To make the ubnt 900 work, Mike, you would need one of those sat dishes from
the early 80’s.
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf
Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for
On 8/22/2013 5:23 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
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.
Agreed, but again, what would be the point? EIRP of 36 - 25 dBi antenna
- 1dB line loss = 11 dBm
All of the other bands have EIRP limits. You have to worry on The AP side in
2.4 and 5.8. You have to worry on both the AP and CPE in 5.3 and 5.4.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Erik Anderson
Yes, but wind load is dramatically different.
Bottom line is there is simply not enough demand for high windload
antennas to justify the compliance risk. UBNT was safe until they
started making some decent money. Then, after massive legal bills, they
were forced to implement DFS because their
No, they were building DFS the entire time, people just took it into their
hands to use the band illegally before DFS was ready. Even though DFS has been
available for some time, people are still getting busted because they aren't
paying attention.
I'm a believer in bigger antennas and
You're actually spot on. Now only if they were dual polarity. ;-)
Well, not saying that's what you need to make UBNT 900 work, but a 25 dB 900
MHz grid dish is 8' in diameter.
http://www.zdacomm.com/images/PDF/ZDAGP900C.pdf
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Would LTE, as a protocol be useful in the unlicensed bands?
Does anyone make a chipset for this?
ryan
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
I've heard that LTE can't handle interference well. *shrugs*
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Ryan Spott rsp...@irongoat.net
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 10:26:04 AM
It was built to deal with self-interference, not with OPP…
Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.commailto:g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
787.273.4143
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf
Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013
900ghz? I bet it would be great nlos, you could just burn through the trees
:)
On Aug 22, 2013 1:35 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote:
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
plus it's a mobile protocol which as we've seen with WiMax is not always
the best for fixed wireless. latency is usually higher with mobile
protocols.
2cents
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Ryan Spott rsp...@irongoat.net wrote:
Would LTE, as a protocol be useful in the unlicensed bands?
Yeah, NTelos lost a contractor near me last week... experienced climber
fell 100'. It takes 2.5 seconds to fall 100' ... not enough time to say to
yourself, Wh, but I know I had clipped in, I wonder wha.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Scott Parsons sc...@e-zy.net wrote:
Guys, Be extra
Sent from my BlackBerry 10
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-amazon-globalstar-20130823,0,4792322.story
Looks like they are trying to get a Wifi channel opened up that we could be
using. They threw the term Managed in there as well.
Curt
Lists
___
Wireless
14 matches
Mail list logo
