Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
TV Whitespace . have not deployed, but a company we partner with has had good results. Still a wild west beta technology and on the pricey side, but AFAIK it's the only thing that will penetrate in a heavily wooded environment. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of CBB - Jay Fuller Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas tornadoes. damned if you do, damned if you don't :) - Original Message - From: Mike Lyon mailto:mike.l...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org Cc: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 11:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas Stihl :) On Aug 21, 2013, at 21:04, Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com mailto:ch...@lakenetmi.com wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
Ubnt 900 apparently has extremely poor nlos for 900 MHz. I've heard this a handful of people but haven't tried it myself. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me, there just isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76 and wondering why it doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try again. The Canopy will work a little better because it requires less signal, but it also has nowhere near the same throughput, so they're really apples and oranges. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:20:24 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas Ubnt 900 apparently has extremely poor nlos for 900 MHz. I've heard this a handful of people but haven't tried it myself. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
Well the one I remember is Canopy and Ubnt on the same tower, both 900. The Canopy would rx more than enough to work while Ubnt wouldn't hear the AP at all. Moving around the trees (similar distance from the tower) the signal would appear strong. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me, there just isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76 and wondering why it doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try again. The Canopy will work a little better because it requires less signal, but it also has nowhere near the same throughput, so they're really apples and oranges. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:20:24 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas Ubnt 900 apparently has extremely poor nlos for 900 MHz. I've heard this a handful of people but haven't tried it myself. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
On 8/22/2013 10:14 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me, there just isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76 and wondering why it doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try again. The Canopy will work a little better because it requires less signal, but it also has nowhere near the same throughput, so they're really apples and oranges. The spec sheet makes it sound as if -76 is more than adequate, and in a PmP environment, it's often hard to get a stronger signal. Are the poor results from trying to run at too high a rate, like MCS5, such that running at say MCS1 would improve results? Or is it just not very sensitive, with a higher noise temp than Cambium? -- Fred R. Goldstein fred at interisle.net Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's not even an April fools joke. http://www.google.com/loon/ Maybe if you can get hold of a human at Google you could interest them in running a trial with you... Coenraad Loubser WISH Networks (Pty) Ltd. 2nd Floor, Merriman Place, Cnr. Merriman Bird Str, Stellenbosch, 7600, ZA Office: 087 805 7480 Skype: Wish_Support Email: coenr...@wish.org.za Cell: 073 772 1223 (By appointment) Web: http://wish.org.za -- Spending Money is like watering a plant. Your money is your ultimate ballot. On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.comwrote: Well the one I remember is Canopy and Ubnt on the same tower, both 900. The Canopy would rx more than enough to work while Ubnt wouldn't hear the AP at all. Moving around the trees (similar distance from the tower) the signal would appear strong. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me, there just isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76 and wondering why it doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try again. The Canopy will work a little better because it requires less signal, but it also has nowhere near the same throughput, so they're really apples and oranges. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:20:24 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas Ubnt 900 apparently has extremely poor nlos for 900 MHz. I've heard this a handful of people but haven't tried it myself. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
Apples and oranges, Josh. Max modulation on the Canopy requires 10 dB of SNR for 4 megabit of throughput. UBNT requires something like 30 dB of SNR (about the same as Canopy 450) for 150 megabit (well, on a 40 MHz channel, which you obviously can't do in 900). Scale that channel size down to the 8 MHz of Canopy 900 and you're doing 30 megabit (7.5x). You'd also gain at least 6 dB from having a smaller channel. That's 7.5x throughput for 2.5x higher SNR requirement. I'm not here to fight UBNT vs. Canopy because obviously Canopy has a working sync (which you need), but if you're going to say something doesn't work, you also have to disclose that you didn't deploy it in a situation where it would succeed. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:31:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas Well the one I remember is Canopy and Ubnt on the same tower, both 900. The Canopy would rx more than enough to work while Ubnt wouldn't hear the AP at all. Moving around the trees (similar distance from the tower) the signal would appear strong. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me, there just isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76 and wondering why it doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try again. The Canopy will work a little better because it requires less signal, but it also has nowhere near the same throughput, so they're really apples and oranges. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:20:24 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas Ubnt 900 apparently has extremely poor nlos for 900 MHz. I've heard this a handful of people but haven't tried it myself. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
Funny (or not depending upon your point of view ) thing is that the best results for throughput/penetration with 900Mhz was with the original SR9's from UBNT. Better throughput by 2-3x than XR9 but less interference resistance but being able to run smaller channels with the same throughput made up for that. All that was from before 900 rollout from the utilities and the 900 band turning into complete junk when the power meters do updates and other heavy usage.. We tried the other UBNT gear with not nearly the same results, but with and without external antennas. On 08/22/2013 07:20 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: Ubnt 900 apparently has extremely poor nlos for 900 MHz. I've heard this a handful of people but haven't tried it myself. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
Just needs bigger antenna, Fred. However, I'll be damned if I can find antenna with what I'd consider appropriate gain. I deploy 5 Ghz systems with 18 - 20 dB at the AP and 25 dB at the CPE. UBNT 900 has an AP of 13 and a CPE of 11. That's 15+ dB of less margin than I'd deploy elsewhere. How well of a 900 MHz system could you run with an additional 15 dB of gain? Not only is your signal a lot hotter, but you're also hearing less noise. Sure, those antenna would be large. However, if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:36:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas On 8/22/2013 10:14 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me, there just isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76 and wondering why it doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try again. The Canopy will work a little better because it requires less signal, but it also has nowhere near the same throughput, so they're really apples and oranges. The spec sheet makes it sound as if -76 is more than adequate, and in a PmP environment, it's often hard to get a stronger signal. Are the poor results from trying to run at too high a rate, like MCS5, such that running at say MCS1 would improve results? Or is it just not very sensitive, with a higher noise temp than Cambium? -- Fred R. Goldstein fred at interisle.net Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
What are you using for a 25dbi cpe antenna? ARC's panels are 23dbi. A two foot dish is 29dbi. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: Just needs bigger antenna, Fred. However, I'll be damned if I can find antenna with what I'd consider appropriate gain. I deploy 5 Ghz systems with 18 - 20 dB at the AP and 25 dB at the CPE. UBNT 900 has an AP of 13 and a CPE of 11. That's 15+ dB of less margin than I'd deploy elsewhere. How well of a 900 MHz system could you run with an additional 15 dB of gain? Not only is your signal a lot hotter, but you're also hearing less noise. Sure, those antenna would be large. However, if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:36:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas On 8/22/2013 10:14 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me, there just isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76 and wondering why it doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try again. The Canopy will work a little better because it requires less signal, but it also has nowhere near the same throughput, so they're really apples and oranges. The spec sheet makes it sound as if -76 is more than adequate, and in a PmP environment, it's often hard to get a stronger signal. Are the poor results from trying to run at too high a rate, like MCS5, such that running at say MCS1 would improve results? Or is it just not very sensitive, with a higher noise temp than Cambium? -- Fred R. Goldstein fred at interisle.net Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
NanoBridge. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:57:49 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas What are you using for a 25dbi cpe antenna? ARC's panels are 23dbi. A two foot dish is 29dbi. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: Just needs bigger antenna, Fred. However, I'll be damned if I can find antenna with what I'd consider appropriate gain. I deploy 5 Ghz systems with 18 - 20 dB at the AP and 25 dB at the CPE. UBNT 900 has an AP of 13 and a CPE of 11. That's 15+ dB of less margin than I'd deploy elsewhere. How well of a 900 MHz system could you run with an additional 15 dB of gain? Not only is your signal a lot hotter, but you're also hearing less noise. Sure, those antenna would be large. However, if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:36:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas On 8/22/2013 10:14 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me, there just isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76 and wondering why it doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try again. The Canopy will work a little better because it requires less signal, but it also has nowhere near the same throughput, so they're really apples and oranges. The spec sheet makes it sound as if -76 is more than adequate, and in a PmP environment, it's often hard to get a stronger signal. Are the poor results from trying to run at too high a rate, like MCS5, such that running at say MCS1 would improve results? Or is it just not very sensitive, with a higher noise temp than Cambium? -- Fred R. Goldstein fred at interisle.net Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
I've heard that it's difficult to impossible to get more than one Ubiquiti 900 ap on tower regardless of channel separation. Have others found this to be true? Robert wrote: Funny (or not depending upon your point of view ) thing is that the best results for throughput/penetration with 900Mhz was with the original SR9's from UBNT. Better throughput by 2-3x than XR9 but less interference resistance but being able to run smaller channels with the same throughput made up for that. All that was from before 900 rollout from the utilities and the 900 band turning into complete junk when the power meters do updates and other heavy usage.. We tried the other UBNT gear with not nearly the same results, but with and without external antennas. On 08/22/2013 07:20 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: Ubnt 900 apparently has extremely poor nlos for 900 MHz. I've heard this a handful of people but haven't tried it myself. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
It's probably nothing that can't be explained by too much noise, not enough signal. They probably need increased isolation from RF Armor or something similar. They do have the disadvantage of not having GPS sync. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Jay Weekley par...@cyberbroadband.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 11:08:54 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas I've heard that it's difficult to impossible to get more than one Ubiquiti 900 ap on tower regardless of channel separation. Have others found this to be true? Robert wrote: Funny (or not depending upon your point of view ) thing is that the best results for throughput/penetration with 900Mhz was with the original SR9's from UBNT. Better throughput by 2-3x than XR9 but less interference resistance but being able to run smaller channels with the same throughput made up for that. All that was from before 900 rollout from the utilities and the 900 band turning into complete junk when the power meters do updates and other heavy usage.. We tried the other UBNT gear with not nearly the same results, but with and without external antennas. On 08/22/2013 07:20 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: Ubnt 900 apparently has extremely poor nlos for 900 MHz. I've heard this a handful of people but haven't tried it myself. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
Ubnt 900 is a joke On Aug 22, 2013 7:43 AM, Coenraad Loubser coenr...@wish.org.za wrote: Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's not even an April fools joke. http://www.google.com/loon/ Maybe if you can get hold of a human at Google you could interest them in running a trial with you... Coenraad Loubser WISH Networks (Pty) Ltd. 2nd Floor, Merriman Place, Cnr. Merriman Bird Str, Stellenbosch, 7600, ZA Office: 087 805 7480 Skype: Wish_Support Email: coenr...@wish.org.za Cell: 073 772 1223 (By appointment) Web: http://wish.org.za -- Spending Money is like watering a plant. Your money is your ultimate ballot. On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Well the one I remember is Canopy and Ubnt on the same tower, both 900. The Canopy would rx more than enough to work while Ubnt wouldn't hear the AP at all. Moving around the trees (similar distance from the tower) the signal would appear strong. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me, there just isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76 and wondering why it doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try again. The Canopy will work a little better because it requires less signal, but it also has nowhere near the same throughput, so they're really apples and oranges. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:20:24 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas Ubnt 900 apparently has extremely poor nlos for 900 MHz. I've heard this a handful of people but haven't tried it myself. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
I have 1 Tower with UBNT 900Mhz and 1 tower with MT and XR9 cards. Both have ~25 clients. The MT tower Has more trees and a Single V-Pol Omni. The UBNT has a the UBNT 120* sector so it is limited to the direction it is pointed. I get the same throughput on both. I can give Clients a 5MB service no issues depending on SNR but most have a 2MB or less service. They both work. But these are very Rural and when the RTK farming system is active for Planting or Harvesting then it gets a little dicey. But they have no other option when they call and complain during those times I explain that it is noise I have no control over, Sorry. [my opinion] Putting multiple 900Mhz Radios on a single tower is IMPOSIBLE without GPS sync. The Noise from one to the other, even from bounces off of buildings 1 mile away makes the noise too high for the sector. I mean come on you only have 25MHz to play in and in today's world to offer the speeds you need to on 900 you need to use 20 MHz. Even if you use 10Mhz and use the top and bottom you only have 5MHz Separation and on the same tower unless you are on opposite sides of a solid steel water tower, you will have enough bleed over that your receive sensitivity will be shot. [/my opinion] Steve Barnes General Manager PCSWIN.com Howard LLC. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of TJ Trout Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 10:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas Ubnt 900 is a joke On Aug 22, 2013 7:43 AM, Coenraad Loubser coenr...@wish.org.zamailto:coenr...@wish.org.za wrote: Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's not even an April fools joke. http://www.google.com/loon/ Maybe if you can get hold of a human at Google you could interest them in running a trial with you... Coenraad Loubser WISH Networks (Pty) Ltd. 2nd Floor, Merriman Place, Cnr. Merriman Bird Str, Stellenbosch, 7600, ZA Office: 087 805 7480 Skype: Wish_Support Email: coenr...@wish.org.zamailto:coenr...@wish.org.za Cell: 073 772 1223 (By appointment) Web: http://wish.org.zahttp://wish.org.za/ -- Spending Money is like watering a plant. Your money is your ultimate ballot. On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.commailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Well the one I remember is Canopy and Ubnt on the same tower, both 900. The Canopy would rx more than enough to work while Ubnt wouldn't hear the AP at all. Moving around the trees (similar distance from the tower) the signal would appear strong. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.netmailto:wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me, there just isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76 and wondering why it doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try again. The Canopy will work a little better because it requires less signal, but it also has nowhere near the same throughput, so they're really apples and oranges. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.commailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:20:24 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas Ubnt 900 apparently has extremely poor nlos for 900 MHz. I've heard this a handful of people but haven't tried it myself. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.netmailto:wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.netmailto:erik.ander...@hocking.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
Please provide something useful to the conversation. What was the environment you were using it in? What antennas were you using? What radios were you using? What distances were you going? What were the signal levels, noise levels, channel sizes, desired throughput, achieved throughput, etc.? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: TJ Trout t...@fdisturlock.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:46:35 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas Ubnt 900 is a joke On Aug 22, 2013 7:43 AM, Coenraad Loubser coenr...@wish.org.za wrote: Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's not even an April fools joke. http://www.google.com/loon/ Maybe if you can get hold of a human at Google you could interest them in running a trial with you... Coenraad Loubser WISH Networks (Pty) Ltd. 2nd Floor, Merriman Place, Cnr. Merriman Bird Str, Stellenbosch, 7600, ZA Office: 087 805 7480 Skype: Wish_Support Email: coenr...@wish.org.za Cell: 073 772 1223 (By appointment) Web: http://wish.org.za -- Spending Money is like watering a plant. Your money is your ultimate ballot. On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: blockquote Well the one I remember is Canopy and Ubnt on the same tower, both 900. The Canopy would rx more than enough to work while Ubnt wouldn't hear the AP at all. Moving around the trees (similar distance from the tower) the signal would appear strong. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me, there just isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76 and wondering why it doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try again. The Canopy will work a little better because it requires less signal, but it also has nowhere near the same throughput, so they're really apples and oranges. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:20:24 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas Ubnt 900 apparently has extremely poor nlos for 900 MHz. I've heard this a handful of people but haven't tried it myself. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless /blockquote
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
We have 3 towers with ubnt 900, doing ok offering up to 3meg plans, jitter is pretty poor though. Interference has been an occasional issue. We do get what I consider good foliage penetration up to 1-2 miles with the dual pol yagi as cpe. Better penetration than wimax 3.65. The wimax we can do higher speeds and has been more reliable for customers who are nearLOS. This is using pmp320 AP on a Dual pol omni. Trees screw with the wimax terribly in wind/rain though. Pmp100 900mhz just seems like too little capacity to meet today's demands. On Aug 22, 2013 12:51 PM, TJ Trout t...@fdisturlock.com wrote: Ubnt 900 is a joke On Aug 22, 2013 7:43 AM, Coenraad Loubser coenr...@wish.org.za wrote: Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's not even an April fools joke. http://www.google.com/loon/ Maybe if you can get hold of a human at Google you could interest them in running a trial with you... Coenraad Loubser WISH Networks (Pty) Ltd. 2nd Floor, Merriman Place, Cnr. Merriman Bird Str, Stellenbosch, 7600, ZA Office: 087 805 7480 Skype: Wish_Support Email: coenr...@wish.org.za Cell: 073 772 1223 (By appointment) Web: http://wish.org.za -- Spending Money is like watering a plant. Your money is your ultimate ballot. On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Well the one I remember is Canopy and Ubnt on the same tower, both 900. The Canopy would rx more than enough to work while Ubnt wouldn't hear the AP at all. Moving around the trees (similar distance from the tower) the signal would appear strong. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me, there just isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76 and wondering why it doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try again. The Canopy will work a little better because it requires less signal, but it also has nowhere near the same throughput, so they're really apples and oranges. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:20:24 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas Ubnt 900 apparently has extremely poor nlos for 900 MHz. I've heard this a handful of people but haven't tried it myself. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
My intentions are to balance 10 MHz channels if I can with in opposing directions with 90* antenna. 3.65 90* antenna would fill in the other two directions. I was excited to see RunCom come out with a 4x4 or 6x6 MIMO (whatever it was). I'm sure it's expensive. Sure it's not worth it for me, but maybe it is for you foliage guys. Increased link budgets, increased speed. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Steve Barnes st...@pcswin.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:16:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas I have 1 Tower with UBNT 900Mhz and 1 tower with MT and XR9 cards. Both have ~25 clients. The MT tower Has more trees and a Single V-Pol Omni. The UBNT has a the UBNT 120* sector so it is limited to the direction it is pointed. I get the same throughput on both. I can give Clients a 5MB service no issues depending on SNR but most have a 2MB or less service. They both work. But these are very Rural and when the RTK farming system is active for Planting or Harvesting then it gets a little dicey. But they have no other option when they call and complain during those times I explain that it is noise I have no control over, Sorry. [my opinion] Putting multiple 900Mhz Radios on a single tower is IMPOSIBLE without GPS sync. The Noise from one to the other, even from bounces off of buildings 1 mile away makes the noise too high for the sector. I mean come on you only have 25MHz to play in and in today’s world to offer the speeds you need to on 900 you need to use 20 MHz. Even if you use 10Mhz and use the top and bottom you only have 5MHz Separation and on the same tower unless you are on opposite sides of a solid steel water tower, you will have enough bleed over that your receive sensitivity will be shot. [/my opinion] Steve Barnes General Manager PCSWIN.com Howard LLC. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of TJ Trout Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 10:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas Ubnt 900 is a joke On Aug 22, 2013 7:43 AM, Coenraad Loubser coenr...@wish.org.za wrote: Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's not even an April fools joke. http://www.google.com/loon/ Maybe if you can get hold of a human at Google you could interest them in running a trial with you... Coenraad Loubser WISH Networks (Pty) Ltd. 2nd Floor, Merriman Place, Cnr. Merriman Bird Str, Stellenbosch, 7600, ZA Office: 087 805 7480 Skype: Wish_Support Email: coenr...@wish.org.za Cell: 073 772 1223 (By appointment) Web: http://wish.org.za -- Spending Money is like watering a plant. Your money is your ultimate ballot. On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: blockquote Well the one I remember is Canopy and Ubnt on the same tower, both 900. The Canopy would rx more than enough to work while Ubnt wouldn't hear the AP at all. Moving around the trees (similar distance from the tower) the signal would appear strong. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me, there just isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76 and wondering why it doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try again. The Canopy will work a little better because it requires less signal, but it also has nowhere near the same throughput, so they're really apples and oranges. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:20:24 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas Ubnt 900 apparently has extremely poor nlos for 900 MHz. I've heard this a handful of people but haven't tried it myself. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can
[WISPA] Exalt ExtremeAir Special
If anyone has asked Exalt for a quote, can you share what price they are offering? Original Message Subject: [WISPA Approved Ad] Announcing the Exalt ExtremeAir Promotion Exclusively for US and Canada WISPs Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:00:56 -0700 From: Joe Schraml jschr...@exaltcom.com To: advertiseme...@wispa.org Receive Cash Back for Every Link of ExtremeAir until October 31, 2013 Having trouble reading this email? View it in your browser http://cl.exct.net/?ju=fe2c15777266077f731370ls=fdc2157072630c7f741475706dm=fef61271766d02l=fe91167172670c7475s=fdec1570706d0d7577117871jb=ffcf14t= Exalt Hot Summer Cold Cash Now until October 31, 2013 *Take advantage of limited-time special pricing on Exalt ExtremeAir radios, and receive $1,000 cash back from Exalt for every ExtremeAir link you purchase!* *It's true. If you are a WISP doing business in the U.S. or Canada, you will receive $1,000 cash rebate back from Exalt for every link of ExtremeAir you purchase between now and October 31, 2013.* *Here's how to get in on this promotion:* *Make the call.*Let your preferred Exalt partner or authorized distributor know that you want to take advantage of special, limited time pricing on ExtremeAir radio systems and the $1,000 per link cash rebate. *Choose the ExtremeAir systems you need.*Work with your preferred Exalt partner or authorized distributor to determine which ExtremeAir systems best fit your applications. Exalt representatives are also available to assist you in completing the Bill of Materials. *Purchase Exalt.*Purchase your new ExtremeAir systems from your preferred Exalt partner or authorized distributor. *Submit rebate claim form.*Complete a rebate claim form (available from your preferred Exalt partner or authorized distributor) and submit it with proofs of purchase as specified on the claim form. Purchases must be made between August 15 and October 31, 2013 to qualify for the rebate. *Put your rebate to work however you choose!*It's not a credit or an IOU - it's cash money in your hands direct from Exalt. Reward your employees. Buy supplies. Pay a bill or two. Use the money exactly as you wish - no strings attached. Don't miss out on this special opportunity to boost your network performance, take advantage of great, limited-time only pricing, and receive a $1,000 cash rebate for each link of ExtremeAir that you purchase. *Want to know more about ExtremeAir?** *Click here http://cl.exct.net/?ju=fe2b15777266077f731371ls=fdc2157072630c7f741475706dm=fef61271766d02l=fe91167172670c7475s=fdec1570706d0d7577117871jb=ffcf14t= to download the ExtremeAir datasheet, or talk to your Exalt representative, preferred Exalt partner or authorized distributor. Or call Mark Jacobson at 1-408-688-0300.** ExtremeAir *Limited-Time Only Special Pricing* *ExtremeAir - The Power of 1** 1 Radio, 1 Antenna, 1 Gbps Capacity* ExtremeAir delivers benefits unmatched in the industry:** â?¢ *Minimizes shelter requirements -*zero footprint single all-outdoor radio â?¢ *True fiber performance -*up to 1 Gbps full-duplex without data compression â?¢ *Ease of installation -*Single cable simplicity: data and PoE on CAT5e or CAT6 â?¢ *Multiple spectrum options -*operates in 11, 18, 23 GHz bands â?¢ *Maximizes link availability -*Adaptive Modulation © 2013 Exalt Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. Your privacy is important to us. View our privacy policy for specific details. This email was sent by: Exalt Communications, Inc., 254 E Hacienda Avenue Campbell, CA, 95008-6617, USA Unsubscribe http://cl.exct.net/?ju=fe2a15777266077f731372ls=fdc2157072630c7f741475706dm=fef61271766d02l=fe91167172670c7475s=fdec1570706d0d7577117871jb=ffcf14t=â??Update Profile http://cl.exct.net/?ju=fe2915777266077f731373ls=fdc2157072630c7f741475706dm=fef61271766d02l=fe91167172670c7475s=fdec1570706d0d7577117871jb=ffcf14t= Exalt ___ Advertisements mailing list advertiseme...@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/advertisements ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
With Cambium, we have connections that are stable at -82 dB. We have a backup backhaul for a tower that is about 5 miles. One ridge in between towers must have trees that interfere with freznel zone. Towers are 200'. Originally had a Cambium 900 with 6 foot single polarity yagis. It worked for emergencies in most situations (sometimes rain or snow would interfere). Put in UBNT with UBNT dual polarity yagis. Bandwidth available is slightly lower than the Cambium. From what I have experienced with UBNT 900, it works marginally better than 2.4 with tree penetration. Cambium 900 actually does work, even without freznel zone clearance at times. There are many situations it will not work, but it will reach 50% more of the households than UBNT. As for interference, I have mounted a Cambium 900 SM with the UBNT dual polarity with 40 foot horizontal separation without interference (for testing purposes, not real world implementation). It did work. GPS sync is better. I have two horizontal 900 omnis and 1 vertical omni mounted with less than 12 of horizontal separation on a tower using Cambium (no sectors will not work in this situation, and additional tower space is not available). It works. We have a tower currently with a 900 backhaul and 900 ap for distribution. Sync makes this possible. When we raise the tower another 100 feet this 900 backhaul will go away. 2.4/5.x do not work on this. A few 80+ foot trees (somewhere) are the problem Yes, the smartmeter usage of 900 spectrum is problematic around here and they seem to be a 919 mhz center channel. Using channels higher than 915 becomes more difficult. This is why I state that UBNT 900 is not good. Increasing signal by 15 dB is IMPOSSIBLE for our situations... well, legally that is. On 8/22/2013 10:14 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me, there just isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76 and wondering why it doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try again. The Canopy will work a little better because it requires less signal, but it also has nowhere near the same throughput, so they're really apples and oranges. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:20:24 AM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas Ubnt 900 apparently has extremely poor nlos for 900 MHz. I've heard this a handful of people but haven't tried it myself. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
How would it be impossible? These calcs aren't going to be able to factor in the foliage loss because of how variable it is. We'll just use 5 miles of free space as the loss. Rocket + UBNT sector as the AP and a NanoBridge as the CPE. AP - CPE = -63 CPE - AP = -61 Now if we had antenna of the same gain in 900 as I'm using in 5 GHz (18 AP, 25 CPE) AP - CPE = -49 CPE - AP = -56 So I guess its not as optimistic as I thought because of the PtP rule in 5 GHz, but in the downstream direction (AP - CPE), we're 14 is dB better and CPE to AP we're 5 dB. Manufacturers, give us bigger antenna! - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:16:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas With Cambium, we have connections that are stable at -82 dB. We have a backup backhaul for a tower that is about 5 miles. One ridge in between towers must have trees that interfere with freznel zone. Towers are 200'. Originally had a Cambium 900 with 6 foot single polarity yagis. It worked for emergencies in most situations (sometimes rain or snow would interfere). Put in UBNT with UBNT dual polarity yagis. Bandwidth available is slightly lower than the Cambium. From what I have experienced with UBNT 900, it works marginally better than 2.4 with tree penetration. Cambium 900 actually does work, even without freznel zone clearance at times. There are many situations it will not work, but it will reach 50% more of the households than UBNT. As for interference, I have mounted a Cambium 900 SM with the UBNT dual polarity with 40 foot horizontal separation without interference (for testing purposes, not real world implementation). It did work. GPS sync is better. I have two horizontal 900 omnis and 1 vertical omni mounted with less than 12 of horizontal separation on a tower using Cambium (no sectors will not work in this situation, and additional tower space is not available). It works. We have a tower currently with a 900 backhaul and 900 ap for distribution. Sync makes this possible. When we raise the tower another 100 feet this 900 backhaul will go away. 2.4/5.x do not work on this. A few 80+ foot trees (somewhere) are the problem Yes, the smartmeter usage of 900 spectrum is problematic around here and they seem to be a 919 mhz center channel. Using channels higher than 915 becomes more difficult. This is why I state that UBNT 900 is not good. Increasing signal by 15 dB is IMPOSSIBLE for our situations... well, legally that is. On 8/22/2013 10:14 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me, there just isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76 and wondering why it doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try again. The Canopy will work a little better because it requires less signal, but it also has nowhere near the same throughput, so they're really apples and oranges. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:20:24 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas Ubnt 900 apparently has extremely poor nlos for 900 MHz. I've heard this a handful of people but haven't tried it myself. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
I often use a pair of 17db yagi, 1 V and one H with a rocket to maximize gain for a CPE. For a PtP link we once stacked 17db yagis to get 20db at each end (H and V) Haven't yet found a good AP answer yet. -- On 8/22/2013 2:32 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: How would it be impossible? These calcs aren't going to be able to factor in the foliage loss because of how variable it is. We'll just use 5 miles of free space as the loss. Rocket + UBNT sector as the AP and a NanoBridge as the CPE. AP - CPE = -63 CPE - AP = -61 Now if we had antenna of the same gain in 900 as I'm using in 5 GHz (18 AP, 25 CPE) AP - CPE = -49 CPE - AP = -56 So I guess its not as optimistic as I thought because of the PtP rule in 5 GHz, but in the downstream direction (AP - CPE), we're 14 is dB better and CPE to AP we're 5 dB. Manufacturers, give us bigger antenna! - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: "Erik Anderson" erik.ander...@hocking.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:16:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas With Cambium, we have connections that are stable at -82 dB. We have a backup backhaul for a tower that is about 5 miles. One ridge in between towers must have trees that interfere with freznel zone. Towers are 200'. Originally had a Cambium 900 with 6 foot single polarity yagis. It worked for emergencies in most situations (sometimes rain or snow would interfere). Put in UBNT with UBNT dual polarity yagis. Bandwidth available is slightly lower than the Cambium. From what I have experienced with UBNT 900, it works marginally better than 2.4 with tree penetration. Cambium 900 actually does work, even without freznel zone clearance at times. There are many situations it will not work, but it will reach 50% more of the households than UBNT. As for interference, I have mounted a Cambium 900 SM with the UBNT dual polarity with 40 foot horizontal separation without interference (for testing purposes, not real world implementation). It did work. GPS sync is better. I have two horizontal 900 omnis and 1 vertical omni mounted with less than 12" of horizontal separation on a tower using Cambium (no sectors will not work in this situation, and additional tower space is not available). It works. We have a tower currently with a 900 backhaul and 900 ap for distribution. Sync makes this possible. When we raise the tower another 100 feet this 900 backhaul will go away. 2.4/5.x do not work on this. A few 80+ foot trees (somewhere) are the problem Yes, the smartmeter usage of 900 spectrum is problematic around here and they seem to be a 919 mhz center channel. Using channels higher than 915 becomes more difficult. This is why I state that UBNT 900 is not good. Increasing signal by 15 dB is IMPOSSIBLE for our situations... well, legally that is. On 8/22/2013 10:14 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me, there just isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76 and wondering why it doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try again. The Canopy will work a little better because it requires less signal, but it also has nowhere near the same throughput, so they're really apples and oranges. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: "Josh Luthman" j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:20:24 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas Ubnt 900 apparently has extremely poor nlos for 900 MHz. I've heard this
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
I don't have anything to compare it to other than Tranzeo 900, but I have had decent results with it. It obviously won't push the throughput that 5G or even 2.4G will, even with the same channel sizes, but UBNT salvaged most of my 900 customers when the Tranzeo gear started running into problems. On 08/22/2013 09:03 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
900 will move the same amount as data as 2.4, 3.65 and 5 GHz with all else being the same. If your throughput is low, you have too little signal for the noise you're seeing. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:13:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas I don't have anything to compare it to other than Tranzeo 900, but I have had decent results with it. It obviously won't push the throughput that 5G or even 2.4G will, even with the same channel sizes, but UBNT salvaged most of my 900 customers when the Tranzeo gear started running into problems. On 08/22/2013 09:03 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: blockquote What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless /blockquote ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
I concur. I went from Noise floor of -80 and signal of -102 on Tranzeo to -60/-109 with the UBNT gear. ryan On 8/22/13 12:13 PM, Sam Tetherow wrote: I don't have anything to compare it to other than Tranzeo 900, but I have had decent results with it. It obviously won't push the throughput that 5G or even 2.4G will, even with the same channel sizes, but UBNT salvaged most of my 900 customers when the Tranzeo gear started running into problems. On 08/22/2013 09:03 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
But Mike that is the Rub. All things are never the same. 900 is dirty and Susceptible to so much noise and reflection because the signal does not die as quick. I understand the “Theory” but still have a hard time understanding how a slower carrier wave (900MHz) can carry the same Data as 5800MHz carrier wave but I know that it could in a vacuum. The issue is we don’t live in a vacuum. Steve Barnes General Manager PCSWIN.com Howard LLC. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 900 will move the same amount as data as 2.4, 3.65 and 5 GHz with all else being the same. If your throughput is low, you have too little signal for the noise you're seeing. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.netmailto:tethe...@shwisp.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:13:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas I don't have anything to compare it to other than Tranzeo 900, but I have had decent results with it. It obviously won't push the throughput that 5G or even 2.4G will, even with the same channel sizes, but UBNT salvaged most of my 900 customers when the Tranzeo gear started running into problems. On 08/22/2013 09:03 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.netmailto:erik.ander...@hocking.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.orgmailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.orgmailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.orgmailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.orgmailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
The frequency that it operates has no impact on the throughput or the latency. Sure there's more noise in our 900 MHz band, but that's because of other users, not something native to that frequency. The bulk of the 900 MHz gear that we have just doesn't have sufficient gain, small enough beamwidth (kinda same thing), sufficient shielding. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Steve Barnes st...@pcswin.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:09:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas But Mike that is the Rub. All things are never the same. 900 is dirty and Susceptible to so much noise and reflection because the signal does not die as quick. I understand the “Theory” but still have a hard time understanding how a slower carrier wave (900MHz) can carry the same Data as 5800MHz carrier wave but I know that it could in a vacuum. The issue is we don’t live in a vacuum. Steve Barnes General Manager PCSWIN.com Howard LLC. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 900 will move the same amount as data as 2.4, 3.65 and 5 GHz with all else being the same. If your throughput is low, you have too little signal for the noise you're seeing. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:13:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas I don't have anything to compare it to other than Tranzeo 900, but I have had decent results with it. It obviously won't push the throughput that 5G or even 2.4G will, even with the same channel sizes, but UBNT salvaged most of my 900 customers when the Tranzeo gear started running into problems. On 08/22/2013 09:03 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: blockquote What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless /blockquote ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
On 8/22/2013 4:09 PM, Steve Barnes wrote: But Mike that is the Rub. All things are never the same. 900 is dirty and Susceptible to so much noise and reflection because the signal does not die as quick. I understand the Theory but still have a hard time understanding how a slower carrier wave (900MHz) can carry the same Data as 5800MHz carrier wave but I know that it could in a vacuum. The issue is we don't live in a vacuum. The carrier frequency has no impact on data-carrying capacity. Shannon's Law dictates that the capacity of a channel to carry information is a function of its bandwidth and its signal to noise ratio. If it is 10 MHz wide from 902 to 912, or 10 MHz from 5800 to 5810, it's still 10 MHz. And if the SNR is the same, the usable capacity is the same. The issue of vacuum relates to things that make a path worse than the theoretical free space attenuation would dictate. Take the 60 GHz band (57-64 GHz). It has a primary allocation for satellite-to-satellite use. Now there's your vacuum! It's unlicensed because oxygen absorption at 60 GHz is around 14 dB/km, so anything done down here at the surface is unlikely to reach a satellite. It's thus great for high-speed WLAN use, like WiGig. And the FCC last week raised the power limit for outdoor point-to-point use to 82 dBm, provided the antenna gain is 51 dB (derated 2 dB for each dB of lower gain that the antenna has). This will allow huge bit rates because it's 7 GHz wide, but range at normal atmospheric pressure is going to be very limited. 900 GHz is nice in wooded areas because it gets through foliage much better than higher frequencies, but in many places it's already congested with meter readers and other devices. Those, plus the limited bandwidth, are more likely to limit real-world performance than anything else. A 6 GHz TVWS channel will do as well as 6 GHz on higher frequencies, though. Better, actually, if you can get a big enough antenna. But lower frequencies tend to need bigger antennas. Maybe those old TV antennas we used to all have before cable will make a comeback. ;-) -- Fred R. Goldstein fred at interisle.net Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon–Hartley_theorem Its all in the math. On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Steve Barnes wrote: But Mike that is the Rub. All things are never the same. 900 is dirty and Susceptible to so much noise and reflection because the signal does not die as quick. I understand the “Theory” but still have a hard time understanding how a slower carrier wave (900MHz) can carry the same Data as 5800MHz carrier wave but I know that it could in a vacuum. The issue is we don’t live in a vacuum. Steve Barnes General Manager PCSWIN.com Howard LLC. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 900 will move the same amount as data as 2.4, 3.65 and 5 GHz with all else being the same. If your throughput is low, you have too little signal for the noise you're seeing. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:13:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas I don't have anything to compare it to other than Tranzeo 900, but I have had decent results with it. It obviously won't push the throughput that 5G or even 2.4G will, even with the same channel sizes, but UBNT salvaged most of my 900 customers when the Tranzeo gear started running into problems. On 08/22/2013 09:03 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
It is not the gear that is the issue. It is the regulations, unless your name is Progeny. The max TPO is 30 dBm and EIRP is 36. So, at 17 dBi antenna means you /should /only be running about 20 dBm out of your transceiver. The frequency regulations have a significant impact on throughput in the frequency ranges too. A 20 mHz channel is the entire 900 band while it is merely a channel in 2.4 or 5.x . I wish I could get out of 900 completely. Nothing else (we can use) can penetrate, refract, reflect like it does. But it just cannot deliver bandwidth to enough customers. So, stepping back a little, I must say that a cheap pair of UBNT units is worth testing in your area to see if it is sufficient. But unless you hang it on the tower for testing, your tests will be meaningless. As to which brand equipment will work better, it depends on your definition of better. You cannot get the throughput out of Cambium right now. You might be able to get it from UBNT. You can get sync with Cambium which allows for more APs without tight RF engineering. If your tower and customer distribution can support sectors, you may be in luck with UBNT. If you are going to support more than 20-30 people with omnis, you had better look at Cambium with GPS sync. I wish it was different. But that is our real world, non-vacuum test, experience. Hope that helps make a decision. If not, spend a few hundred bucks to test UBNT in your area. On 8/22/2013 4:13 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: The frequency that it operates has no impact on the throughput or the latency. Sure there's more noise in our 900 MHz band, but that's because of other users, not something native to that frequency. The bulk of the 900 MHz gear that we have just doesn't have sufficient gain, small enough beamwidth (kinda same thing), sufficient shielding. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Steve Barnes st...@pcswin.com *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:09:36 PM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas But Mike that is the Rub. All things are never the same. 900 is dirty and Susceptible to so much noise and reflection because the signal does not die as quick. I understand the Theory but still have a hard time understanding how a slower carrier wave (900MHz) can carry the same Data as 5800MHz carrier wave but I know that it could in a vacuum. The issue is we don't live in a vacuum. *Steve Barnes* General Manager PCSWIN.com Howard LLC. *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett *Sent:* Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:28 PM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 900 will move the same amount as data as 2.4, 3.65 and 5 GHz with all else being the same. If your throughput is low, you have too little signal for the noise you're seeing. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.net mailto:tethe...@shwisp.net *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:13:52 PM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas I don't have anything to compare it to other than Tranzeo 900, but I have had decent results with it. It obviously won't push the throughput that 5G or even 2.4G will, even with the same channel sizes, but UBNT salvaged most of my 900 customers when the Tranzeo gear started running into problems. On 08/22/2013 09:03 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net mailto:erik.ander...@hocking.net *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
That's not the way I understand digital radio transmissions. They can all get the same number of bit transitions per cycle. That being the case, you will get 2.67x more maximum on a 2.4G link than a 900M link and about 6.4x more on a 5.8G than 900M. Try them in a clean environment, like your work area. What is the maximum throughput you can get on a 900MHz link when your SNR is 80 or 90. I don't think you will ever see it doing air rates of 100M. On 8/22/2013 3:28 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 900 will move the same amount as data as 2.4, 3.65 and 5 GHz with all else being the same. If your throughput is low, you have too little signal for the noise you're seeing. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.net *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:13:52 PM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas I don't have anything to compare it to other than Tranzeo 900, but I have had decent results with it. It obviously won't push the throughput that 5G or even 2.4G will, even with the same channel sizes, but UBNT salvaged most of my 900 customers when the Tranzeo gear started running into problems. On 08/22/2013 09:03 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6598 - Release Date: 08/22/13 -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
Well, guess that negates my most recent post. On 8/22/2013 4:27 PM, Dan Petermann wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon–Hartley_theorem Its all in the math. On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Steve Barnes wrote: But Mike that is the Rub. All things are never the same. 900 is dirty and Susceptible to so much noise and reflection because the signal does not die as quick. I understand the “Theory” but still have a hard time understanding how a slower carrier wave (900MHz) can carry the same Data as 5800MHz carrier wave but I know that it could in a vacuum. The issue is we don’t live in a vacuum. *Steve Barnes* General Manager PCSWIN.com http://PCSWIN.com Howard LLC. *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]*On Behalf Of*Mike Hammett *Sent:*Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:28 PM *To:*WISPA General List *Subject:*Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 900 will move the same amount as data as 2.4, 3.65 and 5 GHz with all else being the same. If your throughput is low, you have too little signal for the noise you're seeing. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From:*Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.net mailto:tethe...@shwisp.net *To:*WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Sent:*Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:13:52 PM *Subject:*Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas I don't have anything to compare it to other than Tranzeo 900, but I have had decent results with it. It obviously won't push the throughput that 5G or even 2.4G will, even with the same channel sizes, but UBNT salvaged most of my 900 customers when the Tranzeo gear started running into problems. On 08/22/2013 09:03 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From:*Erik Andersonerik.ander...@hocking.net mailto:erik.ander...@hocking.net *To:*WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Sent:*Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM *Subject:*Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6598 - Release Date: 08/22/13 -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
The calculations I posted earlier took a 36 dB EIRP into account. Yes, obviously you can't directly compare a 40 MHz channel and a 20 MHz comparison is close to meaningless. A 10 MHz channel would be the most useful test. However, I do not yet know of any source for dual polarity 900 MHz 90* sectors that are 18 dB nor any 900 MHz dual polarity CPE antenna that are 25 dB of gain. Heck, probably even 20 dB would be sufficient to prove the concept. If someone knows where to find these things, I'd love to try it out. My brother just bought a wooded property a couple miles away, so it'd make for a great test. There are some pager transmitters about 90* to the right and there are electric grid monitors within a couple degrees of direct. My point is that some of 900 MHz's bad rep can be mitigated by using antenna with proper beamwidths. I'm not trying to compare UBNT and Canopy because GPS is very important in a small band. I'm just trying to defend the band from people using it improperly. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:47:17 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas It is not the gear that is the issue. It is the regulations, unless your name is Progeny. The max TPO is 30 dBm and EIRP is 36. So, at 17 dBi antenna means you should only be running about 20 dBm out of your transceiver. The frequency regulations have a significant impact on throughput in the frequency ranges too. A 20 mHz channel is the entire 900 band while it is merely a channel in 2.4 or 5.x . I wish I could get out of 900 completely. Nothing else (we can use) can penetrate, refract, reflect like it does. But it just cannot deliver bandwidth to enough customers. So, stepping back a little, I must say that a cheap pair of UBNT units is worth testing in your area to see if it is sufficient. But unless you hang it on the tower for testing, your tests will be meaningless. As to which brand equipment will work better, it depends on your definition of better. You cannot get the throughput out of Cambium right now. You might be able to get it from UBNT. You can get sync with Cambium which allows for more APs without tight RF engineering. If your tower and customer distribution can support sectors, you may be in luck with UBNT. If you are going to support more than 20-30 people with omnis, you had better look at Cambium with GPS sync. I wish it was different. But that is our real world, non-vacuum test, experience. Hope that helps make a decision. If not, spend a few hundred bucks to test UBNT in your area. On 8/22/2013 4:13 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: The frequency that it operates has no impact on the throughput or the latency. Sure there's more noise in our 900 MHz band, but that's because of other users, not something native to that frequency. The bulk of the 900 MHz gear that we have just doesn't have sufficient gain, small enough beamwidth (kinda same thing), sufficient shielding. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Steve Barnes st...@pcswin.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:09:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas But Mike that is the Rub. All things are never the same. 900 is dirty and Susceptible to so much noise and reflection because the signal does not die as quick. I understand the “Theory” but still have a hard time understanding how a slower carrier wave (900MHz) can carry the same Data as 5800MHz carrier wave but I know that it could in a vacuum. The issue is we don’t live in a vacuum. Steve Barnes General Manager PCSWIN.com Howard LLC. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [ mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org ] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 900 will move the same amount as data as 2.4, 3.65 and 5 GHz with all else being the same. If your throughput is low, you have too little signal for the noise you're seeing. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:13:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas I don't have anything to compare it to other than Tranzeo 900, but I have had decent results with it. It obviously won't push the throughput that 5G or even 2.4G will, even with the same channel sizes, but UBNT salvaged most of my 900 customers when the Tranzeo gear started running into problems. On 08/22/2013 09:03 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: blockquote How is it junk? IIRC, everyone
[WISPA] Be careful out/up there
Guys, Be extra careful up there. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323980604579027133430671484.html?mod=ITP_marketplace_0 Scott sc...@e-zy.net___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
