Re: [WISPA] NTIA mapping
Here are some web sites to check out: Connected Nation Projects: http://www.connectky.com/ http://connectohio.org/ http://www.connectmn.org/mapping/ http://www.connectedtn.org/broadband_landscape/ http://connectwestvirginia.org/mapping_and_research/state_maps.php http://www.publicknowledge.org/ - This group has been very critical of Connected Nation and there have been exchanges between the parties on other wed sites. Connected Nation's responses are interesting reading. Couple that with the membership of Connected Nation's Board of Directors and you can draw your own conclusions. Enter Connected Nation in the search bar to bring up many articles. http://benton.org/node/15506#comment-28 - Here are comments by Connected Nation in rebuttal to PublicKnowledge.org. While it seems these two groups are in a pretty good fight against each other, I tend to read through the emotions and look directly at the facts. Connected Nation's response still will not explore mapping options so that they can release the data. They just defend their position that the data must be kept under NDA. http://www.connectednation.org/who_we_are/national_advisors/ This the list of the companies who make up Connected Nation's Board of Directors. My fear is that of the money set aside for broadband mapping, politics will get in the way and Connected Nation will get much if not all of the funds based on their political connections. Connected Nation has a lot of momentum inside the beltway. I have personally developed methods to where broadband mapping can be done on a Nationwide Basis using data that does not require any NDA. I need to spend some time to verify the process so that it would survive scientific scrutiny. All of the data is based on information already in the public domain. Connected Nation could have done this same work. I don't think they want to. With the think tank of people and skills they have at their disposal, I find it hard to believe I am the only one who could have figured out how to do this.. Thank You, Brian Webster WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] NTIA mapping
I've looked at the maps of Ohio that Connect Ohio has put out and they are at the very least grossly optimistic. Just looking at them at first you would say that 99.5% of the state has access to broadband from more than one provider. In my county it's the same way. The map shows that most of the area is served by broadband but when you start asking around most people can't get DSL or even some fixed wireless is unavailable due to large amounts of trees. Actually the map is right if they are factoring in that everyone has a 80 foot tower at their house to receive wireless broadband with... Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 9:05 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] NTIA mapping Here are some web sites to check out: Connected Nation Projects: http://www.connectky.com/ http://connectohio.org/ http://www.connectmn.org/mapping/ http://www.connectedtn.org/broadband_landscape/ http://connectwestvirginia.org/mapping_and_research/state_maps.php http://www.publicknowledge.org/ - This group has been very critical of Connected Nation and there have been exchanges between the parties on other wed sites. Connected Nation's responses are interesting reading. Couple that with the membership of Connected Nation's Board of Directors and you can draw your own conclusions. Enter Connected Nation in the search bar to bring up many articles. http://benton.org/node/15506#comment-28 - Here are comments by Connected Nation in rebuttal to PublicKnowledge.org. While it seems these two groups are in a pretty good fight against each other, I tend to read through the emotions and look directly at the facts. Connected Nation's response still will not explore mapping options so that they can release the data. They just defend their position that the data must be kept under NDA. http://www.connectednation.org/who_we_are/national_advisors/ This the list of the companies who make up Connected Nation's Board of Directors. My fear is that of the money set aside for broadband mapping, politics will get in the way and Connected Nation will get much if not all of the funds based on their political connections. Connected Nation has a lot of momentum inside the beltway. I have personally developed methods to where broadband mapping can be done on a Nationwide Basis using data that does not require any NDA. I need to spend some time to verify the process so that it would survive scientific scrutiny. All of the data is based on information already in the public domain. Connected Nation could have done this same work. I don't think they want to. With the think tank of people and skills they have at their disposal, I find it hard to believe I am the only one who could have figured out how to do this.. Thank You, Brian Webster WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
What's what we normally do... I almost never run an AP at it's full power. In fact these days I never do. Someday when I get bored I'll fire up the analyzer and see if there is any difference in the signal shape between max and min power levels. marlon - Original Message - From: Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Whats wrong with using XR5's and lowering the TX power on them? They are more rugged and have better RX sensitivity than many other cards. -- Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com - Original Message From: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Date: 04/29/09 16:31 The first question is quot;why are the 4 mpci cards in teh RB600 seeing each other so loudlyquot;? There lies the problem needing fixed, because of course we want to use one RB433, instead of 3 RB433s, to accommodate 3 mpci cards. (even if different channels and freqs). First question to you... quot;am I assuming correct that you still kept the dummy loads on each of the mPCI cards, when testing all in teh same RB600quot;? What is a bot disturbing is that you said you used a XR5. That means the card had a single antenna connector and a MMCX style, which is supposed to give better isolation. (note: some have advocated that Ufl is as good as mmcx, regarding rssi loss, stating that the UFl connector itself has less loss than the gain MMCX adds by enabling thicker pigtail cable. I always still prefer MMCX because it is more rugged abd less likely to break pigtails connectors in things like Rootenas that are not easy to access with short pigtails. But surely I thought mmcx would also add better shielding/isolation from outside sources.) So using XR5s, it would infer that the cards saw each other because either loss from pigtail cable, loss from mmcx connector, or simply the cards electronics. The next relevent info might be to determine if it is the amp circuitry driving this interference. Just like a pair of PC speakers can sometimes pickup music radio. For years Lonnie (StarOS) gave teswtimonials for lower power CM9s performing better than Amplified cards (SR5) for short range applications, because they were quieter. So there is about 8db difference between a SR5 and a CM9. I wonder if you repeated your tests, but used CM9's instead (no ext embedded amps), whether you'd just hear the other adjacenet radios at 8db lower, proportional to the spec of the radios, or if you hear the otehr radio much much less, because it doesn;t have the amp to pcikup the interference? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL amp; Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: quot;Kurt Fankhauserquot; lt;k...@wavelinc.comgt; To: quot;'WISPA General List'quot; lt;wireless@wispa.orggt; Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:33 AM Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test gt; About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz radio's being gt; installed in the same board and causing self-interference on adjacent gt; channels and possible even on the entire band thus decreasing throughput gt; on gt; backhauls. Because even if you were operating on frequency's 5745 and 5825 gt; the two radio's would have side lobe harmonics that if installed in the gt; same gt; enclosure they would still quot;hearquot; each other at that short of separation. gt; I gt; decided to combat this problem and find a solution and share my experience gt; with the list. gt; gt; gt; gt; I installed a single XR5 card into 3 different RB433's with indoor gt; enclosures. I also installed foil tape which I obtained from the local gt; True gt; Value store for $2.49 on all the vent holes and unused bulkhead connector gt; holes. This was done in order to prevent RF side lobe leaks from the three gt; radio's that would escape from the indoor enclosures themselves. Having gt; only gt; 1 card inside each enclosures I should not have a heat problem as the gt; outdoor box will not be in direct sunlight. gt; gt; gt; gt; I then stacked all 3 enclosures on top of each other with dummy loads on gt; each of the N-bulkhead connectors and did some testing. This is what I gt; found: gt; gt; gt; gt; I set the bottom board as AP and the middle board as Client on frequency gt; 5825. Even with this close of separation the two XR5's could only see each gt; other at -83 on the same channel. With the top board connecting to the gt; bottom board they could only see each other at -90. Keep in mind this is gt; on gt; the same frequency so adjacent channels should be much less than that gt; possibly even in the -100
[WISPA] Other lists
Does anyone know of any good discussion lists\forums that cover MVNO and IPTV operations? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Other lists
cabletv-l...@cabletv.org is full of older gents that have been in cable since it started on the Oregon coast! D. Ryan Spott rsp...@cspott.com On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:54 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Does anyone know of any good discussion lists\forums that cover MVNO and IPTV operations? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Other lists
Mike, You looking for equipment for IPTV? or any other FTTX equipment? I was doing a ftth project and it got shut down. I do have some AFL material along with a complete MFH3 TVIP system for sale. Hit me off list. Joe Miller DSLbyAir, LLC - Original Message From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 10:54:48 AM Subject: [WISPA] Other lists Does anyone know of any good discussion lists\forums that cover MVNO and IPTV operations? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] IPTV (OT but hey, we are all in this biz to do crazy IP based stuff)
So why did it get shutdown? ryan Joe Miller wrote: Mike, You looking for equipment for IPTV? or any other FTTX equipment? I was doing a ftth project and it got shut down. I do have some AFL material along with a complete MFH3 TVIP system for sale. Hit me off list. Joe Miller DSLbyAir, LLC - Original Message From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 10:54:48 AM Subject: [WISPA] Other lists Does anyone know of any good discussion lists\forums that cover MVNO and IPTV operations? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] IPTV (OT but hey, we are all in this biz to do crazy IP based stuff)
pretty muchnow we have fiber CPE's, pedestals, fiber switches, a 4 gateway DirecTV MFH3 IPTV system, and other parts collecting dust in a building. - Original Message From: D. Ryan Spott rsp...@cspott.com To: Joe Miller joe.mil...@dslbyair.com; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 12:36:17 PM Subject: IPTV (OT but hey, we are all in this biz to do crazy IP based stuff) So why did it get shutdown? ryan Joe Miller wrote: Mike, You looking for equipment for IPTV? or any other FTTX equipment? I was doing a ftth project and it got shut down. I do have some AFL material along with a complete MFH3 TVIP system for sale. Hit me off list. Joe Miller DSLbyAir, LLC - Original Message From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 10:54:48 AM Subject: [WISPA] Other lists Does anyone know of any good discussion lists\forums that cover MVNO and IPTV operations? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] 3650Mhz Access Update
So I talked with someone who is heavily involved in the operation of 3650Mhz ground stations. The 30 second summary: Mobile applications are out of the question. Fixed point to point applications are possible. Talk to comsearch. Slightly longer summary: He mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-noise_block_converter being extremely sensitive and receiving pico watts from a satellite in space. Retrofitting is possible but at substantial expense. Evidently the operators have already received interference and it's caused interruption of service. He mentioned that for every licensed down link there are numerous others who aren't licensed. These ground stations are utilized by every cable company and are all over the Los Angeles region. So it looks like access to the 3650 spectrum may be possible but it has the potential to be a time consuming and expensive process. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650Mhz Access Update
Speaking of comsearch: http://www.comsearch.com/newsletter/e-flash.html Charles Wyble wrote: So I talked with someone who is heavily involved in the operation of 3650Mhz ground stations. The 30 second summary: Mobile applications are out of the question. Fixed point to point applications are possible. Talk to comsearch. Slightly longer summary: He mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-noise_block_converter being extremely sensitive and receiving pico watts from a satellite in space. Retrofitting is possible but at substantial expense. Evidently the operators have already received interference and it's caused interruption of service. He mentioned that for every licensed down link there are numerous others who aren't licensed. These ground stations are utilized by every cable company and are all over the Los Angeles region. So it looks like access to the 3650 spectrum may be possible but it has the potential to be a time consuming and expensive process. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] WR CCU3100
Anyone have one to sell? Hit me offlist. Thanks Chris Cooper Intelliwave WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] WAN HotSpot and Polarity
Over the years, there have been many theories and strategies regarding what polarity is best to use for various purposes. As an engineer, I as well have my theories. But, I wanted to get an updated opinion based on field trials of others, for the following application Application... 2.4Ghz WAN WIFI HotSpot Specs... 1) Average sub located within 100 yards to 1/2 mile. 2) Find and Subscribe by Search for available Networks, via laptop's WIFI card. 3) If RF signal good enough to get a web splash screen to user, will display instruction for ordering higher gain antenna self-install kit for inside their window mount or balcony. 4) Access Point would likely use a sector panel (60 deg?), with an EIRP of 36db. The goal here is enabling residential users to find the ISP's AP on their own. So my questions are 1. If a Horizontally polarized antenna is used at the AP, Is it likely the consumer will equally be able to find your AP, compared to if it had been verical pol'd? The idea being, horizontal pol's noise floor is much lower in the particular area, and more likely ISP will avoid the noise from consumer APs that ship with vert pol antennas, where end users by default will stick the antennas straight up in Verticle pol position. 2. By the time the ISP's horizontal signal gets to the end user, is it received in multiple polarities, based on all the reflections in end users home and stuff? 3. Are laptop wifi cards typically no polarity, and pick up Horizontal as good as verticle signals? 4. Laptops would appear to have Horizontal pol antennas in some cases, expecially if a PCMCIA card. Is this true? Or are most laptops starting to embed verticle pol antennas on the sides of screens? 5. Are End Users getting savy enough to move their laptop all around, when they first take it out of the box, to try and find Horizontal pol APs of ISPs Hotspots? In summary If doing Hotspot WAN deployment, and Verticle noise is significantly higher, will an ISP be doing a smart thing putting their sector on Horiz pol to avoid noise, or shooting themself in the foot because they'll be sending a signal cross pol to the average end user's verticle pol's Wifi card, taking a 20db hit off the bat? Sure Horizontal will be better, if the the consumer gets a professional install, or learns to put an external horizontal pol antenna on their laptop or PC. But most people may not know to do that, by default, for hotspot self subscription. (PS. recognize could use dual pol or 45deg off pol, but purposely avoiding that, to try not to interfere with others, to enable more people to play in the same spectrum) What have other's found? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: George Rogato wi...@oregonfast.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:27 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Tom DeReggi wrote: Good point but. the problem went away when the mcpi cards each had their own SBC/Case, this would infer card to card or pigtail to pigtail interference, since in all cases the dummy load was outside the cases, from what it sounds like. I guess that should be clarified Kurt, when you tested with teh RB600 and 3 cards on the adjacent slots, was the RB600 also in a case with the holes metal taped? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband Question I have that should debunk that theory that cards in close proximity interfere with each other. Why do the cards not interfere with each other when there is additional gain antennas hooked on to them? You would think there would be even more self interference with high gain antennas than with no antennas WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WAN HotSpot and Polarity
I found that with a NanoStation2 I was able to provide coverage to an entire strip mall. Google earth it: 229 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 is where I deployed the AP. It's a fairly standard strip mall. I covered the entire mall, plus across the street in all 4 directions. Tom DeReggi wrote: Over the years, there have been many theories and strategies regarding what polarity is best to use for various purposes. As an engineer, I as well have my theories. But, I wanted to get an updated opinion based on field trials of others, for the following application Application... 2.4Ghz WAN WIFI HotSpot Specs... 1) Average sub located within 100 yards to 1/2 mile. 2) Find and Subscribe by Search for available Networks, via laptop's WIFI card. 3) If RF signal good enough to get a web splash screen to user, will display instruction for ordering higher gain antenna self-install kit for inside their window mount or balcony. 4) Access Point would likely use a sector panel (60 deg?), with an EIRP of 36db. The goal here is enabling residential users to find the ISP's AP on their own. So my questions are 1. If a Horizontally polarized antenna is used at the AP, Is it likely the consumer will equally be able to find your AP, compared to if it had been verical pol'd? The idea being, horizontal pol's noise floor is much lower in the particular area, and more likely ISP will avoid the noise from consumer APs that ship with vert pol antennas, where end users by default will stick the antennas straight up in Verticle pol position. 2. By the time the ISP's horizontal signal gets to the end user, is it received in multiple polarities, based on all the reflections in end users home and stuff? 3. Are laptop wifi cards typically no polarity, and pick up Horizontal as good as verticle signals? 4. Laptops would appear to have Horizontal pol antennas in some cases, expecially if a PCMCIA card. Is this true? Or are most laptops starting to embed verticle pol antennas on the sides of screens? 5. Are End Users getting savy enough to move their laptop all around, when they first take it out of the box, to try and find Horizontal pol APs of ISPs Hotspots? In summary If doing Hotspot WAN deployment, and Verticle noise is significantly higher, will an ISP be doing a smart thing putting their sector on Horiz pol to avoid noise, or shooting themself in the foot because they'll be sending a signal cross pol to the average end user's verticle pol's Wifi card, taking a 20db hit off the bat? Sure Horizontal will be better, if the the consumer gets a professional install, or learns to put an external horizontal pol antenna on their laptop or PC. But most people may not know to do that, by default, for hotspot self subscription. (PS. recognize could use dual pol or 45deg off pol, but purposely avoiding that, to try not to interfere with others, to enable more people to play in the same spectrum) What have other's found? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: George Rogato wi...@oregonfast.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:27 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Tom DeReggi wrote: Good point but. the problem went away when the mcpi cards each had their own SBC/Case, this would infer card to card or pigtail to pigtail interference, since in all cases the dummy load was outside the cases, from what it sounds like. I guess that should be clarified Kurt, when you tested with teh RB600 and 3 cards on the adjacent slots, was the RB600 also in a case with the holes metal taped? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband Question I have that should debunk that theory that cards in close proximity interfere with each other. Why do the cards not interfere with each other when there is additional gain antennas hooked on to them? You would think there would be even more self interference with high gain antennas than with no antennas WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives:
Re: [WISPA] WAN HotSpot and Polarity
Oh, and in response to question #5, our typical hotspot users, I guess really all of our users, barely know how to get signed on, much less have any clue about antenna polarity. We get the rare one that is very savvy on this, but for the most part, our users are still pretty much in the dark as to differences in polarity, technologies, etc etc. All they know is whether or not they can sign on, and if they can get on, what speeds they are getting, how fast they get their email, and how reliable their gaming and video is :-) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 1:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] WAN HotSpot and Polarity Over the years, there have been many theories and strategies regarding what polarity is best to use for various purposes. As an engineer, I as well have my theories. But, I wanted to get an updated opinion based on field trials of others, for the following application Application... 2.4Ghz WAN WIFI HotSpot Specs... 1) Average sub located within 100 yards to 1/2 mile. 2) Find and Subscribe by Search for available Networks, via laptop's WIFI card. 3) If RF signal good enough to get a web splash screen to user, will display instruction for ordering higher gain antenna self-install kit for inside their window mount or balcony. 4) Access Point would likely use a sector panel (60 deg?), with an EIRP of 36db. The goal here is enabling residential users to find the ISP's AP on their own. So my questions are 1. If a Horizontally polarized antenna is used at the AP, Is it likely the consumer will equally be able to find your AP, compared to if it had been verical pol'd? The idea being, horizontal pol's noise floor is much lower in the particular area, and more likely ISP will avoid the noise from consumer APs that ship with vert pol antennas, where end users by default will stick the antennas straight up in Verticle pol position. 2. By the time the ISP's horizontal signal gets to the end user, is it received in multiple polarities, based on all the reflections in end users home and stuff? 3. Are laptop wifi cards typically no polarity, and pick up Horizontal as good as verticle signals? 4. Laptops would appear to have Horizontal pol antennas in some cases, expecially if a PCMCIA card. Is this true? Or are most laptops starting to embed verticle pol antennas on the sides of screens? 5. Are End Users getting savy enough to move their laptop all around, when they first take it out of the box, to try and find Horizontal pol APs of ISPs Hotspots? In summary If doing Hotspot WAN deployment, and Verticle noise is significantly higher, will an ISP be doing a smart thing putting their sector on Horiz pol to avoid noise, or shooting themself in the foot because they'll be sending a signal cross pol to the average end user's verticle pol's Wifi card, taking a 20db hit off the bat? Sure Horizontal will be better, if the the consumer gets a professional install, or learns to put an external horizontal pol antenna on their laptop or PC. But most people may not know to do that, by default, for hotspot self subscription. (PS. recognize could use dual pol or 45deg off pol, but purposely avoiding that, to try not to interfere with others, to enable more people to play in the same spectrum) What have other's found? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: George Rogato wi...@oregonfast.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:27 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Tom DeReggi wrote: Good point but. the problem went away when the mcpi cards each had their own SBC/Case, this would infer card to card or pigtail to pigtail interference, since in all cases the dummy load was outside the cases, from what it sounds like. I guess that should be clarified Kurt, when you tested with teh RB600 and 3 cards on the adjacent slots, was the RB600 also in a case with the holes metal taped? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband Question I have that should debunk that theory that cards in close proximity interfere with each other. Why do the cards not interfere with each other when there is additional gain antennas hooked on to them? You would think there would be even more self interference with high gain antennas than with no antennas WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
yeah, but I question that to, considering that 2.4Ghz could have harmonics of 5.8Ghz or vice versa, considering half the wavelength.. I'm finding that I can get several 5.X cards in the system, with a channel seperation. Just sometimes I can't get full modulations above 18-24mbps. I also think receiver overload may be a bigger problem than channel selection. For example, having more troubles colocating a XR9 to a CM9 than two CM9s. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 11:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Well so far the only thing I've seen them good for is one card in running 2.4ghz and another card running 5.8ghz. Those won't interfere with each other. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of . Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test I'm curious to know if you're taking about transmit amps or receive amps. When you say noise are you meaning transmitted noise (meaning spectral impurity such as distortion, or do you mean unintentional radiation of the desired transmitted signal?) or do you mean receiver noise such as a higher noise floor, or signals considered to be noise which are being picked up by the higher sensitivity receiver? I'm assuming you mean transmitted noise of some kind as a result of the transmit amp but I just want to clarify. Thanks! What's the point of these router boards that have multiple radio card slots if you can't have the radio cards that close together? Greg On Apr 29, 2009, at 9:20 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: There is nothing wrong with lowering the power on them. I personally love SR5s. The facts are though that cards with add-on amps embedded have the potential to be noisier than one that does not. How much noisier, I can't say. That was part of tthe goal, to determine if XR5s are as clean as CM9s, and if there is a distinguishable difference or not. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 6:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Whats wrong with using XR5's and lowering the TX power on them? They are more rugged and have better RX sensitivity than many other cards. -- Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com - Original Message From: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Date: 04/29/09 16:31 The first question is quot;why are the 4 mpci cards in teh RB600 seeing each other so loudlyquot;? There lies the problem needing fixed, because of course we want to use one RB433, instead of 3 RB433s, to accommodate 3 mpci cards. (even if different channels and freqs). First question to you... quot;am I assuming correct that you still kept the dummy loads on each of the mPCI cards, when testing all in teh same RB600quot;? What is a bot disturbing is that you said you used a XR5. That means the card had a single antenna connector and a MMCX style, which is supposed to give better isolation. (note: some have advocated that Ufl is as good as mmcx, regarding rssi loss, stating that the UFl connector itself has less loss than the gain MMCX adds by enabling thicker pigtail cable. I always still prefer MMCX because it is more rugged abd less likely to break pigtails connectors in things like Rootenas that are not easy to access with short pigtails. But surely I thought mmcx would also add better shielding/isolation from outside sources.) So using XR5s, it would infer that the cards saw each other because either loss from pigtail cable, loss from mmcx connector, or simply the cards electronics. The next relevent info might be to determine if it is the amp circuitry driving this interference. Just like a pair of PC speakers can sometimes pickup music radio. For years Lonnie (StarOS) gave teswtimonials for lower power CM9s performing better than Amplified cards (SR5) for short range applications, because they were quieter. So there is about 8db difference between a SR5 and a CM9. I wonder if you repeated your tests, but used CM9's instead (no ext embedded amps), whether you'd just hear the other adjacenet radios at 8db lower, proportional to the spec of the radios, or if you hear the otehr radio much much less, because it doesn;t have the
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
Marlon, if you have an analyzer and time, that would be interesting results to learn. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.com To: Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 11:27 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test What's what we normally do... I almost never run an AP at it's full power. In fact these days I never do. Someday when I get bored I'll fire up the analyzer and see if there is any difference in the signal shape between max and min power levels. marlon - Original Message - From: Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Whats wrong with using XR5's and lowering the TX power on them? They are more rugged and have better RX sensitivity than many other cards. -- Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com - Original Message From: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Date: 04/29/09 16:31 The first question is quot;why are the 4 mpci cards in teh RB600 seeing each other so loudlyquot;? There lies the problem needing fixed, because of course we want to use one RB433, instead of 3 RB433s, to accommodate 3 mpci cards. (even if different channels and freqs). First question to you... quot;am I assuming correct that you still kept the dummy loads on each of the mPCI cards, when testing all in teh same RB600quot;? What is a bot disturbing is that you said you used a XR5. That means the card had a single antenna connector and a MMCX style, which is supposed to give better isolation. (note: some have advocated that Ufl is as good as mmcx, regarding rssi loss, stating that the UFl connector itself has less loss than the gain MMCX adds by enabling thicker pigtail cable. I always still prefer MMCX because it is more rugged abd less likely to break pigtails connectors in things like Rootenas that are not easy to access with short pigtails. But surely I thought mmcx would also add better shielding/isolation from outside sources.) So using XR5s, it would infer that the cards saw each other because either loss from pigtail cable, loss from mmcx connector, or simply the cards electronics. The next relevent info might be to determine if it is the amp circuitry driving this interference. Just like a pair of PC speakers can sometimes pickup music radio. For years Lonnie (StarOS) gave teswtimonials for lower power CM9s performing better than Amplified cards (SR5) for short range applications, because they were quieter. So there is about 8db difference between a SR5 and a CM9. I wonder if you repeated your tests, but used CM9's instead (no ext embedded amps), whether you'd just hear the other adjacenet radios at 8db lower, proportional to the spec of the radios, or if you hear the otehr radio much much less, because it doesn;t have the amp to pcikup the interference? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL amp; Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: quot;Kurt Fankhauserquot; lt;k...@wavelinc.comgt; To: quot;'WISPA General List'quot; lt;wireless@wispa.orggt; Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:33 AM Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test gt; About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz radio's being gt; installed in the same board and causing self-interference on adjacent gt; channels and possible even on the entire band thus decreasing throughput gt; on gt; backhauls. Because even if you were operating on frequency's 5745 and 5825 gt; the two radio's would have side lobe harmonics that if installed in the gt; same gt; enclosure they would still quot;hearquot; each other at that short of separation. gt; I gt; decided to combat this problem and find a solution and share my experience gt; with the list. gt; gt; gt; gt; I installed a single XR5 card into 3 different RB433's with indoor gt; enclosures. I also installed foil tape which I obtained from the local gt; True gt; Value store for $2.49 on all the vent holes and unused bulkhead connector gt; holes. This was done in order to prevent RF side lobe leaks from the three gt; radio's that would escape from the indoor enclosures themselves. Having gt; only gt; 1 card inside each enclosures I should not have a heat problem as the gt; outdoor box will not be in direct sunlight. gt; gt; gt; gt; I then stacked all 3 enclosures on top of each other with dummy loads on gt; each of the N-bulkhead connectors and did some testing. This is what I gt; found: gt; gt; gt;
Re: [WISPA] WAN HotSpot and Polarity
well thats interesting, but you didn't address the primary question of polarity. Or what polarity hotspot CPE devices generally see. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wyble char...@thewybles.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WAN HotSpot and Polarity I found that with a NanoStation2 I was able to provide coverage to an entire strip mall. Google earth it: 229 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 is where I deployed the AP. It's a fairly standard strip mall. I covered the entire mall, plus across the street in all 4 directions. Tom DeReggi wrote: Over the years, there have been many theories and strategies regarding what polarity is best to use for various purposes. As an engineer, I as well have my theories. But, I wanted to get an updated opinion based on field trials of others, for the following application Application... 2.4Ghz WAN WIFI HotSpot Specs... 1) Average sub located within 100 yards to 1/2 mile. 2) Find and Subscribe by Search for available Networks, via laptop's WIFI card. 3) If RF signal good enough to get a web splash screen to user, will display instruction for ordering higher gain antenna self-install kit for inside their window mount or balcony. 4) Access Point would likely use a sector panel (60 deg?), with an EIRP of 36db. The goal here is enabling residential users to find the ISP's AP on their own. So my questions are 1. If a Horizontally polarized antenna is used at the AP, Is it likely the consumer will equally be able to find your AP, compared to if it had been verical pol'd? The idea being, horizontal pol's noise floor is much lower in the particular area, and more likely ISP will avoid the noise from consumer APs that ship with vert pol antennas, where end users by default will stick the antennas straight up in Verticle pol position. 2. By the time the ISP's horizontal signal gets to the end user, is it received in multiple polarities, based on all the reflections in end users home and stuff? 3. Are laptop wifi cards typically no polarity, and pick up Horizontal as good as verticle signals? 4. Laptops would appear to have Horizontal pol antennas in some cases, expecially if a PCMCIA card. Is this true? Or are most laptops starting to embed verticle pol antennas on the sides of screens? 5. Are End Users getting savy enough to move their laptop all around, when they first take it out of the box, to try and find Horizontal pol APs of ISPs Hotspots? In summary If doing Hotspot WAN deployment, and Verticle noise is significantly higher, will an ISP be doing a smart thing putting their sector on Horiz pol to avoid noise, or shooting themself in the foot because they'll be sending a signal cross pol to the average end user's verticle pol's Wifi card, taking a 20db hit off the bat? Sure Horizontal will be better, if the the consumer gets a professional install, or learns to put an external horizontal pol antenna on their laptop or PC. But most people may not know to do that, by default, for hotspot self subscription. (PS. recognize could use dual pol or 45deg off pol, but purposely avoiding that, to try not to interfere with others, to enable more people to play in the same spectrum) What have other's found? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: George Rogato wi...@oregonfast.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:27 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Tom DeReggi wrote: Good point but. the problem went away when the mcpi cards each had their own SBC/Case, this would infer card to card or pigtail to pigtail interference, since in all cases the dummy load was outside the cases, from what it sounds like. I guess that should be clarified Kurt, when you tested with teh RB600 and 3 cards on the adjacent slots, was the RB600 also in a case with the holes metal taped? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband Question I have that should debunk that theory that cards in close proximity interfere with each other. Why do the cards not interfere with each other when there is additional gain antennas hooked on to them? You would think there would be even more self interference with high gain antennas than with no antennas WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives:
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
If a pigtail is loosing 6-7db it gets thrown in the trash. It doesn't have to be lost in an RF standpoint it could be lost through heat also. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 2:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Greg, Excellent comments and questions... And My answer to you is. all of the above. Scott, And I agree, each card brand and model will have its own properties. I just used one high power brand in a CPE for the last time (which I will not mention for professional courtesy) that as a CPE can hear a -50 signal awesome at 54mb modulation, but the AP receiver can't make out the CPE's signal and CPE stay associated unless the CPE transmits at 12mbps modulation or lower. Clearly distortion from the transmit amp, considering all the CPEs with CM9s can successfully transmit at 54mbps modulation. If we extended this converstaion to full relevence, we'd extend it to ask the questions for each and every manufacturer's cards. What I'm looking for is establishing the best choices to optimize success. Its not a black and white world here. I have systems in the field that have two 5.x cards in them and operate fine on 10Mhz channels with only one channel seperation in between. But I had a XR9 and DCMA82 (5.x) card in a 2 port AP System, where I had to reduce the 5.X card's power down to 10-12 db, in order for the 900Mhzcard to associate with its client. I can give examples of where details may help us 2 antenna ports cards are more available. But I may want to buy single antenna port cards, if it helps reduce noise from other cards in teh system, IF antenna port is a place of noise injections. But I may chose a low power card instead, if Amps is a place of injections greater than that of a second unused antenna port. Sure two cards can co-locate, but why not install in the method taht will minimize self interference, but still meet the minimum need of teh deployment? Today... for example I build a Dual Pol MIkrotik PTP w/433, and decided to put a second mpci card in the unit, but it only was going to use single pol, since the case only had space for one external pigtail. What card would be best to isntall, not to interfere with the first primary more important PTP link? I chose to make a isolation plate between the cards. I took a peice of cardboard wrapped it with tin foil, and put it inside a 3x3 static bag. I then stuck it inbetween the two stacked Mpci slots. Because MT has 3 stacked slots, and I used the top and bottom one, there was plenty of room to insert the shielding without restricting airflow to cool the cards. It seemed to help. (although didn't record exact before after results). lastly, amped and non amp'd cards are not equal in design. For example, when the amplication is done in a single device there is no connection between two devices. With a second add-on amp embedded on the card, there is a second path entering into that amp, where noise can be induced to the amp. AMPs are also designed to work at a specific power level to acheive the best noise reduction, when it does not operate at that level, there also becomes a situation where the amp is underloaded or overloaded, causing more distortion. When there are two amps working togeather, there are now two points and more vaiables to configuring cards to be operating at the least amount of distortion. For example, an Amp may work best if its input is 13db, but the first amp may not output 13db constantly. Actually, its one of the reasons here were pre-amps in hgih end hi-fi gear, to make sure the signal all amps where working at their optimal powers and optimal signals injected into them. So at the end of the day, I guess all that really matters is How much distortion the specific card solution transmits or hears. Sure its possible that the Hi-power cards could be designed to be more resilient to distortion. Maybe that is a reason why they have much higher receive sensitivities? But then again, that was not the case when XR2s were compared to 200mw Prism cards. ManyWISPs reported better results from the PRism, regardless of what the spec sheets said. The pigtails also could be acting as antennas. I wonder how much loss they have. Some people reported pigtails having as much as 6-7 db loss if they were made poorly, and that energy loss all goes to somewhere, probably RF interference. For example, I wonder if crossing the pigtails or running them parallel can effect how much self interference betwee n the cards exist? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: . os10ru...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent:
Re: [WISPA] WAN HotSpot and Polarity
The NS2 is dual polarity. Not sure what polarity the clients are. We get a lot of Iphones/Ipods as clients. So I haven't done any scientific studies, but wanted to give a real world indication of AP selection and coverage area. Tom DeReggi wrote: well thats interesting, but you didn't address the primary question of polarity. Or what polarity hotspot CPE devices generally see. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wyble char...@thewybles.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WAN HotSpot and Polarity I found that with a NanoStation2 I was able to provide coverage to an entire strip mall. Google earth it: 229 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 is where I deployed the AP. It's a fairly standard strip mall. I covered the entire mall, plus across the street in all 4 directions. Tom DeReggi wrote: Over the years, there have been many theories and strategies regarding what polarity is best to use for various purposes. As an engineer, I as well have my theories. But, I wanted to get an updated opinion based on field trials of others, for the following application Application... 2.4Ghz WAN WIFI HotSpot Specs... 1) Average sub located within 100 yards to 1/2 mile. 2) Find and Subscribe by Search for available Networks, via laptop's WIFI card. 3) If RF signal good enough to get a web splash screen to user, will display instruction for ordering higher gain antenna self-install kit for inside their window mount or balcony. 4) Access Point would likely use a sector panel (60 deg?), with an EIRP of 36db. The goal here is enabling residential users to find the ISP's AP on their own. So my questions are 1. If a Horizontally polarized antenna is used at the AP, Is it likely the consumer will equally be able to find your AP, compared to if it had been verical pol'd? The idea being, horizontal pol's noise floor is much lower in the particular area, and more likely ISP will avoid the noise from consumer APs that ship with vert pol antennas, where end users by default will stick the antennas straight up in Verticle pol position. 2. By the time the ISP's horizontal signal gets to the end user, is it received in multiple polarities, based on all the reflections in end users home and stuff? 3. Are laptop wifi cards typically no polarity, and pick up Horizontal as good as verticle signals? 4. Laptops would appear to have Horizontal pol antennas in some cases, expecially if a PCMCIA card. Is this true? Or are most laptops starting to embed verticle pol antennas on the sides of screens? 5. Are End Users getting savy enough to move their laptop all around, when they first take it out of the box, to try and find Horizontal pol APs of ISPs Hotspots? In summary If doing Hotspot WAN deployment, and Verticle noise is significantly higher, will an ISP be doing a smart thing putting their sector on Horiz pol to avoid noise, or shooting themself in the foot because they'll be sending a signal cross pol to the average end user's verticle pol's Wifi card, taking a 20db hit off the bat? Sure Horizontal will be better, if the the consumer gets a professional install, or learns to put an external horizontal pol antenna on their laptop or PC. But most people may not know to do that, by default, for hotspot self subscription. (PS. recognize could use dual pol or 45deg off pol, but purposely avoiding that, to try not to interfere with others, to enable more people to play in the same spectrum) What have other's found? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: George Rogato wi...@oregonfast.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:27 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Tom DeReggi wrote: Good point but. the problem went away when the mcpi cards each had their own SBC/Case, this would infer card to card or pigtail to pigtail interference, since in all cases the dummy load was outside the cases, from what it sounds like. I guess that should be clarified Kurt, when you tested with teh RB600 and 3 cards on the adjacent slots, was the RB600 also in a case with the holes metal taped? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband Question I have that should debunk that theory that cards in close proximity interfere with each other. Why do the cards not interfere with each other when there is additional gain antennas hooked on to them? You would think there would be even more self interference with high gain antennas than with no antennas WISPA Wants You! Join
Re: [WISPA] WAN HotSpot and Polarity
The NS2 can be set to V-pol, H-pol or Adaptive. Charles Wyble wrote: The NS2 is dual polarity. Not sure what polarity the clients are. We get a lot of Iphones/Ipods as clients. So I haven't done any scientific studies, but wanted to give a real world indication of AP selection and coverage area. Tom DeReggi wrote: well thats interesting, but you didn't address the primary question of polarity. Or what polarity hotspot CPE devices generally see. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Charles Wyble" char...@thewybles.com To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WAN HotSpot and Polarity I found that with a NanoStation2 I was able to provide coverage to an entire strip mall. Google earth it: 229 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 is where I deployed the AP. It's a fairly standard strip mall. I covered the entire mall, plus across the street in all 4 directions. Tom DeReggi wrote: Over the years, there have been many theories and strategies regarding what polarity is best to use for various purposes. As an engineer, I as well have my theories. But, I wanted to get an updated opinion based on field trials of others, for the following application Application... 2.4Ghz WAN WIFI HotSpot Specs... 1) Average sub located within 100 yards to 1/2 mile. 2) Find and Subscribe by "Search for available Networks", via laptop's WIFI card. 3) If RF signal good enough to get a web splash screen to user, will display instruction for ordering higher gain antenna self-install kit for inside their window mount or balcony. 4) Access Point would likely use a sector panel (60 deg?), with an EIRP of 36db. The goal here is enabling residential users to find the ISP's AP on their own. So my questions are 1. If a Horizontally polarized antenna is used at the AP, Is it likely the consumer will equally be able to find your AP, compared to if it had been verical pol'd? The idea being, horizontal pol's noise floor is much lower in the particular area, and more likely ISP will avoid the noise from consumer APs that ship with vert pol antennas, where end users by default will stick the antennas straight up in Verticle pol position. 2. By the time the ISP's horizontal signal gets to the end user, is it received in multiple polarities, based on all the reflections in end users home and stuff? 3. Are laptop wifi cards typically "no polarity", and pick up Horizontal as good as verticle signals? 4. Laptops would appear to have Horizontal pol antennas in some cases, expecially if a PCMCIA card. Is this true? Or are most laptops starting to embed verticle pol antennas on the sides of screens? 5. Are End Users getting savy enough to move their laptop all around, when they first take it out of the box, to try and find Horizontal pol APs of ISPs Hotspots? In summary If doing Hotspot WAN deployment, and Verticle noise is significantly higher, will an ISP be doing a smart thing putting their sector on Horiz pol to avoid noise, or shooting themself in the foot because they'll be sending a signal cross pol to the average end user's verticle pol's Wifi card, taking a 20db hit off the bat? Sure Horizontal will be better, if the the consumer gets a professional install, or learns to put an external horizontal pol antenna on their laptop or PC. But most people may not know to do that, by default, for hotspot self subscription. (PS. recognize could use dual pol or 45deg off pol, but purposely avoiding that, to try not to interfere with others, to enable more people to play in the same spectrum) What have other's found? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" wi...@oregonfast.net To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:27 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Tom DeReggi wrote: Good point but. the problem went away when the mcpi cards each had their own SBC/Case, this would infer card to card or pigtail to pigtail interference, since in all cases the dummy load was outside the cases, from what it sounds like. I guess that should be clarified Kurt, when you tested with teh RB600 and 3 cards on the adjacent slots, was the RB600 also in a case with the holes metal taped? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband Question I have that should debunk that theory that cards in close proximity interfere with each other. Why do the cards not interfere with each other when there is additional gain antennas hooked on to them? You would think there would be even more self interference with high gain antennas than with no
Re: [WISPA] WAN HotSpot and Polarity
Dual polarity as in you are horizontal and vertical. Or as in the nano will do either polarity? As far as I know the nano does either (software switchable) not both. But, it would not be the first time I was wrong. Brian Charles Wyble wrote: The NS2 is dual polarity. Not sure what polarity the clients are. We get a lot of Iphones/Ipods as clients. So I haven't done any scientific studies, but wanted to give a real world indication of AP selection and coverage area. Tom DeReggi wrote: well thats interesting, but you didn't address the primary question of polarity. Or what polarity hotspot CPE devices generally see. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Charles Wyble" char...@thewybles.com To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WAN HotSpot and Polarity I found that with a NanoStation2 I was able to provide coverage to an entire strip mall. Google earth it: 229 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 is where I deployed the AP. It's a fairly standard strip mall. I covered the entire mall, plus across the street in all 4 directions. Tom DeReggi wrote: Over the years, there have been many theories and strategies regarding what polarity is best to use for various purposes. As an engineer, I as well have my theories. But, I wanted to get an updated opinion based on field trials of others, for the following application Application... 2.4Ghz WAN WIFI HotSpot Specs... 1) Average sub located within 100 yards to 1/2 mile. 2) Find and Subscribe by "Search for available Networks", via laptop's WIFI card. 3) If RF signal good enough to get a web splash screen to user, will display instruction for ordering higher gain antenna self-install kit for inside their window mount or balcony. 4) Access Point would likely use a sector panel (60 deg?), with an EIRP of 36db. The goal here is enabling residential users to find the ISP's AP on their own. So my questions are 1. If a Horizontally polarized antenna is used at the AP, Is it likely the consumer will equally be able to find your AP, compared to if it had been verical pol'd? The idea being, horizontal pol's noise floor is much lower in the particular area, and more likely ISP will avoid the noise from consumer APs that ship with vert pol antennas, where end users by default will stick the antennas straight up in Verticle pol position. 2. By the time the ISP's horizontal signal gets to the end user, is it received in multiple polarities, based on all the reflections in end users home and stuff? 3. Are laptop wifi cards typically "no polarity", and pick up Horizontal as good as verticle signals? 4. Laptops would appear to have Horizontal pol antennas in some cases, expecially if a PCMCIA card. Is this true? Or are most laptops starting to embed verticle pol antennas on the sides of screens? 5. Are End Users getting savy enough to move their laptop all around, when they first take it out of the box, to try and find Horizontal pol APs of ISPs Hotspots? In summary If doing Hotspot WAN deployment, and Verticle noise is significantly higher, will an ISP be doing a smart thing putting their sector on Horiz pol to avoid noise, or shooting themself in the foot because they'll be sending a signal cross pol to the average end user's verticle pol's Wifi card, taking a 20db hit off the bat? Sure Horizontal will be better, if the the consumer gets a professional install, or learns to put an external horizontal pol antenna on their laptop or PC. But most people may not know to do that, by default, for hotspot self subscription. (PS. recognize could use dual pol or 45deg off pol, but purposely avoiding that, to try not to interfere with others, to enable more people to play in the same spectrum) What have other's found? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" wi...@oregonfast.net To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:27 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Tom DeReggi wrote: Good point but. the problem went away when the mcpi cards each had their own SBC/Case, this would infer card to card or pigtail to pigtail interference, since in all cases the dummy load was outside the cases, from what it sounds like. I guess that should be clarified Kurt, when you tested with teh RB600 and 3 cards on the adjacent slots, was the RB600 also in a case with the holes metal taped? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband Question I have that should debunk that theory that cards in close proximity interfere with each other. Why do the cards not interfere
Re: [WISPA] WAN HotSpot and Polarity
I was using default settings. I'll login to it and look later today and let you guys know. Brian Rohrbacher wrote: Dual polarity as in you are horizontal and vertical. Or as in the nano will do either polarity? As far as I know the nano does either (software switchable) not both. But, it would not be the first time I was wrong. Brian Charles Wyble wrote: The NS2 is dual polarity. Not sure what polarity the clients are. We get a lot of Iphones/Ipods as clients. So I haven't done any scientific studies, but wanted to give a real world indication of AP selection and coverage area. Tom DeReggi wrote: well thats interesting, but you didn't address the primary question of polarity. Or what polarity hotspot CPE devices generally see. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wyble char...@thewybles.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WAN HotSpot and Polarity I found that with a NanoStation2 I was able to provide coverage to an entire strip mall. Google earth it: 229 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 is where I deployed the AP. It's a fairly standard strip mall. I covered the entire mall, plus across the street in all 4 directions. Tom DeReggi wrote: Over the years, there have been many theories and strategies regarding what polarity is best to use for various purposes. As an engineer, I as well have my theories. But, I wanted to get an updated opinion based on field trials of others, for the following application Application... 2.4Ghz WAN WIFI HotSpot Specs... 1) Average sub located within 100 yards to 1/2 mile. 2) Find and Subscribe by Search for available Networks, via laptop's WIFI card. 3) If RF signal good enough to get a web splash screen to user, will display instruction for ordering higher gain antenna self-install kit for inside their window mount or balcony. 4) Access Point would likely use a sector panel (60 deg?), with an EIRP of 36db. The goal here is enabling residential users to find the ISP's AP on their own. So my questions are 1. If a Horizontally polarized antenna is used at the AP, Is it likely the consumer will equally be able to find your AP, compared to if it had been verical pol'd? The idea being, horizontal pol's noise floor is much lower in the particular area, and more likely ISP will avoid the noise from consumer APs that ship with vert pol antennas, where end users by default will stick the antennas straight up in Verticle pol position. 2. By the time the ISP's horizontal signal gets to the end user, is it received in multiple polarities, based on all the reflections in end users home and stuff? 3. Are laptop wifi cards typically no polarity, and pick up Horizontal as good as verticle signals? 4. Laptops would appear to have Horizontal pol antennas in some cases, expecially if a PCMCIA card. Is this true? Or are most laptops starting to embed verticle pol antennas on the sides of screens? 5. Are End Users getting savy enough to move their laptop all around, when they first take it out of the box, to try and find Horizontal pol APs of ISPs Hotspots? In summary If doing Hotspot WAN deployment, and Verticle noise is significantly higher, will an ISP be doing a smart thing putting their sector on Horiz pol to avoid noise, or shooting themself in the foot because they'll be sending a signal cross pol to the average end user's verticle pol's Wifi card, taking a 20db hit off the bat? Sure Horizontal will be better, if the the consumer gets a professional install, or learns to put an external horizontal pol antenna on their laptop or PC. But most people may not know to do that, by default, for hotspot self subscription. (PS. recognize could use dual pol or 45deg off pol, but purposely avoiding that, to try not to interfere with others, to enable more people to play in the same spectrum) What have other's found? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: George Rogato wi...@oregonfast.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:27 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Tom DeReggi wrote: Good point but. the problem went away when the mcpi cards each had their own SBC/Case, this would infer card to card or pigtail to pigtail interference, since in all cases the dummy load was outside the cases, from what it sounds like. I guess that should be clarified Kurt, when you tested with teh RB600 and 3 cards on the adjacent slots, was the RB600 also in a case with the holes metal taped? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
[WISPA] Free Radius Servers
Anyone have any recommendations for a free Radius server? Specifically interested in credit card processing for a hotspot application. Thank you, Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Free Radius Servers
User Manager ;) * --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board Member - wispa.org http://www.wispa.org/ Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services WISPA Vendor Member* *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net http://www.linktechs.net/ */LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/* http://www.linktechs.net/onlinetraining.asp The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended only for the person(s) or entity/entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited, If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. David E. Smith wrote: On Thu, April 30, 2009 4:31 pm, 3-dB Networks wrote: Anyone have any recommendations for a free Radius server? Specifically interested in credit card processing for a hotspot application. In a clever twist on words, FreeRADIUS is probably the answer you're looking for. freeradius.org David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Free Radius Servers
On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 15:31 -0600, 3-dB Networks wrote: Anyone have any recommendations for a free Radius server? Specifically interested in credit card processing for a hotspot application. Which hotspot are you running? If it's Mikrotik, then the User Manager may do the trick. If you are looking for something more functional, then FreeRadius with a front end manager to handle the users and cc processing will be needed. I'm not aware of any free way to do that effectively (user manager is free and does cc processing, but the program doesn't have many options and it is pretty limited in many areas). Hit me offlist and I'll show you one that I have available and run you through some of the features. -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://www.wispa.org/ * WISPA Board Member * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
