44 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Paul, 5 GHz works NLOS in an urban environment. Bouncing around buildings, etc. Look at the success of Redline and Orthogon. OFDM and 5 GHz works well for them. An environment with trees is different. Trees absorb the signals, instead of bouncing them. Especially wet trees! We utilize 2.4 at every pop, mainly because of the low cost for deployment, and general coverage. We utilize 5 GHz frequently and also 900 MHz for NLOS issues. I hope this helps Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:44 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Ola everybody, I hope everyone had a great Christmas and New Year and are all ready for 2006, the year of the WISP :) When I have setup wireless in an area it has always depended on the Geographic's of the area as to if we deploy 2.4GHz or 5GHz and I have always decided that 2.4 should be used where NLOS could be an issue. This decision has always been based on the fact that the lower frequency will pass through trees a lot easier however I have recently read a white paper that suggests otherwise. Basically the document says that the higher the frequency, the better the scatter (the ability to bounce of and around objects). It also says that 5GHz is better at penetrating walls. So my question is, have I been basing some of our deployments on false information or am I missing something here? I know that in tests I have seen a more stable signal at 2.4GHz in a NLOS environment but is this just a fluke? Cheers, P. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- End of Original Message --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz
Hey Brad, what are the heights of the base stations? Are they tower mounted and what antenna's are they using? Dustin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:34 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Not all OFDM radios are created equally (especially PTMP). In many areas of NorthEast USA we have 1 mile radius's with eave mounted BreezeAccess VL Subscribers (5.8 Ghz) doing mod 6 which reflects a 10 meg true data rate. Typically these are obstructed NLOS links instead of going thru 1 mile of solid treelines. Rain/Ice does occasionally change mod levels but more than adequate data rates are achieved with this model. I have 2,400 subscribers (and growing) deployed in this fashion with one customer. Brad -Original Message- From: Blair Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 9:37 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz My practical tests show that 2.4GHz works better in a rural Near LosS environment. This is using 802.11b/g vs 802.11a. I have had no luck with 5.3/5.8GHz in a rural Near/Non LoS environment. On the other hand, 5.8Ghz seems to be fine at range in LoS conditions. Go figure. Paul Hendry wrote: Just noticed that the document also says that 5GHz is better for passing through damp tree areas than 2.4GHz as 2.4GHz is very close to the O-H frequency which water is full of and therefore water absorbs 2.4GHz signals considerably more than 5GHz. If this is true then why is 2.4GHz better for tree NLOS environments than 5GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: 03 January 2006 11:48 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz I thought that was it but needed someone to clarify ;) What about 5GHz penetrating walls much better than 2.4GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Delp Sent: 03 January 2006 11:44 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Paul, 5 GHz works NLOS in an urban environment. Bouncing around buildings, etc. Look at the success of Redline and Orthogon. OFDM and 5 GHz works well for them. An environment with trees is different. Trees absorb the signals, instead of bouncing them. Especially wet trees! We utilize 2.4 at every pop, mainly because of the low cost for deployment, and general coverage. We utilize 5 GHz frequently and also 900 MHz for NLOS issues. I hope this helps Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:44 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Ola everybody, I hope everyone had a great Christmas and New Year and are all ready for 2006, the year of the WISP :) When I have setup wireless in an area it has always depended on the Geographic's of the area as to if we deploy 2.4GHz or 5GHz and I have always decided that 2.4 should be used where NLOS could be an issue. This decision has always been based on the fact that the lower frequency will pass through trees a lot easier however I have recently read a white paper that suggests otherwise. Basically the document says that the higher the frequency, the better the scatter (the ability to bounce of and around objects). It also says that 5GHz is better at penetrating walls. So my question is, have I been basing some of our deployments on false information or am I missing something here? I know that in tests I have seen a more stable signal at 2.4GHz in a NLOS environment but is this just a fluke? Cheers, P. -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives:
Re: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz
Brad, Could you tell us more about what infrastructure is required to support the 2400 subscriber system you are referring to? How many tower locations, sectors per tower, backhaul used, etc.? This is interesting stuff for sure. I was wondering if we were ever going to hear any Alvarion stories here. I hear success stories on many different brand gear on the lists and I know people use Alvarion successfully but we rarely hear any stories about the systems. Is this Alvarion customer a member of this list server? I would love to hear from him also, or any other Alvarion based WISP for that matter, how their system performs in different conditions, scalability, etc. This is an open industry list and provided the information is used in a context of informing WISPs and is not a sales advertisement I would gladly listen to what you guys have to say about the VL platform. Brad, do you think this 2400 subscriber WISP operator would be interested in joining WISPA? We could use some input from more WISPs who are doing well. Thanks, Scriv Brad Larson wrote: Not all OFDM radios are created equally (especially PTMP). In many areas of NorthEast USA we have 1 mile radius's with eave mounted BreezeAccess VL Subscribers (5.8 Ghz) doing mod 6 which reflects a 10 meg true data rate. Typically these are obstructed NLOS links instead of going thru 1 mile of solid treelines. Rain/Ice does occasionally change mod levels but more than adequate data rates are achieved with this model. I have 2,400 subscribers (and growing) deployed in this fashion with one customer. Brad -Original Message- From: Blair Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 9:37 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz My practical tests show that 2.4GHz works better in a rural Near LosS environment. This is using 802.11b/g vs 802.11a. I have had no luck with 5.3/5.8GHz in a rural Near/Non LoS environment. On the other hand, 5.8Ghz seems to be fine at range in LoS conditions. Go figure. Paul Hendry wrote: Just noticed that the document also says that 5GHz is better for passing through damp tree areas than 2.4GHz as 2.4GHz is very close to the O-H frequency which water is full of and therefore water absorbs 2.4GHz signals considerably more than 5GHz. If this is true then why is 2.4GHz better for tree NLOS environments than 5GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: 03 January 2006 11:48 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz I thought that was it but needed someone to clarify ;) What about 5GHz penetrating walls much better than 2.4GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Delp Sent: 03 January 2006 11:44 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Paul, 5 GHz works NLOS in an urban environment. Bouncing around buildings, etc. Look at the success of Redline and Orthogon. OFDM and 5 GHz works well for them. An environment with trees is different. Trees absorb the signals, instead of bouncing them. Especially wet trees! We utilize 2.4 at every pop, mainly because of the low cost for deployment, and general coverage. We utilize 5 GHz frequently and also 900 MHz for NLOS issues. I hope this helps Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:44 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Ola everybody, I hope everyone had a great Christmas and New Year and are all ready for 2006, the year of the WISP :) When I have setup wireless in an area it has always depended on the Geographic's of the area as to if we deploy 2.4GHz or 5GHz and I have always decided that 2.4 should be used where NLOS could be an issue. This decision has always been based on the fact that the lower frequency will pass through trees a lot easier however I have recently read a white paper that suggests otherwise. Basically the document says that the higher the frequency, the better the scatter (the ability to bounce of and around objects). It also says that 5GHz is better at penetrating walls. So my question is, have I been basing some of our deployments on false information or am I missing something here? I know that in tests I have seen a more stable signal at 2.4GHz in a NLOS environment but is this just a fluke? Cheers, P. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz
Dustin, Typically 50 feet above the tree line for this customer gets their 1 mile cell sites which is what the business model plans for. They garner better tower rates when not asking for the primo higher tower locations. I've been trying to get Tom to travel and see a site for a long time. The base station antennas are the 90 or 120 sectors we ship with the BreezeAccess VL platform. Brad Brad Larson Northeast Regional Manager Alvarion -Original Message- From: dustin jurman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:48 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Hey Brad, what are the heights of the base stations? Are they tower mounted and what antenna's are they using? Dustin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:34 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Not all OFDM radios are created equally (especially PTMP). In many areas of NorthEast USA we have 1 mile radius's with eave mounted BreezeAccess VL Subscribers (5.8 Ghz) doing mod 6 which reflects a 10 meg true data rate. Typically these are obstructed NLOS links instead of going thru 1 mile of solid treelines. Rain/Ice does occasionally change mod levels but more than adequate data rates are achieved with this model. I have 2,400 subscribers (and growing) deployed in this fashion with one customer. Brad -Original Message- From: Blair Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 9:37 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz My practical tests show that 2.4GHz works better in a rural Near LosS environment. This is using 802.11b/g vs 802.11a. I have had no luck with 5.3/5.8GHz in a rural Near/Non LoS environment. On the other hand, 5.8Ghz seems to be fine at range in LoS conditions. Go figure. Paul Hendry wrote: Just noticed that the document also says that 5GHz is better for passing through damp tree areas than 2.4GHz as 2.4GHz is very close to the O-H frequency which water is full of and therefore water absorbs 2.4GHz signals considerably more than 5GHz. If this is true then why is 2.4GHz better for tree NLOS environments than 5GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: 03 January 2006 11:48 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz I thought that was it but needed someone to clarify ;) What about 5GHz penetrating walls much better than 2.4GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Delp Sent: 03 January 2006 11:44 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Paul, 5 GHz works NLOS in an urban environment. Bouncing around buildings, etc. Look at the success of Redline and Orthogon. OFDM and 5 GHz works well for them. An environment with trees is different. Trees absorb the signals, instead of bouncing them. Especially wet trees! We utilize 2.4 at every pop, mainly because of the low cost for deployment, and general coverage. We utilize 5 GHz frequently and also 900 MHz for NLOS issues. I hope this helps Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:44 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Ola everybody, I hope everyone had a great Christmas and New Year and are all ready for 2006, the year of the WISP :) When I have setup wireless in an area it has always depended on the Geographic's of the area as to if we deploy 2.4GHz or 5GHz and I have always decided that 2.4 should be used where NLOS could be an issue. This decision has always been based on the fact that the lower frequency will pass through trees a lot easier however I have recently read a white paper that suggests otherwise. Basically the document says that the higher the frequency, the better the scatter (the ability to bounce of and around objects). It also says that 5GHz is better at penetrating walls. So my question is, have I been basing some of our deployments on false information or am I missing something here? I know that in tests I have seen a more stable signal at 2.4GHz in a NLOS environment but is this just a fluke? Cheers, P. -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer
[WISPA] Tower Height Regulations
Besides local regulations does the FAA/FCC have requirements on the distance your tower is from the roads if it falls. I had someone tell me today that a couple years ago they made a law that if you had a 100 tower it needed to be 150 away from the road. And they said that older towers would be grandfathered in. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC 114 S. Walnut St. Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Re: VOIP / CommPartners
Tom, You would be best to build it yourself or buy it from another WISP like Matt. (Or Lightyear). You are not going to find your described Partner. Vendors are usually not partners. I have dealt with many, many companies in the telecom space - and hardly any understand the word. VOIP Providers are still trying to figure out how to make money. Many sell both retail and wholesale - which leads you to the ILEC model of vendor/competitor. My comment about Voice not being data and CLEC failures: CLECs fail because they have a BOC business structure and processes without having the BOC monopoly. CLECs fail because they sell me-too products on price and the implementation is usually not smooth. (I don't care if it is the ILEC's fault - the customer perceives the problem as the CLEC). You can only blame the FCC for so much. How about DA/YP/WP? Do you know how many CLECs forgot that? Deploying VOIP is not like putting in a DSL modem and heading home. Extensions, LAN assesment, yadda da. But then you sold PCPBXs so you know all this. I think you missed the point about 20 subs or less being prohibitive. For an ISP, having a referral agent doing 20 subs is huge. For a national provider, 20 lines is a waste of time. Many companies would rather work with 25 companies that sell 100s than 2500 companies that sell 10. Even ISPs tell me they would rather have 100 subs making a $1 each than 2 subs making $50 each. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but this is how I have seen it over the last 5 years dealing with the industry. Regards, Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Re: VOIP / CommPartners
On 1/3/06, Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Many companies would rather work with 25 companies that sell 100s than 2500 companies that sell 10.Even ISPs tell me they would rather have 100 subs making a $1 each than2 subs making $50 each.I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but this is how I have seen itover the last 5 years dealing with the industry. I think you meant this the other way around - I, at least, would rather have 2x$50 than 100x$1. Best,-- Dylan OliverPrimaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Re: verizon fios - Advertising Battle
Charles, What kind of work did they do in the forbearance issues? It's good to have some guns on our side into battles, In many trips to the FCC I've heard the same thing, We -ISP's Wisp's etc,,, Don't show up enough as the LEC's roam the halls of the FCC. Squeaky wheel gets the oil. Dustin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Wu Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 1:50 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: verizon fios - Advertising Battle snip You guys haven't been going to enough conferences and listening to very bright people like Kris Twomey try and explain such things to the (W)ISP industry. Shame on that Michael Anderson for putting Kris up in front of an audience to try to keep the WISP industry informed. /snip Thought I'd chime in and add my 2 cents One thing that this WISP / ISP / Operator community lacks is a cohesive and constant voice for wireless in DC (WISPA has done a great job, but guys like Marlon, Rich, Jon and co still have day jobs and families to feed, and we can't rely solely on their volunteer efforts) I would like to take this opportunity to intrtoduce everyone to Michael Hazzard, of Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge Rice (WCSR). WCSR has been quite active in the CLEC / UNE-P / Forebearance battles, and although the outcome of those battles may be a foregone conclusion by now, they are interested in helping on the final front for independents (e.g., broadband wireless). That said, we plan on collaborating together the next several months amongst all affected communities (in this case, WISPs/ISPs are one organization we are interested in working with, but we also plan on working with other types of network operators, including CLECs, Rural Independents, Electrical Coops, Munis, etc) to put together a unified cohesive position on wireless broadband We are currently working on some survey questions, and will probably be contacting everyone shortly to ask some of these questions (so please don't blacklist me =) -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Board Resignation
WISPA Board and Members: As of today, I resign my role as Board Member and Treasurer of the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA). I don't have the interest in continuing in either role. I'm enjoying working directly with the membership. The membership should continue to evolve, develop new benefits based on the power of numbers in the membership. I highly recommend the membership continue to define WISPA, its goals, its benefits and its operation, as it is still *all new*, and do this periodically. I look forward to the membership's first formal meeting. Sincerely, Alex Huppenthal -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC regs question
For anyone that cares to fact check this the guy at the FCC to talk to is John Reed. He wrote much of the part-15 rules. I ask him whenever I'm not sure. Here goes: 900 mhz. max of 36 dB eirp. Period. Max radio output of 30 dB (1 watt) period. 5.1 is indoor only, very low power. I don't remember how much but I'm thinking 250mw or some such. 5.3 (sometimes called 5.2) 30 dB period. never more. I think the radios are limited to 24 dB (250mw). You CAN drop the radio output and run higher gain antennas and get very long ranges. We used to run a lot of 10 to 15 mile ptp links with Wireless Inc. radios. 5.7 (unii) has a strange power rule to it. I can't remember how it all works exactly, stick with manufacturer advice. 5.8 36 dB max for ptmp. for ptp (remember, customers are considered ptp) it's max of 30 dB of radio output, no limit on antenna gain. OK, now for the most confusing one. 2.4. PTMP is 36 dB. Unless you run an active antenna or switched multiple sector distribution point that sees very small sectors then you can follow the ptp rules up to a certain point. Vivato and Navini are the only companies I know of that are certified under these rules. It's actually a much better idea for rural than urban deployments due to noise levels. 2.4 ptp is max of 30 dB (1 Watt) of radio (or amp) tx power and 6 dB of antenna gain. After that it's down one on tx power and up 3 dB on antenna gain. You can, legally run 10,000 watts at 2.4. All you need is one of those NASA type antennas to do it :-). On the certification thing. All antennas use have to be of the same type (yagi, grid, dish, panel, omni, sector etc.), same pattern and equal or lesser gain than what's been certified. If you are running radios that are certified only with 2.2 dB rubber ducky antennas, then you can't put anything bigger than that on them. Penalties for not following the rules range from fines to replacement of the offending gear. Thus far I know of NO one that's been shut down but I do know of people who've had to change things out or get equipment specially certified. Hope that helps, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Anthony Will [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 7:40 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC regs question This only applies to the 2.4ghz ISM band there are different rules for the 900mhz and 5.8 ISM band plus different rules for the UNII rules. The ISM rules state, 900mhz is a total of 36dbm EIRP no mater if it is multi point or PtP. 5.8ghz is 1 watt power and as large a antenna you can put on it for PtP and 36dbm total EIRP for multi point. This is how I understand the rules. You are not technically allowed to swap out other manufacture antenna's only allowed to use lower gain antenna from the same manufacture this is of the same basic type that has the type acceptance registered with the FCC for any given radio transmitter. For example if a pacwireless 18dbi flat panel is registered you can use any flat panel from pacwireless that is 18dbi or less in gain. Now there has been a lot of unofficial statements by members of the FCC that have stated twists or bends in the antenna selection part of the rulings but I have yet to see anything that states otherwise on a official document. Anthony Tom DeReggi wrote: Its spelled out towards the end of the document. 30 db max radio power + 6 db antenna. PTP 3 to 1 rule applies, to use use much larger antennas at CPE side, and every 3 db antenna gain, minus 1 db radio gain at CPE side. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 1:59 PM Subject: [WISPA] FCC regs question List, Can anyone tell me what the current FCC regs are regarding EIRP? When choosing an antenna radio combo are we limited to the maximum antenna gain that has been approved for use with that particular radio? If so, it eliminates the Super Range 2 radio for me since it's approved for use with only a 2 dBi antenna. Or are we limited to the calculated EIRP (the -1 dB for each 3dBi above 6dBi algorithm), which, would allow the use of a 16 dBi antenna with this radio? I have read and read and it seems that this is very open to personal interpretation. Also it's difficult to determine what the latest ruling is. Jason Wallace -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA
[WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios
We are looking to start deploying 5.8Ghz multi-point radios at some of our sites. I am hoping some folks on this list can share experiences and ideas on what radios might meet our needs. We have experimented with Canopy and Trango, but would really like some better choices. From a specification standpoint, Canopy general meets our needs, but we don't like being constrained on the antenna. We would like to use sectors bigger than 60 degrees and we would like to use horizontal polarization. We don't want to use Trango for no other reason than they can't work with distributors. We really like the flexibility on many 802.11a-based radios and certainly the price, but the contention aspects of the protocol and the perception of Wi-Fi being a consumer grade technology stop us from going that route. Any thoughts from the list? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Re: VOIP / CommPartners
Peter R. wrote: You would be best to build it yourself or buy it from another WISP like Matt. (Or Lightyear). We have had trouble supporting other WISPs that are rural from a DID perspective, but the DC area where Tom's company is located is certainly easy. -Matt VOIP Providers are still trying to figure out how to make money. I don't see much hope for them either. I see VoIP becoming free long-term. As it stands now, we are practically giving it away with our data service. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC regs question
So, can I use a radio capable of more than the legal limit as long as I turn it down to a legal level programatically? Yes, that is correct. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 7:54 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC regs question So, can I use a radio capable of more than the legal limit as long as I turn it down to a legal level programatically? Tom DeReggi wrote: Jason, 1. My ap with 3 separate 120deg sectors and radios is limited to 1 watt EIRP per sector/radio, because it is PtMP. No. Each AP radio/antenna combination is allowed a total of 36 db EIRP (4watt). (radio itself not to exceed 30 db + additional antenna 6 db, however no reason radio power can't be less and antenna power more. ) 2. My cpe's get the 3 to 1 rule because they are PtP Right? Correct. More questions: 1. What about using types of antennas that are not certified with the radio, ie, sectors where no sector is approved? This is not so clear. Its been ruled that you know longer need to use a certified antenna, as long as the substituted antenna is of equivellent design of certified antennas, and of lesser gain. Responsibility to broadcast at proper levels is not removed. You are then taking that responsibility that you are personally certifying the antenna is within the limits and specification. 2. Where can I determine the types of antennas that have been certified with a given radio? Contact the manufacturer. Also you can look up the FCCID of the radio. I believe they list the antennas that were certified with it by manufacturer. Tom DeReggi Jason Tom DeReggi wrote: Its spelled out towards the end of the document. 30 db max radio power + 6 db antenna. PTP 3 to 1 rule applies, to use use much larger antennas at CPE side, and every 3 db antenna gain, minus 1 db radio gain at CPE side. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 1:59 PM Subject: [WISPA] FCC regs question List, Can anyone tell me what the current FCC regs are regarding EIRP? When choosing an antenna radio combo are we limited to the maximum antenna gain that has been approved for use with that particular radio? If so, it eliminates the Super Range 2 radio for me since it's approved for use with only a 2 dBi antenna. Or are we limited to the calculated EIRP (the -1 dB for each 3dBi above 6dBi algorithm), which, would allow the use of a 16 dBi antenna with this radio? I have read and read and it seems that this is very open to personal interpretation. Also it's difficult to determine what the latest ruling is. Jason Wallace -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC regs question
Except it is a gray area. technically it says use antenna of similar design of lesses gain. So if you use a higher gain antenna, and lower power, is it living up to that same requirement. In otherwords are they taking about less gain from the system EIRP or Less gain from the antenna. The idea is that if you lower gain in the radio, you are actually doing less harm to the enviroment and noise floor because you are also reducing beanwidth, WITHOUT increasing power. So the intent of the rule is that we should be able to do anything that provides less harm to those around us regarding noise. Lower EIRP regardless of the methid it is achieved is beneficial to the enviroment and in line with the intent of the rule. However, it could be argued, that they do not want to allow antennas of non-similar design when radio power is reduced, because it allows WISPs to easilly on the fly abuse the power limits. I'm not sure that its been ruled on. I'm not sure that we want it ruled on. I think the FCC is watching to see what happens. To see if WISP scan handle the responsibility of not abusing the rules. All the FCC wants is to reduce intererence so more people can deploy and get along. They are not going to go after anyone living by that same goal. At least that is my take. I've been given different answers at different times. I've been told lower EIRP suffices, others said technically thats not correct, iit states similar antenna design of lesser gain. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 7:54 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC regs question So, can I use a radio capable of more than the legal limit as long as I turn it down to a legal level programatically? Tom DeReggi wrote: Jason, 1. My ap with 3 separate 120deg sectors and radios is limited to 1 watt EIRP per sector/radio, because it is PtMP. No. Each AP radio/antenna combination is allowed a total of 36 db EIRP (4watt). (radio itself not to exceed 30 db + additional antenna 6 db, however no reason radio power can't be less and antenna power more. ) 2. My cpe's get the 3 to 1 rule because they are PtP Right? Correct. More questions: 1. What about using types of antennas that are not certified with the radio, ie, sectors where no sector is approved? This is not so clear. Its been ruled that you know longer need to use a certified antenna, as long as the substituted antenna is of equivellent design of certified antennas, and of lesser gain. Responsibility to broadcast at proper levels is not removed. You are then taking that responsibility that you are personally certifying the antenna is within the limits and specification. 2. Where can I determine the types of antennas that have been certified with a given radio? Contact the manufacturer. Also you can look up the FCCID of the radio. I believe they list the antennas that were certified with it by manufacturer. Tom DeReggi Jason Tom DeReggi wrote: Its spelled out towards the end of the document. 30 db max radio power + 6 db antenna. PTP 3 to 1 rule applies, to use use much larger antennas at CPE side, and every 3 db antenna gain, minus 1 db radio gain at CPE side. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 1:59 PM Subject: [WISPA] FCC regs question List, Can anyone tell me what the current FCC regs are regarding EIRP? When choosing an antenna radio combo are we limited to the maximum antenna gain that has been approved for use with that particular radio? If so, it eliminates the Super Range 2 radio for me since it's approved for use with only a 2 dBi antenna. Or are we limited to the calculated EIRP (the -1 dB for each 3dBi above 6dBi algorithm), which, would allow the use of a 16 dBi antenna with this radio? I have read and read and it seems that this is very open to personal interpretation. Also it's difficult to determine what the latest ruling is. Jason Wallace -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC regs question
With 900, the reason, we can substitue High gain Yagis, is their is no rule to prevent the higher gain antennas as long as power is reduced. My point is their are two set of rules. One for conforming to proper power levels. One for conforming to Certified antennas. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Anthony Will [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 10:40 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC regs question This only applies to the 2.4ghz ISM band there are different rules for the 900mhz and 5.8 ISM band plus different rules for the UNII rules. The ISM rules state, 900mhz is a total of 36dbm EIRP no mater if it is multi point or PtP. 5.8ghz is 1 watt power and as large a antenna you can put on it for PtP and 36dbm total EIRP for multi point. This is how I understand the rules. You are not technically allowed to swap out other manufacture antenna's only allowed to use lower gain antenna from the same manufacture this is of the same basic type that has the type acceptance registered with the FCC for any given radio transmitter. For example if a pacwireless 18dbi flat panel is registered you can use any flat panel from pacwireless that is 18dbi or less in gain. Now there has been a lot of unofficial statements by members of the FCC that have stated twists or bends in the antenna selection part of the rulings but I have yet to see anything that states otherwise on a official document. Anthony Tom DeReggi wrote: Its spelled out towards the end of the document. 30 db max radio power + 6 db antenna. PTP 3 to 1 rule applies, to use use much larger antennas at CPE side, and every 3 db antenna gain, minus 1 db radio gain at CPE side. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 1:59 PM Subject: [WISPA] FCC regs question List, Can anyone tell me what the current FCC regs are regarding EIRP? When choosing an antenna radio combo are we limited to the maximum antenna gain that has been approved for use with that particular radio? If so, it eliminates the Super Range 2 radio for me since it's approved for use with only a 2 dBi antenna. Or are we limited to the calculated EIRP (the -1 dB for each 3dBi above 6dBi algorithm), which, would allow the use of a 16 dBi antenna with this radio? I have read and read and it seems that this is very open to personal interpretation. Also it's difficult to determine what the latest ruling is. Jason Wallace -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Re: VOIP / CommPartners
Peter, VOIP Providers are still trying to figure out how to make money. Agreed. But because they are constantly turning down business that could make them money. Everybody is out for the BIG sale. Its the biggest mistake new sales people make. They spemd loads of time trying to get the big deal, and then when they don'tget it, and have wasted months and months of time. The guys that succeed, are the ones that turn every converstation into a sale of some sort. And they just slow and steady keep chugging away 1 penny at a time, but after the months go by, they realize their pennies have added up to be way more than the sales guy going for the big sale that never happened. I'd like to pose another view... Why is it hard to make money at VOIP? Because their are lots of challenges and competition! So I pose the question, Would someone rather have a few sales that were likely to stay around for life with reoccurring revenue, and be trouble-free with no headaches to worry about, with an inside man in the background making sure that everything was getting taken care. Or would they prefer to have 1000s of sales that lost money or brought very little margin in at all, all of rock bottom margin, with no loyalty willing to switch on a time to save 10 cents, which most likely will switch at some point just a matter of when, constantly vulnerable to client theft from competitors, and constantly full of headaches both technical in nature and bill collecting, with no control mechanism in place to guarantee Quality of Service? I'd chose Option 1 any day of the week. If I get rid of my headaches, can close the deal quickly and move forward, I'm making money and I'll continue to make money. I don't care how small the partner is, if they can deliver Option 1 to me. VOIP providers should realize one fact to be successful, they need to win the relationships with the people that own the networks, period. Landing those relationships helps guarantee the foundation for growth in the future. THe small provider of today is the large provider of tommorrow. The owners of the networks can provide Quality of Service guarantees ON-NET, Customer retainment by bundling and leveraging relationship, Easy quick sales as an add-on, Inside knowledge to help keep customer, And when chosen as a reseller a person to handle all the problems for the VOIP provider. This all translates at the end of the day to colecting revenue painlessly and getting the bills paid. The other issue VOIP providers need to consider is one very important topic in legislation today. Its a one way or the other, do or die, issue with no in between that will shape the the way VOIP will be delivered. Will an ISP or Connectivity provider be allowed to block or Prioritize the data that crosses its network, whether by Source, Destination, or type? Sounds like a firewall to me, but its how ISPs will deal with VOIP traffic over their network. AS much as it would be nice for the consumer and VOIP providers to not allow discrimination of VOIP data, I believe at the end of the day, its legislation that can not be inforced or proven adequately regardless of the legislation outcome, and therefore legislation will not control how connectivity provider will manage VOIP data on their networks. VOIP providers are taking a VERY large risk relying on the fact that they will always have free reign to send their data across others' networks at the connectivity provider's cost, and no cost to the VOIP provider. The best way to extinguish this risk, is to partner with as many connectivity providers as possible. It doesn't matter how many they sell. All it takes is one customer on my network, taht someone on your network wants to call, to make the other VOIP user unsatisfied. The sooner VOIP providers get this, the sooner, they are safe in the space. If they have an opportunity to ahve a partnership with out a cost tobuy, they should snag it. Waiving setup fees, is chump change for that advantage. My comment about Voice not being data and CLEC failures: CLECs fail because they have a BOC business structure and processes without having the BOC monopoly. CLECs fail because they sell me-too products on price and the implementation is usually not smooth. (I don't care if it is the ILEC's fault - the customer perceives the problem as the CLEC). I agree. Deploying VOIP is not like putting in a DSL modem and heading home. Extensions, LAN assesment, yadda da. But then you sold PCPBXs so you know all this. Sometimes Vendors forget that not everyone was born inside a shoe. Just because someone is a new VOIP prospect to them does not mean they are new to VOIP. I don't claim to be an expert. But our experience is vast, as far as our ability to reduce the VOIP providers technical problems. We've worked with VOIP lines with atleast 50 different vendors, and 20 different phone systems. IN 15 years of telecom/Network
Re: [WISPA] FCC regs question
I it permissible to use un-fcc-certified antennas that claim a certain dBi? There are several foreign manufacturers that sell good stuff... Jason Tom DeReggi wrote: With 900, the reason, we can substitue High gain Yagis, is their is no rule to prevent the higher gain antennas as long as power is reduced. My point is their are two set of rules. One for conforming to proper power levels. One for conforming to Certified antennas. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Anthony Will [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 10:40 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC regs question This only applies to the 2.4ghz ISM band there are different rules for the 900mhz and 5.8 ISM band plus different rules for the UNII rules. The ISM rules state, 900mhz is a total of 36dbm EIRP no mater if it is multi point or PtP. 5.8ghz is 1 watt power and as large a antenna you can put on it for PtP and 36dbm total EIRP for multi point. This is how I understand the rules. You are not technically allowed to swap out other manufacture antenna's only allowed to use lower gain antenna from the same manufacture this is of the same basic type that has the type acceptance registered with the FCC for any given radio transmitter. For example if a pacwireless 18dbi flat panel is registered you can use any flat panel from pacwireless that is 18dbi or less in gain. Now there has been a lot of unofficial statements by members of the FCC that have stated twists or bends in the antenna selection part of the rulings but I have yet to see anything that states otherwise on a official document. Anthony Tom DeReggi wrote: Its spelled out towards the end of the document. 30 db max radio power + 6 db antenna. PTP 3 to 1 rule applies, to use use much larger antennas at CPE side, and every 3 db antenna gain, minus 1 db radio gain at CPE side. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 1:59 PM Subject: [WISPA] FCC regs question List, Can anyone tell me what the current FCC regs are regarding EIRP? When choosing an antenna radio combo are we limited to the maximum antenna gain that has been approved for use with that particular radio? If so, it eliminates the Super Range 2 radio for me since it's approved for use with only a 2 dBi antenna. Or are we limited to the calculated EIRP (the -1 dB for each 3dBi above 6dBi algorithm), which, would allow the use of a 16 dBi antenna with this radio? I have read and read and it seems that this is very open to personal interpretation. Also it's difficult to determine what the latest ruling is. Jason Wallace -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
