Re: [WISPA] lightning
I use ferrite beads for the same reason. Sometimes I use 2; one at the radio and one right before the cables enter the house. DO NOT put them on a ground wire since that's where you want the lightning's current to go. Because its current has such a fast rise and fall time, lightning behaves like ac or rf. That's why ground wires are supposed to be as straight as possible, and if you have to bend it, you should make the radius of the bend as large as you can. A tight bend acts as a coil (increased impedance) and will cause the lightning to look for a better path. Ferrite beads do the same thing. By putting a ferrite on the cables, you still let your signals through, but it looks less inviting for the lightning. Jason Jenco Wireless wrote: Contrary to popular belief, lightning likes to follow the path of least inductance. Inductance is the resistance to a change in current flow. All I can say is that they have worked for me. On 10/7/06, *Dylan Oliver* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/7/06, *Jenco Wireless* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://pdfcatalog.digikey.com/T063/1150.pdf#search=%22digikey%20240-2318-nd%22 http://pdfcatalog.digikey.com/T063/1150.pdf#search=%22digikey%20240-2318-nd%22 I use the 240-2318-ND (towards the bottom of the page). Just wrap the Ethernet cable through it as many times as possible. You have to purchase 100 to get that low, low price I mentioned :-). We are located in Ohio. Sounds like this is more for reducing EMI .. how do you figure it protects from lightning damage? Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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] Crown Castle / Global signal
I'm just sayin'... That if we (er, you guys, I am not a member) come at these folks with: we have XXX number of players that want on your towers. What sales-droid do we need to talk to? Can we make a wispa package to make it easier for the sales-droid to hit his numbers? Then perhaps Wispa, part-15 whatever can leverage their membership to help all of the members. I seem to get hotel rooms cheaper when I use my AAA card and I get electronics cheaper when I use my IEEE card. I would love to use my WISPA/Part-15 card to get cheaper, hell just easier and standard leases from tower owners. Just a suggestion. ryan On Oct 7, 2006, at 9:43 PM, Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, The problem is that cell carriers (at least in my area) pay $500 - $2,000 per month to be on a tower... the same towers that I pay $100 - $250 per month. If you owned the towers, which customer would _you_ rather have? :( Travis Microserv D. Ryan Spott wrote: It seems we (people on this list) are always easily dismissed by large tower owners. These dismissals are often in the form of here, pay this $! fee up front to deal with us or who are you again? or my favorite and one that was told to me by an American Tower Rep: we don't deal with WISPs unless they are named Clearwire. Is WISPA (or Part-15 for that matter) doing anything to negotiate standard or discount leases with these tower owners? I am not a member of either organization but this sort of thing would definitely make me want to join up in a hurry. I also think that if tower owners were faced with an organized group of people they might cut though some of the BS we face when working out leases. Just a suggestion, ryan On Oct 7, 2006, at 9:06 PM, Blake Bowers wrote: Exactly. Crown is a nightmare if you are not a carrier, and they are doing the assimiliation. Smaller tower owners will continue to cater to the smaller companies, the WISPS, and continue to gain their business. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 8:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Crown Castle / Global signal How do you figure? Crown Castle is a nightmare to work with, and Global Signal has worked well with WISPS. I hope Crown Castle takes Global Signal's good sense with the purchase. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- 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] lightning
Good point - also,I forgot to mention the other reason I lost so many CPE's - don't leave a big roll if extra cable - that lowers the impedance. On 10/8/06, Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I use ferrite beads for the same reason.Sometimes I use 2; one at theradio and one right before the cables enter the house.DO NOT put them on a ground wire since that's where you want the lightning's current togo.Because its current has such a fast rise and fall time, lightningbehaves like ac or rf.That's why ground wires are supposed to be as straight as possible, and if you have to bend it, you should make theradius of the bend as large as you can.A tight bend acts as a coil(increased impedance) and will cause the lightning to look for a better path.Ferrite beads do the same thing.By putting a ferrite on thecables, you still let your signals through, but it looks less invitingfor the lightning.JasonJenco Wireless wrote: Contrary to popular belief, lightning likes to follow the path of least inductance.Inductance is the resistance to a change in current flow.All I can say is that they have worked for me. On 10/7/06, *Dylan Oliver* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/7/06, *Jenco Wireless* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://pdfcatalog.digikey.com/T063/1150.pdf#search=%22digikey%20240-2318-nd%22 http://pdfcatalog.digikey.com/T063/1150.pdf#search=%22digikey%20240-2318-nd%22 I use the 240-2318-ND (towards the bottom of the page).Just wrap the Ethernet cable through it as many times as possible. You have to purchase 100 to get that low, low price I mentioned :-).We are located in Ohio. Sounds like this is more for reducing EMI .. how do you figure it protects from lightning damage? Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org mailto: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/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] wireless fiber revisited
The fact you say it's a nice radio is encouraging, Tom, for me since I'm considering deploying it. But it would still be nice to hear from one or two wISP's who can say yeah, I have one installed; it's working fine, or whatever the feedback is. Anyone??? Mario Tom DeReggi wrote: It doesn;t really matter, because the Proxim GB 60Ghz PTP radio is a nice radio, and not likely to get discontinued who ever ends up owning the change ownership happy Proxim. The bigger question is wether 60Ghz will meet your need. The real excitement is in the 70 Ghz and 80Ghz bands, that have longer distances applicable for WISPs. What will be most existing is when 70-80Ghz gear is down to Proxim 60Ghz price. I really see no reason a 70-80Ghz radio needs to be any more costly than the 60Ghz ones. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mario Pommier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 4:26 PM Subject: [WISPA] wireless fiber revisited Hi, Several weeks ago I posted BridgeWave and GigaBeam prices and quick features of wireless Gbps gear. Has anyone tried or know about this option: -- Proxim Gigalink 6451e- 60Ghz; unlicensed; $10,500 complete link; ? 5-year hardware warranty; 1Gbps Pricing is attractive, isn't it (specially when customer's budget is very constrained)? But is Proxim a reliable company at this point? Thanks. Mario Previous options posted: -- BridgeWave - 60Ghz; unlicensed; $25,000 complete link; ~$6,000 5-year hardware warranty; 1Gbps -- GigaBeam - 70/80Ghz; licensed; $37,000 complete link (includes $1,000 10-year license); $0.00 5-year hardware warranty; 2.7Gbps release by Dec. 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: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.0/465 - Release Date: 10/6/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Welding Cable For Grounding?
Anyone used a welding cable for a tower ground? We have ran across a really good deal on 2 and 4 guage welding cable and would like to use it for grounding of our upcoming sites in place of the 2 guage copper wire we've been buying from Lowe's. It is composed of many very fine copper strands which makes it very easy to bend. Will the small copper strands perform the same as thicker strands or solid copper wire? Anyone have experience with using it or know if it will perform the same as other 2 and 4 guage wire types? Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky Your Hometown Broadband Provider http://www.KyWiFi.com Call Us Today: 859.274.4033 === $29.99 DSL High Speed Internet $14.99 Home Phone Service $19.99 All Digital Satellite TV - No Phone Line Required for DSL - FREE Activation Equipment - Affordable Upfront Pricing - Locally Owned Operated - We Also Service Most Rural Areas === -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WDS PtMP
Ok I didn't realize that you where utilizing the WDS station mode. So you basically have a normal AP/station setup but it is just bridged. Are you using N-stream? The WDS-station mode really was designed so that N-stream could be used on a WDS / Bridge network. WDS - station is a proprietary mode developed by MT if my understanding is correct. If so the likely the issue will be resolved with the polling feature available with N-stream. The reason I state this is because from the information provided the issue has became a problem as more load has been applied to the solution. The solution is more then capable of handling the throughput so this would indicate an interference source. As 802.11 is the solution you are seeing more retransmissions as the wait-before-talk mechanism is causing high latency issues. Assuming the interference is self generated and antenna choices are limited the Polling feature in N-stream likely is your best bet for fixing this. I currently use N-stream over WDS for one of my main back hauls to a new bandwidth source and it has performed flawlessly for 6 months. This is using 2.9.28 software. It has been upgraded since installation and I am not sure what version of the software we started with. Anthony Will Tom DeReggi wrote: To be clear, Mikrotik us being used, and the 4 remote building are in wds station mode and only configured to talk to the 1 central master WDS AP, the four client WDS radios are not configured to talk to each other. So all the CPE radios only have one hop to the APconnected to the Internet backhaul. My theory for design was... I had a 10 mbps backhaul. The WDS PtMP would have 16mbps (54 mbps modulation), to help with waste from re-transmissions. All clients are bandwidth managed (priority weighted method) centrally on other end of backhaul, to also assist with fair transmission time. Also radios use CDMA/CA, with the CA also assisting. The question is, is this enough to let it work well with only four buildings. I'm starting to think that it might not be. But the problem shouldn't be that they hear each other. we want them to hear each other, so they don't transmit at the same time. Thats what 802.11 needs. Hidden node happens because CPEs don't hear each other, and don;t know someone else is transmitting, from my understanding. Part of my question is, Does WDS work differently when in Mikrotik Station WDS mode than a normal WDS AP? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Anthony Will [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WDS PtMP It would seem to me that as your load increased your WDS/APs are transmitting over each other as clients are trying to transmit to the central AP. client --WDS/AP transmitting carrier beacons or other data to client and passing onto to --WDS/AP--WDS/AP--Client (transmitting to local AP) In this scenario you have the two clients talking and one AP all trying to talk at the same time and thus raising your noise floor because they are all on the same channel. There is not a feature in standard WDS to coordinate who can talk and who can not talk other then the standard CDMA layer of the 802.11 protocol. This will create issues as the more load you have on this setup the more self interference and retransmissions you will incur. The big thing the mesh brings to the table is the ability to help coordinate all of this traffic so that you can utilize the spectrum more efficiently. At least that is my opinion as soon as someone actually does it. You likely are going to have to switch to a station /AP solution for this setup because everything is to close and can hear each other. This will destroy your bridge setup unless you change to a propitiatory system such as Trango, Canopy, etc. One other thing to note is that this is all half duplex so you might have two many hops and thus running out of bandwidth. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Tom DeReggi wrote: Background In standard WIFI, a principle exists called hidden note, where two CPEs transmit at the same time and colide because they do not hear each other. There are three ways to get around that, using WIFI between Client and AP. 1) Polling (Karlnet, Nstream, Proprietary), 2) Use Omnis, so radios can hear each other if in close proximity, 3) RTS/CTS which effectively solves the problem at a significant performance degregation. A well know problem with well known solutions. Issue. How does this play our with WDS? AP to AP communication. Sure in PtP its a non-issue, because there are only two radios involved to complete the link. But WDS allows PtMP operation. How does WDS commuication work? Does the Hidden Node problem exist with PtMP WDS? And if so, is there a way to address it? If so, will it help to make the CPE's Omnis, so they
RE: [WISPA] WDS PtMP
2) My primary goal in the original post was to learn the difference between Wifi Station/client and Wifi WDS at the protocol level on how the protocol makes communications. For example, can they both do CTS/RTS? Unless the WDS protocol is fully understood, its not possible to design networks optimally using WDS. Tom, Unlike WiFi, there is no recognized standard of interoperability amongst WDS implementations -- the spec itself is rather vague when outlining WDS, basically saying more like this is what it is and what it has to do rather than this is exactly how it needs to be done -- to my knowledge, there's no WDS interoperability requirement for WiFi certification -- so YMMV depending on the vendor implementation Btw -- coming to our roadshow? -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 8:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] WDS PtMP Marlon, For clarification 1) Yes 5.250-5.350 is for outdoor, but I temporarilly put my radio to a channel under 5.25 which is in the 5.1 band for indoor only use, for the temporary testing. 3) Mikrotik actually has several WDS modes. They may not all necesarilly operate the same at the protocol level. 4) Also, the reason the network was done this way was that only one of the five buildings had LOS to our network. All clients within the building are done with wires. Normally we would have done this site with Trango PtMP, but when it was installed (1.5years ago), Trango had a short range packet loss problem and no Omni AP option. Cosmetic requirements from Property owner for the main site, would not allow Sector AP antennas for each remote buildings, so Omni was required. WDS was required as Standard Wifi was not true bridging. This was actually an excellent case study site for Mikrotik acting as both the radio and VLAN switch w/9 ethernet ports on CPEs. 5) There are many ways to improve the network, the problem, is I'm looking to be as least disruptive as possible, and don;t want to use the customer base as guinee pigs, so looking to better understand WDS at the protocol level. One of our consideration, is that we may leave the Mikrotiks as the Building routers, and repalce the outdoor stuff with Trango, not that it has good short range gear. But there is no reason to do that unless WDS is truly the cause. We have not proven that for certain yet. We can also solve it, by adding a second WDS Master AP, and then we'd split the load and have redundancy. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 1:27 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WDS PtMP - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 9:09 AM Subject: [WISPA] WDS PtMP Background In standard WIFI, a principle exists called hidden note, where two CPEs transmit at the same time and colide because they do not hear each other. There are three ways to get around that, using WIFI between Client and AP. 1) Polling (Karlnet, Nstream, Proprietary), 2) Use Omnis, so radios can hear each other if in close proximity, 3) RTS/CTS which effectively solves the problem at a significant performance degregation. A well know problem with well known solutions. mks: Close. It's when two CPE talk at the same time and the AP can't hear one of them because the other one is louder. This is part of why you should never build a network using the same size antennas everywhere. And why more power isn't always better. I try to keep all of my cpe within about 10 dB of each other. mks: It can ALSO be where two cpe talk at the same time because they don't know each other exists. This causes a collision at the ap (it can't understand either one of them) and after a random backoff time they'll each try again. mks: The easy fix to that problem is usually to just add another ap as you've filled up the one you already have :-). Issue. How does this play our with WDS? AP to AP communication. Sure in PtP its a non-issue, because there are only two radios involved to complete the link. But WDS allows PtMP operation. How does WDS commuication work? Does the Hidden Node problem exist with PtMP WDS? And if so, is there a way to address it? If so, will it help to make the CPE's Omnis, so they hear each other? mks: As I understand it, wds is simply a way for a cpe unit to ALSO act as an ap. Much like AdHoc mode. Except this time you can put in WDS units only where needed so that you can go around a corner or two. With AdHoc the whole network would have to be that way. My
[WISPA] Re: Outsourced installations (KyWiFi LLC)
I would not be happy about the $29.95 fee. If you can get away with it go right ahead. I look at it the customer is betting $29.95 that they can get service. I would rather have it here if they can get service, and they don't then they are charged $29.95. If they can't get service why should they have to pay $29.95? That would be like going to buy a new car. You want a Blue one with a stick shift. The dealer can't get you one, but they charge you $29.95 for looking. I think the word will spread pretty quickly. Customers are a weird beast. I can see the coffee shop conversations now: Joe:Yeah that company came out and did a site survey to see if they could get me wireless Bob How did that go? Joe The installer guy waived an antenna around and said he could not get me a signal Bob Too bad, so what now? Joe I don't know, but I got charged $29.95 for him coming out Bob What? They are supposed to come out next week. I don't want them charging me $29.95 if they can't hook me up. Just my .02 Justin -- Justin S. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Access - WISP Consulting - Tower Climbing Web: http://www.mtin.net Web: http://www.jwilson.ws -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] wireless fiber revisited
Mario Pommier wrote: The fact you say it's a nice radio is encouraging, Tom, for me since I'm considering deploying it. But it would still be nice to hear from one or two wISP's who can say yeah, I have one installed; it's working fine, or whatever the feedback is. Anyone??? Mario OK.Yeah I have installed one and it's working fine... :-) ButI have also replaced 2 troublesome links for another VAR and replaced them with Bridgewave. Also...there was an issue with the GUI with Win XP if I remember correctly. Just FYI. -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- 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: Outsourced installations (KyWiFi LLC)
I would not even consider charging for a site survey. Way too many possibilitys for bad press. I simply consider it a cost of doing business. Rarely do we have someone decline service if it can be done at our $199/$299 install rate. I have declines on the $799+ installs, but I expect those. Blair Davis West Michigan Wireless ISP Justin Wilson wrote: I would not be happy about the $29.95 fee. If you can get away with it go right ahead. I look at it the customer is betting $29.95 that they can get service. I would rather have it here if they can get service, and they don't then they are charged $29.95. If they can't get service why should they have to pay $29.95? That would be like going to buy a new car. You want a Blue one with a stick shift. The dealer can't get you one, but they charge you $29.95 for looking. I think the word will spread pretty quickly. Customers are a weird beast. I can see the coffee shop conversations now: Joe:Yeah that company came out and did a site survey to see if they could get me wireless Bob How did that go? Joe The installer guy waived an antenna around and said he could not get me a signal Bob Too bad, so what now? Joe I don't know, but I got charged $29.95 for him coming out Bob What? They are supposed to come out next week. I don't want them charging me $29.95 if they can't hook me up. Just my .02 Justin -- Justin S. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Access - WISP Consulting - Tower Climbing Web: http://www.mtin.net Web: http://www.jwilson.ws -- 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: Outsourced installations (KyWiFi LLC)
Blair Davis wrote: I would not even consider charging for a site survey. Way too many possibilitys for bad press. I simply consider it a cost of doing business. Rarely do we have someone decline service if it can be done at our $199/$299 install rate. I have declines on the $799+ installs, but I expect those. You must have better customers (or potential customers) than I do... Over the past three years my company has done hundreds of site surveys for folks that could get our service but never actually did, for whatever reason. That's hundreds of pay guy to drive out there and put gas in truck and it all adds up. My boss recently decided to split the difference on site surveys - ask for a small deposit up-front, which is refunded if we can't get service. That way, our costs are covered, and so far it seems to be discouraging folks that aren't seriously interested in our service, which is exactly what we want. (This is actually a new-ish policy, so check back in a few months and I'll let you know whether it's really working like it should.) David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
