Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings - Competing
We have a stipulation in our AUP when the customer signs the initial contract that prohibits maximizing their connection for a sustained period of time. We enforce a 3 strike rule then kick 'em off-line if violated. If they choose to go with another provider then good riddance. Let the competition deal with them. -Eric John J. Thomas wrote: I am going to be specific here What mechanism do you have in place to 'protect' your network from the person that downloads 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you sold me a connection that was 256k for $39.99 I would feel that I have a right to use it as much as I want. I am not saying bit cap, I am saying tiered pricing. I am sure that most here can break their clients into 3 groups; 1. the people that rarely use their Internet, possibly 300-500 megabytes per month. 2. The average user that probably uses 2-5 Gigabytes per month. 3. The bandwidth hog that is using 20 Gigs plus per month and complains when their speed teest falls for 5 k bits per second. My argument is that ISPs need to have a mechanism to make the people in the last group either pay their fair share, or go somewhere else. John -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Fw: High-tech to no-tech: San Francisco's troubled network ambitions
fyi - Original Message - To: Marlon Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 11:11 AM Subject: High-tech to no-tech: San Francisco's troubled network ambitions The Register » Comms » Wireless » Original URL: http://www.theregister.com/2007/02/03/sf_city_network/ High-tech to no-tech: San Francisco's troubled network ambitions By Dan Goodin in San Francisco Published Saturday 3rd February 2007 13:02 GMT As doubts grow over the approval of San Francisco's proposed deal to build a citywide wireless network with EarthLink, critics of the effort are putting forth alternatives. Like the current plan, negotiated behind closed doors between Mayor Gavin Newsom and the ISP, none of them are anywhere near perfect. The current plan, which faces an uncertain fate in the Board of Supervisors, would allow EarthLink to own the WiFi network and, though an arrangement with Google, offer a paltry 300 kbps for free and a moderately more tolerable 1Mbps for $22 per month. Critics argue that Net access is as fundamental as water and sewers, and as such should be owned by taxpayers. They also say that the network's underpinnings, built on 802.11b, are obsolete already and will only grow more so over the 10 or more years it would likely be in operation. They're going to have a bit of grief in trying to maintain the network and mitigate interference, says Tim Pozar, principal at network service provider United Layer and a critic of the mayor's plan. A former radio engineer, he says WiFi is no match for San Francisco's hilly terrain, rainy season and the host of radio signals already carried on the 2.4 GHz spectrum. Hey, Pozar Pozar's alternative would push data into homes and businesses at a significantly faster speed, using more than 220 strands of fiber he says the city already has rights to operate. It would deliver speeds of about 10Mbits per second or more to end users and wouldn't be susceptible to radio transmissions and other types of interference. With city-backed networks being built or already running in some 300 US cities, San Francisco already lags behind much of the country in providing its citizens with ubiquitous Internet access. The city's attempt to catch up is being further slowed as complex technical issues get superimposed on a host of political controversies. Chief among the latter is the cost of connecting fiber to the hundreds of thousands of households and businesses. In a state that requires a two-thirds majority to approve new taxes, raising the money to pay for the considerable cost of connecting homes to the fiber backbone could be a monumental task. Pozar estimates his plan would cost $250m, a figure that could run much higher. Whatever the price is, Pozar argues the city could recoup its costs by setting up a nonprofit organization to sell services to businesses. (A city study on the feasibility of a city-owned fiber network estimated its impact could run from a deficit of $1.4m to a profit of $900,000.) Ron Vinson, chief administrative officer for the San Francisco department overseeing the proposed network, says Pozar's plan is unworkable for other reasons. First, he says it's unclear if the city has rights to use the fiber. He also argues it would take years to roll out a fiber network, doing little for people who need Net access now. We're talking about people who are coming online for the first time, he says. Further clouding the debate are people who say the proper approach is for San Francisco to offer a combination of wireless and fiber. Among those are Craig Settles, an Internet consultant and the author of a book about municipal networks. He says fiber is needed to deliver applications that require huge amounts of bandwidth, while wireless would open up new ways for roving government servants and businesspeople to work. According to James Hettrick, CIO of the Southern California city of Loma Linda that has its own municipal fiber network, San Francisco's proposed plan is okay as a start, but he says San Francisco officials are fooling themselves if they think it is anything more than a temporary solution. Ultimately they have to figure out how to solve this problem or they'll be a tier one city that's abandoned by their tech community. ® Related stories What a tangled mesh we weave (31 January 2007) http://www.theregister.com/2007/01/31/wireless_mesh_packethop/ Muni Wi-Fi - survey may not be as impartial as it seems (10 December 2006) http://www.theregister.com/2006/12/10/municipal_wi-fi_survey/ Vista - hot or not? (30 November 2006) http://www.theregister.com/2006/11/30/vista_letters/ FTC issues competition guidelines for Muni Wi-Fi (10 October 2006) http://www.theregister.com/2006/10/10/ftc_issues-muni_wifi_guidelines/ Google wins SF wireless gig (6 April 2006) http://www.theregister.com/2006/04/06/google_sf_muni_wifi/ Earthlink wins Philly Wi-Fi gig (4 October 2005)
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas that you need to make it work right. Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas I wanted to get some feedback from the List. Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? Is 18 dbi enough? I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be good for? Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 cards. The beamwidth of 18dbi ( 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for interference resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was needed it could be accommodated with higher power radios such Teletronic's 18dbm Atheros cards or Ubiquiti's SR5 18-26db cards. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
Mark, What ap antennas are you using there? marlon - Original Message - From: wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:38:04 -0500, Tom DeReggi wrote I wanted to get some feedback from the List. Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? Is 18 dbi enough? I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be good for? Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 cards. The beamwidth of 18dbi ( 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for interference resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was needed it could be accommodated with higher power radios such Teletronic's 18dbm Atheros cards or Ubiquiti's SR5 18-26db cards. Ok, where do I start... I can't tell that antenna design matters a bit whether you're using OFDM or QAM or... ??? Seems the radio waves propagate the same. I'm using 18 db grids out to well past 20 miles, with no amps and no high powered radios (using CM-9's). I have ONE client with a 24 db grid at 17 miles or so, and he's got like a -60's RSSI. Doesn't even need it, but it was mounted to his house when I hooked him up. So I saved myself 40 bucks and used his. I have one client btween 29 and 30 miles using a 16 db Vagi, from Pacwireless. Again, no high powered cards, and he's got around 12 to 15 db SNR ( -80 to -83). I was going to use a 19 db grid, but my antenna was defective, and that was the only other thing in the van. Star-OS access point, Compex WP54AG client board, running Ikarus. I think our maximum throughput in 11b mode (won't work in G, sorry) was 350KB or so. The customer is a 2M client, and we can get 2M in a speed test any hour of the day or night. My expeirience with G mode (not ofdm specifically) is that much higher RSSI is required to work at all. I've seen OFDM clients work fine for 900 mhz at -85, so long as you weren't hoping to get past 1M throughput in a 5mhz wide channel. My first 40 clients were ALL 18 db grids, be they 1 mile or 23 miles. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
I have quite abit of G out there. All the clients and ap's I install today are G. 60's is great, 70's work just fine too. 60's get top performance, 70' is still a great very fast connection and even low 80's beat B. B stands for Bad G stands for Good Marlon K. Schafer wrote: It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas that you need to make it work right. Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas I wanted to get some feedback from the List. Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? Is 18 dbi enough? I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be good for? Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 cards. The beamwidth of 18dbi ( 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for interference resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was needed it could be accommodated with higher power radios such Teletronic's 18dbm Atheros cards or Ubiquiti's SR5 18-26db cards. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
I use pretty much all rootennas these days 5gig, 2 gig, and even 900 now. There is times when I may still need a grid, It just does not happen very often. I've got a bunch of them I just took down and I still would rather spend the money and use a rootenna type antenna. The way I figure it is, why mess with cabling and have that much more loss and that much more to go wrong, if you don't have to. I even use them for sector antennas. Wish Pac had a lower gain, higher beamwidth rootenna for ap use. Tom DeReggi wrote: I wanted to get some feedback from the List. Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? Is 18 dbi enough? I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be good for? Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 cards. The beamwidth of 18dbi ( 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for interference resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was needed it could be accommodated with higher power radios such Teletronic's 18dbm Atheros cards or Ubiquiti's SR5 18-26db cards. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: High-tech to no-tech: San Francisco's troubled network ambitions
Several things jump out at me: The use of the following words: paltry 300 kbps and free. How can anyone argue that a FREE 300 kbps service is paltry and unusable when a large number of people only have access to 22 kbps dialup? that THEY PAY for? The writer needs a dose of reality and real life experience OUTSIDE a major center. Then there is the idea that the city can setup a non profit corp to recover their costs. Yeah, right. I just wish the rest of the country had it so bad, and maybe that is what should be happening. No NEW publicly funded services can be built for large centers until ALL small centers have at least a service that the larger centers already deem as paltry or unusable. Lonnie On 2/4/07, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: fyi - Original Message - To: Marlon Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 11:11 AM Subject: High-tech to no-tech: San Francisco's troubled network ambitions The Register » Comms » Wireless » Original URL: http://www.theregister.com/2007/02/03/sf_city_network/ High-tech to no-tech: San Francisco's troubled network ambitions By Dan Goodin in San Francisco Published Saturday 3rd February 2007 13:02 GMT As doubts grow over the approval of San Francisco's proposed deal to build a citywide wireless network with EarthLink, critics of the effort are putting forth alternatives. Like the current plan, negotiated behind closed doors between Mayor Gavin Newsom and the ISP, none of them are anywhere near perfect. The current plan, which faces an uncertain fate in the Board of Supervisors, would allow EarthLink to own the WiFi network and, though an arrangement with Google, offer a paltry 300 kbps for free and a moderately more tolerable 1Mbps for $22 per month. Critics argue that Net access is as fundamental as water and sewers, and as such should be owned by taxpayers. They also say that the network's underpinnings, built on 802.11b, are obsolete already and will only grow more so over the 10 or more years it would likely be in operation. They're going to have a bit of grief in trying to maintain the network and mitigate interference, says Tim Pozar, principal at network service provider United Layer and a critic of the mayor's plan. A former radio engineer, he says WiFi is no match for San Francisco's hilly terrain, rainy season and the host of radio signals already carried on the 2.4 GHz spectrum. Hey, Pozar Pozar's alternative would push data into homes and businesses at a significantly faster speed, using more than 220 strands of fiber he says the city already has rights to operate. It would deliver speeds of about 10Mbits per second or more to end users and wouldn't be susceptible to radio transmissions and other types of interference. With city-backed networks being built or already running in some 300 US cities, San Francisco already lags behind much of the country in providing its citizens with ubiquitous Internet access. The city's attempt to catch up is being further slowed as complex technical issues get superimposed on a host of political controversies. Chief among the latter is the cost of connecting fiber to the hundreds of thousands of households and businesses. In a state that requires a two-thirds majority to approve new taxes, raising the money to pay for the considerable cost of connecting homes to the fiber backbone could be a monumental task. Pozar estimates his plan would cost $250m, a figure that could run much higher. Whatever the price is, Pozar argues the city could recoup its costs by setting up a nonprofit organization to sell services to businesses. (A city study on the feasibility of a city-owned fiber network estimated its impact could run from a deficit of $1.4m to a profit of $900,000.) Ron Vinson, chief administrative officer for the San Francisco department overseeing the proposed network, says Pozar's plan is unworkable for other reasons. First, he says it's unclear if the city has rights to use the fiber. He also argues it would take years to roll out a fiber network, doing little for people who need Net access now. We're talking about people who are coming online for the first time, he says. Further clouding the debate are people who say the proper approach is for San Francisco to offer a combination of wireless and fiber. Among those are Craig Settles, an Internet consultant and the author of a book about municipal networks. He says fiber is needed to deliver applications that require huge amounts of bandwidth, while wireless would open up new ways for roving government servants and businesspeople to work. According to James Hettrick, CIO of the Southern California city of Loma Linda that has its own municipal fiber network, San Francisco's proposed plan is okay as a start, but he says San Francisco officials are fooling themselves if they think it is anything more than a temporary solution. Ultimately they have
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
Actually G mode works better than that. We have clients with -80 dB and they can pull a steady 10 mbps on a X2 cloaked channel (10 MHz of RF bandwidth). Even at -85 dB they can still pull 5 mbps and burst to 10 mbps. Of course these results are with Atheros cards. I have no idea about other brands of G mode cards. Lonnie On 2/4/07, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas that you need to make it work right. Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas I wanted to get some feedback from the List. Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? Is 18 dbi enough? I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be good for? Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 cards. The beamwidth of 18dbi ( 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for interference resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was needed it could be accommodated with higher power radios such Teletronic's 18dbm Atheros cards or Ubiquiti's SR5 18-26db cards. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
Totally agree. A bad G link will still give as good as a GOOD B link. G will give 5 mbps even when it is close to not connecting and B requires superb signals to get 5 mbps. Lonnie On 2/4/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have quite abit of G out there. All the clients and ap's I install today are G. 60's is great, 70's work just fine too. 60's get top performance, 70' is still a great very fast connection and even low 80's beat B. B stands for Bad G stands for Good Marlon K. Schafer wrote: It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas that you need to make it work right. Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas I wanted to get some feedback from the List. Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? Is 18 dbi enough? I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be good for? Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 cards. The beamwidth of 18dbi ( 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for interference resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was needed it could be accommodated with higher power radios such Teletronic's 18dbm Atheros cards or Ubiquiti's SR5 18-26db cards. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
How are y'all running G in so many places? I would love to implement G, but I have so many towers sectored out and then we have so many clients running wireless routers close to the CPE that I feel like there would be trouble in Paradise here!! Are any of you running G on anything but an Omni antenna? (Multiple antennas on one tower?) Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Totally agree. A bad G link will still give as good as a GOOD B link. G will give 5 mbps even when it is close to not connecting and B requires superb signals to get 5 mbps. Lonnie On 2/4/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have quite abit of G out there. All the clients and ap's I install today are G. 60's is great, 70's work just fine too. 60's get top performance, 70' is still a great very fast connection and even low 80's beat B. B stands for Bad G stands for Good Marlon K. Schafer wrote: It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas that you need to make it work right. Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas I wanted to get some feedback from the List. Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? Is 18 dbi enough? I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be good for? Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 cards. The beamwidth of 18dbi ( 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for interference resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was needed it could be accommodated with higher power radios such Teletronic's 18dbm Atheros cards or Ubiquiti's SR5 18-26db cards. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
But George :-) answer my question: Are you running G mode on towers with multiple broadcasts? Like a tower with 3 120* sectors? Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 1:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Nothing scientific Mac, but I think lots of G ap's work better than lots of B ap's. Seems when I've seen high powered B ap's in the mix there can be issues. Where as when I see only low powered G things still work. The area I cover is fairly small, so i'm getting densly built out with omni's and sectors all over the place. Mac Dearman wrote: How are y'all running G in so many places? I would love to implement G, but I have so many towers sectored out and then we have so many clients running wireless routers close to the CPE that I feel like there would be trouble in Paradise here!! Are any of you running G on anything but an Omni antenna? (Multiple antennas on one tower?) Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Totally agree. A bad G link will still give as good as a GOOD B link. G will give 5 mbps even when it is close to not connecting and B requires superb signals to get 5 mbps. Lonnie On 2/4/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have quite abit of G out there. All the clients and ap's I install today are G. 60's is great, 70's work just fine too. 60's get top performance, 70' is still a great very fast connection and even low 80's beat B. B stands for Bad G stands for Good Marlon K. Schafer wrote: It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas that you need to make it work right. Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas I wanted to get some feedback from the List. Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? Is 18 dbi enough? I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be good for? Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 cards. The beamwidth of 18dbi ( 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for interference resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was needed it could be accommodated with higher power radios such Teletronic's 18dbm Atheros cards or Ubiquiti's SR5 18-26db cards. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] WISPA Trade Shows...
Yup -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Butch Evans Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 1:39 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] WISPA Trade Shows... On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Jeff Broadwick wrote: We do a lot of shows. For this industry, we've found ISPCON and WISPCON to be of the most value. WiNOG was headed that way, but it is now dormant. Last I heard, WISPCon was kinda running out of fuel, too. Is it on it's way back from the dead? I, for one, enjoyed that first couple of shows I attended, but the last couple were really disorganized. You going to be in New Orleans? -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6 Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf Mikrotik Certified Consultant http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
Has anyone found an amp that'll work CORRECTLY with g AND b? marlon - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Nothing scientific Mac, but I think lots of G ap's work better than lots of B ap's. Seems when I've seen high powered B ap's in the mix there can be issues. Where as when I see only low powered G things still work. The area I cover is fairly small, so i'm getting densly built out with omni's and sectors all over the place. Mac Dearman wrote: How are y'all running G in so many places? I would love to implement G, but I have so many towers sectored out and then we have so many clients running wireless routers close to the CPE that I feel like there would be trouble in Paradise here!! Are any of you running G on anything but an Omni antenna? (Multiple antennas on one tower?) Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Totally agree. A bad G link will still give as good as a GOOD B link. G will give 5 mbps even when it is close to not connecting and B requires superb signals to get 5 mbps. Lonnie On 2/4/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have quite abit of G out there. All the clients and ap's I install today are G. 60's is great, 70's work just fine too. 60's get top performance, 70' is still a great very fast connection and even low 80's beat B. B stands for Bad G stands for Good Marlon K. Schafer wrote: It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas that you need to make it work right. Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas I wanted to get some feedback from the List. Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? Is 18 dbi enough? I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be good for? Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 cards. The beamwidth of 18dbi ( 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for interference resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was needed it could be accommodated with higher power radios such Teletronic's 18dbm Atheros cards or Ubiquiti's SR5 18-26db cards. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
Mac Dearman wrote: But George :-) answer my question: Are you running G mode on towers with multiple broadcasts? Like a tower with 3 120* sectors? My Original main tower is 3 sectors of B, too many B clients to swap an AP over and find out at that busy noisy site. Would be the ultimate answer to your question though. I'm slowly moving the clients of to G to do just this. All the other locations are small pops that have either 1 or 2 G ap's and are either fed with A or in some cases G. I have some pops that are cm9 G and 200mw B as ap's and no problem. I do however have many many G omni's that can see/hear each other and work fine. I am not using any cloaking, just straight 20MHz wifi channels. I also understand the concern and opinions of using omni's ;P George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
Amps? The success of G is less noise and less power. IMHO Never looked for a G amp or tried a G high powered card. Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Has anyone found an amp that'll work CORRECTLY with g AND b? marlon - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Nothing scientific Mac, but I think lots of G ap's work better than lots of B ap's. Seems when I've seen high powered B ap's in the mix there can be issues. Where as when I see only low powered G things still work. The area I cover is fairly small, so i'm getting densly built out with omni's and sectors all over the place. Mac Dearman wrote: How are y'all running G in so many places? I would love to implement G, but I have so many towers sectored out and then we have so many clients running wireless routers close to the CPE that I feel like there would be trouble in Paradise here!! Are any of you running G on anything but an Omni antenna? (Multiple antennas on one tower?) Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Totally agree. A bad G link will still give as good as a GOOD B link. G will give 5 mbps even when it is close to not connecting and B requires superb signals to get 5 mbps. Lonnie On 2/4/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have quite abit of G out there. All the clients and ap's I install today are G. 60's is great, 70's work just fine too. 60's get top performance, 70' is still a great very fast connection and even low 80's beat B. B stands for Bad G stands for Good Marlon K. Schafer wrote: It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas that you need to make it work right. Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas I wanted to get some feedback from the List. Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? Is 18 dbi enough? I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be good for? Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 cards. The beamwidth of 18dbi ( 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for interference resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was needed it could be accommodated with higher power radios such Teletronic's 18dbm Atheros cards or Ubiquiti's SR5 18-26db cards. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
We run as many as 4 G mode with 16 dB 60 degree sectors. The AP uses WLM54SuperG Atheros radios with X2 cloaking so this means the 4 channels are not overlapping. We are in a valley and the AP sites are typically on the sides, so that we do not require coverage on the back side. Some of my towers use only 2 radios with 16 dB 60 degree sectors pointed straight down the valley and people from the back side can still get a usable -85 dB. We use the WLM54SuperG radios (from Compex) on the AP and client and we are very happy with the performance. The Client is using a 14 dB Rootenna for the case and antenna in one. Just drop the cat5 with POE to the user provided switch and it is online. For a microcell we use 5 GHz to feed the site with one CM9 radio and we then use a 15 dB omni for 2.4 GHz and we use the other two radios for 900 MHz and another 5 GHz feed to another site. Most of my subscribers can now see at least 3 and as many as 6 of my Access Points. This gives me an incredible ability to switch them if I need. This is Mesh, plain and simple. The ability to have multiple choices is what Mesh is all about. If the backbone is Mesh then all sites will have multiple paths to the Internet and a single failure merely has everyone move to another AP and Mesh Routing takes care of the move. I can pull the power plug on an AP and within 1 minute all users are automatically moved to another AP and are back surfing. I know this goes farther than the B versus G debate that was started, but the key thing in being able to do this is the cloaking with its reduced RF spectrum use. A B mode AP cannot do cloaking, nor can your AP do it if the AP is not an Atheros with a driver that properly supports the ability. B is dead and is holding the Industry back. If you use B mode then you NEED 400 mW radios because of the noise. If you use G mode and X2 cloaking then you need less than 100 mW and you'll have WAY better performance. Just to be sure about this point -- I am speaking from EXPERIENCE. This is not some plan I someday hope to try. It is what we use and is what a lot of others use as well. OFDM was invented as an improvement over previous modulation techniques. Why do people have such a hard time accepting that it actually works better? Is it because you have an investment in B only radios and realize you have to reinvest in G radios? It is sort of like the phone companies hanging onto their copper lines. Wireless started to cream them and now you are seeing that G is creaming B, so that the old established operators are in trouble. Lonnie On 2/4/07, Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How are y'all running G in so many places? I would love to implement G, but I have so many towers sectored out and then we have so many clients running wireless routers close to the CPE that I feel like there would be trouble in Paradise here!! Are any of you running G on anything but an Omni antenna? (Multiple antennas on one tower?) Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Totally agree. A bad G link will still give as good as a GOOD B link. G will give 5 mbps even when it is close to not connecting and B requires superb signals to get 5 mbps. Lonnie On 2/4/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have quite abit of G out there. All the clients and ap's I install today are G. 60's is great, 70's work just fine too. 60's get top performance, 70' is still a great very fast connection and even low 80's beat B. B stands for Bad G stands for Good Marlon K. Schafer wrote: It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas that you need to make it work right. Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas I wanted to get some feedback from the List. Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? Is 18 dbi enough? I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be good for? Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 cards. The beamwidth of 18dbi ( 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for interference resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was needed it could be accommodated with higher power radios such
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
The days of amplifiers are over. We cover more than 70 miles along our Valley. We build microcells for small pockets of users that are too far to reach with normal antennas or have trees or hills, etc. Blasting more power is the way we used to do it, remember? Attitudes have to change and the first one that needs to change is that amps are good. They are evil and cause nothing but grief for yourself and anybody else wanting to use the spectrum. Lonnie On 2/4/07, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone found an amp that'll work CORRECTLY with g AND b? marlon - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Nothing scientific Mac, but I think lots of G ap's work better than lots of B ap's. Seems when I've seen high powered B ap's in the mix there can be issues. Where as when I see only low powered G things still work. The area I cover is fairly small, so i'm getting densly built out with omni's and sectors all over the place. Mac Dearman wrote: How are y'all running G in so many places? I would love to implement G, but I have so many towers sectored out and then we have so many clients running wireless routers close to the CPE that I feel like there would be trouble in Paradise here!! Are any of you running G on anything but an Omni antenna? (Multiple antennas on one tower?) Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Totally agree. A bad G link will still give as good as a GOOD B link. G will give 5 mbps even when it is close to not connecting and B requires superb signals to get 5 mbps. Lonnie On 2/4/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have quite abit of G out there. All the clients and ap's I install today are G. 60's is great, 70's work just fine too. 60's get top performance, 70' is still a great very fast connection and even low 80's beat B. B stands for Bad G stands for Good Marlon K. Schafer wrote: It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas that you need to make it work right. Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas I wanted to get some feedback from the List. Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? Is 18 dbi enough? I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be good for? Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 cards. The beamwidth of 18dbi ( 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for interference resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was needed it could be accommodated with higher power radios such Teletronic's 18dbm Atheros cards or Ubiquiti's SR5 18-26db cards. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
There is nothing wrong with an omni if the users are all around it. You get better signals with a sector but a microcell is the perfect place for an omni. The fact that your current sites can see each other is awesome and you are part way to achieving a Mesh. Lonnie On 2/4/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mac Dearman wrote: But George :-) answer my question: Are you running G mode on towers with multiple broadcasts? Like a tower with 3 120* sectors? My Original main tower is 3 sectors of B, too many B clients to swap an AP over and find out at that busy noisy site. Would be the ultimate answer to your question though. I'm slowly moving the clients of to G to do just this. All the other locations are small pops that have either 1 or 2 G ap's and are either fed with A or in some cases G. I have some pops that are cm9 G and 200mw B as ap's and no problem. I do however have many many G omni's that can see/hear each other and work fine. I am not using any cloaking, just straight 20MHz wifi channels. I also understand the concern and opinions of using omni's ;P George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
Right on with the OFDM, I put a 5.5 mile A shot in the other day, that even with my binoculars, I can not see the water tank popping up above the tree line and I have: x1:xf xxx.94 99 -76 -72 48 48 C ** I would call that shot a Near LOS shot. Reason I don't cloak G is because I want the laptop connectivity option. I for see a day when I may offer a laptop service for a lower price. I've tried it early on, and it worked well. But for what I'm doing I won't cloak G. A is cloakable, but with reduced speed. Right now I want as much speed as possible. Low powered is key here. Every time we hear about or experience issues it's noise related. Why poison the spectrum? Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: We run as many as 4 G mode with 16 dB 60 degree sectors. The AP uses WLM54SuperG Atheros radios with X2 cloaking so this means the 4 channels are not overlapping. We are in a valley and the AP sites are typically on the sides, so that we do not require coverage on the back side. Some of my towers use only 2 radios with 16 dB 60 degree sectors pointed straight down the valley and people from the back side can still get a usable -85 dB. We use the WLM54SuperG radios (from Compex) on the AP and client and we are very happy with the performance. The Client is using a 14 dB Rootenna for the case and antenna in one. Just drop the cat5 with POE to the user provided switch and it is online. For a microcell we use 5 GHz to feed the site with one CM9 radio and we then use a 15 dB omni for 2.4 GHz and we use the other two radios for 900 MHz and another 5 GHz feed to another site. Most of my subscribers can now see at least 3 and as many as 6 of my Access Points. This gives me an incredible ability to switch them if I need. This is Mesh, plain and simple. The ability to have multiple choices is what Mesh is all about. If the backbone is Mesh then all sites will have multiple paths to the Internet and a single failure merely has everyone move to another AP and Mesh Routing takes care of the move. I can pull the power plug on an AP and within 1 minute all users are automatically moved to another AP and are back surfing. I know this goes farther than the B versus G debate that was started, but the key thing in being able to do this is the cloaking with its reduced RF spectrum use. A B mode AP cannot do cloaking, nor can your AP do it if the AP is not an Atheros with a driver that properly supports the ability. B is dead and is holding the Industry back. If you use B mode then you NEED 400 mW radios because of the noise. If you use G mode and X2 cloaking then you need less than 100 mW and you'll have WAY better performance. Just to be sure about this point -- I am speaking from EXPERIENCE. This is not some plan I someday hope to try. It is what we use and is what a lot of others use as well. OFDM was invented as an improvement over previous modulation techniques. Why do people have such a hard time accepting that it actually works better? Is it because you have an investment in B only radios and realize you have to reinvest in G radios? It is sort of like the phone companies hanging onto their copper lines. Wireless started to cream them and now you are seeing that G is creaming B, so that the old established operators are in trouble. Lonnie On 2/4/07, Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How are y'all running G in so many places? I would love to implement G, but I have so many towers sectored out and then we have so many clients running wireless routers close to the CPE that I feel like there would be trouble in Paradise here!! Are any of you running G on anything but an Omni antenna? (Multiple antennas on one tower?) Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Totally agree. A bad G link will still give as good as a GOOD B link. G will give 5 mbps even when it is close to not connecting and B requires superb signals to get 5 mbps. Lonnie On 2/4/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have quite abit of G out there. All the clients and ap's I install today are G. 60's is great, 70's work just fine too. 60's get top performance, 70' is still a great very fast connection and even low 80's beat B. B stands for Bad G stands for Good Marlon K. Schafer wrote: It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas that you need to make it work right. Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas I
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
Mac Dearman wrote: See inline please my noise floor is as I live in Louisiana and my noise floor is just that - -MINE. I created the noise and I live with I have created. That's one of the purposes for the sectors. Maybe part of the difference is the city and the woods. I serve both and understand the complexity. I used to have lots of amps and even still have too many 200mw B cpe's getting the job done. What I've found out and experienced is that when I started removing the high powered stuff, everything worked better. Self interference disappeared. I caused a lot of noise. Only way to get rid of a high powered shot is to build a closer in ap. or use 900, which hasn't been so appealing to me. If this can't be done, high powered B is the answer and stay. Thats why my main site stays the way it is. there's no use swapping to G and having a few 200mw B cards yelling at it, it won't work well. I think it's an evolving process, myself. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Speed test site
Anyone seen this speed test? http://www.numion.com/YourSpeed3/Run.php?QuickStart=SelectDefaults -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
Mac, You said: -- **This sounds like the answer I was looking for, but you failed horribly in announcing that all the CPE would have to be StarOS as well. Why don't you make something that will work with what we already have so many of? I am not now nor will I ever be an ISP that is totally dependant on one mans gear or software. All my eggs are never in one basket :-) --- Lonnie, described a configuration, which can be achieved by using a number of devices, and not necessarily tied with StarOS. Yes, all of this functionality is very conveniently built into StarOS, and may offer the highest leverage of the monies spent. But what I am curious about is why would you say that using StarOS would be totally dependent on one man's gear. Using Motorola Canopy, Trango, Alvarion, would be using one company's gear that does not interoperate. Using StarOS on a Wrap/Soekris/PC board with Atheros/Ubiquity Wireless modems is more like building your own PC hardware and putting on whatever operating system one wants. 802.11 a/b/g are standards developed to have different vendor's gear interoperate with each other, and yes, each vendor is free to use/create additional enhancements which may not be compatible with other vendors, but this is nothing different from all the existing practice. Moto claims, P7,P8,P9 hardware from the same product line may not interoperate unless you use a particular firmware or change hardware.. ( I am not speaking specifics, more a of general statement) Trango, has gone thru the cycle where the original 5380AP's would need to be replaced so as to upgrade... Heck even in the routing world, there are feature on a Cisco Router, which does not work with any other router or might not even work with some of their own product. StarOS is more of a 'Router' operating system like CISCO IOS or Juniper OS, which just happens to be highly tuned for wireless networks , and less of a 'Wireless Radio' (e.g like Moto Canopy, Trango, Alvarion etc). I would have thought that if not being tied to any one mans' gear was important, ( my personal thoughts are that this is a Utopian Goal, heavily promoted by folks who sell product branding), you would be much more open to embracing something like StarOS (which is built on Linux, open source !) and offer the greatest amount of flexibility than otherwise. My personal experience is that this is more like the Windows vs Linux/*Nix debate. It really does not matter what one says and how one justifies it, at the end of the day it is all about How Comfortable does one feel? with one product vs the other. Respectfully, Faisal Imtiaz SnappyDSL.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 3:31 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas See inline please Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 1:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas We run as many as 4 G mode with 16 dB 60 degree sectors. The AP uses WLM54SuperG Atheros radios with X2 cloaking so this means the 4 channels are not overlapping. We are in a valley and the AP sites are typically on the sides, so that we do not require coverage on the back side. Some of my towers use only 2 radios with 16 dB 60 degree sectors pointed straight down the valley and people from the back side can still get a usable -85 dB. We use the WLM54SuperG radios (from Compex) on the AP and client and we are very happy with the performance. The Client is using a 14 dB Rootenna for the case and antenna in one. Just drop the cat5 with POE to the user provided switch and it is online. **This sounds like the answer I was looking for, but you failed horribly in announcing that all the CPE would have to be StarOS as well. Why don't you make something that will work with what we already have so many of? I am not now nor will I ever be an ISP that is totally dependant on one mans gear or software. All my eggs are never in one basket :-) big snip B is dead and is holding the Industry back. If you use B mode then you NEED 400 mW radios because of the noise. **Now you are talking outside your arena and insulting the majority on this list. You don't know what my noise floor is as I live in Louisiana and my noise floor is just that - -MINE. I created the noise and I live with I have created. That's one of the purposes for the sectors. Furthermore - B is not dead. I might as well say unless you live a new house and drive a new car, own a crew cab truck with a big diesel engine in it then you aren't a successful in life. Do you have a new home, car and a big truck Lonnie? You need to learn to NOT be so radical with what you say as well as take into account that not
[WISPA] Powerconsumption
I am trying to wrap my head around calculation power consumption and run time calculations. I used a Kill-A-Watt, plugged in a WRAP board w/ one each CM-9 and WLM54g. The CM-9 is the backhaul and WLM54G is the AP with two clients connected. The following data was collected. 330 Hours 1.85 KWH .07 A 05 WATT 07 VA I could use some help deciphering. I need to understand battery capacities and how to calculate run times based on the above info and a given battery size. Also charging with solar, how to calculate charging capacity needed. Mark -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
Mac, nothing I said should have been even remotely insulting. I have read you trading insults with people and my post was quite tame in comparison. Your response was actually quite insulting and shows you can dish it out. Methinks you do this to get your way. I did not say anything about X2 cloaking requiring any particular brand of software and I will not even mention what we use. There are lots of systems that now support 5 10 MHz RF bandwidths. If you put your head back in the sand I hope you know what is exposed. The phone company ignored technology for years too, and then new guys who embraced technology jumped in and showed them up. At one time you embraced new technology, now you just want to sit back and make money from the investment you have already made. We develop new techniques to solve old problems using technology. Nobody says you have to use it. You maybe should but hey, that is up to you. Lonnie Lonnie On 2/4/07, Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See inline please Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 1:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas We run as many as 4 G mode with 16 dB 60 degree sectors. The AP uses WLM54SuperG Atheros radios with X2 cloaking so this means the 4 channels are not overlapping. We are in a valley and the AP sites are typically on the sides, so that we do not require coverage on the back side. Some of my towers use only 2 radios with 16 dB 60 degree sectors pointed straight down the valley and people from the back side can still get a usable -85 dB. We use the WLM54SuperG radios (from Compex) on the AP and client and we are very happy with the performance. The Client is using a 14 dB Rootenna for the case and antenna in one. Just drop the cat5 with POE to the user provided switch and it is online. **This sounds like the answer I was looking for, but you failed horribly in announcing that all the CPE would have to be StarOS as well. Why don't you make something that will work with what we already have so many of? I am not now nor will I ever be an ISP that is totally dependant on one mans gear or software. All my eggs are never in one basket :-) big snip B is dead and is holding the Industry back. If you use B mode then you NEED 400 mW radios because of the noise. **Now you are talking outside your arena and insulting the majority on this list. You don't know what my noise floor is as I live in Louisiana and my noise floor is just that - -MINE. I created the noise and I live with I have created. That's one of the purposes for the sectors. Furthermore - B is not dead. I might as well say unless you live a new house and drive a new car, own a crew cab truck with a big diesel engine in it then you aren't a successful in life. Do you have a new home, car and a big truck Lonnie? You need to learn to NOT be so radical with what you say as well as take into account that not everyone owns a software company and runs 100% Mikrotik or StarOS which is what it would take to cut the spectrum up in chunks as you are doing. I can bet I would never hear Tully make the comment that B is dead!! That really Galls my Grapes and scorches my Tater patch! If B were dead - - I guess I would be buried. You know what they say - - opinions are like # holes - - some of us just don't mind exposing ourselves in public places. If you use G mode and X2 cloaking then you need less than 100 mW and you'll have WAY better performance. Just to be sure about this point -- I am speaking from EXPERIENCE. This is not some plan I someday hope to try. It is what we use and is what a lot of others use as well. **I know a bunch of folks on this list PERSONALLY and don't know of even 1 that is all G unless they have only a couple APs out. As far as the old hands at wireless - - we are using a menagerie of different gear as so many vendors and software writers stuff was not suitable or they had more bugs than good drivers. We still have to tolerate different screw ups from you software writers from time to time. OFDM was invented as an improvement over previous modulation techniques. Why do people have such a hard time accepting that it actually works better? Is it because you have an investment in B only radios and realize you have to reinvest in G radios? **I have about 70 MikroTik (as well as Proxim, Trango, and others) APs/routers in the air today. I have G capable radios in every AP and is the reason for my asking my original non insulting question. I hate I feel like a June bug and you are the Duck! You really crack me up Lonnie - - Get off that box! It is sort of like the phone companies hanging onto their copper lines. Wireless started to cream them and now you are seeing that G is creaming B, so that the old established operators are in trouble.
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:59:18 -0800, Lonnie Nunweiler wrote I know this goes farther than the B versus G debate that was started, but the key thing in being able to do this is the cloaking with its reduced RF spectrum use. A B mode AP cannot do cloaking, nor can your AP do it if the AP is not an Atheros with a driver that properly supports the ability. It must be, because running your gear, I cannot get G mode to work acceptably AT ALL. In my area, every channel has SOME noise on it. Even with signal levels in the low '60's, I could never achieve better than 350 to 400 KB / sec throughput for a DEPLOYED AP and client, and B mode could hit 1400 KB/sec using compressible data, about 650-700 wihtout compression. Narrowing channels appears to kill the G characteristic of waiting for completely clear air before it will transmit. Without cloaking, a nearly idle access point in G mode with a G client, will have varying 1 to 400 ms pings as it waits for clear air to transmit in. Switching to B mode gives you rock solid 1 to 7 ms pings on an active AP with a number of clients. B is dead and is holding the Industry back. If you use B mode then you NEED 400 mW radios because of the noise. Nonsense. My highest power radios are CM9's and I have have few to no noise issues in B mode. B has limited throughput and yet it has it's uses. It is certainly NOT holding industry back. I believe that investing in B only technology is dumb, though. I thought it was dumb when I started a little less than 3 years ago, which is why I tried not to. I've found that 11a is actually a bit more friendly, in that it's easier to target your ap's and clients, and exclude noise sources outside the pattern. If you use G mode and X2 cloaking then you need less than 100 mW and you'll have WAY better performance. Just to be sure about this point -- I am speaking from EXPERIENCE. This is not some plan I someday hope to try. It is what we use and is what a lot of others use as well. Sub 100 MW works awesome in B mode, too, so long as the writers of the drivers dont' disable the awesome enhanced features available in Atheros based radios. ( HINT HINT ) OFDM was invented as an improvement over previous modulation techniques. Why do people have such a hard time accepting that it actually works better? Is it because you have an investment in B only radios and realize you have to reinvest in G radios? It is sort of like the phone companies hanging onto their copper lines. Wireless started to cream them and now you are seeing that G is creaming B, so that the old established operators are in trouble. That's a lotta hype. I put YOUR gear in place, as per YOUR instructions, and YOUR predictions don't work out that way. I've found that there's caveats to all this. OFDM makes great RF links, but it takes a little bit more signal to maintain low retransmissions or errors. On the other hand, OFDM is dramatically better when it comes to surviving multipath issues and fresnel encroachment. G mode is simply not workable in a busy environment, unless you can force the radio to abandon listening to non ofdm noise, or narrow your channels enough to get away from it. By design, standard 11g can have it's performance killed by even a single B client attempting to associate to the AP. Not explaining this to people wanting to implement is irresponsible, in my view. Lonnie -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
with sites that have 10 users in a 15 mile RADIUS, you have to have an amp marlon - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Amps? The success of G is less noise and less power. IMHO Never looked for a G amp or tried a G high powered card. Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Has anyone found an amp that'll work CORRECTLY with g AND b? marlon - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Nothing scientific Mac, but I think lots of G ap's work better than lots of B ap's. Seems when I've seen high powered B ap's in the mix there can be issues. Where as when I see only low powered G things still work. The area I cover is fairly small, so i'm getting densly built out with omni's and sectors all over the place. Mac Dearman wrote: How are y'all running G in so many places? I would love to implement G, but I have so many towers sectored out and then we have so many clients running wireless routers close to the CPE that I feel like there would be trouble in Paradise here!! Are any of you running G on anything but an Omni antenna? (Multiple antennas on one tower?) Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Totally agree. A bad G link will still give as good as a GOOD B link. G will give 5 mbps even when it is close to not connecting and B requires superb signals to get 5 mbps. Lonnie On 2/4/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have quite abit of G out there. All the clients and ap's I install today are G. 60's is great, 70's work just fine too. 60's get top performance, 70' is still a great very fast connection and even low 80's beat B. B stands for Bad G stands for Good Marlon K. Schafer wrote: It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas that you need to make it work right. Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas I wanted to get some feedback from the List. Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? Is 18 dbi enough? I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be good for? Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 cards. The beamwidth of 18dbi ( 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for interference resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was needed it could be accommodated with higher power radios such Teletronic's 18dbm Atheros cards or Ubiquiti's SR5 18-26db cards. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
I'm not so sure about that Marlon. I put in a 10 mile link the other day just using a pair of cm9's and rootennas. xxx x6:0e x5.688 -74 -66 48 54 C Of course this was A. I try to keep the long shots 5 gig and the short ones 2 gig. The way I figure it, there's a lot of 2 gig out there in all shapes and flavors and when you go 10 - 15 miles it's inevidable that there will be some interference. If we are talking the middle of nowhere, you can easily do 15 miles with cm9 G, no amps. Mark has issues with G because he is using mostly V2 G, I believe. V2 G is a diferent animal, a diferent driver than V3. V3 is the best to date. Marlon K. Schafer wrote: with sites that have 10 users in a 15 mile RADIUS, you have to have an amp marlon - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Amps? The success of G is less noise and less power. IMHO Never looked for a G amp or tried a G high powered card. Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Has anyone found an amp that'll work CORRECTLY with g AND b? marlon - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Nothing scientific Mac, but I think lots of G ap's work better than lots of B ap's. Seems when I've seen high powered B ap's in the mix there can be issues. Where as when I see only low powered G things still work. The area I cover is fairly small, so i'm getting densly built out with omni's and sectors all over the place. Mac Dearman wrote: How are y'all running G in so many places? I would love to implement G, but I have so many towers sectored out and then we have so many clients running wireless routers close to the CPE that I feel like there would be trouble in Paradise here!! Are any of you running G on anything but an Omni antenna? (Multiple antennas on one tower?) Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Totally agree. A bad G link will still give as good as a GOOD B link. G will give 5 mbps even when it is close to not connecting and B requires superb signals to get 5 mbps. Lonnie On 2/4/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have quite abit of G out there. All the clients and ap's I install today are G. 60's is great, 70's work just fine too. 60's get top performance, 70' is still a great very fast connection and even low 80's beat B. B stands for Bad G stands for Good Marlon K. Schafer wrote: It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas that you need to make it work right. Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas I wanted to get some feedback from the List. Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? Is 18 dbi enough? I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be good for? Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 cards. The beamwidth of 18dbi ( 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for interference resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was needed it could be accommodated with higher power radios such Teletronic's 18dbm Atheros cards or Ubiquiti's SR5 18-26db cards. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
I believe I said we use reduced X2 cloaking for reduced RF spectrum usage, which you do not use because you have older gear or software that does not support it. You even agreed that reduced bandwidth works but that you chose not to use it. G mode does not have to play nice with B gear and that is why the newer drivers have selections for b only, b/g mixed or g only, so you cannot kill a G system with a single B client. If you simply replace that B client with a modern system you'll not have the troubles you do now. In my role of supporting people, I spend the bulk of my time dealing with people trying to make older B only systems work. They have reached the end of life simply due to the amount of B mode use out there. X2 cloaking extends the life of 2.4 GHz and in many cases is simply a software upgrade to get that new capability. It could also require an Atheros card to replace a prism or Orinoco and in more than a few cases it will require outright replacement of the entire system. You can't make a half hearted attempt at doing this. It is all or nothing. Try G mode with X2 cloaking and move over more and more big users to it. They will be happy and you will spend less time doing tech support. Even in a quiet environment X2 cloaking is still the way to go. Having double the number of non overlapping channels means much more spectrum to play with. X2 cloaking gives slightly higher power output, better receive sensitivity and higher digital processing conversion gain due to the reduced number OFDM RF carriers. It is superior. Simple. I do understand why people don't want to hear that. They have been operating on the basis that they were doing the right thing and they were making money, so they had it right. In reality they have been duped by the manufacturers who could not figure out how to do it right, or who made more money flogging last gen technology. So don't get mad at me, get mad at the guys who sold you your current B only client gear. They are the ones who mislead you. I'm just the messenger and the guy with a better system. You want what I have but you are angry that your current gear does not do it. I am on one location that has 7 other Access Points all beaming to the same town site. Nothing works if we use standard 20 MHz channels. X2 cloaking works on pretty much any channel I wish to use and I use 4 of those, so the total is 11 radios in 2.4 GHz from that site and all going to the same general location. My stuff works and I think their stuff works because we are just noise to them, and the whole concept of spread spectrum is not being bothered by noise. This is why I said B is dead and G is the new thing, simply because of the cloaking ability. If more people switched to cloaking then even the standard stuff would be better. This is sort of like the way 900 MHz is rebounding because nobody is using it anymore, plus the new radios and drivers can have 4 channels of 5 MHz RF spectrum. That 5 MHz can deliver a solid 6.5 mbps and up to 12 mbps with compression kicking in. Lonnie On 2/4/07, wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:59:18 -0800, Lonnie Nunweiler wrote I know this goes farther than the B versus G debate that was started, but the key thing in being able to do this is the cloaking with its reduced RF spectrum use. A B mode AP cannot do cloaking, nor can your AP do it if the AP is not an Atheros with a driver that properly supports the ability. It must be, because running your gear, I cannot get G mode to work acceptably AT ALL. In my area, every channel has SOME noise on it. Even with signal levels in the low '60's, I could never achieve better than 350 to 400 KB / sec throughput for a DEPLOYED AP and client, and B mode could hit 1400 KB/sec using compressible data, about 650-700 wihtout compression. Narrowing channels appears to kill the G characteristic of waiting for completely clear air before it will transmit. Without cloaking, a nearly idle access point in G mode with a G client, will have varying 1 to 400 ms pings as it waits for clear air to transmit in. Switching to B mode gives you rock solid 1 to 7 ms pings on an active AP with a number of clients. B is dead and is holding the Industry back. If you use B mode then you NEED 400 mW radios because of the noise. Nonsense. My highest power radios are CM9's and I have have few to no noise issues in B mode. B has limited throughput and yet it has it's uses. It is certainly NOT holding industry back. I believe that investing in B only technology is dumb, though. I thought it was dumb when I started a little less than 3 years ago, which is why I tried not to. I've found that 11a is actually a bit more friendly, in that it's easier to target your ap's and clients, and exclude noise sources outside the pattern. If you use G mode and X2 cloaking then you need less than 100 mW and you'll have WAY better performance. Just to be sure about this point -- I am
[WISPA] 802.11a power limits
Anyone know the FCC power limits for point to multipoint 5.8Ghz communications? Thanks -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
No you don't. wpci1: atheros100 -73dbm -96dbm 23 2442 sta,U1,x200:80:48:39:8e:42 war-platform ~ starutil 10.10.251.1 password -rx rx rate: 1220 KB/sec (Press Ctrl-C to exit) war-platform ~ war-platform ~ traceroute -n 10.10.251.1 traceroute to 10.10.251.1 (10.10.251.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 10.10.67.1 5.532 ms 10.319 ms 4.523 ms 2 10.10.12.5 6.805 ms 11.779 ms 4.623 ms 3 10.10.227.1 5.018 ms 6.86 ms 5.174 ms 4 10.10.226.254 5.307 ms 7.747 ms 5.948 ms 5 10.10.251.1 8.279 ms 12.21 ms 5.814 ms This is the client at 13 miles in X2 cloaking. The AP is a 16 dB 60 degree sector and the client is a 24 dB grid. If this were an AP in the middle I could just as easily use a 15 dB omni and achieve almost identical results. Both units have a Compex WLM-54SuperG radio. No high power, no amplifiers. I don't need it and neither do you. An amplifier adds noise and worse, it increases the time to transition from tx to rx, which requires that you use long preamble which slows performance down. The worst thing it adds is signal, which you do not need and which messes up areas outside your coverage. You have been using amps for so long you just believe you always have to use them. A lot of companies have made a lot of money selling unnecessary amplifiers and they prey on the guys who do not know any better. That is fine normally and you would just laugh at the guy for not knowing better, but when that guy is in the same area as you are trying to serve, then it is not funny. Lonnie On 2/4/07, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: with sites that have 10 users in a 15 mile RADIUS, you have to have an amp marlon - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Amps? The success of G is less noise and less power. IMHO Never looked for a G amp or tried a G high powered card. Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Has anyone found an amp that'll work CORRECTLY with g AND b? marlon - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Nothing scientific Mac, but I think lots of G ap's work better than lots of B ap's. Seems when I've seen high powered B ap's in the mix there can be issues. Where as when I see only low powered G things still work. The area I cover is fairly small, so i'm getting densly built out with omni's and sectors all over the place. Mac Dearman wrote: How are y'all running G in so many places? I would love to implement G, but I have so many towers sectored out and then we have so many clients running wireless routers close to the CPE that I feel like there would be trouble in Paradise here!! Are any of you running G on anything but an Omni antenna? (Multiple antennas on one tower?) Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Totally agree. A bad G link will still give as good as a GOOD B link. G will give 5 mbps even when it is close to not connecting and B requires superb signals to get 5 mbps. Lonnie On 2/4/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have quite abit of G out there. All the clients and ap's I install today are G. 60's is great, 70's work just fine too. 60's get top performance, 70' is still a great very fast connection and even low 80's beat B. B stands for Bad G stands for Good Marlon K. Schafer wrote: It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas that you need to make it work right. Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas I wanted to get some feedback from the List. Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? Is 18 dbi enough? I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be good for? Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 cards. The beamwidth of 18dbi ( 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for interference resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was needed it could be accommodated with higher power radios
