Re: [WISPA] nanostation and canopy towers within 2 miles of each other
True, but it works the same. Thanks for all the great input. Marco On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net wrote: Hey Tom, Great post with great info. have no quams with the info you have presented. Just wanted to point it.. that I think you read Marco's email backwards... What I understood from Marco's post is that HE is currently operating the Moto Canopy Tower, and a competitor is getting ready to light up a Ubiquity tower approx. 2 miles away from his tower. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 9/23/2010 7:03 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Marco, Be aware of one very important principle when deploying Ubiquiti MIMO With them, you can NOT disable either of the polarities, both polarities always hear noise. In mode 8-15, double the capacity is acheived, each pol with unique data. Even in Modes 0-7 (single chain), I believe the same signal gets transmitted across both pols, and listens on both pols for same signal. The benefit of this is more resilience to multi-path fade, and a theoretical 3db increase in power on the receive. The negative of this is that the noise from BOTH polarities is heard. So... Lets say Horizontal pol is noise free, but verticle pol is full of noise. There is no way to steer around the noise on verticle pol. There is no way to select using Horizontal pol only without the noise of the verticle antenna heard. SO How does this apply to Co-existence with Canopy bearby? Well, most Canopy APs use Verticle polarity only. Therefore, the Canopies tower will likely use most of the Verticle polarity channels, and your ubiquitis will likely hear a lot more noise on Verticle channels. If you used equipment that was a single pol design, you'd be able to select Horizontal pol only, and you'd be able to steer around the Canopy easily. With Mimo Ubiquiti, you wont have that option anymore. As well, the Canopy user is locked to 20Mhz channels, and wont be able to make room for you that way either. So... you should be prepared that you are likely going to be fighting interference with the Canopy users. The Canopy user will have one advantage, they'll only need 3db SNR to survive your noise, where you'll need atleast 8-10db SNR to survive their noise. (Ubiquiti would work better at 18-25db SNR). You will have two advantages though One, your Ubiquitis can be set to 10Mhz channels, adjustable in 5Mhz increasments, to find the holes between the Canopy's selected channels. Two, the Ubiquitis are higher power. You'll be able to go up to 24-26dbm at the CPE (depending on modulation), where Canopy may be limited to 22dbm, and Ubiquiti has more flexible CPE options to choose higher gain antennas, if needed. If the Canopy tower is two miles away, you should be able to carefully select your channel plan to avoid interference, but noise at your tower will still be a big concern to avoid. I'd highly recommend that you go all out on the Ubiquiti Tower, and in addition to using the UBiquiti Antennas, use the custom third party shields made for them to increase the Front/Back isolation of the antennas. These Ubiquiti Radio are really really sweet. And their wireless dirver appear to handle noise well. But its still all about the math, and with Ubiquiti MIMO, it does hear MORE noise, because of the dual pol design. Note, if you ever run into trouble where there the Verticle pol noise is to severe for the AP It is possible to select single chain mode 0-7, and cap the verticle pol antenna port on the radio (disconnect verticle pol antenna feed), then your radio would just hear on Horizontal pol. (I believe Chain0 is Horizontal pol, from what we've determined, but you'd need to confirm that yourself). However, I can not vouge for whether there would be any long term harm to the radio because of that, meaning whether it would hurt to operate the radio without an antenna load on the second chain polarity. But we've operated successfully like that at some sights for a while. Another technique that can help is to point only one 120 degree antenna in the direction of the Canopy tower. The mentality here is to send the very least amount of noise and channel usage in their direction. It will be easier for the Canopy tower to vacate and leave a single channel for your use, in that direction. Anything you point at them could interfere with them, and vice versa, so reduce the number of channels pointed to them. Most ISPs can spare a channel, but cant spare many. So give them a solution for non-interference, that impacts them the least. They were there first, and would likely protect their turf, the last thing you want is a noise battle with a 3db SNR TDD radio. The Ubiquiti freq scanner works well, to find the best free channel to use for each of your sectors. That will come in handy, determining what channels are being used by the Canopy. . Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc
Re: [WISPA] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 04:04:38PM -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 9/23/2010 03:43 PM, you wrote: Hmm... looks like we need to keep up the good fight: I know this is out of line with the WISPA consensus, but it seems to me that if there are more than 10 white space channels in a given area, then letting Part 101 point-to-point operations share them could be in our best interests. Backhaul for WISPs is often very expensive, so a couple of channels (for FDD) of UHF backhaul could be just the ticket. Of course these should be available to any qualified Part 101 applicant, not just a CMRS licensee. Not knocking Fred's thoughtfullness, just adding some input. I could support some minor 101 use maybe 2-3 channels, but not 7 channels and guard channels, and all the other things asked for. I have a need to shoot 20 miles over water without ducting and multipath common to 5ghz, but ptmp tvws should serve that fine. As proposed the fiber tower plan is the most wasteful idea proposed yet to solve a theoretical problem that in reality could be solved with a pair of ubnt 5ghz radios and dish antennass. I seriously question the cell carrier motives for the ptp proposal. It might be part legitimate interest in having another choice for backhaul, but I think it's equally or more a red herring diversion being that it sounds a little fishy. As for the first part, the organization leading the ptp stands to gain income if it can provide some backhaul. The carriers are behind it because it might create additional competition (leverage to bargain with backwards telecom carriers) to remote cell towers (the areas of the country that have the least competition). That's the simple economic proposal everyone can understand and like. Their argument for this makes no technical sense whatsoever. It's the least useful use of spectrum ever. They claim they want this so they can use cheap antennass. Cell carriers don't use cheap antennas. It's like seeing a hip hop mogul doing a music video riding around in a Chrysler K-car; you notice it and it makes even less sense than before. They claim they need the low frequencies to carry long distances, I think citing a 75 mile link in one FCC comment. What cell carrier goes 75 miles between towers? They are trying to expand/enhance phone coverage, not replicate ATT LongLines. If you have to exceed 20 miles in rural wooded areas your service is going to be pretty spotty to put things nicely. They then rationalized several new towers and several expensive hops to get the 75 miles. I've never seen a cell phone site that is 75 miles away from it's coverage area. They need cells or patterns of coverage, not pin a tack on a map of the woods of maine/berkshires/kentucky/wherever and build coverage there. Coverage expansion tens to involve networks of sites, new retailers, not just a pair of $50 UHF antennas, some cheap radios, and a spool of rg6. That's something a wisp or ham would do. Furthermore, being that it's on a cell tower, it will have line of sight to somewhere. Cell tower zoning regulations usually require towers to support multiple carriers (to prevent unncesary blight from tower proliferation) and the towers will be higher than needed. Can't get much better choice for backhaul towers than a cell tower these days. Many inexpensive options exist on the market today for cheap LOS backhaul as WISPs know. I think they are trying to prevent a massive glut of spectrum being used on affordable and effective equipment from competing with their services on the spectrum they paid dearly for. It has the potential to work better for ptmp than what they have in rural areas and for building penetration. They want to temper the potential for a wifi revolution is in a band that somewhat more advantageous that what they use. If they can prevent a third of it from being used for ptmp, they could sit on it and use it for a few minor backhaul needs for a few years. One of them will buy fibertower cheap because it's backhauls were receiving skip and it's $50 antennas were falling apart. Another will buy the company that bought fibertower. They will lobby and contribute to politicians for a couple years. Then they will ask to convert this underused but vital ptp spectrum their almost forgotten subsidiary has into a more useful exclusively licensed ptmp network worth gazillions of dollars. People of both parties will be sympathetics to the usefulness and timeliness of the idea (because tvws internet will already be common) and some sort of promise for network services to public safety or people's welfare will seal the deal from political division. The wireless mic new rules are very generously fair to everyone involved. 2 channels won't take a huge chunk out of the unlicensed and it's all low power stuff. I'd have thought one channel would be enough; you can fit a lot of audio into 6mhz, but I suppose
[WISPA] Rohn 25G engineering design
Does anybody have any engineering plans for Rohn 25G towers at 80' and 120' with 1 inch ICE conditions? -- Thanks, Cameron Kilton 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] Equipment
Please contact me with interest offlist. I have a: REb BAlvarion SU-E-5.3Ghz 54MB Bridge unit for sale $400 Alvarion AU-5.8-VL Rev B - Make offer -- Thanks, Cameron Kilton Project Manager Midcoast Internet Solutions http://www.midcoast.com c...@midcoast.com (207) 594-8277 x 108 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] Equipment - Tranzeo/Ubiquiti
We've got an assortment of used Tranzeo CPQ's, Tranzeo 5A's, and Ubiquiti PS2/Nano2/Nano2 loco we'd like to sell. If anybody is interested, please email me. Regards Michael Baird 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] Equipment - Tranzeo/Ubiquiti
Feel free to place your ad at http://www.wispa.org/?page_id=2297 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Michael Baird Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 1:15 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Equipment - Tranzeo/Ubiquiti We've got an assortment of used Tranzeo CPQ's, Tranzeo 5A's, and Ubiquiti PS2/Nano2/Nano2 loco we'd like to sell. If anybody is interested, please email me. Regards Michael Baird --- - 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] Equipment
Feel free to place your ad at http://www.wispa.org/?page_id=2297 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Cameron Kilton Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:40 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Equipment Please contact me with interest offlist. I have a: REb BAlvarion SU-E-5.3Ghz 54MB Bridge unit for sale $400 Alvarion AU-5.8-VL Rev B - Make offer -- Thanks, Cameron Kilton Project Manager Midcoast Internet Solutions http://www.midcoast.com c...@midcoast.com (207) 594-8277 x 108 --- - 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] Transmit Antenna Height
Yeah... that will help. In my neck of the woods, its possible the only available channels might be in the lower channels anyway. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Webster To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height But what if you are able to use spectrum around 200 or 300 MHz? That certainly goes through trees. Brian From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick forest/trees easilly 70ft tall. A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow enough of the signal to have open air, and the signal would be going through trees most of the full path. In 900Mhz, the difference between having the tower side over the tree line and below the tree line can be the difference between a quarter mile coverage and a 7 mile coverage in our market. All be it, 700Mhz does have better NLOS propogation characteristics than 900 does. I would have liked to see that height doubled. However, admittedly, it will allow much better spectrum re-use in areas that have a limited number of channels available. Spectrum reuse is one of the best ways to serve more people. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes it useless to WISPs in much of the country. In places where the routine variation in elevation is more than 75 meters, there will be houses (subscribers) that are more than 76 meters AAT. I notice this in the areas I'm studying, both in the east and in the upper midwest. In a place like Kansas, nobody is 75m AAT. But in the woody Berkshires of Western Massachusetts, the UHF space is needed to get through the trees, and a significant share of houses are 75m AAT. Also, if you want to cover a decent radius, the access point needs to be up the hill too. 75 meters isn't a mountaintop; it's just a little rise. It makes no sense to absolutely ban fixed use at a site that is 100m AAT if the nearest protected-service contour is, say, 50 miles away. A more sensible rule would be to follow broadcast practice, and lower the ERP based on height, so that the distance to a given signal strength contour is held constant as the height rises. Hence a Class A FM station is allowed up to 15 miles, and if it is more than 300 feet AAT, then it is allowed less than the 3000 watts ERP that apply at lower heights. Maybe the lawyers want to have more petitions to argue over. At 9/23/2010 04:07 PM, Rich Harnish wrote: 65. Decision. We decline to increase the maximum permitted transmit antenna height above ground for fixed TV bands devices. As the Commission stated in the Second Report and Order, the 30 meters above ground limit was established as a balance between the benefits of increasing TV bands device transmission range and the need to minimize the impact on licensed services.129 Consistent with the Commission's stated approach in the Second Report and Order of taking a conservative approach in protecting authorized services, we find the prudent course of action is to maintain the previously adopted height limit. If, in the future, experience with TV bands devices indicates that these devices could operate at higher transmit heights without causing interference, the Commission could revisit the height limit. 66. While we expect that specifying a limit on antenna height above ground rather than above average terrain is satisfactory for controlling interference to authorized services in the majority of cases, we also recognize petitioners' concerns about the increased potential for interference in instances where a fixed TV bands device antenna is located on a local geographic high point such as a hill or mountain.130 In such cases, the distance at which a TV bands device signal could propagate would be significantly increased, thus increasing the potential for interference to authorized operations in the TV bands. We therefore conclude that it is necessary to modify our rules to limit the antenna HAAT of a fixed device as well as its antenna height above ground. In considering a limit for antenna HAAT, we need to balance the concerns for long range propagation from high points against the typical variability of ground height that occurs in areas where there are significant local high points - we do not want to
Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
There is one other benefit of this No body else will be able to install higher either. Mounting lower to the ground, its more likely a WISP will be able to install their own tower, and no longer have to pay huge colocation costs on a commercial tower. I predict more houses up on the hill, being the new TVWhitespace towers. Although, aren't these low channel Whitespace omnis like giant, and weight a ton? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Webster To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height But what if you are able to use spectrum around 200 or 300 MHz? That certainly goes through trees. Brian From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick forest/trees easilly 70ft tall. A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow enough of the signal to have open air, and the signal would be going through trees most of the full path. In 900Mhz, the difference between having the tower side over the tree line and below the tree line can be the difference between a quarter mile coverage and a 7 mile coverage in our market. All be it, 700Mhz does have better NLOS propogation characteristics than 900 does. I would have liked to see that height doubled. However, admittedly, it will allow much better spectrum re-use in areas that have a limited number of channels available. Spectrum reuse is one of the best ways to serve more people. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes it useless to WISPs in much of the country. In places where the routine variation in elevation is more than 75 meters, there will be houses (subscribers) that are more than 76 meters AAT. I notice this in the areas I'm studying, both in the east and in the upper midwest. In a place like Kansas, nobody is 75m AAT. But in the woody Berkshires of Western Massachusetts, the UHF space is needed to get through the trees, and a significant share of houses are 75m AAT. Also, if you want to cover a decent radius, the access point needs to be up the hill too. 75 meters isn't a mountaintop; it's just a little rise. It makes no sense to absolutely ban fixed use at a site that is 100m AAT if the nearest protected-service contour is, say, 50 miles away. A more sensible rule would be to follow broadcast practice, and lower the ERP based on height, so that the distance to a given signal strength contour is held constant as the height rises. Hence a Class A FM station is allowed up to 15 miles, and if it is more than 300 feet AAT, then it is allowed less than the 3000 watts ERP that apply at lower heights. Maybe the lawyers want to have more petitions to argue over. At 9/23/2010 04:07 PM, Rich Harnish wrote: 65. Decision. We decline to increase the maximum permitted transmit antenna height above ground for fixed TV bands devices. As the Commission stated in the Second Report and Order, the 30 meters above ground limit was established as a balance between the benefits of increasing TV bands device transmission range and the need to minimize the impact on licensed services.129 Consistent with the Commission's stated approach in the Second Report and Order of taking a conservative approach in protecting authorized services, we find the prudent course of action is to maintain the previously adopted height limit. If, in the future, experience with TV bands devices indicates that these devices could operate at higher transmit heights without causing interference, the Commission could revisit the height limit. 66. While we expect that specifying a limit on antenna height above ground rather than above average terrain is satisfactory for controlling interference to authorized services in the majority of cases, we also recognize petitioners' concerns about the increased potential for interference in instances where a fixed TV bands device antenna is located on a local geographic high point such as a hill or mountain.130 In such cases, the distance at which a TV bands device signal could propagate would be significantly increased, thus increasing the potential for interference to authorized operations in the TV bands. We therefore conclude that it is necessary to modify our rules to limit the antenna HAAT of a fixed device as well as its
Re: [WISPA] nanostation and canopy towers within 2 miles of each other
OOps, I did get it backwardsLOL. In that case My advice for Marco would be Reach out to the new WISP, and make sure they know you are there, and how to contact you if needed. Engineering non-interference, is better than reacting to it, for both parties. Knowing your competitor's equipment traits, limits, and options, helps one come up with ideas to co-exist. The one big advice I'd give the Canopy user to watch out for would be that, unlike the Canopy gear, the Ubiquiti gear will allow the operator to operate illegally if the operator configures itself to do so. In otherwords, they could install an AP with a Ubiquiti 20dbi antenna, and still set radio power up to 26db. (10 dbi over legal). If you run into a interference war and start to loose, examine whether the other WISP is operating within legal power or not. Just in case, they left radios at defaults, and forgot to set down to legal power. I'd also add that the Canopy subs might be more at risk if using the basic 8dbi 60 deg Canopy CPEs. (Please note, I probably have these CPE specs wrong, I'm only familiar with the 5.8G specs, and Mario mentioned 2.4G). The Ubiquiti platform is really cheap to add high gain CPEs. It would be worth taking a look at what subs might have CPEs with their beamwidths looking in the direction of the Ubiquiti tower 2 miles away. Its also relevent to examine the AP height of the deployments, to get an idea if the CPEs will be pointing to the sky, or horizontally. Interference may not only be a factor of AP interference. Reason is APs will be low power under 36db. But the CPE rules that allow high gain at the CPE will make the CPE transmits travel much farther at stronger strength. So, its feasible new CPEs of competitor could interfere with your CPEs. And its feasible a High gain 2.4G CPE could transmit it signal 30 miles, and have a high signal at only 2 miles. This is not a big issue with 5.3 and 5.4, because the CPE EIRP is fixed to the same as the AP. But with 2.4, it cold be an issue. ON day one that the Ubiquiti APs are installed will not tell you the amount of interference you will get. Every new Ubiquiti CPE installed could add to the interference. Its definately helps if the APs are mounted higher, so CPEs point up. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:59 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] nanostation and canopy towers within 2 miles of each other Hey Tom, Great post with great info. have no quams with the info you have presented. Just wanted to point it.. that I think you read Marco's email backwards... What I understood from Marco's post is that HE is currently operating the Moto Canopy Tower, and a competitor is getting ready to light up a Ubiquity tower approx. 2 miles away from his tower. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 9/23/2010 7:03 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Marco, Be aware of one very important principle when deploying Ubiquiti MIMO With them, you can NOT disable either of the polarities, both polarities always hear noise. In mode 8-15, double the capacity is acheived, each pol with unique data. Even in Modes 0-7 (single chain), I believe the same signal gets transmitted across both pols, and listens on both pols for same signal. The benefit of this is more resilience to multi-path fade, and a theoretical 3db increase in power on the receive. The negative of this is that the noise from BOTH polarities is heard. So... Lets say Horizontal pol is noise free, but verticle pol is full of noise. There is no way to steer around the noise on verticle pol. There is no way to select using Horizontal pol only without the noise of the verticle antenna heard. SO How does this apply to Co-existence with Canopy bearby? Well, most Canopy APs use Verticle polarity only. Therefore, the Canopies tower will likely use most of the Verticle polarity channels, and your ubiquitis will likely hear a lot more noise on Verticle channels. If you used equipment that was a single pol design, you'd be able to select Horizontal pol only, and you'd be able to steer around the Canopy easily. With Mimo Ubiquiti, you wont have that option anymore. As well, the Canopy user is locked to 20Mhz channels, and wont be able to make room for you that way either. So... you should be prepared that you are likely going to be fighting interference with the Canopy users. The Canopy user will have one advantage, they'll only need 3db SNR to survive your noise, where you'll need atleast 8-10db SNR to survive their noise. (Ubiquiti would work better at 18-25db SNR). You will have two advantages though One, your Ubiquitis can be set to 10Mhz channels, adjustable in 5Mhz increasments, to find the holes between the Canopy's selected channels. Two,
Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
At 9/24/2010 02:16 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: There is one other benefit of this No body else will be able to install higher either. Mounting lower to the ground, its more likely a WISP will be able to install their own tower, and no longer have to pay huge colocation costs on a commercial tower. I predict more houses up on the hill, being the new TVWhitespace towers. Although, aren't these low channel Whitespace omnis like giant, and weight a ton? No, Tom, you missed the poison pill. If somebody lives on a hill, more than 76 meters above average terrain, then they are banned from using fixed whitespace devices AT ALL. Not at 4W. Not at 1W. Just the flea-power portable devices, which are basically wireless mics. This new rule needs to be changed. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: mailto:bwebs...@wirelessmapping.comBrian Webster To: mailto:wireless@wispa.org'WISPA General List' Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height But what if you are able to use spectrum around 200 or 300 MHz? That certainly goes through trees. Brian From: mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.orgwireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick forest/trees easilly 70ft tall. A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow enough of the signal to have open air, and the signal would be going through trees most of the full path. In 900Mhz, the difference between having the tower side over the tree line and below the tree line can be the difference between a quarter mile coverage and a 7 mile coverage in our market. All be it, 700Mhz does have better NLOS propogation characteristics than 900 does. I would have liked to see that height doubled. However, admittedly, it will allow much better spectrum re-use in areas that have a limited number of channels available. Spectrum reuse is one of the best ways to serve more people. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.comFred Goldstein To: mailto:wireless@wispa.orgWISPA General List Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes it useless to WISPs in much of the country. In places where the routine variation in elevation is more than 75 meters, there will be houses (subscribers) that are more than 76 meters AAT. I notice this in the areas I'm studying, both in the east and in the upper midwest. In a place like Kansas, nobody is 75m AAT. But in the woody Berkshires of Western Massachusetts, the UHF space is needed to get through the trees, and a significant share of houses are 75m AAT. Also, if you want to cover a decent radius, the access point needs to be up the hill too. 75 meters isn't a mountaintop; it's just a little rise. It makes no sense to absolutely ban fixed use at a site that is 100m AAT if the nearest protected-service contour is, say, 50 miles away. A more sensible rule would be to follow broadcast practice, and lower the ERP based on height, so that the distance to a given signal strength contour is held constant as the height rises. Hence a Class A FM station is allowed up to 15 miles, and if it is more than 300 feet AAT, then it is allowed less than the 3000 watts ERP that apply at lower heights. Maybe the lawyers want to have more petitions to argue over. At 9/23/2010 04:07 PM, Rich Harnish wrote: 65. Decision. We decline to increase the maximum permitted transmit antenna height above ground for fixed TV bands devices. As the Commission stated in the Second Report and Order, the 30 meters above ground limit was established as a balance between the benefits of increasing TV bands device transmission range and the need to minimize the impact on licensed services.129 Consistent with the Commission's stated approach in the Second Report and Order of taking a conservative approach in protecting authorized services, we find the prudent course of action is to maintain the previously adopted height limit. If, in the future, experience with TV bands devices indicates that these devices could operate at higher transmit heights without causing interference, the Commission could revisit the height limit. 66. While we expect that specifying a limit on antenna height above ground rather than above average terrain is satisfactory for controlling interference to authorized services in the majority of cases, we also recognize petitioners' concerns about the increased potential for interference in instances where a fixed TV bands device antenna is located on a local geographic high point such
Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
Those were my thoughts as well. If anyone can adapt quickly to this decision on tower heights, it will be innovative WISPs. Rick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 2:16 PM To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height There is one other benefit of this No body else will be able to install higher either. Mounting lower to the ground, its more likely a WISP will be able to install their own tower, and no longer have to pay huge colocation costs on a commercial tower. I predict more houses up on the hill, being the new TVWhitespace towers. Although, aren't these low channel Whitespace omnis like giant, and weight a ton? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Webster mailto:bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com To: 'WISPA General mailto:wireless@wispa.org List' Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height But what if you are able to use spectrum around 200 or 300 MHz? That certainly goes through trees. Brian From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick forest/trees easilly 70ft tall. A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow enough of the signal to have open air, and the signal would be going through trees most of the full path. In 900Mhz, the difference between having the tower side over the tree line and below the tree line can be the difference between a quarter mile coverage and a 7 mile coverage in our market. All be it, 700Mhz does have better NLOS propogation characteristics than 900 does. I would have liked to see that height doubled. However, admittedly, it will allow much better spectrum re-use in areas that have a limited number of channels available. Spectrum reuse is one of the best ways to serve more people. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com Goldstein To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes it useless to WISPs in much of the country. In places where the routine variation in elevation is more than 75 meters, there will be houses (subscribers) that are more than 76 meters AAT. I notice this in the areas I'm studying, both in the east and in the upper midwest. In a place like Kansas, nobody is 75m AAT. But in the woody Berkshires of Western Massachusetts, the UHF space is needed to get through the trees, and a significant share of houses are 75m AAT. Also, if you want to cover a decent radius, the access point needs to be up the hill too. 75 meters isn't a mountaintop; it's just a little rise. It makes no sense to absolutely ban fixed use at a site that is 100m AAT if the nearest protected-service contour is, say, 50 miles away. A more sensible rule would be to follow broadcast practice, and lower the ERP based on height, so that the distance to a given signal strength contour is held constant as the height rises. Hence a Class A FM station is allowed up to 15 miles, and if it is more than 300 feet AAT, then it is allowed less than the 3000 watts ERP that apply at lower heights. Maybe the lawyers want to have more petitions to argue over. At 9/23/2010 04:07 PM, Rich Harnish wrote: 65. Decision. We decline to increase the maximum permitted transmit antenna height above ground for fixed TV bands devices. As the Commission stated in the Second Report and Order, the 30 meters above ground limit was established as a balance between the benefits of increasing TV bands device transmission range and the need to minimize the impact on licensed services.129 Consistent with the Commission's stated approach in the Second Report and Order of taking a conservative approach in protecting authorized services, we find the prudent course of action is to maintain the previously adopted height limit. If, in the future, experience with TV bands devices indicates that these devices could operate at higher transmit heights without causing interference, the Commission could revisit the height limit. 66. While we expect that specifying a limit on antenna height above ground rather than above average terrain is satisfactory for controlling interference to authorized services in the majority of cases, we also recognize petitioners' concerns about the increased potential for interference in instances where a fixed TV bands device antenna is located on a local geographic high point such
[WISPA] FW: Transmit Antenna Height
Steve, Here is another question to pose to the FCC. Does the HAAT requirement include receive antennas. In otherwords, can no clients be installed above the 76 meter HAAT level? Respectively, Rick Harnish Executive Director WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 WISPA Office Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 2:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height At 9/24/2010 02:16 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: There is one other benefit of this No body else will be able to install higher either. Mounting lower to the ground, its more likely a WISP will be able to install their own tower, and no longer have to pay huge colocation costs on a commercial tower. I predict more houses up on the hill, being the new TVWhitespace towers. Although, aren't these low channel Whitespace omnis like giant, and weight a ton? No, Tom, you missed the poison pill. If somebody lives on a hill, more than 76 meters above average terrain, then they are banned from using fixed whitespace devices AT ALL. Not at 4W. Not at 1W. Just the flea-power portable devices, which are basically wireless mics. This new rule needs to be changed. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Webster mailto:bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com To: 'WISPA General List' mailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height But what if you are able to use spectrum around 200 or 300 MHz? That certainly goes through trees. Brian From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick forest/trees easilly 70ft tall. A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow enough of the signal to have open air, and the signal would be going through trees most of the full path. In 900Mhz, the difference between having the tower side over the tree line and below the tree line can be the difference between a quarter mile coverage and a 7 mile coverage in our market. All be it, 700Mhz does have better NLOS propogation characteristics than 900 does. I would have liked to see that height doubled. However, admittedly, it will allow much better spectrum re-use in areas that have a limited number of channels available. Spectrum reuse is one of the best ways to serve more people. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes it useless to WISPs in much of the country. In places where the routine variation in elevation is more than 75 meters, there will be houses (subscribers) that are more than 76 meters AAT. I notice this in the areas I'm studying, both in the east and in the upper midwest. In a place like Kansas, nobody is 75m AAT. But in the woody Berkshires of Western Massachusetts, the UHF space is needed to get through the trees, and a significant share of houses are 75m AAT. Also, if you want to cover a decent radius, the access point needs to be up the hill too. 75 meters isn't a mountaintop; it's just a little rise. It makes no sense to absolutely ban fixed use at a site that is 100m AAT if the nearest protected-service contour is, say, 50 miles away. A more sensible rule would be to follow broadcast practice, and lower the ERP based on height, so that the distance to a given signal strength contour is held constant as the height rises. Hence a Class A FM station is allowed up to 15 miles, and if it is more than 300 feet AAT, then it is allowed less than the 3000 watts ERP that apply at lower heights. Maybe the lawyers want to have more petitions to argue over. At 9/23/2010 04:07 PM, Rich Harnish wrote: 65. Decision. We decline to increase the maximum permitted transmit antenna height above ground for fixed TV bands devices. As the Commission stated in the Second Report and Order, the 30 meters above ground limit was established as a balance between the benefits of increasing TV bands device transmission range and the need to minimize the impact on licensed services.129 Consistent with the Commission's stated approach in the Second Report and Order of taking a conservative approach in protecting authorized services, we find the prudent course of action is to maintain the previously adopted height limit. If, in the future, experience with TV bands devices
Re: [WISPA] Rohn 25G engineering design
*http://tinyurl.com/2bj7tuv* * *Regards, Chuck On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Cameron Kilton c...@midcoast.com wrote: Does anybody have any engineering plans for Rohn 25G towers at 80' and 120' with 1 inch ICE conditions? -- Thanks, Cameron Kilton 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] FW: Transmit Antenna Height
At 9/24/2010 03:03 PM, you wrote: Steve, Here is another question to pose to the FCC. Does the HAAT requirement include receive antennas. In otherwords, can no clients be installed above the 76 meter HAAT level? I see no mention of receive-only terminals, though I doubt anybody asked. But if by receive you mean client (such as a Mode 1 CPE), then the rules seem to ban those entirely, not just APs, from high ground: ...We will therefore restrict fixed TV bands devices from operating at locations where the HAAT of the ground is greater than 76 meters; this will allow use of an antenna at a height of up to 30 meters above ground level to provide an antenna HAAT of 106 meters. Accordingly, we are specifying that a fixed TV bands device antenna may not be located at a site where the ground HAAT is greater than 75 meters (246 feet). The ground HAAT is to be calculated by the TV bands database using computational software employing the methodology in Section 73.684(d) of the rules to ensure that fixed devices comply with this requirement. They cite to the IEEE's filing, but it didn't call for a ban; instead it called for wider protection distances based on HAAT: 13.We recommend that HAAT be used to determine the required separation distance from TV protected contours as described in the Table below.6 The method for calculating HAAT should be the same as was employed in Part 90 to protect the TV service from PLMRS. In addition, we recommend no limits on the antenna height above ground for fixed base stations.7 We further recommend that no changes in the assumption of antenna heights of 10m AGL for fixed user terminals (CPEs) be made for the purpose of calculating the separation distance to the TV protected contour. That would have been reasonable. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 2:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height At 9/24/2010 02:16 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: There is one other benefit of this No body else will be able to install higher either. Mounting lower to the ground, its more likely a WISP will be able to install their own tower, and no longer have to pay huge colocation costs on a commercial tower. I predict more houses up on the hill, being the new TVWhitespace towers. Although, aren't these low channel Whitespace omnis like giant, and weight a ton? No, Tom, you missed the poison pill. If somebody lives on a hill, more than 76 meters above average terrain, then they are banned from using fixed whitespace devices AT ALL. Not at 4W. Not at 1W. Just the flea-power portable devices, which are basically wireless mics. This new rule needs to be changed. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: mailto:bwebs...@wirelessmapping.comBrian Webster To: mailto:wireless@wispa.org'WISPA General List' Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height But what if you are able to use spectrum around 200 or 300 MHz? That certainly goes through trees. Brian From: mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.orgwireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick forest/trees easilly 70ft tall. A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow enough of the signal to have open air, and the signal would be going through trees most of the full path. In 900Mhz, the difference between having the tower side over the tree line and below the tree line can be the difference between a quarter mile coverage and a 7 mile coverage in our market. All be it, 700Mhz does have better NLOS propogation characteristics than 900 does. I would have liked to see that height doubled. However, admittedly, it will allow much better spectrum re-use in areas that have a limited number of channels available. Spectrum reuse is one of the best ways to serve more people. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.comFred Goldstein To: mailto:wireless@wispa.orgWISPA General List Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes it useless to WISPs in much of the country. In places where the routine variation in elevation is more than 75 meters, there will be houses (subscribers) that are more than 76 meters AAT. I notice this in the areas I'm studying, both in the east and in the upper midwest. In a place like Kansas, nobody is 75m AAT. But in the woody Berkshires of Western Massachusetts, the UHF space is needed to get through the trees, and a significant share
Re: [WISPA] FW: Transmit Antenna Height
Using common sense, it would appear that any CPE antenna above the HAAT level would be downtilted to point to the lower tower broadcast antenna which would be under this level. At a maximum, the CPE antenna would be at 0 degrees inclination. This point should help clarify why it would be permissible. I'm not an expert at UHF/VHF antenna systems, so what I just said may not be achievable in the real world of mounting antennas, but with today's technology, I would think antenna manufacturers could design such a beast. Rick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 3:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: Transmit Antenna Height At 9/24/2010 03:03 PM, you wrote: Steve, Here is another question to pose to the FCC. Does the HAAT requirement include receive antennas. In otherwords, can no clients be installed above the 76 meter HAAT level? I see no mention of receive-only terminals, though I doubt anybody asked. But if by receive you mean client (such as a Mode 1 CPE), then the rules seem to ban those entirely, not just APs, from high ground: ...We will therefore restrict fixed TV bands devices from operating at locations where the HAAT of the ground is greater than 76 meters; this will allow use of an antenna at a height of up to 30 meters above ground level to provide an antenna HAAT of 106 meters. Accordingly, we are specifying that a fixed TV bands device antenna may not be located at a site where the ground HAAT is greater than 75 meters (246 feet). The ground HAAT is to be calculated by the TV bands database using computational software employing the methodology in Section 73.684(d) of the rules to ensure that fixed devices comply with this requirement. They cite to the IEEE's filing, but it didn't call for a ban; instead it called for wider protection distances based on HAAT: 13.We recommend that HAAT be used to determine the required separation distance from TV protected contours as described in the Table below.6 The method for calculating HAAT should be the same as was employed in Part 90 to protect the TV service from PLMRS. In addition, we recommend no limits on the antenna height above ground for fixed base stations.7 We further recommend that no changes in the assumption of antenna heights of 10m AGL for fixed user terminals (CPEs) be made for the purpose of calculating the separation distance to the TV protected contour. That would have been reasonable. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [ mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org ] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 2:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height At 9/24/2010 02:16 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: There is one other benefit of this No body else will be able to install higher either. Mounting lower to the ground, its more likely a WISP will be able to install their own tower, and no longer have to pay huge colocation costs on a commercial tower. I predict more houses up on the hill, being the new TVWhitespace towers. Although, aren't these low channel Whitespace omnis like giant, and weight a ton? No, Tom, you missed the poison pill. If somebody lives on a hill, more than 76 meters above average terrain, then they are banned from using fixed whitespace devices AT ALL. Not at 4W. Not at 1W. Just the flea-power portable devices, which are basically wireless mics. This new rule needs to be changed. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Webster mailto:bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com To: 'WISPA General List' mailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height But what if you are able to use spectrum around 200 or 300 MHz? That certainly goes through trees. Brian From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick forest/trees easilly 70ft tall. A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow enough of the signal to have open air, and the signal would be going through trees most of the full path. In 900Mhz, the difference between having the tower side over the tree line and below the tree line can be the difference between a quarter mile coverage and a 7 mile coverage in our market. All be it, 700Mhz does have better NLOS propogation characteristics than 900 does. I would have liked to see that height doubled. However, admittedly, it will allow much better spectrum re-use in areas that have a limited number of channels available. Spectrum reuse is one of the best ways to serve more people. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
Re: [WISPA] Referral Programs
We give a free month of service to the referring customer. We print out the credit for their account and send it with a thank you card that says Thanks for your referral on the front and a handwritten note inside. I had these made up from a card vendor. It adds an extra touch and doesn't take much effort. Martha Martha Huizenga DC Access, LLC http://www.dcaccess.net 202-546-5898 */Friendly, Local, Affordable, Internet!/**/ Connecting the Capitol Hill Community Join us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/pages/Washington-DC/DC-Access-LLC/64096486706?ref=tsor follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/dcaccess /* On 9/23/2010 9:59 AM, Jeremy Rodgers wrote: We are looking into creating a solid referral program. Does anyone have input on what has worked well and what hasn't? We were thinking of a free month of service for the new customer and referring one. Is this too much? Any thoughts? -- *Jeremy J. Rodgers* Sales Manager OnlyInternet Broadband and Wireless O: 260.827.2234 O: 800.363.0989 F: 260.824.9624 …But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD. Joshua 24:15 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] FW: Transmit Antenna Height
This rule as it is written states that the ground elevation not more than 75 meters HAAT. Remember that is the not actual ground elevation of the site, it is the HAAT calculation. See my other email with a HAAT report pasted within. My office at an elevation of 1420 ft AMSL actually has a negative HAAT value. I think people are misunderstanding how HAAT is calculated. Brian From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 3:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: Transmit Antenna Height At 9/24/2010 03:03 PM, you wrote: Steve, Here is another question to pose to the FCC. Does the HAAT requirement include receive antennas. In otherwords, can no clients be installed above the 76 meter HAAT level? I see no mention of receive-only terminals, though I doubt anybody asked. But if by receive you mean client (such as a Mode 1 CPE), then the rules seem to ban those entirely, not just APs, from high ground: ...We will therefore restrict fixed TV bands devices from operating at locations where the HAAT of the ground is greater than 76 meters; this will allow use of an antenna at a height of up to 30 meters above ground level to provide an antenna HAAT of 106 meters. Accordingly, we are specifying that a fixed TV bands device antenna may not be located at a site where the ground HAAT is greater than 75 meters (246 feet). The ground HAAT is to be calculated by the TV bands database using computational software employing the methodology in Section 73.684(d) of the rules to ensure that fixed devices comply with this requirement. They cite to the IEEE's filing, but it didn't call for a ban; instead it called for wider protection distances based on HAAT: 13.We recommend that HAAT be used to determine the required separation distance from TV protected contours as described in the Table below.6 The method for calculating HAAT should be the same as was employed in Part 90 to protect the TV service from PLMRS. In addition, we recommend no limits on the antenna height above ground for fixed base stations.7 We further recommend that no changes in the assumption of antenna heights of 10m AGL for fixed user terminals (CPEs) be made for the purpose of calculating the separation distance to the TV protected contour. That would have been reasonable. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [ mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 2:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height At 9/24/2010 02:16 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: There is one other benefit of this No body else will be able to install higher either. Mounting lower to the ground, its more likely a WISP will be able to install their own tower, and no longer have to pay huge colocation costs on a commercial tower. I predict more houses up on the hill, being the new TVWhitespace towers. Although, aren't these low channel Whitespace omnis like giant, and weight a ton? No, Tom, you missed the poison pill. If somebody lives on a hill, more than 76 meters above average terrain, then they are banned from using fixed whitespace devices AT ALL. Not at 4W. Not at 1W. Just the flea-power portable devices, which are basically wireless mics. This new rule needs to be changed. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Webster mailto:bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com To: 'WISPA General List' mailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height But what if you are able to use spectrum around 200 or 300 MHz? That certainly goes through trees. Brian From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick forest/trees easilly 70ft tall. A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow enough of the signal to have open air, and the signal would be going through trees most of the full path. In 900Mhz, the difference between having the tower side over the tree line and below the tree line can be the difference between a quarter mile coverage and a 7 mile coverage in our market. All be it, 700Mhz does have better NLOS propogation characteristics than 900 does. I would have liked to see that height doubled. However, admittedly, it will allow much better spectrum re-use in areas that have a limited number of channels available. Spectrum reuse is one of the best ways to serve more people. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday,
Re: [WISPA] Equipment - Tranzeo/Ubiquiti
Michael What do you have and pricing? Thanks Joe Kelley East Texas DSL 936-634-4375 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Michael Baird Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 12:15 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Equipment - Tranzeo/Ubiquiti We've got an assortment of used Tranzeo CPQ's, Tranzeo 5A's, and Ubiquiti PS2/Nano2/Nano2 loco we'd like to sell. If anybody is interested, please email me. Regards Michael Baird 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] Equipment - Tranzeo/Ubiquiti
What are you replacing them with? On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Michael Baird m...@tc3net.com wrote: We've got an assortment of used Tranzeo CPQ's, Tranzeo 5A's, and Ubiquiti PS2/Nano2/Nano2 loco we'd like to sell. If anybody is interested, please email me. Regards Michael Baird 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] Very poor quality when using Rocket M2 as AP vs using StarOS
Same results on my first try as well. I swapped the Rockets back out with Bullet2's and they work much better! I haven't had time to play with them since. The 5GHz Rockets are a different story. They work very well so I might just skip the 2.4 units altogether. You didn't mention what CPE you have. I'm 50% Tranzeo, 50% UBNT. I will say the M radios work very well with each other, just not very friendly with G or B units. If you or anyone else figures out something, please post. Its a shame to let $1000 of equipment go to waste! On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Justin Mann justinl...@unwiredwest.comwrote: Hello, We have been considering replacing our StarOS APs at a particular site with Rocket M2s. This site is very high up, and is composed of 6 2.4GHz APs, 3 vertical, 3 horizontal. They face NW, W and SW, and are all using 10Mhz channels in 802.11g operation mode. The busiest sector has about 30 clients on it. We replaced the Star unit (StarOS V3, using UBNT XR2 with 14 gain antenna) with a Rocket M2. The results so far have been pretty terrible. We can't adjust the transmit rate on these since the Rocket is an 802.11n device, but we are seeing performance far worse than we did with the Star AP. CCQ rates on the AP are often in the 20s and 30s, packet loss is high, latency is high and throughput is low. This is even with relatively low traffic on the AP. The CPEs are all a mix of StarOS CPEs and UBNT bullet 2s, and are all generally long-distance. Does anyone else have experience with a similar scenario, and have people had succeed using rockets as APs for 80211g clients? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes
http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/ Kind of cool I think... 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] Very poor quality when using Rocket M2 as AP vs using StarOS
I mentioned below they are a mix of StarOS and UBNT Bullet 2s... nothing else involved. A bullet 2 as an AP worked better for you, then? We might have to consider that. On 09/24/2010 03:47 PM, RickG wrote: Same results on my first try as well. I swapped the Rockets back out with Bullet2's and they work much better! I haven't had time to play with them since. The 5GHz Rockets are a different story. They work very well so I might just skip the 2.4 units altogether. You didn't mention what CPE you have. I'm 50% Tranzeo, 50% UBNT. I will say the M radios work very well with each other, just not very friendly with G or B units. If you or anyone else figures out something, please post. Its a shame to let $1000 of equipment go to waste! On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Justin Mann justinl...@unwiredwest.com mailto:justinl...@unwiredwest.com wrote: Hello, We have been considering replacing our StarOS APs at a particular site with Rocket M2s. This site is very high up, and is composed of 6 2.4GHz APs, 3 vertical, 3 horizontal. They face NW, W and SW, and are all using 10Mhz channels in 802.11g operation mode. The busiest sector has about 30 clients on it. We replaced the Star unit (StarOS V3, using UBNT XR2 with 14 gain antenna) with a Rocket M2. The results so far have been pretty terrible. We can't adjust the transmit rate on these since the Rocket is an 802.11n device, but we are seeing performance far worse than we did with the Star AP. CCQ rates on the AP are often in the 20s and 30s, packet loss is high, latency is high and throughput is low. This is even with relatively low traffic on the AP. The CPEs are all a mix of StarOS CPEs and UBNT bullet 2s, and are all generally long-distance. Does anyone else have experience with a similar scenario, and have people had succeed using rockets as APs for 80211g clients? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ 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/ 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] Transmit Antenna Height
But how fast can 200 or 300MHz go? On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com wrote: But what if you are able to use spectrum around 200 or 300 MHz? That certainly goes through trees. Brian *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Tom DeReggi *Sent:* Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick forest/trees easilly 70ft tall. A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow enough of the signal to have open air, and the signal would be going through trees most of the full path. In 900Mhz, the difference between having the tower side over the tree line and below the tree line can be the difference between a quarter mile coverage and a 7 mile coverage in our market. All be it, 700Mhz does have better NLOS propogation characteristics than 900 does. I would have liked to see that height doubled. However, admittedly, it will allow much better spectrum re-use in areas that have a limited number of channels available. Spectrum reuse is one of the best ways to serve more people. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - *From:* Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com *To:* WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org *Sent:* Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes it useless to WISPs in much of the country. In places where the routine variation in elevation is more than 75 meters, there will be houses (subscribers) that are more than 76 meters AAT. I notice this in the areas I'm studying, both in the east and in the upper midwest. In a place like Kansas, nobody is 75m AAT. But in the woody Berkshires of Western Massachusetts, the UHF space is needed to get through the trees, and a significant share of houses are 75m AAT. Also, if you want to cover a decent radius, the access point needs to be up the hill too. 75 meters isn't a mountaintop; it's just a little rise. It makes no sense to absolutely ban fixed use at a site that is 100m AAT if the nearest protected-service contour is, say, 50 miles away. A more sensible rule would be to follow broadcast practice, and lower the ERP based on height, so that the distance to a given signal strength contour is held constant as the height rises. Hence a Class A FM station is allowed up to 15 miles, and if it is more than 300 feet AAT, then it is allowed less than the 3000 watts ERP that apply at lower heights. Maybe the lawyers want to have more petitions to argue over. At 9/23/2010 04:07 PM, Rich Harnish wrote: 65. *Decision. *We decline to increase the maximum permitted transmit antenna height above ground for fixed TV bands devices. As the Commission stated in the *Second Report and Order*, the 30 meters above ground limit was established as a balance between the benefits of increasing TV bands device transmission range and the need to minimize the impact on licensed services.129 Consistent with the Commission’s stated approach in the *Second Report and Order *of taking a conservative approach in protecting authorized services, we find the prudent course of action is to maintain the previously adopted height limit. If, in the future, experience with TV bands devices indicates that these devices could operate at higher transmit heights without causing interference, the Commission could revisit the height limit. 66. While we expect that specifying a limit on antenna height above ground rather than above average terrain is satisfactory for controlling interference to authorized services in the majority of cases, we also recognize petitioners’ concerns about the increased potential for interference in instances where a fixed TV bands device antenna is located on a local geographic high point such as a hill or mountain.130 In such cases, the distance at which a TV bands device signal could propagate would be significantly increased, thus increasing the potential for interference to authorized operations in the TV bands. We therefore conclude that it is necessary to modify our rules to limit the antenna HAAT of a fixed device as well as its antenna height above ground. In considering a limit for antenna HAAT, we need to balance the concerns for long range propagation from high points against the typical variability of ground height that occurs in areas where there are significant local high points – we do not want to preclude fixed devices from a large number of sites in areas where there are rolling hills or a large number of relatively high points that do not generally provide open, line-of-sight paths for propagation over long distances. We find that limiting the fixed device antenna HAAT to
Re: [WISPA] Very poor quality when using Rocket M2 as AP vs using StarOS
The M series do not work as well as the legacy series to B/G clients, this isn't a secret. If you want to support legacy gear, you should use the legacy series for your AP's (they work fine as clients), they work much better in mixed b/g mode then the M series. M series AP's do scale worse running in mixed mode then the previous generation, you will see the symptoms you describe. Regares Michael Baird Same results on my first try as well. I swapped the Rockets back out with Bullet2's and they work much better! I haven't had time to play with them since. The 5GHz Rockets are a different story. They work very well so I might just skip the 2.4 units altogether. You didn't mention what CPE you have. I'm 50% Tranzeo, 50% UBNT. I will say the M radios work very well with each other, just not very friendly with G or B units. If you or anyone else figures out something, please post. Its a shame to let $1000 of equipment go to waste! On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Justin Mann justinl...@unwiredwest.com mailto:justinl...@unwiredwest.com wrote: Hello, We have been considering replacing our StarOS APs at a particular site with Rocket M2s. This site is very high up, and is composed of 6 2.4GHz APs, 3 vertical, 3 horizontal. They face NW, W and SW, and are all using 10Mhz channels in 802.11g operation mode. The busiest sector has about 30 clients on it. We replaced the Star unit (StarOS V3, using UBNT XR2 with 14 gain antenna) with a Rocket M2. The results so far have been pretty terrible. We can't adjust the transmit rate on these since the Rocket is an 802.11n device, but we are seeing performance far worse than we did with the Star AP. CCQ rates on the AP are often in the 20s and 30s, packet loss is high, latency is high and throughput is low. This is even with relatively low traffic on the AP. The CPEs are all a mix of StarOS CPEs and UBNT bullet 2s, and are all generally long-distance. Does anyone else have experience with a similar scenario, and have people had succeed using rockets as APs for 80211g clients? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ 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/ 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] Very poor quality when using Rocket M2 as AP vs using StarOS
Sorry, I do see that now. Reading too quick on a Friday night =\ Yes, Bullet2HP units work well. I've used a few Bullet2 units for the small repeaters but the radio int he HP is much better. -RickG On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Justin Mann justinl...@unwiredwest.comwrote: I mentioned below they are a mix of StarOS and UBNT Bullet 2s... nothing else involved. A bullet 2 as an AP worked better for you, then? We might have to consider that. On 09/24/2010 03:47 PM, RickG wrote: Same results on my first try as well. I swapped the Rockets back out with Bullet2's and they work much better! I haven't had time to play with them since. The 5GHz Rockets are a different story. They work very well so I might just skip the 2.4 units altogether. You didn't mention what CPE you have. I'm 50% Tranzeo, 50% UBNT. I will say the M radios work very well with each other, just not very friendly with G or B units. If you or anyone else figures out something, please post. Its a shame to let $1000 of equipment go to waste! On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Justin Mann justinl...@unwiredwest.com mailto:justinl...@unwiredwest.com wrote: Hello, We have been considering replacing our StarOS APs at a particular site with Rocket M2s. This site is very high up, and is composed of 6 2.4GHz APs, 3 vertical, 3 horizontal. They face NW, W and SW, and are all using 10Mhz channels in 802.11g operation mode. The busiest sector has about 30 clients on it. We replaced the Star unit (StarOS V3, using UBNT XR2 with 14 gain antenna) with a Rocket M2. The results so far have been pretty terrible. We can't adjust the transmit rate on these since the Rocket is an 802.11n device, but we are seeing performance far worse than we did with the Star AP. CCQ rates on the AP are often in the 20s and 30s, packet loss is high, latency is high and throughput is low. This is even with relatively low traffic on the AP. The CPEs are all a mix of StarOS CPEs and UBNT bullet 2s, and are all generally long-distance. Does anyone else have experience with a similar scenario, and have people had succeed using rockets as APs for 80211g clients? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ 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/ 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] Very poor quality when using Rocket M2 as AP vs usingStarOS
What firmware version is on the Rocket2M ? Defintely give the 5.2.1 a shot. -- Original Message -- From: Justin Mann justinl...@unwiredwest.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:50:20 -0700 I mentioned below they are a mix of StarOS and UBNT Bullet 2s... nothing else involved. A bullet 2 as an AP worked better for you, then? We might have to consider that. On 09/24/2010 03:47 PM, RickG wrote: Same results on my first try as well. I swapped the Rockets back out with Bullet2's and they work much better! I haven't had time to play with them since. The 5GHz Rockets are a different story. They work very well so I might just skip the 2.4 units altogether. You didn't mention what CPE you have. I'm 50% Tranzeo, 50% UBNT. I will say the M radios work very well with each other, just not very friendly with G or B units. If you or anyone else figures out something, please post. Its a shame to let $1000 of equipment go to waste! On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Justin Mann justinl...@unwiredwest.com mailto:justinl...@unwiredwest.com wrote: Hello, We have been considering replacing our StarOS APs at a particular site with Rocket M2s. This site is very high up, and is composed of 6 2.4GHz APs, 3 vertical, 3 horizontal. They face NW, W and SW, and are all using 10Mhz channels in 802.11g operation mode. The busiest sector has about 30 clients on it. We replaced the Star unit (StarOS V3, using UBNT XR2 with 14 gain antenna) with a Rocket M2. The results so far have been pretty terrible. We can't adjust the transmit rate on these since the Rocket is an 802.11n device, but we are seeing performance far worse than we did with the Star AP. CCQ rates on the AP are often in the 20s and 30s, packet loss is high, latency is high and throughput is low. This is even with relatively low traffic on the AP. The CPEs are all a mix of StarOS CPEs and UBNT bullet 2s, and are all generally long-distance. Does anyone else have experience with a similar scenario, and have people had succeed using rockets as APs for 80211g clients? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ 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/ 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/ Sent via the WebMail system at avolve.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/
Re: [WISPA] Equipment - Tranzeo/Ubiquiti
Bigger radio/antenna combinations generally. Regards Michael Baird What are you replacing them with? On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Michael Baird m...@tc3net.com mailto:m...@tc3net.com wrote: We've got an assortment of used Tranzeo CPQ's, Tranzeo 5A's, and Ubiquiti PS2/Nano2/Nano2 loco we'd like to sell. If anybody is interested, please email me. Regards Michael Baird WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ 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/ 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] Very poor quality when using Rocket M2 as AP vs usingStarOS
It is the 5.2.1 FW. But I think at this point we will get the Bullet 2s a try. On 09/24/2010 04:50 PM, Stuart Pierce wrote: What firmware version is on the Rocket2M ? Defintely give the 5.2.1 a shot. -- Original Message -- From: Justin Mannjustinl...@unwiredwest.com Reply-To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:50:20 -0700 I mentioned below they are a mix of StarOS and UBNT Bullet 2s... nothing else involved. A bullet 2 as an AP worked better for you, then? We might have to consider that. On 09/24/2010 03:47 PM, RickG wrote: Same results on my first try as well. I swapped the Rockets back out with Bullet2's and they work much better! I haven't had time to play with them since. The 5GHz Rockets are a different story. They work very well so I might just skip the 2.4 units altogether. You didn't mention what CPE you have. I'm 50% Tranzeo, 50% UBNT. I will say the M radios work very well with each other, just not very friendly with G or B units. If you or anyone else figures out something, please post. Its a shame to let $1000 of equipment go to waste! On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Justin Mann justinl...@unwiredwest.commailto:justinl...@unwiredwest.com wrote: Hello, We have been considering replacing our StarOS APs at a particular site with Rocket M2s. This site is very high up, and is composed of 6 2.4GHz APs, 3 vertical, 3 horizontal. They face NW, W and SW, and are all using 10Mhz channels in 802.11g operation mode. The busiest sector has about 30 clients on it. We replaced the Star unit (StarOS V3, using UBNT XR2 with 14 gain antenna) with a Rocket M2. The results so far have been pretty terrible. We can't adjust the transmit rate on these since the Rocket is an 802.11n device, but we are seeing performance far worse than we did with the Star AP. CCQ rates on the AP are often in the 20s and 30s, packet loss is high, latency is high and throughput is low. This is even with relatively low traffic on the AP. The CPEs are all a mix of StarOS CPEs and UBNT bullet 2s, and are all generally long-distance. Does anyone else have experience with a similar scenario, and have people had succeed using rockets as APs for 80211g clients? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgmailto: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/ Sent via the WebMail system at avolve.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] Very poor quality when using Rocket M2 as AP vs using StarOS
What Antenna are u using with the Rocket M2 ? UBNT Antenna's have built in Electrical DownTilts. Do you calcs to make sure that you appropriate Mechanical Tilt. ( In most cases there is no Mechanical DownTilt or Uptilt needed). Another thing to watch out for with Rocket M2's is to make sure that the Jumpers were not Kinked and no sharp bends on them. And lastly, what firmware you are using with the M2 ? download the latest version 5.2.1 from UBNT website. for you Airmax should be off. Check on these for starter.(you may have a couple of other things going on as well...) Faisal Imtiaz On 9/24/2010 6:29 PM, Justin Mann wrote: Hello, We have been considering replacing our StarOS APs at a particular site with Rocket M2s. This site is very high up, and is composed of 6 2.4GHz APs, 3 vertical, 3 horizontal. They face NW, W and SW, and are all using 10Mhz channels in 802.11g operation mode. The busiest sector has about 30 clients on it. We replaced the Star unit (StarOS V3, using UBNT XR2 with 14 gain antenna) with a Rocket M2. The results so far have been pretty terrible. We can't adjust the transmit rate on these since the Rocket is an 802.11n device, but we are seeing performance far worse than we did with the Star AP. CCQ rates on the AP are often in the 20s and 30s, packet loss is high, latency is high and throughput is low. This is even with relatively low traffic on the AP. The CPEs are all a mix of StarOS CPEs and UBNT bullet 2s, and are all generally long-distance. Does anyone else have experience with a similar scenario, and have people had succeed using rockets as APs for 80211g clients? 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] Very poor quality when using Rocket M2 as AP vs using StarOS
It may note be a secret but I wish I heard it before spending the money. (I bought them when they first came out). At least, I only purchased for a single tower trial so my loss was limited. Although, I'm sure I'll find a home for them. It just makes it difficult to upgrade if you have to wait until all CPE's are upgraded before the tower. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Michael Baird m...@tc3net.com wrote: The M series do not work as well as the legacy series to B/G clients, this isn't a secret. If you want to support legacy gear, you should use the legacy series for your AP's (they work fine as clients), they work much better in mixed b/g mode then the M series. M series AP's do scale worse running in mixed mode then the previous generation, you will see the symptoms you describe. Regares Michael Baird Same results on my first try as well. I swapped the Rockets back out with Bullet2's and they work much better! I haven't had time to play with them since. The 5GHz Rockets are a different story. They work very well so I might just skip the 2.4 units altogether. You didn't mention what CPE you have. I'm 50% Tranzeo, 50% UBNT. I will say the M radios work very well with each other, just not very friendly with G or B units. If you or anyone else figures out something, please post. Its a shame to let $1000 of equipment go to waste! On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Justin Mann justinl...@unwiredwest.comwrote: Hello, We have been considering replacing our StarOS APs at a particular site with Rocket M2s. This site is very high up, and is composed of 6 2.4GHz APs, 3 vertical, 3 horizontal. They face NW, W and SW, and are all using 10Mhz channels in 802.11g operation mode. The busiest sector has about 30 clients on it. We replaced the Star unit (StarOS V3, using UBNT XR2 with 14 gain antenna) with a Rocket M2. The results so far have been pretty terrible. We can't adjust the transmit rate on these since the Rocket is an 802.11n device, but we are seeing performance far worse than we did with the Star AP. CCQ rates on the AP are often in the 20s and 30s, packet loss is high, latency is high and throughput is low. This is even with relatively low traffic on the AP. The CPEs are all a mix of StarOS CPEs and UBNT bullet 2s, and are all generally long-distance. Does anyone else have experience with a similar scenario, and have people had succeed using rockets as APs for 80211g clients? 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 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] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes
looks awfully similar to what is on Spectrum Bridge's web site... :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, Fl 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net On 9/24/2010 6:48 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote: http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/ Kind of cool I think... 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] Transmit Antenna Height
I did a HAAT for my sites where I would use this. The results Antenna elevation above sea level : 1096.27m Average ground elevation above sea level: 1216.56m HAAT: -120.28998046875m(5m antenna) Antenna elevation above sea level : 1192.39m Average ground elevation above sea level: 1449.41m HAAT: -257.019985351563m (5m antenna) So, is the HAAT limit a positive one, or a absolute one? Doing the HAAT for client side are also all negative numbers but 100 meters less on average. I do not know if this means I could use 700ws or not, assuming there was free channels. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com wrote: Fred, Have you actually studied some locations that might be in this situation and computed the HAAT using the tool on the FCC web site or some other HAAT calculation tool? If you look at a calculation for a site such as my office which is at 1420 above sea level and the valley floors around me typically at around 1170 AMSL, my location still has a negative HAAT of 47 meters even using a 10 meter antenna height! This is because there are other hills around me that are at my elevation or taller out each radial to 16km. I have pasted the text of a HAAT report from Radio Mobile so you get an idea of how the calculations are run. I believe you said you are in Western Mass. Your terrain is not much unlike my part of upstate NY. You can paste my address in to Google Maps and turn the terrain feature on to get an idea of the terrain around me. Unless your client is actually at the top of the highest peak within 16 KM of itself, there is a high likelihood that the HAAT will be within the limits and possibly at a negative number Brian 214 Eggleston Hill Rd. Cooperstown, NY 13326 Height Above Average Terrain Report generated at 4:57:42 PM , 9/24/2010 Antenna geographic coordinates 42°36'04N,074°55'37W FN22MO Ground elevation: 436.5m Antenna height above ground: 10m Azt(°) D(km) Ground elevation(m) 000 03.00 0508.1 000 03.26 0529.2 000 03.52 0548.8 000 03.78 0569.6 000 04.04 0581.2 000 04.30 0590.4 000 04.56 0590.8 000 04.82 0606.3 000 05.08 0590.9 000 05.34 0547.3 000 05.60 0513.9 000 05.86 0482.1 000 06.12 0447.3 000 06.38 0408.5 000 06.64 0405.3 000 06.90 0389.6 000 07.16 0388.0 000 07.42 0398.1 000 07.68 0406.3 000 07.94 0424.9 000 08.20 0447.0 000 08.46 0443.0 000 08.72 0393.4 000 08.98 0369.4 000 09.24 0371.1 000 09.50 0377.5 000 09.76 0375.8 000 10.02 0365.6 000 10.28 0363.9 000 10.54 0377.0 000 10.80 0377.0 000 11.06 0375.2 000 11.32 0372.7 000 11.58 0363.9 000 11.84 0362.0 000 12.10 0364.4 000 12.36 0376.9 000 12.62 0379.1 000 12.88 0373.0 000 13.14 0370.7 000 13.40 0378.3 000 13.66 0380.6 000 13.92 0394.0 000 14.18 0388.5 000 14.44 0423.8 000 14.70 0440.4 000 14.96 0431.8 000 15.22 0429.5 000 15.48 0431.9 000 15.74 0430.2 000 16.00 0432.9 000 Average 433.08m 000 HAAT 13.42m 045 03.00 0451.4 045 03.26 0420.8 045 03.52 0397.6 045 03.78 0370.2 045 04.04 0368.5 045 04.30 0363.9 045 04.56 0365.0 045 04.82 0361.4 045 05.08 0360.0 045 05.34 0367.0 045 05.60 0378.3 045 05.86 0379.8 045 06.12 0387.5 045 06.38 0428.0 045 06.64 0438.8 045 06.90 0408.4 045 07.16 0430.0 045 07.42 0434.8 045 07.68 0474.9 045 07.94 0514.4 045 08.20 0519.7 045 08.46 0523.5 045 08.72 0498.6 045 08.98 0464.7 045 09.24 0492.5 045 09.50 0516.1 045 09.76 0541.8 045 10.02 0533.7 045 10.28 0525.6 045 10.54 0537.8 045 10.80 0555.9 045 11.06
Re: [WISPA] FW: Transmit Antenna Height
So, if we have a negative HAAT, is it correct that we are within the rules. Say we have a location with -100 calculated HAAT and it can not be above +75. Frank On 9/24/2010 2:11 PM, Brian Webster wrote: This rule as it is written states that the ground elevation not more than 75 meters HAAT. Remember that is the not actual ground elevation of the site, it is the HAAT calculation. See my other email with a HAAT report pasted within. My office at an elevation of 1420 ft AMSL actually has a negative HAAT value. I think people are misunderstanding how HAAT is calculated. Brian *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Fred Goldstein *Sent:* Friday, September 24, 2010 3:37 PM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] FW: Transmit Antenna Height At 9/24/2010 03:03 PM, you wrote: Steve, Here is another question to pose to the FCC. Does the HAAT requirement include receive antennas. In otherwords, can no clients be installed above the 76 meter HAAT level? I see no mention of receive-only terminals, though I doubt anybody asked. But if by receive you mean client (such as a Mode 1 CPE), then the rules seem to ban those entirely, not just APs, from high ground: ...We will therefore restrict fixed TV bands devices from operating at locations where the HAAT of the ground is greater than 76 meters; this will allow use of an antenna at a height of up to 30 meters above ground level to provide an antenna HAAT of 106 meters. Accordingly, we are specifying that a fixed TV bands device antenna may not be located at a site where the ground HAAT is greater than 75 meters (246 feet). The ground HAAT is to be calculated by the TV bands database using computational software employing the methodology in Section 73.684(d) of the rules to ensure that fixed devices comply with this requirement. They cite to the IEEE's filing, but it didn't call for a ban; instead it called for wider protection distances based on HAAT: 13.We recommend that HAAT be used to determine the required separation distance from TV protected contours as described in the Table below.6 The method for calculating HAAT should be the same as was employed in Part 90 to protect the TV service from PLMRS. In addition, we recommend no limits on the antenna height above ground for fixed base stations.7 We further recommend that no changes in the assumption of antenna heights of 10m AGL for fixed user terminals (CPEs) be made for the purpose of calculating the separation distance to the TV protected contour. That would have been reasonable. *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [ mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Fred Goldstein *Sent:* Friday, September 24, 2010 2:57 PM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height At 9/24/2010 02:16 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: There is one other benefit of this No body else will be able to install higher either. Mounting lower to the ground, its more likely a WISP will be able to install their own tower, and no longer have to pay huge colocation costs on a commercial tower. I predict more houses up on the hill, being the new TVWhitespace towers. Although, aren't these low channel Whitespace omnis like giant, and weight a ton? No, Tom, you missed the poison pill. If somebody lives on a hill, more than 76 meters above average terrain, then they are banned from using fixed whitespace devices AT ALL. Not at 4W. Not at 1W. Just the flea-power portable devices, which are basically wireless mics. This new rule needs to be changed. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Webster mailto:bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com To: 'WISPA General List' mailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height But what if you are able to use spectrum around 200 or 300 MHz? That certainly goes through trees. Brian From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick forest/trees easilly 70ft tall. A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow enough of the signal to have open air, and the signal would be going through trees most of the full path. In 900Mhz, the difference between having the tower side over the tree line and below the tree line can be the difference between a quarter mile coverage and a 7 mile coverage in our market. All be it, 700Mhz does have better NLOS propogation characteristics than 900 does. I would have liked to see that height doubled. However, admittedly, it will allow much better spectrum re-use in areas that have a limited number of channels available. Spectrum reuse is one of the best
[WISPA] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45 Port PoE Burnout!
Today I finally figured out an Issue I've been having with a NanoStation5M. I have a customer who wanted service, was in trees but had a hot signal out at the road. Dug a 4 foot hole, put in 2 10 foot sections of rigid conduit and 5 bags of concrete. Ran an underground line of Cat5e, double shielded and flooded cable with ground wire to his house. That was 5 months or so ago. At the beginning of August, he called me and said his neighbor wanted service. Same trees so I took the AirGrid down, put up a Nano5M and plugged a Nano loco2 into the secondary port and shot it at a second Nano Loco2 at his place. Replaced my weird Airgrid Worked perfectly, everyone happy. 2 weeks ago I get a call, neighbor not working. I go out, no power light on the Nano at the pole. I figure, bad crimp... Take it down, make up a new wire to connect the two, fires up. All good. 2 days later, same issue. I reset it all to defaults, reconfigure, all okay. 2 days later, same thing. I downgrade firmware to 5.2. Couple of days later, no signal again. I'll also add I was getting some weird lag at the AP that this setup was feeding off of. So I was fighting two battles. Then today, I find that the PoE Pass Through check box is empty. DUH! I check it, apply, comes back empty. I do it again, same issue. I go out and I can connect my laptop through the secondary port but it will not give any voltage. I checked my lag time issue at the AP. GONE! I then checked in the UBNT forums. It's an issue. After 20 days PoE on the secondary Nano port starts to die. Replaced it with another Nano5M, working fine but looks like I'll be coming up with another MacGyver solution to service this dude Just so ya knows. Bob- 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] FW: Transmit Antenna Height
At 9/24/2010 08:45 PM, FrankC wrote: So, if we have a negative HAAT, is it correct that we are within the rules. Say we have a location with -100 calculated HAAT and it can not be above +75. Frank Yes, if you are in a site with negative HAAT, then you're fine to go on WS, sasuming the database issues you a channel. The problem is that many potential subscribers have a positive HAAT (75m) and they're precluded from even subscribing. This happens when you're in a hill town and there are lower valley towns nearby. It also happens when you're on fairly high ground adjacent to water; the water is of course quite low but counts into the HAAT calculation. I've found villages like this in the Great Lakes region. On 9/24/2010 2:11 PM, Brian Webster wrote: This rule as it is written states that the ground elevation not more than 75 meters HAAT. Remember that is the not actual ground elevation of the site, it is the HAAT calculation. See my other email with a HAAT report pasted within. My office at an elevation of 1420 ft AMSL actually has a negative HAAT value. I think people are misunderstanding how HAAT is calculated. Brian From: mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.orgwireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 3:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: Transmit Antenna Height At 9/24/2010 03:03 PM, you wrote: Steve, Here is another question to pose to the FCC. Does the HAAT requirement include receive antennas. In otherwords, can no clients be installed above the 76 meter HAAT level? I see no mention of receive-only terminals, though I doubt anybody asked. But if by receive you mean client (such as a Mode 1 CPE), then the rules seem to ban those entirely, not just APs, from high ground: ...We will therefore restrict fixed TV bands devices from operating at locations where the HAAT of the ground is greater than 76 meters; this will allow use of an antenna at a height of up to 30 meters above ground level to provide an antenna HAAT of 106 meters. Accordingly, we are specifying that a fixed TV bands device antenna may not be located at a site where the ground HAAT is greater than 75 meters (246 feet). The ground HAAT is to be calculated by the TV bands database using computational software employing the methodology in Section 73.684(d) of the rules to ensure that fixed devices comply with this requirement. They cite to the IEEE's filing, but it didn't call for a ban; instead it called for wider protection distances based on HAAT: 13.We recommend that HAAT be used to determine the required separation distance from TV protected contours as described in the Table below.6 The method for calculating HAAT should be the same as was employed in Part 90 to protect the TV service from PLMRS. In addition, we recommend no limits on the antenna height above ground for fixed base stations.7 We further recommend that no changes in the assumption of antenna heights of 10m AGL for fixed user terminals (CPEs) be made for the purpose of calculating the separation distance to the TV protected contour. That would have been reasonable. From: mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.orgwireless-boun...@wispa.org [ mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 2:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height At 9/24/2010 02:16 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: There is one other benefit of this No body else will be able to install higher either. Mounting lower to the ground, its more likely a WISP will be able to install their own tower, and no longer have to pay huge colocation costs on a commercial tower. I predict more houses up on the hill, being the new TVWhitespace towers. Although, aren't these low channel Whitespace omnis like giant, and weight a ton? No, Tom, you missed the poison pill. If somebody lives on a hill, more than 76 meters above average terrain, then they are banned from using fixed whitespace devices AT ALL. Not at 4W. Not at 1W. Just the flea-power portable devices, which are basically wireless mics. This new rule needs to be changed. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: mailto:bwebs...@wirelessmapping.comBrian Webster To: mailto:wireless@wispa.org'WISPA General List' Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height But what if you are able to use spectrum around 200 or 300 MHz? That certainly goes through trees. Brian From: mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.orgwireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick forest/trees easilly 70ft tall. A 90ft height, just
Re: [WISPA] FW: Transmit Antenna Height
I lucked out then, Every single customer I have looked at has a - HAAT. I have not been able to find a site in my area that has a positive HAAT. Looks like I need to start looking for higher areas and start doing some 700mhz models, and how many people need to kick UBNT to get them to release gear? If it is priced around the M gear is now I would think of some very unsavory methods of funding (Anyone need a kidney?) On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 9/24/2010 08:45 PM, FrankC wrote: So, if we have a negative HAAT, is it correct that we are within the rules. Say we have a location with -100 calculated HAAT and it can not be above +75. Frank Yes, if you are in a site with negative HAAT, then you're fine to go on WS, sasuming the database issues you a channel. The problem is that many potential subscribers have a positive HAAT (75m) and they're precluded from even subscribing. This happens when you're in a hill town and there are lower valley towns nearby. It also happens when you're on fairly high ground adjacent to water; the water is of course quite low but counts into the HAAT calculation. I've found villages like this in the Great Lakes region. On 9/24/2010 2:11 PM, Brian Webster wrote: This rule as it is written states that the ground elevation not more than 75 meters HAAT. Remember that is the not actual ground elevation of the site, it is the HAAT calculation. See my other email with a HAAT report pasted within. My office at an elevation of 1420 ft AMSL actually has a negative HAAT value. I think people are misunderstanding how HAAT is calculated. Brian From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 3:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: Transmit Antenna Height At 9/24/2010 03:03 PM, you wrote: Steve, Here is another question to pose to the FCC. Does the HAAT requirement include receive antennas. In otherwords, can no clients be installed above the 76 meter HAAT level? I see no mention of receive-only terminals, though I doubt anybody asked. But if by receive you mean client (such as a Mode 1 CPE), then the rules seem to ban those entirely, not just APs, from high ground: ...We will therefore restrict fixed TV bands devices from operating at locations where the HAAT of the ground is greater than 76 meters; this will allow use of an antenna at a height of up to 30 meters above ground level to provide an antenna HAAT of 106 meters. Accordingly, we are specifying that a fixed TV bands device antenna may not be located at a site where the ground HAAT is greater than 75 meters (246 feet). The ground HAAT is to be calculated by the TV bands database using computational software employing the methodology in Section 73.684(d) of the rules to ensure that fixed devices comply with this requirement. They cite to the IEEE's filing, but it didn't call for a ban; instead it called for wider protection distances based on HAAT: 13.We recommend that HAAT be used to determine the required separation distance from TV protected contours as described in the Table below.6 The method for calculating HAAT should be the same as was employed in Part 90 to protect the TV service from PLMRS. In addition, we recommend no limits on the antenna height above ground for fixed base stations.7 We further recommend that no changes in the assumption of antenna heights of 10m AGL for fixed user terminals (CPEs) be made for the purpose of calculating the separation distance to the TV protected contour. That would have been reasonable. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [ mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 2:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height At 9/24/2010 02:16 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: There is one other benefit of this No body else will be able to install higher either. Mounting lower to the ground, its more likely a WISP will be able to install their own tower, and no longer have to pay huge colocation costs on a commercial tower. I predict more houses up on the hill, being the new TVWhitespace towers. Although, aren't these low channel Whitespace omnis like giant, and weight a ton? No, Tom, you missed the poison pill. If somebody lives on a hill, more than 76 meters above average terrain, then they are banned from using fixed whitespace devices AT ALL. Not at 4W. Not at 1W. Just the flea-power portable devices, which are basically wireless mics. This new rule needs to be changed. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Webster To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height But what if you are able to use spectrum around 200 or 300 MHz? That
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45 Port PoE Burnout!
I was skeptical of the poe passthrough sicne I first saw it and this is why. On repeaters, it would be so tempting to just run one wire but I've stuck with two. It will be interesting to see if it gets fixed. Thanks for sharing! On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: Today I finally figured out an Issue I’ve been having with a NanoStation5M. I have a customer who wanted service, was in trees but had a hot signal out at the road. Dug a 4 foot hole, put in 2 10 foot sections of rigid conduit and 5 bags of concrete. Ran an underground line of Cat5e, double shielded and flooded cable with ground wire to his house. That was 5 months or so ago. At the beginning of August, he called me and said his neighbor wanted service. Same trees so I took the AirGrid down, put up a Nano5M and plugged a Nano loco2 into the secondary port and shot it at a second Nano Loco2 at his place. Replaced my weird Airgrid Worked perfectly, everyone happy. 2 weeks ago I get a call, neighbor not working. I go out, no power light on the Nano at the pole. I figure, bad crimp……. Take it down, make up a new wire to connect the two, fires up. All good. 2 days later, same issue. I reset it all to defaults, reconfigure, all okay. 2 days later, same thing. I downgrade firmware to 5.2. Couple of days later, no signal again. I’ll also add I was getting some “weird” lag at the AP that this setup was feeding off of. So I was fighting two battles. Then today, I find that the PoE Pass Through check box is empty. DUH! I check it, apply, comes back empty. I do it again, same issue. I go out and I can connect my laptop through the secondary port but it will not give any voltage. I checked my lag time issue at the AP. GONE! I then checked in the UBNT forums. It’s an issue. After 20 days PoE on the secondary Nano port starts to die. Replaced it with another Nano5M, working fine but looks like I’ll be coming up with another MacGyver solution to service this dude………. Just so ya knows. Bob- 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] Morning report Copper Theft
Great! Now every riding lawn mower driving, scrap metal thief pulling a shopping cart full of cans will look at a tower like hitting the lottery. Wonderful. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blake Bowers Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:53 AM To: towerown...@yahoogroups.com Cc: tower-...@yahoogroups.com; towert...@contesting.com; WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Morning report Copper Theft From the DHS Morning report. I have to admit, the story gave me a bit of a chuckle - 1 million dollars worth of copper? Wow! http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2010/09/copper_taken_from_communic atio.html Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. 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] Transmit Antenna Height
At 9/24/2010 05:03 PM, Brian Webster wrote: Fred, Have you actually studied some locations that might be in this situation and computed the HAAT using the tool on the FCC web site or some other HAAT calculation tool? If you look at a calculation for a site such as my office which is at 1420 above sea level and the valley floors around me typically at around 1170 AMSL, my location still has a negative HAAT of 47 meters even using a 10 meter antenna height! This is because there are other hills around me that are at my elevation or taller out each radial to 16km. I have pasted the text of a HAAT report from Radio Mobile so you get an idea of how the calculations are run. I believe you said you are in Western Mass. Your terrain is not much unlike my part of upstate NY. You can paste my address in to Google Maps and turn the terrain feature on to get an idea of the terrain around me. Unless your client is actually at the top of the highest peak within 16 KM of itself, there is a high likelihood that the HAAT will be within the limits and possibly at a negative number Yes, I actually used RadioMobile's HAAT calculator. I recently did a study on five towns in Western MA. (It's not where I am, but I designed some stimulus fiber that's about to be built there, so I wanted to see what a WISP could do with it, since that's what it was designed for.) Two of the towns are mostly valley; the houses aren't on the high ground. In those two towns, a few areas with homes were still 75m AAT, but they're fairly small. In three towns, big sections of town were excluded. One lost the town center (that's why it's called a hill town). One lost the school, the nearby neighborhood, and a couple of other population clusters representing, all told, a big part of the town. The third lost part of the town center and a couple of outlying neighborhoods -- there's a big American Tower site near the center, which is the best place for an access point, but some homes down the hill are still in the banned zone. 75 meters is not very high when the local terrain varies by about a thousand feet. You don't need to be on top of the hill, just have the valleys in your eight radials. Brian 214 Eggleston Hill Rd. Cooperstown, NY 13326 Height Above Average Terrain Report generated at 4:57:42 PM , 9/24/2010 Antenna geographic coordinates 42°36'04N,074°55'37W FN22MO Ground elevation: 436.5m Antenna height above ground: 10m Azt(°)D(km) Ground elevation(m) 000 03.00 0508.1 000 03.26 0529.2 000 03.52 0548.8 000 03.78 0569.6 000 04.04 0581.2 000 04.30 0590.4 000 04.56 0590.8 000 04.82 0606.3 000 05.08 0590.9 000 05.34 0547.3 000 05.60 0513.9 000 05.86 0482.1 000 06.12 0447.3 000 06.38 0408.5 000 06.64 0405.3 000 06.90 0389.6 000 07.16 0388.0 000 07.42 0398.1 000 07.68 0406.3 000 07.94 0424.9 000 08.20 0447.0 000 08.46 0443.0 000 08.72 0393.4 000 08.98 0369.4 000 09.24 0371.1 000 09.50 0377.5 000 09.76 0375.8 000 10.02 0365.6 000 10.28 0363.9 000 10.54 0377.0 000 10.80 0377.0 000 11.06 0375.2 000 11.32 0372.7 000 11.58 0363.9 000 11.84 0362.0 000 12.10 0364.4 000 12.36 0376.9 000 12.62 0379.1 000 12.88 0373.0 000 13.14 0370.7 000 13.40 0378.3 000 13.66 0380.6 000 13.92 0394.0 000 14.18 0388.5 000 14.44 0423.8 000 14.70 0440.4 000 14.96 0431.8 000 15.22 0429.5 000 15.48 0431.9 000 15.74 0430.2 000 16.00 0432.9 000 Average 433.08m 000 HAAT 13.42m 045 03.00 0451.4 045 03.26 0420.8 045 03.52 0397.6 045 03.78 0370.2 045 04.04 0368.5 045 04.30 0363.9 045 04.56 0365.0 045 04.82 0361.4 045 05.08 0360.0 045 05.34 0367.0 045 05.60 0378.3 045 05.86 0379.8 045 06.12 0387.5 045 06.38 0428.0 045 06.64 0438.8 045 06.90 0408.4 045 07.16 0430.0 045 07.42 0434.8 045 07.68 0474.9 045 07.94 0514.4 045 08.20 0519.7 045 08.46 0523.5 045 08.72 0498.6 045 08.98 0464.7 045 09.24 0492.5 045
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45 Port PoE Burnout!
It works perfectly fine if you power through the secondary port. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:05 PM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: I was skeptical of the poe passthrough sicne I first saw it and this is why. On repeaters, it would be so tempting to just run one wire but I've stuck with two. It will be interesting to see if it gets fixed. Thanks for sharing! On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com wrote: Today I finally figured out an Issue I’ve been having with a NanoStation5M. I have a customer who wanted service, was in trees but had a hot signal out at the road. Dug a 4 foot hole, put in 2 10 foot sections of rigid conduit and 5 bags of concrete. Ran an underground line of Cat5e, double shielded and flooded cable with ground wire to his house. That was 5 months or so ago. At the beginning of August, he called me and said his neighbor wanted service. Same trees so I took the AirGrid down, put up a Nano5M and plugged a Nano loco2 into the secondary port and shot it at a second Nano Loco2 at his place. Replaced my weird Airgrid Worked perfectly, everyone happy. 2 weeks ago I get a call, neighbor not working. I go out, no power light on the Nano at the pole. I figure, bad crimp……. Take it down, make up a new wire to connect the two, fires up. All good. 2 days later, same issue. I reset it all to defaults, reconfigure, all okay. 2 days later, same thing. I downgrade firmware to 5.2. Couple of days later, no signal again. I’ll also add I was getting some “weird” lag at the AP that this setup was feeding off of. So I was fighting two battles. Then today, I find that the PoE Pass Through check box is empty. DUH! I check it, apply, comes back empty. I do it again, same issue. I go out and I can connect my laptop through the secondary port but it will not give any voltage. I checked my lag time issue at the AP. GONE! I then checked in the UBNT forums. It’s an issue. After 20 days PoE on the secondary Nano port starts to die. Replaced it with another Nano5M, working fine but looks like I’ll be coming up with another MacGyver solution to service this dude………. Just so ya knows. Bob- 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] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45 Port PoE Burnout!
Been there. But mine finally died and the hard reset is now no more. Sucks. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Greg Ihnen Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 9:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45 Port PoE Burnout! I have a NS5M (back haul) which is passing through power and data to a BulletM2 as AP and I recently had some strangeness - I changed settings in the NS5M and power to the BulletM2 would start cycling. The BulletM2 is my access to the NS5M so I couldn't get in that way. I also couldn't browse in via ethernet. This happened more than once. One time I think cycling the power fixed it. The last time it happened I couldn't browse into the NS5M so I had to do a hard reset and reprogram it. Greg On Sep 24, 2010, at 8:20 PM, Robert West wrote: Today I finally figured out an Issue I've been having with a NanoStation5M. I have a customer who wanted service, was in trees but had a hot signal out at the road. Dug a 4 foot hole, put in 2 10 foot sections of rigid conduit and 5 bags of concrete. Ran an underground line of Cat5e, double shielded and flooded cable with ground wire to his house. That was 5 months or so ago. At the beginning of August, he called me and said his neighbor wanted service. Same trees so I took the AirGrid down, put up a Nano5M and plugged a Nano loco2 into the secondary port and shot it at a second Nano Loco2 at his place. Replaced my weird Airgrid Worked perfectly, everyone happy. 2 weeks ago I get a call, neighbor not working. I go out, no power light on the Nano at the pole. I figure, bad crimp... Take it down, make up a new wire to connect the two, fires up. All good. 2 days later, same issue. I reset it all to defaults, reconfigure, all okay. 2 days later, same thing. I downgrade firmware to 5.2. Couple of days later, no signal again. I'll also add I was getting some weird lag at the AP that this setup was feeding off of. So I was fighting two battles. Then today, I find that the PoE Pass Through check box is empty. DUH! I check it, apply, comes back empty. I do it again, same issue. I go out and I can connect my laptop through the secondary port but it will not give any voltage. I checked my lag time issue at the AP. GONE! I then checked in the UBNT forums. It's an issue. After 20 days PoE on the secondary Nano port starts to die. Replaced it with another Nano5M, working fine but looks like I'll be coming up with another MacGyver solution to service this dude Just so ya knows. Bob- 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] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45 Port PoE Burnout!
Eh? What ya mean??? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Philip Dorr Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 9:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45 Port PoE Burnout! It works perfectly fine if you power through the secondary port. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:05 PM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: I was skeptical of the poe passthrough sicne I first saw it and this is why. On repeaters, it would be so tempting to just run one wire but I've stuck with two. It will be interesting to see if it gets fixed. Thanks for sharing! On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com wrote: Today I finally figured out an Issue I’ve been having with a NanoStation5M. I have a customer who wanted service, was in trees but had a hot signal out at the road. Dug a 4 foot hole, put in 2 10 foot sections of rigid conduit and 5 bags of concrete. Ran an underground line of Cat5e, double shielded and flooded cable with ground wire to his house. That was 5 months or so ago. At the beginning of August, he called me and said his neighbor wanted service. Same trees so I took the AirGrid down, put up a Nano5M and plugged a Nano loco2 into the secondary port and shot it at a second Nano Loco2 at his place. Replaced my weird Airgrid Worked perfectly, everyone happy. 2 weeks ago I get a call, neighbor not working. I go out, no power light on the Nano at the pole. I figure, bad crimp……. Take it down, make up a new wire to connect the two, fires up. All good. 2 days later, same issue. I reset it all to defaults, reconfigure, all okay. 2 days later, same thing. I downgrade firmware to 5.2. Couple of days later, no signal again. I’ll also add I was getting some “weird” lag at the AP that this setup was feeding off of. So I was fighting two battles. Then today, I find that the PoE Pass Through check box is empty. DUH! I check it, apply, comes back empty. I do it again, same issue. I go out and I can connect my laptop through the secondary port but it will not give any voltage. I checked my lag time issue at the AP. GONE! I then checked in the UBNT forums. It’s an issue. After 20 days PoE on the secondary Nano port starts to die. Replaced it with another Nano5M, working fine but looks like I’ll be coming up with another MacGyver solution to service this dude………. Just so ya knows. Bob- - --- 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 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] Equipment - Tranzeo/Ubiquiti
I'm interested in all of these units. Let me know how many of each and how much you want. I'd be willing to take the whole thing. I have 400 subs left to switch to newer CPE that will do 10mhz channels, so I'll take all I can get. Thanks, Matt Larsen mlar...@vistabeam.com On 9/24/2010 4:53 PM, Michael Baird wrote: Bigger radio/antenna combinations generally. Regards Michael Baird What are you replacing them with? On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Michael Baird m...@tc3net.com mailto:m...@tc3net.com wrote: We've got an assortment of used Tranzeo CPQ's, Tranzeo 5A's, and Ubiquiti PS2/Nano2/Nano2 loco we'd like to sell. If anybody is interested, please email me. Regards Michael Baird WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ 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/ 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/
