TV Whitespace . have not deployed, but a company we partner with has had
good results. Still a wild west beta technology and on the pricey side, but
AFAIK it's the only thing that will penetrate in a heavily wooded
environment.
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their
other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is
better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of
these technologies have very low bandwidth.
On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien
How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system
was junk had a poor RF environment.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net
To: WISPA General List
Ubnt 900 apparently has extremely poor nlos for 900 MHz. I've heard
this a handful of people but haven't tried it myself.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net
Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me, there just
isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76 and wondering why it
doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try again. The Canopy will work a
little better because it requires less signal, but it also
Well the one I remember is Canopy and Ubnt on the same tower, both
900. The Canopy would rx more than enough to work while Ubnt wouldn't
hear the AP at all. Moving around the trees (similar distance from
the tower) the signal would appear strong.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct:
On 8/22/2013 10:14 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me,
there just isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76
and wondering why it doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try
again. The Canopy will work a little better
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's not even an April fools joke.
http://www.google.com/loon/
Maybe if you can get hold of a human at Google you could interest them in
running a trial with you...
Coenraad Loubser
WISH Networks (Pty) Ltd.
2nd Floor, Merriman Place, Cnr. Merriman Bird Str,
Apples and oranges, Josh. Max modulation on the Canopy requires 10 dB of SNR
for 4 megabit of throughput. UBNT requires something like 30 dB of SNR (about
the same as Canopy 450) for 150 megabit (well, on a 40 MHz channel, which you
obviously can't do in 900). Scale that channel size down to
Funny (or not depending upon your point of view ) thing is that the best
results for throughput/penetration with 900Mhz was with the original
SR9's from UBNT. Better throughput by 2-3x than XR9 but less
interference resistance but being able to run smaller channels with the
same throughput made
Just needs bigger antenna, Fred. However, I'll be damned if I can find antenna
with what I'd consider appropriate gain. I deploy 5 Ghz systems with 18 - 20 dB
at the AP and 25 dB at the CPE. UBNT 900 has an AP of 13 and a CPE of 11.
That's 15+ dB of less margin than I'd deploy elsewhere. How
What are you using for a 25dbi cpe antenna?
ARC's panels are 23dbi. A two foot dish is 29dbi.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote:
Just needs bigger
NanoBridge.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:57:49 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for
I've heard that it's difficult to impossible to get more than one
Ubiquiti 900 ap on tower regardless of channel separation. Have others
found this to be true?
Robert wrote:
Funny (or not depending upon your point of view ) thing is that the best
results for throughput/penetration with 900Mhz
It's probably nothing that can't be explained by too much noise, not enough
signal. They probably need increased isolation from RF Armor or something
similar. They do have the disadvantage of not having GPS sync.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Ubnt 900 is a joke
On Aug 22, 2013 7:43 AM, Coenraad Loubser coenr...@wish.org.za wrote:
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's not even an April fools joke.
http://www.google.com/loon/
Maybe if you can get hold of a human at Google you could interest them in
running a trial with you...
I have 1 Tower with UBNT 900Mhz and 1 tower with MT and XR9 cards. Both have
~25 clients. The MT tower Has more trees and a Single V-Pol Omni. The UBNT has
a the UBNT 120* sector so it is limited to the direction it is pointed. I get
the same throughput on both. I can give Clients a 5MB
Please provide something useful to the conversation.
What was the environment you were using it in? What antennas were you using?
What radios were you using? What distances were you going? What were the signal
levels, noise levels, channel sizes, desired throughput, achieved throughput,
etc.?
We have 3 towers with ubnt 900, doing ok offering up to 3meg plans, jitter
is pretty poor though. Interference has been an occasional issue. We do get
what I consider good foliage penetration up to 1-2 miles with the dual pol
yagi as cpe. Better penetration than wimax 3.65.
The wimax we can do
My intentions are to balance 10 MHz channels if I can with in opposing
directions with 90* antenna. 3.65 90* antenna would fill in the other two
directions.
I was excited to see RunCom come out with a 4x4 or 6x6 MIMO (whatever it was).
I'm sure it's expensive. Sure it's not worth it for me,
If anyone has asked Exalt for a quote, can you share what price they are
offering?
Original Message
Subject: [WISPA Approved Ad] Announcing the Exalt ExtremeAir Promotion
Exclusively for US and Canada WISPs
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:00:56 -0700
From: Joe Schraml
With Cambium, we have connections that are stable at -82 dB.
We have a backup backhaul for a tower that is about 5 miles. One ridge
in between towers must have trees that interfere with freznel zone.
Towers are 200'. Originally had a Cambium 900 with 6 foot single
polarity yagis. It worked
How would it be impossible?
These calcs aren't going to be able to factor in the foliage loss because of
how variable it is. We'll just use 5 miles of free space as the loss.
Rocket + UBNT sector as the AP and a NanoBridge as the CPE.
AP - CPE = -63
CPE - AP = -61
Now if we had antenna
I often use a pair of 17db yagi, 1 V and one H with a rocket to
maximize gain for a CPE.
For a PtP link we once stacked 17db yagis to get 20db at each end (H
and V)
Haven't yet found a good AP answer yet.
--
On 8/22/2013 2:32 PM, Mike Hammett
I don't have anything to compare it to other than Tranzeo 900, but I
have had decent results with it. It obviously won't push the throughput
that 5G or even 2.4G will, even with the same channel sizes, but UBNT
salvaged most of my 900 customers when the Tranzeo gear started running
into
900 will move the same amount as data as 2.4, 3.65 and 5 GHz with all else
being the same.
If your throughput is low, you have too little signal for the noise you're
seeing.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From:
I concur. I went from Noise floor of -80 and signal of -102 on Tranzeo
to -60/-109 with the UBNT gear.
ryan
On 8/22/13 12:13 PM, Sam Tetherow wrote:
I don't have anything to compare it to other than Tranzeo 900, but I
have had decent results with it. It obviously won't push the
throughput
But Mike that is the Rub. All things are never the same. 900 is dirty and
Susceptible to so much noise and reflection because the signal does not die as
quick. I understand the “Theory” but still have a hard time understanding how
a slower carrier wave (900MHz) can carry the same Data as
The frequency that it operates has no impact on the throughput or the latency.
Sure there's more noise in our 900 MHz band, but that's because of other users,
not something native to that frequency.
The bulk of the 900 MHz gear that we have just doesn't have sufficient gain,
small enough
On 8/22/2013 4:09 PM, Steve Barnes wrote:
But Mike that is the Rub. All things are never the same. 900 is dirty
and Susceptible to so much noise and reflection because the signal
does not die as quick. I understand the Theory but still have a
hard time understanding how a slower carrier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon–Hartley_theorem
Its all in the math.
On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Steve Barnes wrote:
But Mike that is the Rub. All things are never the same. 900 is dirty and
Susceptible to so much noise and reflection because the signal does not die
as quick. I
It is not the gear that is the issue. It is the regulations, unless your
name is Progeny. The max TPO is 30 dBm and EIRP is 36. So, at 17 dBi
antenna means you /should /only be running about 20 dBm out of your
transceiver.
The frequency regulations have a significant impact on throughput in
That's not the way I understand digital radio transmissions. They can
all get the same number of bit transitions per cycle. That being the
case, you will get 2.67x more maximum on a 2.4G link than a 900M link
and about 6.4x more on a 5.8G than 900M.
Try them in a clean environment, like
Well, guess that negates my most recent post.
On 8/22/2013 4:27 PM, Dan Petermann wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon–Hartley_theorem
Its all in the math.
On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Steve Barnes wrote:
But Mike that is the Rub. All things are never the same. 900 is
dirty and
The calculations I posted earlier took a 36 dB EIRP into account.
Yes, obviously you can't directly compare a 40 MHz channel and a 20 MHz
comparison is close to meaningless. A 10 MHz channel would be the most useful
test. However, I do not yet know of any source for dual polarity 900 MHz 90*
Guys, Be extra careful up there.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323980604579027133430671484.html?mod=ITP_marketplace_0
Scott
sc...@e-zy.net___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
36 matches
Mail list logo
