Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-06 Thread Randy Cosby
I was mistaken, the R52N was tested with a Metalink Mtw_RGPlus_5.0VB_001 
AP (whatever that is).

https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=1109553native_or_pdf=pdf

I know I saw one recently that was tested against a cisco.   In any 
case, it was tested as a client, and not as an AP.

Randy


John Thomas wrote:
 Cisco's 1242's are certified for 5.4-5.7 GHz. Could you use Cisco APs' 
 and Mikrotik clients?

 John


 Randy Cosby wrote:
   
 I know the mikrotik R52N card is.. I was so excited...

 Until I read closer.  It's certified as a client device, but not as an 
 AP.  The AP has to do all the heavy DFS/TPC lifting :(

 Randy


 jp wrote:
   
 
 I'll send one lucky winner $30 paypal if they can show me within a week 
 the M series is 5.4 certified via an FCC document.

 On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 09:18:30PM -0400, Gino Villarini wrote:
   
 
   
 Where?

 This is the FCC cert for the M5 Rocket

 http://tinyurl.com/yaolxlj

 its only certified for 5.8 ghz AND get this, for PTMP its only certified
 with 6db omnis . so how come they are selling sectors for them .

 Show me where its certified for 5.4, ill send you a $100 paypal

 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Mike Hammett
 Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:42 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

 Actually, their new M series has 5.4 GHz certification.


 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com



 --
 From: jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com
 Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 2:42 PM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

 
   
 
 On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:08:02PM -0400, David Hulsebus wrote:
   
 
   
 I have used 411 AP's with XR5 cards and NS5L's with good success in
 small subdivision projects. 1/2 to 1 mile using 5M channels running
 
   
 
 G,
 
   
 
 mostly horizontal. We lock the rates lower than 54 if we see any CCQ
 numbers consistently below 66%. We've had our best success at 36MB.
 Lowering not raising the power in most cases improves our CCQ. But
 again, we're mostly within a half mile. We don't have a sector
 
   
 
 broader
 
   
 
 than 90 deg, run mostly 5.4 on the AP and 5.7 on our backhauls. One
 
   
 
 site
 
   
 
 Dave Hulsebus
 
   
 
 I'm curious what you use that is cheap and legal for 5.4 APs? I know
 that nothing UBNT makes is legal for 5.4 use in the US. Not being a
 frequency nazi, just looking for something legal for me to use.

 -- 
 /*
 Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
 http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/
 */



   
 
   
 
 
 
   
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

   
 
   
 
 
 
   
 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

   
 
   
 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 
  
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
  
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
  
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-05 Thread Marlon K. Schafer
There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have enough.

Sigh.  THIS attitude is why there is so much noise in many areas!

Use the power you need, not what's available.  No one drives with thier foot 
well and truly glued to the floor all of the time!  If you did, you'll 
crash, sooner or later.

Too much power is often as big, sometimes more of one, than outside 
interference.  You'll create your own interference this way.
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Lawrence E. Bakst m...@iridescent.org
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)


I think you guys know most of this already, but here is my take FWIW.

 I'm not a WISP, but I spent 5 years leading the design and development of 
 an 802.11[agb] security system. We did our own polling solution based on 
 802.11e HCCA to solve the RTS/hidden node problem.

 All things being equal (which they often aren't) 802.11b will give you a 
 higher S/N and C/I than 802.11g, because in almost all cases and 
 especially at higher speeds. 802.11g has to lower the PA power because of 
 the PAPR of OFDM and meeting the 802.11g EVM spec.

 It is true that 2.4 GHz can be very polluted. We found the noise floor to 
 be really awful. You would be surprised by the number of entities that 
 know they are way over the FCC max power in 2.4 GHz, but I digress. We 
 once measured over 300 PHY errors a second on an unused 2.4 GHz channel. 
 The number went down to 150 PHY errors a second inside an FCC chamber, if 
 you can believe that.

 Having said all that we didn't use 802.11b at all because it's data rates 
 are too low for video.

 Also while we supported 2.4 GHz, we mostly deployed at 5.8 GHz ISM because 
 of the increased power available there and the pollution was much less, 
 but that maybe different now.

 For 802.11[ag] mutlipoint, the sweet spot speed wise is 18-36 Mbps. It's 
 very hard to keep a multipoint system at 48 or 54 Mbps because you need a 
 great deal of link margin and with all cards you loose power as the speed 
 increases to maintain PAPR/EVM. For point to point with direction antenna 
 relief you can often maintain 48 or 54.

 Antennae make a big difference, as others have noted horizontal 
 polarization is usually best and make the beam as narrow as you can afford 
 because it raises the effective gain. However, if you are in an area where 
 everyone else is horizontal it can make sense to try vertical. With some 
 of the antennae we used that was as simple as rotating the antenna 90 deg 
 at both ends.

 Watch out for crappy antennae, cheap cable, bad connectors, and so on. 
 That can often cost you a few dB. In the product I designed I spent more 
 time then I care to admit trying to make a very tough loss budget that I 
 set out as a goal.

 There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have enough.

 I can confirm that our sweeps with a spectrum analyzer show lots of 
 opportunity to use 5 and 10 MHz channels, as others have also noted. For 
 WISPs it would be nice if chip vendors designed the radios so that you 
 could set the channel bandwidth from 5-40 MHz in 1 MHz increments. It can 
 be done but probably won't be, although maybe the Microsoft WhiteFI stuff 
 force the chip vendors to do it. In WiMax and LTE they are already doing 
 some things close to this. Still 5, 10, and 20 isn't bad and probably hits 
 the sweet spot or 80/20 rule.

 One of the down sides of fitting a 5 or 10 MHz channel in a sweet spot is 
 that it can change at any time.

 Best,

 leb

 At 9:58 AM -0500 10/1/09, Jason Hensley wrote:
In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or 
G?
Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a mix?

Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the 
extra
speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more stable?
I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided less
bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.  What's the
real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined 
with
a higher useage AP?

I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while.  We've started
having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k and
fluctuate constantly.  We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and
nothing seems to have improved the stability.  For testing purposes we put
up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble with.  Switched 
two
of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they seem to 
be
doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be.  This is on
Deliberant AP's (Duos).  The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we can
pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP.  We have
other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one so 
we
know it's not limitations of the equipment

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-05 Thread Jayson Baker
Agreed.  We turn down power levels on a lot of things--for that reason.

i.e. we have a handful of customers that could spit and hit our tower.
Their OP is down as low as it'll go (5dB), because if higher, not only does
it overpower the receiver (-30dBm signal), but it will cause issues for all
other clients on that sector.

We've found that -70 is good, -60 is pushing it, and -50 is too hot.  IN
MOST CASES -- see I said IN MOST CASES -- you don't need to flame me up and
down, saying why I'm wrong, it'll never work, we have no idea what we're
doing.  It works for us.

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.comwrote:

 There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have enough.

 Sigh.  THIS attitude is why there is so much noise in many areas!

 Use the power you need, not what's available.  No one drives with thier
 foot
 well and truly glued to the floor all of the time!  If you did, you'll
 crash, sooner or later.

 Too much power is often as big, sometimes more of one, than outside
 interference.  You'll create your own interference this way.
 marlon

 - Original Message -
 From: Lawrence E. Bakst m...@iridescent.org
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 9:15 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)


 I think you guys know most of this already, but here is my take FWIW.
 
  I'm not a WISP, but I spent 5 years leading the design and development of
  an 802.11[agb] security system. We did our own polling solution based on
  802.11e HCCA to solve the RTS/hidden node problem.
 
  All things being equal (which they often aren't) 802.11b will give you a
  higher S/N and C/I than 802.11g, because in almost all cases and
  especially at higher speeds. 802.11g has to lower the PA power because of
  the PAPR of OFDM and meeting the 802.11g EVM spec.
 
  It is true that 2.4 GHz can be very polluted. We found the noise floor to
  be really awful. You would be surprised by the number of entities that
  know they are way over the FCC max power in 2.4 GHz, but I digress. We
  once measured over 300 PHY errors a second on an unused 2.4 GHz
 channel.
  The number went down to 150 PHY errors a second inside an FCC chamber, if
  you can believe that.
 
  Having said all that we didn't use 802.11b at all because it's data rates
  are too low for video.
 
  Also while we supported 2.4 GHz, we mostly deployed at 5.8 GHz ISM
 because
  of the increased power available there and the pollution was much less,
  but that maybe different now.
 
  For 802.11[ag] mutlipoint, the sweet spot speed wise is 18-36 Mbps. It's
  very hard to keep a multipoint system at 48 or 54 Mbps because you need a
  great deal of link margin and with all cards you loose power as the speed
  increases to maintain PAPR/EVM. For point to point with direction antenna
  relief you can often maintain 48 or 54.
 
  Antennae make a big difference, as others have noted horizontal
  polarization is usually best and make the beam as narrow as you can
 afford
  because it raises the effective gain. However, if you are in an area
 where
  everyone else is horizontal it can make sense to try vertical. With some
  of the antennae we used that was as simple as rotating the antenna 90 deg
  at both ends.
 
  Watch out for crappy antennae, cheap cable, bad connectors, and so on.
  That can often cost you a few dB. In the product I designed I spent more
  time then I care to admit trying to make a very tough loss budget that I
  set out as a goal.
 
  There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have enough.
 
  I can confirm that our sweeps with a spectrum analyzer show lots of
  opportunity to use 5 and 10 MHz channels, as others have also noted. For
  WISPs it would be nice if chip vendors designed the radios so that you
  could set the channel bandwidth from 5-40 MHz in 1 MHz increments. It can
  be done but probably won't be, although maybe the Microsoft WhiteFI stuff
  force the chip vendors to do it. In WiMax and LTE they are already doing
  some things close to this. Still 5, 10, and 20 isn't bad and probably
 hits
  the sweet spot or 80/20 rule.
 
  One of the down sides of fitting a 5 or 10 MHz channel in a sweet spot is
  that it can change at any time.
 
  Best,
 
  leb
 
  At 9:58 AM -0500 10/1/09, Jason Hensley wrote:
 In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or
 G?
 Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a
 mix?
 
 Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the
 extra
 speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more
 stable?
 I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided less
 bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.  What's the
 real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined
 with
 a higher useage AP?
 
 I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while.  We've started
 having

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-05 Thread Robert West
You got that right, Marlon!  Example.  Point to point  I recently
had a backhaul I was having problems with and looked at my other links and
we had a dish almost 8 miles away pointing towards this location with the
noise issues.  Cranked down the power at the offending site and it cleaned
it all up.  I caused my own unwanted noise miles way.  Making a point to
point at full power when only half will do it nicely just pollutes the
available spectrum.  I knew that when I put it in but neglected to follow my
own thinking until it slapped me in the face.  Link margin is good but you
have to think of the other guy down the line, it might even be you.

Bob-


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 11:05 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have enough.

Sigh.  THIS attitude is why there is so much noise in many areas!

Use the power you need, not what's available.  No one drives with thier foot

well and truly glued to the floor all of the time!  If you did, you'll 
crash, sooner or later.

Too much power is often as big, sometimes more of one, than outside 
interference.  You'll create your own interference this way.
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Lawrence E. Bakst m...@iridescent.org
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)


I think you guys know most of this already, but here is my take FWIW.

 I'm not a WISP, but I spent 5 years leading the design and development of 
 an 802.11[agb] security system. We did our own polling solution based on 
 802.11e HCCA to solve the RTS/hidden node problem.

 All things being equal (which they often aren't) 802.11b will give you a 
 higher S/N and C/I than 802.11g, because in almost all cases and 
 especially at higher speeds. 802.11g has to lower the PA power because of 
 the PAPR of OFDM and meeting the 802.11g EVM spec.

 It is true that 2.4 GHz can be very polluted. We found the noise floor to 
 be really awful. You would be surprised by the number of entities that 
 know they are way over the FCC max power in 2.4 GHz, but I digress. We 
 once measured over 300 PHY errors a second on an unused 2.4 GHz channel.

 The number went down to 150 PHY errors a second inside an FCC chamber, if 
 you can believe that.

 Having said all that we didn't use 802.11b at all because it's data rates 
 are too low for video.

 Also while we supported 2.4 GHz, we mostly deployed at 5.8 GHz ISM because

 of the increased power available there and the pollution was much less, 
 but that maybe different now.

 For 802.11[ag] mutlipoint, the sweet spot speed wise is 18-36 Mbps. It's 
 very hard to keep a multipoint system at 48 or 54 Mbps because you need a 
 great deal of link margin and with all cards you loose power as the speed 
 increases to maintain PAPR/EVM. For point to point with direction antenna 
 relief you can often maintain 48 or 54.

 Antennae make a big difference, as others have noted horizontal 
 polarization is usually best and make the beam as narrow as you can afford

 because it raises the effective gain. However, if you are in an area where

 everyone else is horizontal it can make sense to try vertical. With some 
 of the antennae we used that was as simple as rotating the antenna 90 deg 
 at both ends.

 Watch out for crappy antennae, cheap cable, bad connectors, and so on. 
 That can often cost you a few dB. In the product I designed I spent more 
 time then I care to admit trying to make a very tough loss budget that I 
 set out as a goal.

 There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have enough.

 I can confirm that our sweeps with a spectrum analyzer show lots of 
 opportunity to use 5 and 10 MHz channels, as others have also noted. For 
 WISPs it would be nice if chip vendors designed the radios so that you 
 could set the channel bandwidth from 5-40 MHz in 1 MHz increments. It can 
 be done but probably won't be, although maybe the Microsoft WhiteFI stuff 
 force the chip vendors to do it. In WiMax and LTE they are already doing 
 some things close to this. Still 5, 10, and 20 isn't bad and probably hits

 the sweet spot or 80/20 rule.

 One of the down sides of fitting a 5 or 10 MHz channel in a sweet spot is 
 that it can change at any time.

 Best,

 leb

 At 9:58 AM -0500 10/1/09, Jason Hensley wrote:
In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or 
G?
Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a mix?

Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the 
extra
speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more stable?
I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided less
bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-05 Thread Mike Hammett
Well, it all depends on what you're using.  Some systems need at least -65 
just to achieve maximum modulation.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: Jayson Baker jay...@spectrasurf.com
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 10:16 AM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

 Agreed.  We turn down power levels on a lot of things--for that reason.

 i.e. we have a handful of customers that could spit and hit our tower.
 Their OP is down as low as it'll go (5dB), because if higher, not only 
 does
 it overpower the receiver (-30dBm signal), but it will cause issues for 
 all
 other clients on that sector.

 We've found that -70 is good, -60 is pushing it, and -50 is too hot.  IN
 MOST CASES -- see I said IN MOST CASES -- you don't need to flame me up 
 and
 down, saying why I'm wrong, it'll never work, we have no idea what we're
 doing.  It works for us.

 On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Marlon K. Schafer 
 o...@odessaoffice.comwrote:

 There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have 
 enough.

 Sigh.  THIS attitude is why there is so much noise in many areas!

 Use the power you need, not what's available.  No one drives with thier
 foot
 well and truly glued to the floor all of the time!  If you did, you'll
 crash, sooner or later.

 Too much power is often as big, sometimes more of one, than outside
 interference.  You'll create your own interference this way.
 marlon

 - Original Message -
 From: Lawrence E. Bakst m...@iridescent.org
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 9:15 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)


 I think you guys know most of this already, but here is my take FWIW.
 
  I'm not a WISP, but I spent 5 years leading the design and development 
  of
  an 802.11[agb] security system. We did our own polling solution based 
  on
  802.11e HCCA to solve the RTS/hidden node problem.
 
  All things being equal (which they often aren't) 802.11b will give you 
  a
  higher S/N and C/I than 802.11g, because in almost all cases and
  especially at higher speeds. 802.11g has to lower the PA power because 
  of
  the PAPR of OFDM and meeting the 802.11g EVM spec.
 
  It is true that 2.4 GHz can be very polluted. We found the noise floor 
  to
  be really awful. You would be surprised by the number of entities 
  that
  know they are way over the FCC max power in 2.4 GHz, but I digress. We
  once measured over 300 PHY errors a second on an unused 2.4 GHz
 channel.
  The number went down to 150 PHY errors a second inside an FCC chamber, 
  if
  you can believe that.
 
  Having said all that we didn't use 802.11b at all because it's data 
  rates
  are too low for video.
 
  Also while we supported 2.4 GHz, we mostly deployed at 5.8 GHz ISM
 because
  of the increased power available there and the pollution was much less,
  but that maybe different now.
 
  For 802.11[ag] mutlipoint, the sweet spot speed wise is 18-36 Mbps. 
  It's
  very hard to keep a multipoint system at 48 or 54 Mbps because you need 
  a
  great deal of link margin and with all cards you loose power as the 
  speed
  increases to maintain PAPR/EVM. For point to point with direction 
  antenna
  relief you can often maintain 48 or 54.
 
  Antennae make a big difference, as others have noted horizontal
  polarization is usually best and make the beam as narrow as you can
 afford
  because it raises the effective gain. However, if you are in an area
 where
  everyone else is horizontal it can make sense to try vertical. With 
  some
  of the antennae we used that was as simple as rotating the antenna 90 
  deg
  at both ends.
 
  Watch out for crappy antennae, cheap cable, bad connectors, and so on.
  That can often cost you a few dB. In the product I designed I spent 
  more
  time then I care to admit trying to make a very tough loss budget that 
  I
  set out as a goal.
 
  There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have 
  enough.
 
  I can confirm that our sweeps with a spectrum analyzer show lots of
  opportunity to use 5 and 10 MHz channels, as others have also noted. 
  For
  WISPs it would be nice if chip vendors designed the radios so that 
  you
  could set the channel bandwidth from 5-40 MHz in 1 MHz increments. It 
  can
  be done but probably won't be, although maybe the Microsoft WhiteFI 
  stuff
  force the chip vendors to do it. In WiMax and LTE they are already 
  doing
  some things close to this. Still 5, 10, and 20 isn't bad and probably
 hits
  the sweet spot or 80/20 rule.
 
  One of the down sides of fitting a 5 or 10 MHz channel in a sweet spot 
  is
  that it can change at any time.
 
  Best,
 
  leb
 
  At 9:58 AM -0500 10/1/09, Jason Hensley wrote:
 In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B 
 or
 G?
 Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-05 Thread Jayson Baker
Right.  Sorry, I meant to add, on our UBNT Loco's and PS's.

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.netwrote:

 Well, it all depends on what you're using.  Some systems need at least -65
 just to achieve maximum modulation.


 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com



 --
 From: Jayson Baker jay...@spectrasurf.com
 Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 10:16 AM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

  Agreed.  We turn down power levels on a lot of things--for that reason.
 
  i.e. we have a handful of customers that could spit and hit our tower.
  Their OP is down as low as it'll go (5dB), because if higher, not only
  does
  it overpower the receiver (-30dBm signal), but it will cause issues for
  all
  other clients on that sector.
 
  We've found that -70 is good, -60 is pushing it, and -50 is too hot.  IN
  MOST CASES -- see I said IN MOST CASES -- you don't need to flame me up
  and
  down, saying why I'm wrong, it'll never work, we have no idea what we're
  doing.  It works for us.
 
  On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Marlon K. Schafer
  o...@odessaoffice.comwrote:
 
  There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have
  enough.
 
  Sigh.  THIS attitude is why there is so much noise in many areas!
 
  Use the power you need, not what's available.  No one drives with thier
  foot
  well and truly glued to the floor all of the time!  If you did, you'll
  crash, sooner or later.
 
  Too much power is often as big, sometimes more of one, than outside
  interference.  You'll create your own interference this way.
  marlon
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Lawrence E. Bakst m...@iridescent.org
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 9:15 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
 
 
  I think you guys know most of this already, but here is my take FWIW.
  
   I'm not a WISP, but I spent 5 years leading the design and development
   of
   an 802.11[agb] security system. We did our own polling solution based
   on
   802.11e HCCA to solve the RTS/hidden node problem.
  
   All things being equal (which they often aren't) 802.11b will give you
   a
   higher S/N and C/I than 802.11g, because in almost all cases and
   especially at higher speeds. 802.11g has to lower the PA power because
   of
   the PAPR of OFDM and meeting the 802.11g EVM spec.
  
   It is true that 2.4 GHz can be very polluted. We found the noise floor
   to
   be really awful. You would be surprised by the number of entities
   that
   know they are way over the FCC max power in 2.4 GHz, but I digress. We
   once measured over 300 PHY errors a second on an unused 2.4 GHz
  channel.
   The number went down to 150 PHY errors a second inside an FCC chamber,
   if
   you can believe that.
  
   Having said all that we didn't use 802.11b at all because it's data
   rates
   are too low for video.
  
   Also while we supported 2.4 GHz, we mostly deployed at 5.8 GHz ISM
  because
   of the increased power available there and the pollution was much
 less,
   but that maybe different now.
  
   For 802.11[ag] mutlipoint, the sweet spot speed wise is 18-36 Mbps.
   It's
   very hard to keep a multipoint system at 48 or 54 Mbps because you
 need
   a
   great deal of link margin and with all cards you loose power as the
   speed
   increases to maintain PAPR/EVM. For point to point with direction
   antenna
   relief you can often maintain 48 or 54.
  
   Antennae make a big difference, as others have noted horizontal
   polarization is usually best and make the beam as narrow as you can
  afford
   because it raises the effective gain. However, if you are in an area
  where
   everyone else is horizontal it can make sense to try vertical. With
   some
   of the antennae we used that was as simple as rotating the antenna 90
   deg
   at both ends.
  
   Watch out for crappy antennae, cheap cable, bad connectors, and so on.
   That can often cost you a few dB. In the product I designed I spent
   more
   time then I care to admit trying to make a very tough loss budget that
   I
   set out as a goal.
  
   There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have
   enough.
  
   I can confirm that our sweeps with a spectrum analyzer show lots of
   opportunity to use 5 and 10 MHz channels, as others have also noted.
   For
   WISPs it would be nice if chip vendors designed the radios so that
   you
   could set the channel bandwidth from 5-40 MHz in 1 MHz increments. It
   can
   be done but probably won't be, although maybe the Microsoft WhiteFI
   stuff
   force the chip vendors to do it. In WiMax and LTE they are already
   doing
   some things close to this. Still 5, 10, and 20 isn't bad and probably
  hits
   the sweet spot or 80/20 rule.
  
   One of the down sides of fitting a 5 or 10 MHz channel in a sweet spot

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-05 Thread John Thomas
Cisco's 1242's are certified for 5.4-5.7 GHz. Could you use Cisco APs' 
and Mikrotik clients?

John


Randy Cosby wrote:
 I know the mikrotik R52N card is.. I was so excited...

 Until I read closer.  It's certified as a client device, but not as an 
 AP.  The AP has to do all the heavy DFS/TPC lifting :(

 Randy


 jp wrote:
   
 I'll send one lucky winner $30 paypal if they can show me within a week 
 the M series is 5.4 certified via an FCC document.

 On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 09:18:30PM -0400, Gino Villarini wrote:
   
 
 Where?

 This is the FCC cert for the M5 Rocket

 http://tinyurl.com/yaolxlj

 its only certified for 5.8 ghz AND get this, for PTMP its only certified
 with 6db omnis . so how come they are selling sectors for them .

 Show me where its certified for 5.4, ill send you a $100 paypal

 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Mike Hammett
 Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:42 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

 Actually, their new M series has 5.4 GHz certification.


 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com



 --
 From: jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com
 Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 2:42 PM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

 
   
 On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:08:02PM -0400, David Hulsebus wrote:
   
 
 I have used 411 AP's with XR5 cards and NS5L's with good success in
 small subdivision projects. 1/2 to 1 mile using 5M channels running
 
   
 G,
 
   
 mostly horizontal. We lock the rates lower than 54 if we see any CCQ
 numbers consistently below 66%. We've had our best success at 36MB.
 Lowering not raising the power in most cases improves our CCQ. But
 again, we're mostly within a half mile. We don't have a sector
 
   
 broader
 
   
 than 90 deg, run mostly 5.4 on the AP and 5.7 on our backhauls. One
 
   
 site
 
   
 Dave Hulsebus
 
   
 I'm curious what you use that is cheap and legal for 5.4 APs? I know
 that nothing UBNT makes is legal for 5.4 use in the US. Not being a
 frequency nazi, just looking for something legal for me to use.

 -- 
 /*
 Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
 http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/
 */



   
 
 
 
 
   
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

   
 
 
 
 
   
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

   
 
 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 
  
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
  
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
   
   
 


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
  
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



   




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-04 Thread Scottie Arnett
Ok Jack, I have to admit, I have not read your book, but if it reads like this 
discussion, I have no desire too, unless you 1. either state that your book is 
for the advanced wireless subjects, or 2. Thoroughly describe your acronyms. 

FYI, I do understand most of the poster's acronyms, but for the average WISP 
operator, I doubt they do. I have a BS in Electrical Engineering and a BS in 
Management of Information Sciences, not to be tooting my own horn. No, I do not 
work for Alvarion or Motorola, nor do I have a desire too.

Maybe I was in the wrong with my post about the poster's acronyms and my direct 
criticism with the use of acronyms. I also believe your post was in direct 
comment to me about my understanding and involvement of WISP activities. I 
publicly admit, I am not a member of WISPA at the moment, and as long as as an 
acting officer or supreme WISPA being is degrading me, I will not become a 
member.

Scottie Arnett
President
Info-Ed, Inc.
Broadband Internet Service Provider

-- Original Message --
From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com
Date:  Sat, 03 Oct 2009 22:39:38 -0700

!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN
html
head
  meta content=text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type
  title/title
/head
body bgcolor=#ff text=#00
Yep it's too bad that many wireless ISPs have no interest in learning
about wireless. br
br
Scottie Arnett wrote:
blockquote cite=mid:200910040029.aa21037...@mail.info-ed.com
 type=cite
  pre wrap=I am reading your response and can not decipher all your 
 algorithms? Point that out and I will have a much more understanding of what 
 you are scientifically trying to say. Most WISPS have absolutely no 
 scientific background!

John 

-- Original Message --
From: Lawrence E. Bakst a class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E 
href=mailto:m...@iridescent.org;m...@iridescent.org/a
Reply-To: WISPA General List a class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E 
href=mailto:wireless@wispa.org;wireless@wispa.org/a
Date:  Sun, 4 Oct 2009 00:15:45 -0400

  /pre
  blockquote type=cite
pre wrap=I think you guys know most of this already, but here is my 
 take FWIW.

I'm not a WISP, but I spent 5 years leading the design and development of an 
802.11[agb] security system. We did our own polling solution based on 802.11e 
HCCA to solve the RTS/hidden node problem.

All things being equal (which they often aren't) 802.11b will give you a 
higher S/N and C/I than 802.11g, because in almost all cases and especially at 
higher speeds. 802.11g has to lower the PA power because of the PAPR of OFDM 
and meeting the 802.11g EVM spec.

It is true that 2.4 GHz can be very polluted. We found the noise floor to be 
really awful. You would be surprised by the number of entities that know 
they are way over the FCC max power in 2.4 GHz, but I digress. We once 
measured over 300 PHY errors a second on an unused 2.4 GHz channel. The 
number went down to 150 PHY errors a second inside an FCC chamber, if you can 
believe that.

Having said all that we didn't use 802.11b at all because it's data rates are 
too low for video.

Also while we supported 2.4 GHz, we mostly deployed at 5.8 GHz ISM because of 
the increased power available there and the pollution was much less, but that 
maybe different now.

For 802.11[ag] mutlipoint, the sweet spot speed wise is 18-36 Mbps. It's very 
hard to keep a multipoint system at 48 or 54 Mbps because you need a great 
deal of link margin and with all cards you loose power as the speed increases 
to maintain PAPR/EVM. For point to point with direction antenna relief you can 
often maintain 48 or 54.

Antennae make a big difference, as others have noted horizontal polarization 
is usually best and make the beam as narrow as you can afford because it 
raises the effective gain. However, if you are in an area where everyone else 
is horizontal it can make sense to try vertical. With some of the antennae we 
used that was as simple as rotating the antenna 90 deg at both ends.

Watch out for crappy antennae, cheap cable, bad connectors, and so on. That 
can often cost you a few dB. In the product I designed I spent more time then 
I care to admit trying to make a very tough loss budget that I set out as a 
goal.

There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have enough.

I can confirm that our sweeps with a spectrum analyzer show lots of 
opportunity to use 5 and 10 MHz channels, as others have also noted. For WISPs 
it would be nice if chip vendors designed the radios so that you could set 
the channel bandwidth from 5-40 MHz in 1 MHz increments. It can be done but 
probably won't be, although maybe the Microsoft WhiteFI stuff force the chip 
vendors to do it. In WiMax and LTE they are already doing some things close to 
this. Still 5, 10, and 20 isn't bad and probably hits the sweet spot or 80/20 
rule.

One of the down sides of fitting a 5 or 10 MHz channel in a 

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-04 Thread Gino Villarini
Lawrence post wasn't too technical at all  Stuff wisps operators or
at least the RF guy of a wisp should know

 

Gino A. Villarini 
g...@aeronetpr.com 
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145 



From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 1:40 AM
To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

 

Yep it's too bad that many wireless ISPs have no interest in learning
about wireless. 

Scottie Arnett wrote: 

I am reading your response and can not decipher all your algorithms?
Point that out and I will have a much more understanding of what you are
scientifically trying to say. Most WISPS have absolutely no scientific
background!
 
John 
 
-- Original Message --
From: Lawrence E. Bakst m...@iridescent.org mailto:m...@iridescent.org

Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
mailto:wireless@wispa.org 
Date:  Sun, 4 Oct 2009 00:15:45 -0400
 
  

I think you guys know most of this already, but here is my take
FWIW.
 
I'm not a WISP, but I spent 5 years leading the design and
development of an 802.11[agb] security system. We did our own polling
solution based on 802.11e HCCA to solve the RTS/hidden node problem.
 
All things being equal (which they often aren't) 802.11b will
give you a higher S/N and C/I than 802.11g, because in almost all cases
and especially at higher speeds. 802.11g has to lower the PA power
because of the PAPR of OFDM and meeting the 802.11g EVM spec.
 
It is true that 2.4 GHz can be very polluted. We found the noise
floor to be really awful. You would be surprised by the number of
entities that know they are way over the FCC max power in 2.4 GHz, but
I digress. We once measured over 300 PHY errors a second on an unused
2.4 GHz channel. The number went down to 150 PHY errors a second inside
an FCC chamber, if you can believe that.
 
Having said all that we didn't use 802.11b at all because it's
data rates are too low for video.
 
Also while we supported 2.4 GHz, we mostly deployed at 5.8 GHz
ISM because of the increased power available there and the pollution was
much less, but that maybe different now.
 
For 802.11[ag] mutlipoint, the sweet spot speed wise is 18-36
Mbps. It's very hard to keep a multipoint system at 48 or 54 Mbps
because you need a great deal of link margin and with all cards you
loose power as the speed increases to maintain PAPR/EVM. For point to
point with direction antenna relief you can often maintain 48 or 54.
 
Antennae make a big difference, as others have noted horizontal
polarization is usually best and make the beam as narrow as you can
afford because it raises the effective gain. However, if you are in an
area where everyone else is horizontal it can make sense to try
vertical. With some of the antennae we used that was as simple as
rotating the antenna 90 deg at both ends.
 
Watch out for crappy antennae, cheap cable, bad connectors, and
so on. That can often cost you a few dB. In the product I designed I
spent more time then I care to admit trying to make a very tough loss
budget that I set out as a goal.
 
There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really
have enough.
 
I can confirm that our sweeps with a spectrum analyzer show lots
of opportunity to use 5 and 10 MHz channels, as others have also noted.
For WISPs it would be nice if chip vendors designed the radios so that
you could set the channel bandwidth from 5-40 MHz in 1 MHz increments.
It can be done but probably won't be, although maybe the Microsoft
WhiteFI stuff force the chip vendors to do it. In WiMax and LTE they are
already doing some things close to this. Still 5, 10, and 20 isn't bad
and probably hits the sweet spot or 80/20 rule.
 
One of the down sides of fitting a 5 or 10 MHz channel in a
sweet spot is that it can change at any time.
 
Best,
 
leb
 
At 9:58 AM -0500 10/1/09, Jason Hensley wrote:


In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol
is better - B or G?
Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is
it OK to do a mix? 
 
Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that
worried about the extra
speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know
which is more stable?
I've always thought that B was more stable overall but
just provided less
bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.
What's the
real-world experience with folks in a high-noise
environment, combined with
a higher useage AP

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-04 Thread Mike
At 11:15 PM 10/3/2009, Lawrence wrote:
...
All things being equal (which they often aren't) 802.11b will give 
you a higher S/N and C/I than 802.11g, because in almost all cases 
and especially at higher speeds. 802.11g has to lower the PA power 
because of the PAPR of OFDM and meeting the 802.11g EVM spec.

Given, and considering OFDM modulation vice CCK, there are a couple 
things to note.  With G, and the faster data rates, client 
transactions are over faster and tend to give the AP back sooner, 
especially if the operator elects to transmit the PLCP header with a 
short (56 bit) preamble.  This is true for at least 90% of the 
traffic on my network which is very bursty activity.  Get 'em out of 
the way faster!  Additionally, OFDM survives in a multi-path 
environment much better.  In my environment, water towers, barns, 
machine sheds, silos all seem to reflect the signal around.


Having said all that we didn't use 802.11b at all because it's data 
rates are too low for video.

There are some links which, because of a lower signal to noise, where 
B just works much better.  But, while they are on are using the 
resources of the sector much longer than their G counterparts.


Also while we supported 2.4 GHz, we mostly deployed at 5.8 GHz ISM 
because of the increased power available there and the pollution was 
much less, but that maybe different now.

In my environment neither is saturated.  2.4 works better because of 
the variability in terrain.  Signals arriving over corn fields also 
work better than signals arriving over bean fields.  :-)



There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have enough.
I like to do installs this time of year.  Foliage is at maximum 
growth for the year.  Crops are mature and waving in the breeze. The 
leaves are drying but still on the trees.  Rain water collects in 
those trees.  If it works now, and I have sufficient fade margin, it 
will only get better this winter as the leaves drop.


Tne of the down sides of fitting a 5 or 10 MHz channel in a sweet 
spot is that it can change at any time.

This is true of any public frequency, but the effects on a half or 
quarter channel are less pronounced, and the fractional channels give 
an immediate boost in the SI over a 20 MHz channel size.

I think there is room for ANY lively discussions on this list; 
administrative, technical or otherwise.  Long live wireless and free 
enterprise!

Mike 



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-04 Thread Brian Webster
Title: Thank You,




Here is my opinion for what it is worth:

The post Lawrence put up was worth thousands of dollars that a WISP
would have to spend in both time and equipment to figure out the
lessons he's already learned. He posted his knowledge to the group for
FREE as additional input to the original question. For that we should
all be thankful.

If a person does not understand a particular topic or all of the
information contained in the message they can, one delete the message
and move on, two ask some follow up questions in a polite manor in
hopes that they can gain further understanding of the topic.

My father in law has a rule in his house and I try to stick to it in
life. The rule is (especially at his bar), if we don't have something
nice to say about a person, we won't say anything at all. It keeps the
negativity down. Everyone likes to hang out at his place (nice positive
environment). It's not that we always have to be in agreement with
everyone, but we just don't need to be doing things with a negative
attitude. There are plenty of ways to have the discussion in a more
constructive fashion.













Thank
You,
Brian Webster





Scottie Arnett wrote:

  Ok Jack, I have to admit, I have not read your book, but if it reads like this discussion, I have no desire too, unless you 1. either state that your book is for the advanced wireless subjects, or 2. Thoroughly describe your acronyms. 

FYI, I do understand most of the poster's acronyms, but for the average WISP operator, I doubt they do. I have a BS in Electrical Engineering and a BS in Management of Information Sciences, not to be tooting my own horn. No, I do not work for Alvarion or Motorola, nor do I have a desire too.

Maybe I was in the wrong with my post about the poster's acronyms and my direct criticism with the use of acronyms. I also believe your post was in direct comment to me about my understanding and involvement of WISP activities. I publicly admit, I am not a member of WISPA at the moment, and as long as as an acting officer or "supreme WISPA being" is degrading me, I will not become a member.

Scottie Arnett
President
Info-Ed, Inc.
Broadband Internet Service Provider

-- Original Message --
From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com
Date:  Sat, 03 Oct 2009 22:39:38 -0700

  
  
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
html
head
 meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"
 title/title
/head
body bgcolor="#ff" text="#00"
Yep it's too bad that many wireless ISPs have no interest in learning
about wireless. br
br
Scottie Arnett wrote:
blockquote cite="" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mid:200910040029.aa21037...@mail.info-ed.com">"mid:200910040029.aa21037...@mail.info-ed.com"
type="cite"
 pre wrap=""I am reading your response and can not decipher all your algorithms? Point that out and I will have a much more understanding of what you are scientifically trying to say. Most WISPS have absolutely no scientific background!

John 

-- Original Message --
From: "Lawrence E. Bakst" a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:m...@iridescent.org">"mailto:m...@iridescent.org"m...@iridescent.org/a
Reply-To: WISPA General List a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wireless@wispa.org">"mailto:wireless@wispa.org"wireless@wispa.org/a
Date:  Sun, 4 Oct 2009 00:15:45 -0400

 /pre
 blockquote type="cite"
   pre wrap=""I think you guys know most of this already, but here is my take FWIW.

I'm not a WISP, but I spent 5 years leading the design and development of an 802.11[agb] security system. We did our own polling solution based on 802.11e HCCA to solve the RTS/hidden node problem.

All things being equal (which they often aren't) 802.11b will give you a higher S/N and C/I than 802.11g, because in almost all cases and especially at higher speeds. 802.11g has to lower the PA power because of the PAPR of OFDM and meeting the 802.11g EVM spec.

It is true that 2.4 GHz can be very polluted. We found the noise floor to be really awful. You would be surprised by the number of "entities" that know they are way over the FCC max power in 2.4 GHz, but I digress. We once measured over 300 PHY errors a second on an "unused" 2.4 GHz channel. The number went down to 150 PHY errors a second inside an FCC chamber, if you can believe that.

Having said all that we didn't use 802.11b at all because it's data rates are too low for video.

Also while we supported 2.4 GHz, we mostly deployed at 5.8 GHz ISM because of the increased power available there and the pollution was much less, but that maybe different now.

For 802.11[ag] mutlipoint, the sweet spot speed wise is 18-36 Mbps. It's very hard to keep a multipoint system at 48 or 54 Mbps because you need a great deal of link margin and with all cards you loose power as the speed 

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-04 Thread D. Ryan Spott
, at 7:10 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

 I'm not sure what HCCA, PA, PAPR, or EVM are, but I don't think that  
 WISPs
 need to.


 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com



 --
 From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com
 Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 6:04 AM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G  :-)

 Lawrence post wasn't too technical at all  Stuff wisps  
 operators or
 at least the RF guy of a wisp should know



 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

 

 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- 
 boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 1:40 AM
 To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)



 Yep it's too bad that many wireless ISPs have no interest in learning
 about wireless.

 Scottie Arnett wrote:

 I am reading your response and can not decipher all your algorithms?
 Point that out and I will have a much more understanding of what  
 you are
 scientifically trying to say. Most WISPS have absolutely no  
 scientific
 background!

 John

 -- Original Message --
 From: Lawrence E. Bakst m...@iridescent.org mailto:m...@iridescent.org 
 

 Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 mailto:wireless@wispa.org
 Date:  Sun, 4 Oct 2009 00:15:45 -0400



 I think you guys know most of this already, but here is my take
 FWIW.

 I'm not a WISP, but I spent 5 years leading the design and
 development of an 802.11[agb] security system. We did our own polling
 solution based on 802.11e HCCA to solve the RTS/hidden node problem.

 All things being equal (which they often aren't) 802.11b will
 give you a higher S/N and C/I than 802.11g, because in almost all  
 cases
 and especially at higher speeds. 802.11g has to lower the PA power
 because of the PAPR of OFDM and meeting the 802.11g EVM spec.

 It is true that 2.4 GHz can be very polluted. We found the noise
 floor to be really awful. You would be surprised by the number of
 entities that know they are way over the FCC max power in 2.4  
 GHz, but
 I digress. We once measured over 300 PHY errors a second on an  
 unused
 2.4 GHz channel. The number went down to 150 PHY errors a second  
 inside
 an FCC chamber, if you can believe that.

 Having said all that we didn't use 802.11b at all because it's
 data rates are too low for video.

 Also while we supported 2.4 GHz, we mostly deployed at 5.8 GHz
 ISM because of the increased power available there and the  
 pollution was
 much less, but that maybe different now.

 For 802.11[ag] mutlipoint, the sweet spot speed wise is 18-36
 Mbps. It's very hard to keep a multipoint system at 48 or 54 Mbps
 because you need a great deal of link margin and with all cards you
 loose power as the speed increases to maintain PAPR/EVM. For point to
 point with direction antenna relief you can often maintain 48 or 54.

 Antennae make a big difference, as others have noted horizontal
 polarization is usually best and make the beam as narrow as you can
 afford because it raises the effective gain. However, if you are in  
 an
 area where everyone else is horizontal it can make sense to try
 vertical. With some of the antennae we used that was as simple as
 rotating the antenna 90 deg at both ends.

 Watch out for crappy antennae, cheap cable, bad connectors, and
 so on. That can often cost you a few dB. In the product I designed I
 spent more time then I care to admit trying to make a very tough loss
 budget that I set out as a goal.

 There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really
 have enough.

 I can confirm that our sweeps with a spectrum analyzer show lots
 of opportunity to use 5 and 10 MHz channels, as others have also  
 noted.
 For WISPs it would be nice if chip vendors designed the radios so  
 that
 you could set the channel bandwidth from 5-40 MHz in 1 MHz  
 increments.
 It can be done but probably won't be, although maybe the Microsoft
 WhiteFI stuff force the chip vendors to do it. In WiMax and LTE  
 they are
 already doing some things close to this. Still 5, 10, and 20 isn't  
 bad
 and probably hits the sweet spot or 80/20 rule.

 One of the down sides of fitting a 5 or 10 MHz channel in a
 sweet spot is that it can change at any time.

 Best,

 leb

 At 9:58 AM -0500 10/1/09, Jason Hensley wrote:


 In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol
 is better - B or G?
 Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is
 it OK to do a mix?

 Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that
 worried about the extra
 speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know
 which is more stable?
 I've always thought that B was more stable overall but
 just provided less
 bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.
 What's

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-04 Thread Jerry Richardson
Google has been a great solution to my ignorance. It's like downlading from the 
Matrix :-)

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Brian Webster
Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 7:29 AM
To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

Here is my opinion for what it is worth:

The post Lawrence put up was worth thousands of dollars that a WISP would have 
to spend in both time and equipment to figure out the lessons he's already 
learned. He posted his knowledge to the group for FREE as additional input to 
the original question. For that we should all be thankful.

If a person does not understand a particular topic or all of the information 
contained in the message they can, one delete the message and move on, two ask 
some follow up questions in a polite manor in hopes that they can gain further 
understanding of the topic.

My father in law has a rule in his house and I try to stick to it in life. The 
rule is (especially at his bar), if we don't have something nice to say about a 
person, we won't say anything at all. It keeps the negativity down. Everyone 
likes to hang out at his place (nice positive environment). It's not that we 
always have to be in agreement with everyone, but we just don't need to be 
doing things with a negative attitude. There are plenty of ways to have the 
discussion in a more constructive fashion.

Thank You,
Brian  Webster


Scottie Arnett wrote:

Ok Jack, I have to admit, I have not read your book, but if it reads like this 
discussion, I have no desire too, unless you 1. either state that your book is 
for the advanced wireless subjects, or 2. Thoroughly describe your acronyms.



FYI, I do understand most of the poster's acronyms, but for the average WISP 
operator, I doubt they do. I have a BS in Electrical Engineering and a BS in 
Management of Information Sciences, not to be tooting my own horn. No, I do not 
work for Alvarion or Motorola, nor do I have a desire too.



Maybe I was in the wrong with my post about the poster's acronyms and my direct 
criticism with the use of acronyms. I also believe your post was in direct 
comment to me about my understanding and involvement of WISP activities. I 
publicly admit, I am not a member of WISPA at the moment, and as long as as an 
acting officer or supreme WISPA being is degrading me, I will not become a 
member.



Scottie Arnett

President

Info-Ed, Inc.

Broadband Internet Service Provider



-- Original Message --

From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.commailto:jun...@ask-wi.com

Date:  Sat, 03 Oct 2009 22:39:38 -0700





!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN

html

head

 meta content=text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type

 title/title

/head

body bgcolor=#ff text=#00

Yep it's too bad that many wireless ISPs have no interest in learning

about wireless. br

br

Scottie Arnett wrote:

blockquote 
cite=mid:200910040029.aa21037...@mail.info-ed.commailto:mid:200910040029.aa21037...@mail.info-ed.com

type=cite

 pre wrap=I am reading your response and can not decipher all your 
algorithms? Point that out and I will have a much more understanding of what 
you are scientifically trying to say. Most WISPS have absolutely no scientific 
background!



John



-- Original Message --

From: Lawrence E. Bakst a class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E 
href=mailto:m...@iridescent.org;mailto:m...@iridescent.orgm...@iridescent.orgmailto:m...@iridescent.org/a

Reply-To: WISPA General List a class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E 
href=mailto:wireless@wispa.org;mailto:wireless@wispa.orgwireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org/a

Date:  Sun, 4 Oct 2009 00:15:45 -0400



 /pre

 blockquote type=cite

   pre wrap=I think you guys know most of this already, but here is my take 
FWIW.



I'm not a WISP, but I spent 5 years leading the design and development of an 
802.11[agb] security system. We did our own polling solution based on 802.11e 
HCCA to solve the RTS/hidden node problem.



All things being equal (which they often aren't) 802.11b will give you a higher 
S/N and C/I than 802.11g, because in almost all cases and especially at higher 
speeds. 802.11g has to lower the PA power because of the PAPR of OFDM and 
meeting the 802.11g EVM spec.



It is true that 2.4 GHz can be very polluted. We found the noise floor to be 
really awful. You would be surprised by the number of entities that know they 
are way over the FCC max power in 2.4 GHz, but I digress. We once measured over 
300 PHY errors a second on an unused 2.4 GHz channel. The number went down to 
150 PHY errors a second inside an FCC chamber, if you can believe that.



Having said all that we didn't use 802.11b at all because it's data rates are 
too low for video.



Also while we supported 2.4 GHz, we mostly deployed at 5.8 GHz ISM because of 
the increased power available

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-04 Thread Butch Evans
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 02:31 -0500, Scottie Arnett wrote: 
 Ok Jack, I have to admit, I have not read your book, but if it 
 reads like this discussion, I have no desire too, unless you 1. 
 either state that your book is for the advanced wireless subjects,
 or 2. Thoroughly describe your acronyms. 

I have read Jack's book and I must say that it is very well written and
is very easy to understand.  It is, however, VERY technical.  There is a
lot of math, but that is out of necessity.  Personally, I highly
recommend the book.  http://www.ask-wi.com/book.html for those that
don't know about it.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-04 Thread Rick Harnish
Scottie,

I read the whole thread and I don't see any remarks by Jack Unger that
should be taken personally.  He made a very fair and honest observation.  I
only wish I knew more about wireless.  I have read Jack's book and recommend
it as well, but I think I should read it a few more times and pick up some
other scientific journals to also enhance my knowledge of the subject.  

I also didn't see anything wrong with your post in reply to Lawrence.
Acronyms are used often in present times and I often have to look up the
acronym to see what the author is referring to.  Usually in a few keystrokes
I can find the answer, which is a credit to the Internet industry.  

This is a forum of intelligent people and it often challenges our diligence
to enhance our intelligence even more.  I do not believe Jack's post was a
direct comment towards Scottie Arnett.  I have known Jack for many years and
am always very impressed with the amount of dedication and time he devotes
to our industry.  I can only hope that you will someday advance beyond
trying to read extra content into other's posts and understand that most
people don't know who Scottie Arnett is or what contributions you have made
to the industry. I'm sure you have great respect for your accomplishments in
your local marketplace and I applaud you for that. However, WISPA is bigger
than any one small marketplace. WISPA is the sum of lots of small
marketplaces and operators who realize the strength of cooperating and
collaborating with others who have similar interests and challenges.  

Respectfully,

Rick Harnish  

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Scottie Arnett
Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 3:32 AM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

Ok Jack, I have to admit, I have not read your book, but if it reads like
this discussion, I have no desire too, unless you 1. either state that your
book is for the advanced wireless subjects, or 2. Thoroughly describe your
acronyms. 

FYI, I do understand most of the poster's acronyms, but for the average WISP
operator, I doubt they do. I have a BS in Electrical Engineering and a BS in
Management of Information Sciences, not to be tooting my own horn. No, I do
not work for Alvarion or Motorola, nor do I have a desire too.

Maybe I was in the wrong with my post about the poster's acronyms and my
direct criticism with the use of acronyms. I also believe your post was in
direct comment to me about my understanding and involvement of WISP
activities. I publicly admit, I am not a member of WISPA at the moment, and
as long as as an acting officer or supreme WISPA being is degrading me, I
will not become a member.

Scottie Arnett
President
Info-Ed, Inc.
Broadband Internet Service Provider

-- Original Message --
From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com
Date:  Sat, 03 Oct 2009 22:39:38 -0700

!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN
html
head
  meta content=text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type
  title/title
/head
body bgcolor=#ff text=#00
Yep it's too bad that many wireless ISPs have no interest in learning
about wireless. br
br
Scottie Arnett wrote:
blockquote cite=mid:200910040029.aa21037...@mail.info-ed.com
 type=cite
  pre wrap=I am reading your response and can not decipher all your
algorithms? Point that out and I will have a much more understanding of what
you are scientifically trying to say. Most WISPS have absolutely no
scientific background!

John 

-- Original Message --
From: Lawrence E. Bakst a class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
href=mailto:m...@iridescent.org;m...@iridescent.org/a
Reply-To: WISPA General List a class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
href=mailto:wireless@wispa.org;wireless@wispa.org/a
Date:  Sun, 4 Oct 2009 00:15:45 -0400

  /pre
  blockquote type=cite
pre wrap=I think you guys know most of this already, but here is my
take FWIW.

I'm not a WISP, but I spent 5 years leading the design and development of
an 802.11[agb] security system. We did our own polling solution based on
802.11e HCCA to solve the RTS/hidden node problem.

All things being equal (which they often aren't) 802.11b will give you a
higher S/N and C/I than 802.11g, because in almost all cases and especially
at higher speeds. 802.11g has to lower the PA power because of the PAPR of
OFDM and meeting the 802.11g EVM spec.

It is true that 2.4 GHz can be very polluted. We found the noise floor to
be really awful. You would be surprised by the number of entities that
know they are way over the FCC max power in 2.4 GHz, but I digress. We once
measured over 300 PHY errors a second on an unused 2.4 GHz channel. The
number went down to 150 PHY errors a second inside an FCC chamber, if you
can believe that.

Having said all that we didn't use 802.11b at all because it's data rates
are too low for video.

Also while we supported 2.4 GHz, we

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-04 Thread RickG
I have been on this list since 2001. I have seen many toot their own
horns whenever they can and I have seen others that dont. I have also
seen many get their feathers ruffled way too easy. Either way, there
are some that can talk the talk, some that walk the walk, some that
talk the walk, and some that walk the talk. As they say, just because
you can do something doesnt mean you should. Most of the talkers
have left the list with their undies in a bind. I suggest that before
sending out an email, try to rein your ego in a bit and the list will
be better for it. After all isnt this list to help others, or get
help, not to be self-serving?

This is not pointed at any one person, just my two cents on the subject.

With that said, its been my experience in visiting many WISP's around
the country that they are some of the sharpest people around. In my
mind, WISP's are a perfect example of good 'ol business ingenuity and
entrepreneurship if there ever was one. My hat is off to all of you!
-RickG

On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Rick Harnish rharn...@wispa.org wrote:
 Scottie,

 I read the whole thread and I don't see any remarks by Jack Unger that
 should be taken personally.  He made a very fair and honest observation.  I
 only wish I knew more about wireless.  I have read Jack's book and recommend
 it as well, but I think I should read it a few more times and pick up some
 other scientific journals to also enhance my knowledge of the subject.

 I also didn't see anything wrong with your post in reply to Lawrence.
 Acronyms are used often in present times and I often have to look up the
 acronym to see what the author is referring to.  Usually in a few keystrokes
 I can find the answer, which is a credit to the Internet industry.

 This is a forum of intelligent people and it often challenges our diligence
 to enhance our intelligence even more.  I do not believe Jack's post was a
 direct comment towards Scottie Arnett.  I have known Jack for many years and
 am always very impressed with the amount of dedication and time he devotes
 to our industry.  I can only hope that you will someday advance beyond
 trying to read extra content into other's posts and understand that most
 people don't know who Scottie Arnett is or what contributions you have made
 to the industry. I'm sure you have great respect for your accomplishments in
 your local marketplace and I applaud you for that. However, WISPA is bigger
 than any one small marketplace. WISPA is the sum of lots of small
 marketplaces and operators who realize the strength of cooperating and
 collaborating with others who have similar interests and challenges.

 Respectfully,

 Rick Harnish

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Scottie Arnett
 Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 3:32 AM
 To: wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

 Ok Jack, I have to admit, I have not read your book, but if it reads like
 this discussion, I have no desire too, unless you 1. either state that your
 book is for the advanced wireless subjects, or 2. Thoroughly describe your
 acronyms.

 FYI, I do understand most of the poster's acronyms, but for the average WISP
 operator, I doubt they do. I have a BS in Electrical Engineering and a BS in
 Management of Information Sciences, not to be tooting my own horn. No, I do
 not work for Alvarion or Motorola, nor do I have a desire too.

 Maybe I was in the wrong with my post about the poster's acronyms and my
 direct criticism with the use of acronyms. I also believe your post was in
 direct comment to me about my understanding and involvement of WISP
 activities. I publicly admit, I am not a member of WISPA at the moment, and
 as long as as an acting officer or supreme WISPA being is degrading me, I
 will not become a member.

 Scottie Arnett
 President
 Info-Ed, Inc.
 Broadband Internet Service Provider

 -- Original Message --
 From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com
 Date:  Sat, 03 Oct 2009 22:39:38 -0700

!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN
html
head
  meta content=text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type
  title/title
/head
body bgcolor=#ff text=#00
Yep it's too bad that many wireless ISPs have no interest in learning
about wireless. br
br
Scottie Arnett wrote:
blockquote cite=mid:200910040029.aa21037...@mail.info-ed.com
 type=cite
  pre wrap=I am reading your response and can not decipher all your
 algorithms? Point that out and I will have a much more understanding of what
 you are scientifically trying to say. Most WISPS have absolutely no
 scientific background!

John

-- Original Message --
From: Lawrence E. Bakst a class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
 href=mailto:m...@iridescent.org;m...@iridescent.org/a
Reply-To: WISPA General List a class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
 href=mailto:wireless@wispa.org;wireless@wispa.org/a
Date:  Sun, 4

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-04 Thread Scottie Arnett

My apologies to the list, it was supposed to have been off-list. My apologies 
to Jack and Lawrence too. I took Jack's post the wrong way and responded in an 
unprofessional manner. Tends to show one's IQ level at 3:00 AM after a few too 
many late night drinks after a rough week.

Cheers,
Scott

-- Original Message --
From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com
Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Date:  Sun, 4 Oct 2009 21:25:03 -0400

I have been on this list since 2001. I have seen many toot their own
horns whenever they can and I have seen others that dont. I have also
seen many get their feathers ruffled way too easy. Either way, there
are some that can talk the talk, some that walk the walk, some that
talk the walk, and some that walk the talk. As they say, just because
you can do something doesnt mean you should. Most of the talkers
have left the list with their undies in a bind. I suggest that before
sending out an email, try to rein your ego in a bit and the list will
be better for it. After all isnt this list to help others, or get
help, not to be self-serving?

This is not pointed at any one person, just my two cents on the subject.

With that said, its been my experience in visiting many WISP's around
the country that they are some of the sharpest people around. In my
mind, WISP's are a perfect example of good 'ol business ingenuity and
entrepreneurship if there ever was one. My hat is off to all of you!
-RickG

On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Rick Harnish rharn...@wispa.org wrote:
 Scottie,

 I read the whole thread and I don't see any remarks by Jack Unger that
 should be taken personally.  He made a very fair and honest observation.  I
 only wish I knew more about wireless.  I have read Jack's book and recommend
 it as well, but I think I should read it a few more times and pick up some
 other scientific journals to also enhance my knowledge of the subject.

 I also didn't see anything wrong with your post in reply to Lawrence.
 Acronyms are used often in present times and I often have to look up the
 acronym to see what the author is referring to.  Usually in a few keystrokes
 I can find the answer, which is a credit to the Internet industry.

 This is a forum of intelligent people and it often challenges our diligence
 to enhance our intelligence even more.  I do not believe Jack's post was a
 direct comment towards Scottie Arnett.  I have known Jack for many years and
 am always very impressed with the amount of dedication and time he devotes
 to our industry.  I can only hope that you will someday advance beyond
 trying to read extra content into other's posts and understand that most
 people don't know who Scottie Arnett is or what contributions you have made
 to the industry. I'm sure you have great respect for your accomplishments in
 your local marketplace and I applaud you for that. However, WISPA is bigger
 than any one small marketplace. WISPA is the sum of lots of small
 marketplaces and operators who realize the strength of cooperating and
 collaborating with others who have similar interests and challenges.

 Respectfully,

 Rick Harnish

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Scottie Arnett
 Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 3:32 AM
 To: wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

 Ok Jack, I have to admit, I have not read your book, but if it reads like
 this discussion, I have no desire too, unless you 1. either state that your
 book is for the advanced wireless subjects, or 2. Thoroughly describe your
 acronyms.

 FYI, I do understand most of the poster's acronyms, but for the average WISP
 operator, I doubt they do. I have a BS in Electrical Engineering and a BS in
 Management of Information Sciences, not to be tooting my own horn. No, I do
 not work for Alvarion or Motorola, nor do I have a desire too.

 Maybe I was in the wrong with my post about the poster's acronyms and my
 direct criticism with the use of acronyms. I also believe your post was in
 direct comment to me about my understanding and involvement of WISP
 activities. I publicly admit, I am not a member of WISPA at the moment, and
 as long as as an acting officer or supreme WISPA being is degrading me, I
 will not become a member.

 Scottie Arnett
 President
 Info-Ed, Inc.
 Broadband Internet Service Provider

 -- Original Message --
 From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com
 Date:  Sat, 03 Oct 2009 22:39:38 -0700

!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN
html
head
  meta content=text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type
  title/title
/head
body bgcolor=#ff text=#00
Yep it's too bad that many wireless ISPs have no interest in learning
about wireless. br
br
Scottie Arnett wrote:
blockquote cite=mid:200910040029.aa21037...@mail.info-ed.com
 type=cite
  pre wrap=I am reading your response and can not decipher all

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-03 Thread jp
I'll send one lucky winner $30 paypal if they can show me within a week 
the M series is 5.4 certified via an FCC document.

On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 09:18:30PM -0400, Gino Villarini wrote:
 Where?
 
 This is the FCC cert for the M5 Rocket
 
 http://tinyurl.com/yaolxlj
 
 its only certified for 5.8 ghz AND get this, for PTMP its only certified
 with 6db omnis . so how come they are selling sectors for them .
 
 Show me where its certified for 5.4, ill send you a $100 paypal
 
 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 
 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Mike Hammett
 Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:42 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
 
 Actually, their new M series has 5.4 GHz certification.
 
 
 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com
 
 
 
 --
 From: jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com
 Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 2:42 PM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
 
  On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:08:02PM -0400, David Hulsebus wrote:
  I have used 411 AP's with XR5 cards and NS5L's with good success in
  small subdivision projects. 1/2 to 1 mile using 5M channels running
 G,
  mostly horizontal. We lock the rates lower than 54 if we see any CCQ
  numbers consistently below 66%. We've had our best success at 36MB.
  Lowering not raising the power in most cases improves our CCQ. But
  again, we're mostly within a half mile. We don't have a sector
 broader
  than 90 deg, run mostly 5.4 on the AP and 5.7 on our backhauls. One
 site
  Dave Hulsebus
 
  I'm curious what you use that is cheap and legal for 5.4 APs? I know
  that nothing UBNT makes is legal for 5.4 use in the US. Not being a
  frequency nazi, just looking for something legal for me to use.
 
  -- 
  /*
  Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
 KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
  http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/
  */
 
 
 
 
 
  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 
 
 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  
 
 
 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 
  
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
  
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

-- 
/*
Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting 
 http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/
*/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-03 Thread Marlon K. Schafer
I've found that in noisy environments b works better.  Just did a repair at 
a customer's site, 400 to 700k down, 2 to 3 megs upload.  Switched from b/g 
to b only and no he gets a steady 4 megs both ways.  Go figure.

Mikrotik with xr2 card.  Power set to 20dB with 13dB 120* hpol sector. 
About 25 subs on this one.  LOTS of other 2.4 in the area.
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Jason Hensley ja...@jaggartech.com
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 7:58 AM
Subject: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)


 In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or 
 G?
 Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a mix?

 Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the 
 extra
 speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more stable?
 I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided less
 bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.  What's the
 real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined 
 with
 a higher useage AP?

 I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while.  We've started
 having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k and
 fluctuate constantly.  We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and
 nothing seems to have improved the stability.  For testing purposes we put
 up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble with.  Switched 
 two
 of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they seem to 
 be
 doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be.  This is on
 Deliberant AP's (Duos).  The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we can
 pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP.  We have
 other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one so 
 we
 know it's not limitations of the equipment.  AP is on top of a water 
 tower.
 Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it did
 not reveal anything significant.  With just one customer on the AP started
 acting up again.  Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have one 
 going
 bad and still no luck.

 2.4 antennas are H-pol.  We have a ton of noise in the area, but we've 
 been
 through basically every channel and it did not help either.  Other AP's in
 the vicinity are performing fine.  Thought of the multipath issue so we
 raised our test AP up a little higher than the other one.  As I said, the
 test AP seems to be better, but next to it on top of the tower we can get
 around 8 or 9 meg down (locked into G mode), but at the CPE's we're still
 barely getting 2.5-2.8meg.

 Any thoughts?  We changed everything we can.  The new test AP has a 9db
 antenna compared to the 13db on the production AP.  Other than that, 
 they
 are identical as far as equipment goes.

 So, back to the subject question though, what's real-world experience with
 G-only mode in the field?




 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-03 Thread Randy Cosby
I know the mikrotik R52N card is.. I was so excited...

Until I read closer.  It's certified as a client device, but not as an 
AP.  The AP has to do all the heavy DFS/TPC lifting :(

Randy


jp wrote:
 I'll send one lucky winner $30 paypal if they can show me within a week 
 the M series is 5.4 certified via an FCC document.

 On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 09:18:30PM -0400, Gino Villarini wrote:
   
 Where?

 This is the FCC cert for the M5 Rocket

 http://tinyurl.com/yaolxlj

 its only certified for 5.8 ghz AND get this, for PTMP its only certified
 with 6db omnis . so how come they are selling sectors for them .

 Show me where its certified for 5.4, ill send you a $100 paypal

 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Mike Hammett
 Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:42 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

 Actually, their new M series has 5.4 GHz certification.


 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com



 --
 From: jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com
 Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 2:42 PM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

 
 On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:08:02PM -0400, David Hulsebus wrote:
   
 I have used 411 AP's with XR5 cards and NS5L's with good success in
 small subdivision projects. 1/2 to 1 mile using 5M channels running
 
 G,
 
 mostly horizontal. We lock the rates lower than 54 if we see any CCQ
 numbers consistently below 66%. We've had our best success at 36MB.
 Lowering not raising the power in most cases improves our CCQ. But
 again, we're mostly within a half mile. We don't have a sector
 
 broader
 
 than 90 deg, run mostly 5.4 on the AP and 5.7 on our backhauls. One
 
 site
 
 Dave Hulsebus
 
 I'm curious what you use that is cheap and legal for 5.4 APs? I know
 that nothing UBNT makes is legal for 5.4 use in the US. Not being a
 frequency nazi, just looking for something legal for me to use.

 -- 
 /*
 Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
 http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/
 */



   
 
 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

   
 
 
 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

   
 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 
  
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
  
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 

   



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-03 Thread Matt Larsen - Lists
We are in the process of replacing all of our old 802.11b gear with 
802.11g AP/CPE running on 10mhz channels.802.11g on 10mhz channels 
is a great solution, as it takes up less spectrum, has more interference 
resistance and delivers about 2x the speeds of standard 802.11b.In 
my experience, it has made it possible for us to double up the capacity 
on our access points and offer 2-4meg speeds to our customers on those APs.

I use StarOS for APs, and Tranzeo, Ubiquiti, Mikrotik and StarOS CPE 
radios.Working great for me so far.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com



Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
 I've found that in noisy environments b works better.  Just did a repair at 
 a customer's site, 400 to 700k down, 2 to 3 megs upload.  Switched from b/g 
 to b only and no he gets a steady 4 megs both ways.  Go figure.

 Mikrotik with xr2 card.  Power set to 20dB with 13dB 120* hpol sector. 
 About 25 subs on this one.  LOTS of other 2.4 in the area.
 marlon

 - Original Message - 
 From: Jason Hensley ja...@jaggartech.com
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 7:58 AM
 Subject: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)


   
 In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or 
 G?
 Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a mix?

 Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the 
 extra
 speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more stable?
 I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided less
 bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.  What's the
 real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined 
 with
 a higher useage AP?

 I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while.  We've started
 having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k and
 fluctuate constantly.  We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and
 nothing seems to have improved the stability.  For testing purposes we put
 up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble with.  Switched 
 two
 of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they seem to 
 be
 doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be.  This is on
 Deliberant AP's (Duos).  The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we can
 pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP.  We have
 other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one so 
 we
 know it's not limitations of the equipment.  AP is on top of a water 
 tower.
 Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it did
 not reveal anything significant.  With just one customer on the AP started
 acting up again.  Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have one 
 going
 bad and still no luck.

 2.4 antennas are H-pol.  We have a ton of noise in the area, but we've 
 been
 through basically every channel and it did not help either.  Other AP's in
 the vicinity are performing fine.  Thought of the multipath issue so we
 raised our test AP up a little higher than the other one.  As I said, the
 test AP seems to be better, but next to it on top of the tower we can get
 around 8 or 9 meg down (locked into G mode), but at the CPE's we're still
 barely getting 2.5-2.8meg.

 Any thoughts?  We changed everything we can.  The new test AP has a 9db
 antenna compared to the 13db on the production AP.  Other than that, 
 they
 are identical as far as equipment goes.

 So, back to the subject question though, what's real-world experience with
 G-only mode in the field?




 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 
 



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
  
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

   




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-03 Thread RickG
So G makes sense for an upgrade or would the money be better spent on
another technology such as mimo?
-RickG

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com wrote:
 We are in the process of replacing all of our old 802.11b gear with
 802.11g AP/CPE running on 10mhz channels.    802.11g on 10mhz channels
 is a great solution, as it takes up less spectrum, has more interference
 resistance and delivers about 2x the speeds of standard 802.11b.    In
 my experience, it has made it possible for us to double up the capacity
 on our access points and offer 2-4meg speeds to our customers on those APs.

 I use StarOS for APs, and Tranzeo, Ubiquiti, Mikrotik and StarOS CPE
 radios.    Working great for me so far.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com



 Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
 I've found that in noisy environments b works better.  Just did a repair at
 a customer's site, 400 to 700k down, 2 to 3 megs upload.  Switched from b/g
 to b only and no he gets a steady 4 megs both ways.  Go figure.

 Mikrotik with xr2 card.  Power set to 20dB with 13dB 120* hpol sector.
 About 25 subs on this one.  LOTS of other 2.4 in the area.
 marlon

 - Original Message -
 From: Jason Hensley ja...@jaggartech.com
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 7:58 AM
 Subject: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)



 In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or
 G?
 Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a mix?

 Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the
 extra
 speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more stable?
 I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided less
 bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.  What's the
 real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined
 with
 a higher useage AP?

 I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while.  We've started
 having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k and
 fluctuate constantly.  We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and
 nothing seems to have improved the stability.  For testing purposes we put
 up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble with.  Switched
 two
 of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they seem to
 be
 doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be.  This is on
 Deliberant AP's (Duos).  The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we can
 pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP.  We have
 other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one so
 we
 know it's not limitations of the equipment.  AP is on top of a water
 tower.
 Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it did
 not reveal anything significant.  With just one customer on the AP started
 acting up again.  Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have one
 going
 bad and still no luck.

 2.4 antennas are H-pol.  We have a ton of noise in the area, but we've
 been
 through basically every channel and it did not help either.  Other AP's in
 the vicinity are performing fine.  Thought of the multipath issue so we
 raised our test AP up a little higher than the other one.  As I said, the
 test AP seems to be better, but next to it on top of the tower we can get
 around 8 or 9 meg down (locked into G mode), but at the CPE's we're still
 barely getting 2.5-2.8meg.

 Any thoughts?  We changed everything we can.  The new test AP has a 9db
 antenna compared to the 13db on the production AP.  Other than that,
 they
 are identical as far as equipment goes.

 So, back to the subject question though, what's real-world experience with
 G-only mode in the field?




 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-03 Thread Rubens Kuhl
Curious note: Ubiquiti Nanostation 5 is 5.4 GHz certified in .br,
which has similar requirements to FCC or ETSI certification on that
band. My guess it's ETSI certified as well.

I would welcome the $100 but my guess is Anatel certification don't
qualify, so let's earn it the old way.


Rubens


On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote:
 Where?

 This is the FCC cert for the M5 Rocket

 http://tinyurl.com/yaolxlj

 its only certified for 5.8 ghz AND get this, for PTMP its only certified
 with 6db omnis . so how come they are selling sectors for them .

 Show me where its certified for 5.4, ill send you a $100 paypal

 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Mike Hammett
 Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:42 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

 Actually, their new M series has 5.4 GHz certification.


 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com



 --
 From: jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com
 Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 2:42 PM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

 On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:08:02PM -0400, David Hulsebus wrote:
 I have used 411 AP's with XR5 cards and NS5L's with good success in
 small subdivision projects. 1/2 to 1 mile using 5M channels running
 G,
 mostly horizontal. We lock the rates lower than 54 if we see any CCQ
 numbers consistently below 66%. We've had our best success at 36MB.
 Lowering not raising the power in most cases improves our CCQ. But
 again, we're mostly within a half mile. We don't have a sector
 broader
 than 90 deg, run mostly 5.4 on the AP and 5.7 on our backhauls. One
 site
 Dave Hulsebus

 I'm curious what you use that is cheap and legal for 5.4 APs? I know
 that nothing UBNT makes is legal for 5.4 use in the US. Not being a
 frequency nazi, just looking for something legal for me to use.

 --
 /*
 Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
    KB1IOJ        |   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
 http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Maine    http://www.midcoast.com/
 */



 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

 
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-03 Thread Gino Villarini
FCC has very strict rules in 5.4, very different from ETSI.  Its all about 
special DFS requirements that are not met by regular DFS implementation on the 
rest of the world


Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Rubens Kuhl
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 7:15 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

Curious note: Ubiquiti Nanostation 5 is 5.4 GHz certified in .br,
which has similar requirements to FCC or ETSI certification on that
band. My guess it's ETSI certified as well.

I would welcome the $100 but my guess is Anatel certification don't
qualify, so let's earn it the old way.


Rubens


On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote:
 Where?

 This is the FCC cert for the M5 Rocket

 http://tinyurl.com/yaolxlj

 its only certified for 5.8 ghz AND get this, for PTMP its only certified
 with 6db omnis . so how come they are selling sectors for them .

 Show me where its certified for 5.4, ill send you a $100 paypal

 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Mike Hammett
 Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:42 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

 Actually, their new M series has 5.4 GHz certification.


 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com



 --
 From: jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com
 Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 2:42 PM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

 On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:08:02PM -0400, David Hulsebus wrote:
 I have used 411 AP's with XR5 cards and NS5L's with good success in
 small subdivision projects. 1/2 to 1 mile using 5M channels running
 G,
 mostly horizontal. We lock the rates lower than 54 if we see any CCQ
 numbers consistently below 66%. We've had our best success at 36MB.
 Lowering not raising the power in most cases improves our CCQ. But
 again, we're mostly within a half mile. We don't have a sector
 broader
 than 90 deg, run mostly 5.4 on the AP and 5.7 on our backhauls. One
 site
 Dave Hulsebus

 I'm curious what you use that is cheap and legal for 5.4 APs? I know
 that nothing UBNT makes is legal for 5.4 use in the US. Not being a
 frequency nazi, just looking for something legal for me to use.

 --
 /*
 Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
    KB1IOJ        |   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
 http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Maine    http://www.midcoast.com/
 */



 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

 
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-03 Thread Mike Hammett
I swore I saw a document on the FCC's site saying it was, but I cannot find 
it any more.

UBNT has submitted everything to the FCC, just waiting for the final 
approval.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 2:42 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

 On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:08:02PM -0400, David Hulsebus wrote:
 I have used 411 AP's with XR5 cards and NS5L's with good success in
 small subdivision projects. 1/2 to 1 mile using 5M channels running G,
 mostly horizontal. We lock the rates lower than 54 if we see any CCQ
 numbers consistently below 66%. We've had our best success at 36MB.
 Lowering not raising the power in most cases improves our CCQ. But
 again, we're mostly within a half mile. We don't have a sector broader
 than 90 deg, run mostly 5.4 on the AP and 5.7 on our backhauls. One site
 Dave Hulsebus

 I'm curious what you use that is cheap and legal for 5.4 APs? I know
 that nothing UBNT makes is legal for 5.4 use in the US. Not being a
 frequency nazi, just looking for something legal for me to use.

 -- 
 /*
 Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
 http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/
 */


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-03 Thread Lawrence E. Bakst
I think you guys know most of this already, but here is my take FWIW.

I'm not a WISP, but I spent 5 years leading the design and development of an 
802.11[agb] security system. We did our own polling solution based on 802.11e 
HCCA to solve the RTS/hidden node problem.

All things being equal (which they often aren't) 802.11b will give you a higher 
S/N and C/I than 802.11g, because in almost all cases and especially at higher 
speeds. 802.11g has to lower the PA power because of the PAPR of OFDM and 
meeting the 802.11g EVM spec.

It is true that 2.4 GHz can be very polluted. We found the noise floor to be 
really awful. You would be surprised by the number of entities that know they 
are way over the FCC max power in 2.4 GHz, but I digress. We once measured over 
300 PHY errors a second on an unused 2.4 GHz channel. The number went down to 
150 PHY errors a second inside an FCC chamber, if you can believe that.

Having said all that we didn't use 802.11b at all because it's data rates are 
too low for video.

Also while we supported 2.4 GHz, we mostly deployed at 5.8 GHz ISM because of 
the increased power available there and the pollution was much less, but that 
maybe different now.

For 802.11[ag] mutlipoint, the sweet spot speed wise is 18-36 Mbps. It's very 
hard to keep a multipoint system at 48 or 54 Mbps because you need a great deal 
of link margin and with all cards you loose power as the speed increases to 
maintain PAPR/EVM. For point to point with direction antenna relief you can 
often maintain 48 or 54.

Antennae make a big difference, as others have noted horizontal polarization is 
usually best and make the beam as narrow as you can afford because it raises 
the effective gain. However, if you are in an area where everyone else is 
horizontal it can make sense to try vertical. With some of the antennae we used 
that was as simple as rotating the antenna 90 deg at both ends.

Watch out for crappy antennae, cheap cable, bad connectors, and so on. That can 
often cost you a few dB. In the product I designed I spent more time then I 
care to admit trying to make a very tough loss budget that I set out as a goal.

There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have enough.

I can confirm that our sweeps with a spectrum analyzer show lots of opportunity 
to use 5 and 10 MHz channels, as others have also noted. For WISPs it would be 
nice if chip vendors designed the radios so that you could set the channel 
bandwidth from 5-40 MHz in 1 MHz increments. It can be done but probably won't 
be, although maybe the Microsoft WhiteFI stuff force the chip vendors to do it. 
In WiMax and LTE they are already doing some things close to this. Still 5, 10, 
and 20 isn't bad and probably hits the sweet spot or 80/20 rule.

One of the down sides of fitting a 5 or 10 MHz channel in a sweet spot is that 
it can change at any time.

Best,

leb

At 9:58 AM -0500 10/1/09, Jason Hensley wrote:
In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or G?
Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a mix? 

Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the extra
speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more stable?
I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided less
bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.  What's the
real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined with
a higher useage AP? 

I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while.  We've started
having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k and
fluctuate constantly.  We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and
nothing seems to have improved the stability.  For testing purposes we put
up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble with.  Switched two
of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they seem to be
doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be.  This is on
Deliberant AP's (Duos).  The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we can
pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP.  We have
other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one so we
know it's not limitations of the equipment.  AP is on top of a water tower.
Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it did
not reveal anything significant.  With just one customer on the AP started
acting up again.  Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have one going
bad and still no luck. 

2.4 antennas are H-pol.  We have a ton of noise in the area, but we've been
through basically every channel and it did not help either.  Other AP's in
the vicinity are performing fine.  Thought of the multipath issue so we
raised our test AP up a little higher than the other one.  As I said, the
test AP seems to be better, but next to it on top of the tower we can get
around 8 or 9 meg down (locked into G mode), but at the 

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-03 Thread Scottie Arnett
I am reading your response and can not decipher all your algorithms? Point that 
out and I will have a much more understanding of what you are scientifically 
trying to say. Most WISPS have absolutely no scientific background!

John 

-- Original Message --
From: Lawrence E. Bakst m...@iridescent.org
Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Date:  Sun, 4 Oct 2009 00:15:45 -0400

I think you guys know most of this already, but here is my take FWIW.

I'm not a WISP, but I spent 5 years leading the design and development of an 
802.11[agb] security system. We did our own polling solution based on 802.11e 
HCCA to solve the RTS/hidden node problem.

All things being equal (which they often aren't) 802.11b will give you a 
higher S/N and C/I than 802.11g, because in almost all cases and especially at 
higher speeds. 802.11g has to lower the PA power because of the PAPR of OFDM 
and meeting the 802.11g EVM spec.

It is true that 2.4 GHz can be very polluted. We found the noise floor to be 
really awful. You would be surprised by the number of entities that know 
they are way over the FCC max power in 2.4 GHz, but I digress. We once 
measured over 300 PHY errors a second on an unused 2.4 GHz channel. The 
number went down to 150 PHY errors a second inside an FCC chamber, if you can 
believe that.

Having said all that we didn't use 802.11b at all because it's data rates are 
too low for video.

Also while we supported 2.4 GHz, we mostly deployed at 5.8 GHz ISM because of 
the increased power available there and the pollution was much less, but that 
maybe different now.

For 802.11[ag] mutlipoint, the sweet spot speed wise is 18-36 Mbps. It's very 
hard to keep a multipoint system at 48 or 54 Mbps because you need a great 
deal of link margin and with all cards you loose power as the speed increases 
to maintain PAPR/EVM. For point to point with direction antenna relief you can 
often maintain 48 or 54.

Antennae make a big difference, as others have noted horizontal polarization 
is usually best and make the beam as narrow as you can afford because it 
raises the effective gain. However, if you are in an area where everyone else 
is horizontal it can make sense to try vertical. With some of the antennae we 
used that was as simple as rotating the antenna 90 deg at both ends.

Watch out for crappy antennae, cheap cable, bad connectors, and so on. That 
can often cost you a few dB. In the product I designed I spent more time then 
I care to admit trying to make a very tough loss budget that I set out as a 
goal.

There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have enough.

I can confirm that our sweeps with a spectrum analyzer show lots of 
opportunity to use 5 and 10 MHz channels, as others have also noted. For WISPs 
it would be nice if chip vendors designed the radios so that you could set 
the channel bandwidth from 5-40 MHz in 1 MHz increments. It can be done but 
probably won't be, although maybe the Microsoft WhiteFI stuff force the chip 
vendors to do it. In WiMax and LTE they are already doing some things close to 
this. Still 5, 10, and 20 isn't bad and probably hits the sweet spot or 80/20 
rule.

One of the down sides of fitting a 5 or 10 MHz channel in a sweet spot is that 
it can change at any time.

Best,

leb

At 9:58 AM -0500 10/1/09, Jason Hensley wrote:
In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or G?
Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a mix? 

Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the extra
speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more stable?
I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided less
bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.  What's the
real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined with
a higher useage AP? 

I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while.  We've started
having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k and
fluctuate constantly.  We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and
nothing seems to have improved the stability.  For testing purposes we put
up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble with.  Switched two
of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they seem to be
doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be.  This is on
Deliberant AP's (Duos).  The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we can
pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP.  We have
other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one so we
know it's not limitations of the equipment.  AP is on top of a water tower.
Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it did
not reveal anything significant.  With just one customer on the AP started
acting up again.  Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have one going
bad and still no 

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-03 Thread Jack Unger




Yep it's too bad that many wireless ISPs have no interest in learning
about wireless. 

Scottie Arnett wrote:

  I am reading your response and can not decipher all your algorithms? Point that out and I will have a much more understanding of what you are scientifically trying to say. Most WISPS have absolutely no scientific background!

John 

-- Original Message --
From: "Lawrence E. Bakst" m...@iridescent.org
Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Date:  Sun, 4 Oct 2009 00:15:45 -0400

  
  
I think you guys know most of this already, but here is my take FWIW.

I'm not a WISP, but I spent 5 years leading the design and development of an 802.11[agb] security system. We did our own polling solution based on 802.11e HCCA to solve the RTS/hidden node problem.

All things being equal (which they often aren't) 802.11b will give you a higher S/N and C/I than 802.11g, because in almost all cases and especially at higher speeds. 802.11g has to lower the PA power because of the PAPR of OFDM and meeting the 802.11g EVM spec.

It is true that 2.4 GHz can be very polluted. We found the noise floor to be really awful. You would be surprised by the number of "entities" that know they are way over the FCC max power in 2.4 GHz, but I digress. We once measured over 300 PHY errors a second on an "unused" 2.4 GHz channel. The number went down to 150 PHY errors a second inside an FCC chamber, if you can believe that.

Having said all that we didn't use 802.11b at all because it's data rates are too low for video.

Also while we supported 2.4 GHz, we mostly deployed at 5.8 GHz ISM because of the increased power available there and the pollution was much less, but that maybe different now.

For 802.11[ag] mutlipoint, the sweet spot speed wise is 18-36 Mbps. It's very hard to keep a multipoint system at 48 or 54 Mbps because you need a great deal of link margin and with all cards you loose power as the speed increases to maintain PAPR/EVM. For point to point with direction antenna relief you can often maintain 48 or 54.

Antennae make a big difference, as others have noted horizontal polarization is usually best and make the beam as narrow as you can afford because it raises the effective gain. However, if you are in an area where everyone else is horizontal it can make sense to try vertical. With some of the antennae we used that was as simple as rotating the antenna 90 deg at both ends.

Watch out for crappy antennae, cheap cable, bad connectors, and so on. That can often cost you a few dB. In the product I designed I spent more time then I care to admit trying to make a very tough loss budget that I set out as a goal.

There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have enough.

I can confirm that our sweeps with a spectrum analyzer show lots of opportunity to use 5 and 10 MHz channels, as others have also noted. For WISPs it would be "nice" if chip vendors designed the radios so that you could set the channel bandwidth from 5-40 MHz in 1 MHz increments. It can be done but probably won't be, although maybe the Microsoft WhiteFI stuff force the chip vendors to do it. In WiMax and LTE they are already doing some things close to this. Still 5, 10, and 20 isn't bad and probably hits the sweet spot or 80/20 rule.

One of the down sides of fitting a 5 or 10 MHz channel in a sweet spot is that it can change at any time.

Best,

leb

At 9:58 AM -0500 10/1/09, Jason Hensley wrote:


  In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or G?
Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a mix? 

Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the extra
speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more stable?
I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided less
bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.  What's the
real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined with
a higher useage AP? 

I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while.  We've started
having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k and
fluctuate constantly.  We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and
nothing seems to have improved the stability.  For testing purposes we put
up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble with.  Switched two
of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they seem to be
doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be.  This is on
Deliberant AP's (Duos).  The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we can
pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP.  We have
other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one so we
know it's not limitations of the equipment.  AP is on top of a water tower.
Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it did
not reveal anything significant.  With just one 

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-02 Thread Travis Johnson




Wow... are we really going to start this _again_?

I started in 1997 with WaveLan 900mhz ISA cards in DOS based 386 PC
routers using Novell drivers to make a router box. We have used
WaveLan, Solectek, Orinoco, CM3's, 3Com, Trango, Mikrotik and lately
Canopy. I have built a network from 0 customers to almost 6,000
wireless customers in Idaho of all places. We cover 30,000 square miles
with over 90 towers and we own and maintain all of it ourselves...
no phone companies, no cable companies.

Trust me when I tell you, right now, nothing else scales like Canopy. I
have used and tested everything out there... you just can NOT scale to
any size on a single tower (or even in the same regional area) without
GPS sync. Your AP will not handle hundreds of customers without polling.

And, I can tell you now that I am buying AP's for _much_ less than you
quoted and SM's as well... so, while I continue to install 250 new
customers per month, you can tell me that I don't know what I am doing
and I have no clue about equipment. ;)

Travis
Microserv

Jayson Baker wrote:

  Yes, how childish.  Don't ever talk bad about Canopy to a Canopy Operator.
It'll get them all flustered and they start flaming.  I find it pretty
hilarious, really.  I've come to surmise that the reason EVERY Canopy
Operator gets so pissed off when you talk about anything non-Canopy is
because they realize $2000+ for an AP and $300-$1000 for an SM is so
rediculous for a maximum of... what... 14Mbps?  Ooo, it has a GPS antenna,
and ooo it will sync with other clusters in the area... never worked well
for us, because the other Canopy provider didn't buy a CMM and so was never
sync'ed.

Bleh.  Fine for them.  Less profit for them.  Makes them more likely to
fail.  When they do, and their subs switch to us, at least the cable is
already ran and the mount already in place.  :-)

Oh by the way, Smokeping indicates that most subs on our busiest AP have an
average latency of around 4-8ms.  And all those subs are limited to 6 up, 12
down.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com wrote:

  
  
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 19:47 -0600, Travis Johnson wrote:


  As soon as you can offer 7ms latency to 100 people off the same AP
using WiFi based radios, please let me know. I will buy 200 AP's and
5,000 CPE. ;)
  

That kind of density is NOT necessary for MANY WISPs.  I know that is
the cry that nearly ALL Canopy Koolaid drinkers use, but it does not
apply to everyone.  For those that need it...Canopy offers a very nice
solution that works, works well and is affordable because it is NEEDED.
For those that don't...Canopy is WAY to expensive to be worth the extra
$$.

Don't take this as a "jab" because it isn't intended that way, but why
would you post a message that indicates that someone was inviting you to
switch your Canopy out for WiFi?  Nobody made such a suggestion and
(IMHO) reacting in the way you did is just plain rude.

--

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


  
  


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

  






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-02 Thread Travis Johnson




Here was the original part of the message (that somehow got left off
your reply):

"For a very long time we got caught in the Canopy mentality "my Canopy
is
better than your any other vendor here"  We finally opened our eyes, got
jumped out of the gang, and are very happy we did.  It seems a lot of Canopy
operators have the mentality that WiFi sucks -- probably because they too
started with it years ago, when it really did suck."
And I am buying Canopy AP's and SM's for way less than MSRP WAY
LESS.

Travis
Microserv

Butch Evans wrote:

  On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 19:47 -0600, Travis Johnson wrote:
  
  
As soon as you can offer 7ms latency to 100 people off the same AP
using WiFi based radios, please let me know. I will buy 200 AP's and
5,000 CPE. ;)

  
  
That kind of density is NOT necessary for MANY WISPs.  I know that is
the cry that nearly ALL Canopy Koolaid drinkers use, but it does not
apply to everyone.  For those that need it...Canopy offers a very nice
solution that works, works well and is affordable because it is NEEDED.
For those that don't...Canopy is WAY to expensive to be worth the extra
$$.  

Don't take this as a "jab" because it isn't intended that way, but why
would you post a message that indicates that someone was inviting you to
switch your Canopy out for WiFi?  Nobody made such a suggestion and
(IMHO) reacting in the way you did is just plain rude.

  






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-02 Thread Mike
I built one of the very first Canopy networks back in 2002.  Joe 
Schneider even sat at my desk and helped configure the first 
cluster.  We even helped them iron out some problems with the early 
CMM.  Ken Magro was near the top of my speed dial list.

The only serious competition at the time was Alvarion frequency 
hoppers.  The system worked well except over water paths, where we 
had scintillation, where water towers were near the path; in other 
words, wherever there were multi path issues it didn't work well.

My only point is that in Urban areas, Canopy is a good choice if 
there is a lot of contention for spectrum and you need to win.  If 
you are in a rural setting, with longer distances with path obstacles 
and multi path, OFDM modulation just works better, and it's cheaper.

Apples and oranges troops!  Neither is better than the other, and 
there is a solution that will solve most of your engineering problems.



At 01:24 AM 10/2/2009, you wrote:
Here was the original part of the message (that somehow got left off 
your reply):

For a very long time we got caught in the Canopy mentality my Canopy is

better than your any other vendor here  We finally opened our eyes, got
jumped out of the gang, and are very happy we did.  It seems a lot of Canopy
operators have the mentality that WiFi sucks -- probably because they too
started with it years ago, when it really did suck.And I am buying 
Canopy AP's and SM's for way less than MSRP WAY LESS.

Travis
Microserv

Butch Evans wrote:

On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 19:47 -0600, Travis Johnson wrote:


As soon as you can offer 7ms latency to 100 people off the same AP
using WiFi based radios, please let me know. I will buy 200 AP's and
5,000 CPE. ;)



That kind of density is NOT necessary for MANY WISPs.  I know that is
the cry that nearly ALL Canopy Koolaid drinkers use, but it does not
apply to everyone.  For those that need it...Canopy offers a very nice
solution that works, works well and is affordable because it is NEEDED.
For those that don't...Canopy is WAY to expensive to be worth the extra
$$.

Don't take this as a jab because it isn't intended that way, but why
would you post a message that indicates that someone was inviting you to
switch your Canopy out for WiFi?  Nobody made such a suggestion and
(IMHO) reacting in the way you did is just plain rude.





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-02 Thread jp
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:08:02PM -0400, David Hulsebus wrote:
 I have used 411 AP's with XR5 cards and NS5L's with good success in 
 small subdivision projects. 1/2 to 1 mile using 5M channels running G, 
 mostly horizontal. We lock the rates lower than 54 if we see any CCQ 
 numbers consistently below 66%. We've had our best success at 36MB. 
 Lowering not raising the power in most cases improves our CCQ. But 
 again, we're mostly within a half mile. We don't have a sector broader 
 than 90 deg, run mostly 5.4 on the AP and 5.7 on our backhauls. One site 
 Dave Hulsebus

I'm curious what you use that is cheap and legal for 5.4 APs? I know 
that nothing UBNT makes is legal for 5.4 use in the US. Not being a 
frequency nazi, just looking for something legal for me to use.

-- 
/*
Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting 
 http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/
*/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-02 Thread Gino Villarini
Yeah UBNT 5 ghz is only FCC approved on 5.8 ghz, 

Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of jp
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 3:43 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:08:02PM -0400, David Hulsebus wrote:
 I have used 411 AP's with XR5 cards and NS5L's with good success in 
 small subdivision projects. 1/2 to 1 mile using 5M channels running G,

 mostly horizontal. We lock the rates lower than 54 if we see any CCQ 
 numbers consistently below 66%. We've had our best success at 36MB. 
 Lowering not raising the power in most cases improves our CCQ. But 
 again, we're mostly within a half mile. We don't have a sector broader

 than 90 deg, run mostly 5.4 on the AP and 5.7 on our backhauls. One
site 
 Dave Hulsebus

I'm curious what you use that is cheap and legal for 5.4 APs? I know 
that nothing UBNT makes is legal for 5.4 use in the US. Not being a 
frequency nazi, just looking for something legal for me to use.

-- 
/*
Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting 
 http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/
*/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-02 Thread Randy Cosby
Tranzeo TR-5A series is legal. 

Gino Villarini wrote:
 Yeah UBNT 5 ghz is only FCC approved on 5.8 ghz, 

 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of jp
 Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 3:43 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

 On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:08:02PM -0400, David Hulsebus wrote:
   
 I have used 411 AP's with XR5 cards and NS5L's with good success in 
 small subdivision projects. 1/2 to 1 mile using 5M channels running G,
 

   
 mostly horizontal. We lock the rates lower than 54 if we see any CCQ 
 numbers consistently below 66%. We've had our best success at 36MB. 
 Lowering not raising the power in most cases improves our CCQ. But 
 again, we're mostly within a half mile. We don't have a sector broader
 

   
 than 90 deg, run mostly 5.4 on the AP and 5.7 on our backhauls. One
 
 site 
   
 Dave Hulsebus
 

 I'm curious what you use that is cheap and legal for 5.4 APs? I know 
 that nothing UBNT makes is legal for 5.4 use in the US. Not being a 
 frequency nazi, just looking for something legal for me to use.

   



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-02 Thread Mike Hammett
Actually, their new M series has 5.4 GHz certification.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 2:42 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

 On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:08:02PM -0400, David Hulsebus wrote:
 I have used 411 AP's with XR5 cards and NS5L's with good success in
 small subdivision projects. 1/2 to 1 mile using 5M channels running G,
 mostly horizontal. We lock the rates lower than 54 if we see any CCQ
 numbers consistently below 66%. We've had our best success at 36MB.
 Lowering not raising the power in most cases improves our CCQ. But
 again, we're mostly within a half mile. We don't have a sector broader
 than 90 deg, run mostly 5.4 on the AP and 5.7 on our backhauls. One site
 Dave Hulsebus

 I'm curious what you use that is cheap and legal for 5.4 APs? I know
 that nothing UBNT makes is legal for 5.4 use in the US. Not being a
 frequency nazi, just looking for something legal for me to use.

 -- 
 /*
 Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
 http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/
 */


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-02 Thread Gino Villarini
Where?

This is the FCC cert for the M5 Rocket

http://tinyurl.com/yaolxlj

its only certified for 5.8 ghz AND get this, for PTMP its only certified
with 6db omnis . so how come they are selling sectors for them .

Show me where its certified for 5.4, ill send you a $100 paypal

Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:42 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

Actually, their new M series has 5.4 GHz certification.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 2:42 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

 On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:08:02PM -0400, David Hulsebus wrote:
 I have used 411 AP's with XR5 cards and NS5L's with good success in
 small subdivision projects. 1/2 to 1 mile using 5M channels running
G,
 mostly horizontal. We lock the rates lower than 54 if we see any CCQ
 numbers consistently below 66%. We've had our best success at 36MB.
 Lowering not raising the power in most cases improves our CCQ. But
 again, we're mostly within a half mile. We don't have a sector
broader
 than 90 deg, run mostly 5.4 on the AP and 5.7 on our backhauls. One
site
 Dave Hulsebus

 I'm curious what you use that is cheap and legal for 5.4 APs? I know
 that nothing UBNT makes is legal for 5.4 use in the US. Not being a
 frequency nazi, just looking for something legal for me to use.

 -- 
 /*
 Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
 http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/
 */





 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/




 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-01 Thread jp
If you aren't sectorized, you should do that first.

Neither normal b or g or b/g are ideal in high noise. I don't mix. 

I like a little better g-mode on 10mhz channels using radio cards that 
support listening on 5/10 mhz channels like the xr2. (Many listen on 
20mhz) You're more than twice as likely to find a clearer channel.

On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:58:30AM -0500, Jason Hensley wrote:
 In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or G?
 Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a mix?  
 
 Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the extra
 speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more stable?
 I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided less
 bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.  What's the
 real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined with
 a higher useage AP?  
 
 I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while.  We've started
 having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k and
 fluctuate constantly.  We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and
 nothing seems to have improved the stability.  For testing purposes we put
 up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble with.  Switched two
 of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they seem to be
 doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be.  This is on
 Deliberant AP's (Duos).  The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we can
 pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP.  We have
 other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one so we
 know it's not limitations of the equipment.  AP is on top of a water tower.
 Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it did
 not reveal anything significant.  With just one customer on the AP started
 acting up again.  Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have one going
 bad and still no luck.  
 
 2.4 antennas are H-pol.  We have a ton of noise in the area, but we've been
 through basically every channel and it did not help either.  Other AP's in
 the vicinity are performing fine.  Thought of the multipath issue so we
 raised our test AP up a little higher than the other one.  As I said, the
 test AP seems to be better, but next to it on top of the tower we can get
 around 8 or 9 meg down (locked into G mode), but at the CPE's we're still
 barely getting 2.5-2.8meg.  
 
 Any thoughts?  We changed everything we can.  The new test AP has a 9db
 antenna compared to the 13db on the production AP.  Other than that, they
 are identical as far as equipment goes.  
 
 So, back to the subject question though, what's real-world experience with
 G-only mode in the field?  
 
 
 
 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
  
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

-- 
/*
Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting 
 http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/
*/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-01 Thread Mike
The Atheros Deliberant cards will do half and quarter channels on G.


At 10:42 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote:
If you aren't sectorized, you should do that first.

Neither normal b or g or b/g are ideal in high noise. I don't mix.

I like a little better g-mode on 10mhz channels using radio cards that
support listening on 5/10 mhz channels like the xr2. (Many listen on
20mhz) You're more than twice as likely to find a clearer channel.

On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:58:30AM -0500, Jason Hensley wrote:
  In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or G?
  Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to 
 do a mix?
 
  Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the extra
  speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more stable?
  I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided less
  bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.  What's the
  real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined with
  a higher useage AP?
 
  I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while.  We've started
  having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k and
  fluctuate constantly.  We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and
  nothing seems to have improved the stability.  For testing purposes we put
  up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble 
 with.  Switched two
  of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they 
 seem to be
  doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be.  This is on
  Deliberant AP's (Duos).  The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we can
  pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP.  We have
  other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one so we
  know it's not limitations of the equipment.  AP is on top of a water tower.
  Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it did
  not reveal anything significant.  With just one customer on the AP started
  acting up again.  Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have one going
  bad and still no luck.
 
  2.4 antennas are H-pol.  We have a ton of noise in the area, but we've been
  through basically every channel and it did not help either.  Other AP's in
  the vicinity are performing fine.  Thought of the multipath issue so we
  raised our test AP up a little higher than the other one.  As I said, the
  test AP seems to be better, but next to it on top of the tower we can get
  around 8 or 9 meg down (locked into G mode), but at the CPE's we're still
  barely getting 2.5-2.8meg.
 
  Any thoughts?  We changed everything we can.  The new test AP has a 9db
  antenna compared to the 13db on the production AP.  Other than that, they
  are identical as far as equipment goes.
 
  So, back to the subject question though, what's real-world experience with
  G-only mode in the field?
 
 
 
 
  
 
  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
  
 
 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

--
/*
Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
 KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
  http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/
*/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-01 Thread Josh Luthman
Mike - you mean 5mhz and 10mhz channels?

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
improbable, must be the truth.
--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote:

 The Atheros Deliberant cards will do half and quarter channels on G.


 At 10:42 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote:
 If you aren't sectorized, you should do that first.
 
 Neither normal b or g or b/g are ideal in high noise. I don't mix.
 
 I like a little better g-mode on 10mhz channels using radio cards that
 support listening on 5/10 mhz channels like the xr2. (Many listen on
 20mhz) You're more than twice as likely to find a clearer channel.
 
 On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:58:30AM -0500, Jason Hensley wrote:
   In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B
 or G?
   Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to
  do a mix?
  
   Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the
 extra
   speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more
 stable?
   I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided
 less
   bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.  What's the
   real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined
 with
   a higher useage AP?
  
   I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while.  We've
 started
   having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k
 and
   fluctuate constantly.  We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and
   nothing seems to have improved the stability.  For testing purposes we
 put
   up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble
  with.  Switched two
   of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they
  seem to be
   doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be.  This is
 on
   Deliberant AP's (Duos).  The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we
 can
   pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP.  We
 have
   other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one
 so we
   know it's not limitations of the equipment.  AP is on top of a water
 tower.
   Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it
 did
   not reveal anything significant.  With just one customer on the AP
 started
   acting up again.  Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have one
 going
   bad and still no luck.
  
   2.4 antennas are H-pol.  We have a ton of noise in the area, but we've
 been
   through basically every channel and it did not help either.  Other AP's
 in
   the vicinity are performing fine.  Thought of the multipath issue so we
   raised our test AP up a little higher than the other one.  As I said,
 the
   test AP seems to be better, but next to it on top of the tower we can
 get
   around 8 or 9 meg down (locked into G mode), but at the CPE's we're
 still
   barely getting 2.5-2.8meg.
  
   Any thoughts?  We changed everything we can.  The new test AP has a
 9db
   antenna compared to the 13db on the production AP.  Other than that,
 they
   are identical as far as equipment goes.
  
   So, back to the subject question though, what's real-world experience
 with
   G-only mode in the field?
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
   WISPA Wants You! Join today!
   http://signup.wispa.org/
  
 
 
  
   WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
  
   Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
   http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
  
   Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 --
 /*
 Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
  KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
   http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/
 */
 
 

 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

 
 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-01 Thread Mike
Yeah, I think they use the same cards -- Willi Atheros.  Goota set 
IEEE mode to G first, then half/quarter channels are available.

At 11:04 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote:
Mike - you mean 5mhz and 10mhz channels?

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
improbable, must be the truth.
--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote:

  The Atheros Deliberant cards will do half and quarter channels on G.
 
 
  At 10:42 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote:
  If you aren't sectorized, you should do that first.
  
  Neither normal b or g or b/g are ideal in high noise. I don't mix.
  
  I like a little better g-mode on 10mhz channels using radio cards that
  support listening on 5/10 mhz channels like the xr2. (Many listen on
  20mhz) You're more than twice as likely to find a clearer channel.
  
  On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:58:30AM -0500, Jason Hensley wrote:
In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B
  or G?
Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to
   do a mix?
   
Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the
  extra
speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more
  stable?
I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided
  less
bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.  What's the
real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined
  with
a higher useage AP?
   
I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while.  We've
  started
having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k
  and
fluctuate constantly.  We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and
nothing seems to have improved the stability.  For testing purposes we
  put
up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble
   with.  Switched two
of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they
   seem to be
doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be.  This is
  on
Deliberant AP's (Duos).  The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we
  can
pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP.  We
  have
other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one
  so we
know it's not limitations of the equipment.  AP is on top of a water
  tower.
Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it
  did
not reveal anything significant.  With just one customer on the AP
  started
acting up again.  Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have one
  going
bad and still no luck.
   
2.4 antennas are H-pol.  We have a ton of noise in the area, but we've
  been
through basically every channel and it did not help either.  Other AP's
  in
the vicinity are performing fine.  Thought of the multipath issue so we
raised our test AP up a little higher than the other one.  As I said,
  the
test AP seems to be better, but next to it on top of the tower we can
  get
around 8 or 9 meg down (locked into G mode), but at the CPE's we're
  still
barely getting 2.5-2.8meg.
   
Any thoughts?  We changed everything we can.  The new test AP has a
  9db
antenna compared to the 13db on the production AP.  Other than that,
  they
are identical as far as equipment goes.
   
So, back to the subject question though, what's real-world experience
  with
G-only mode in the field?
   
   
   
   
   
  
  
 
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
   
  
  
 
   
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
   
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
   
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  
  --
  /*
  Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
   KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/
  */
  
  
 
  - 
 ---
  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
 
  - 
 ---
  
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
  
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
  
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
 
  
 
 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-01 Thread Mike
I have a lot of Deliberant CPE in my network, just a few of their 
APS.  But the newer generation stock with Atheros cards supports 
20/10/5 MHz channels.

 From their site, concerning the Duos:

Product contains:
* Dual-Radio with adjustable RF Output Power
* Rugged cast aluminum hinged enclosure
* Full, half, and quarter bandwidth channels
* Multi-BSSID support (VSSID) with VLAN tags
* PoE built-in for single cable installation
* Configurable Multi-mode AP
* AP mode/AP client mode
* WDS
* AP router/AP client router
* AP repeater
* Redundant PtP bridge with STP



At 11:37 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote:
Yeah, I think they use the same cards -- Willi Atheros.  Goota set
IEEE mode to G first, then half/quarter channels are available.

At 11:04 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote:
 Mike - you mean 5mhz and 10mhz channels?
 
 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373
 
 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
 improbable, must be the truth.
 --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
 
 
 On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote:
 
   The Atheros Deliberant cards will do half and quarter channels on G.
  
  
   At 10:42 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote:
   If you aren't sectorized, you should do that first.
   
   Neither normal b or g or b/g are ideal in high noise. I don't mix.
   
   I like a little better g-mode on 10mhz channels using radio cards that
   support listening on 5/10 mhz channels like the xr2. (Many listen on
   20mhz) You're more than twice as likely to find a clearer channel.
   
   On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:58:30AM -0500, Jason Hensley wrote:
 In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B
   or G?
 Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to
do a mix?

 Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the
   extra
 speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more
   stable?
 I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided
   less
 bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.  What's the
 real-world experience with folks in a high-noise 
 environment, combined
   with
 a higher useage AP?

 I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while.  We've
   started
 having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k
   and
 fluctuate constantly.  We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, 
 etc etc and
 nothing seems to have improved the stability.  For testing 
 purposes we
   put
 up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble
with.  Switched two
 of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they
seem to be
 doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could 
 be.  This is
   on
 Deliberant AP's (Duos).  The backhaul part of it is not the 
 issue - we
   can
 pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP.  We
   have
 other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one
   so we
 know it's not limitations of the equipment.  AP is on top of a water
   tower.
 Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it
   did
 not reveal anything significant.  With just one customer on the AP
   started
 acting up again.  Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have one
   going
 bad and still no luck.

 2.4 antennas are H-pol.  We have a ton of noise in the 
 area, but we've
   been
 through basically every channel and it did not help 
 either.  Other AP's
   in
 the vicinity are performing fine.  Thought of the multipath 
 issue so we
 raised our test AP up a little higher than the other one.  As I said,
   the
 test AP seems to be better, but next to it on top of the tower we can
   get
 around 8 or 9 meg down (locked into G mode), but at the CPE's we're
   still
 barely getting 2.5-2.8meg.

 Any thoughts?  We changed everything we can.  The new test AP has a
   9db
 antenna compared to the 13db on the production AP.  Other 
 than that,
   they
 are identical as far as equipment goes.

 So, back to the subject question though, what's real-world experience
   with
 G-only mode in the field?





   
  
  
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

   
  
  
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
   
   --
   /*
   Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet 

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-01 Thread Jason Hensley
Smaller channel sizes is one thing we haven't done yet, but we can'd do it
permanently unless we swap out a few CPE's.  Have a couple of older
Tranzeo's and an older Deliberant or two that don't support smaller channel
sizes. 

Appreciate the info and help.  We are going to try it on the Test AP we have
up to see if it makes a difference on the couple of clients we have on there
right now. 



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Mike
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 11:47 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

I have a lot of Deliberant CPE in my network, just a few of their 
APS.  But the newer generation stock with Atheros cards supports 
20/10/5 MHz channels.

 From their site, concerning the Duos:

Product contains:
* Dual-Radio with adjustable RF Output Power
* Rugged cast aluminum hinged enclosure
* Full, half, and quarter bandwidth channels
* Multi-BSSID support (VSSID) with VLAN tags
* PoE built-in for single cable installation
* Configurable Multi-mode AP
* AP mode/AP client mode
* WDS
* AP router/AP client router
* AP repeater
* Redundant PtP bridge with STP



At 11:37 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote:
Yeah, I think they use the same cards -- Willi Atheros.  Goota set
IEEE mode to G first, then half/quarter channels are available.

At 11:04 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote:
 Mike - you mean 5mhz and 10mhz channels?
 
 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373
 
 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
 improbable, must be the truth.
 --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
 
 
 On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote:
 
   The Atheros Deliberant cards will do half and quarter channels on G.
  
  
   At 10:42 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote:
   If you aren't sectorized, you should do that first.
   
   Neither normal b or g or b/g are ideal in high noise. I don't mix.
   
   I like a little better g-mode on 10mhz channels using radio cards
that
   support listening on 5/10 mhz channels like the xr2. (Many listen on
   20mhz) You're more than twice as likely to find a clearer channel.
   
   On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:58:30AM -0500, Jason Hensley wrote:
 In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better
- B
   or G?
 Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to
do a mix?

 Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about
the
   extra
 speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more
   stable?
 I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just
provided
   less
 bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.  What's
the
 real-world experience with folks in a high-noise 
 environment, combined
   with
 a higher useage AP?

 I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while.  We've
   started
 having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to
200k
   and
 fluctuate constantly.  We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, 
 etc etc and
 nothing seems to have improved the stability.  For testing 
 purposes we
   put
 up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble
with.  Switched two
 of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they
seem to be
 doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could 
 be.  This is
   on
 Deliberant AP's (Duos).  The backhaul part of it is not the 
 issue - we
   can
 pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP.
We
   have
 other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this
one
   so we
 know it's not limitations of the equipment.  AP is on top of a
water
   tower.
 Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and
it
   did
 not reveal anything significant.  With just one customer on the AP
   started
 acting up again.  Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have
one
   going
 bad and still no luck.

 2.4 antennas are H-pol.  We have a ton of noise in the 
 area, but we've
   been
 through basically every channel and it did not help 
 either.  Other AP's
   in
 the vicinity are performing fine.  Thought of the multipath 
 issue so we
 raised our test AP up a little higher than the other one.  As I
said,
   the
 test AP seems to be better, but next to it on top of the tower we
can
   get
 around 8 or 9 meg down (locked into G mode), but at the CPE's
we're
   still
 barely getting 2.5-2.8meg.

 Any thoughts?  We changed everything we can.  The new test AP
has a
   9db
 antenna compared to the 13db on the production AP.  Other 
 than that,
   they
 are identical as far as equipment goes.

 So, back to the subject question though, what's real-world
experience
   with
 G-only mode

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-01 Thread Steve Barnes
I have almost 100% Tranzeo CPEs and almost any CPQ and SL2 can do 20 10 or 5Mhz 
channels with the new 4.0.5 Firm.  

5 and 10Mhz has really helped in some noisy areas.  I had one tower I was about 
to take the sectors down and once going to 5mhz I have 15 new clients.

Steve Barnes
RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service

Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of 
trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, vision cleared, ambition 
inspired, and success achieved.
- Helen Keller


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Jason Hensley
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 1:26 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

Smaller channel sizes is one thing we haven't done yet, but we can'd do it
permanently unless we swap out a few CPE's.  Have a couple of older
Tranzeo's and an older Deliberant or two that don't support smaller channel
sizes. 

Appreciate the info and help.  We are going to try it on the Test AP we have
up to see if it makes a difference on the couple of clients we have on there
right now. 



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Mike
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 11:47 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

I have a lot of Deliberant CPE in my network, just a few of their 
APS.  But the newer generation stock with Atheros cards supports 
20/10/5 MHz channels.

 From their site, concerning the Duos:

Product contains:
* Dual-Radio with adjustable RF Output Power
* Rugged cast aluminum hinged enclosure
* Full, half, and quarter bandwidth channels
* Multi-BSSID support (VSSID) with VLAN tags
* PoE built-in for single cable installation
* Configurable Multi-mode AP
* AP mode/AP client mode
* WDS
* AP router/AP client router
* AP repeater
* Redundant PtP bridge with STP



At 11:37 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote:
Yeah, I think they use the same cards -- Willi Atheros.  Goota set
IEEE mode to G first, then half/quarter channels are available.

At 11:04 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote:
 Mike - you mean 5mhz and 10mhz channels?
 
 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373
 
 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
 improbable, must be the truth.
 --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
 
 
 On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote:
 
   The Atheros Deliberant cards will do half and quarter channels on G.
  
  
   At 10:42 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote:
   If you aren't sectorized, you should do that first.
   
   Neither normal b or g or b/g are ideal in high noise. I don't mix.
   
   I like a little better g-mode on 10mhz channels using radio cards
that
   support listening on 5/10 mhz channels like the xr2. (Many listen on
   20mhz) You're more than twice as likely to find a clearer channel.
   
   On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:58:30AM -0500, Jason Hensley wrote:
 In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better
- B
   or G?
 Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to
do a mix?

 Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about
the
   extra
 speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more
   stable?
 I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just
provided
   less
 bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.  What's
the
 real-world experience with folks in a high-noise 
 environment, combined
   with
 a higher useage AP?

 I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while.  We've
   started
 having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to
200k
   and
 fluctuate constantly.  We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, 
 etc etc and
 nothing seems to have improved the stability.  For testing 
 purposes we
   put
 up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble
with.  Switched two
 of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they
seem to be
 doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could 
 be.  This is
   on
 Deliberant AP's (Duos).  The backhaul part of it is not the 
 issue - we
   can
 pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP.
We
   have
 other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this
one
   so we
 know it's not limitations of the equipment.  AP is on top of a
water
   tower.
 Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and
it
   did
 not reveal anything significant.  With just one customer on the AP
   started
 acting up again.  Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have
one
   going
 bad and still no luck.

 2.4 antennas are H-pol.  We have a ton of noise in the 
 area, but we've
   been
 through

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-01 Thread Jayson Baker
I'll tell you what we do, but won't get into defending it for the next month
-- oh, wait, this is not the Canopy list...

Our 2.4GHz spectrum is completely filled with vertical Canopy.

We run UBNT AP's.  Fixed at 2mi ACK.  No RTS.  Fixed G-only.  Horizontal
polarity.  Max data rate of 54Mbps.  Sectors.

Customers are all within 2 miles, use Loco2's.  Customers are Auto ACK.  No
RTS.  Fixed G-Only.  Horizontal.  Max 54Mbps.

On almost every single install we get at least 12Mbps down, 6Mbps up (our
rate limit).  Without limit, we usually see up to 18.

Funny... those lusers on the other guys Canopy pay like $40/mo for 1.5Mbps.
We give 12Mbps for $24.95/mo.

Don't use B.  It's DSSS.  G is OFDM.  Performs much better.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Jason Hensley ja...@jaggartech.com wrote:

 In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or G?
 Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a mix?

 Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the extra
 speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more stable?
 I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided less
 bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.  What's the
 real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined with
 a higher useage AP?

 I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while.  We've started
 having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k and
 fluctuate constantly.  We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and
 nothing seems to have improved the stability.  For testing purposes we put
 up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble with.  Switched
 two
 of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they seem to
 be
 doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be.  This is on
 Deliberant AP's (Duos).  The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we can
 pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP.  We have
 other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one so we
 know it's not limitations of the equipment.  AP is on top of a water tower.
 Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it did
 not reveal anything significant.  With just one customer on the AP started
 acting up again.  Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have one going
 bad and still no luck.

 2.4 antennas are H-pol.  We have a ton of noise in the area, but we've been
 through basically every channel and it did not help either.  Other AP's in
 the vicinity are performing fine.  Thought of the multipath issue so we
 raised our test AP up a little higher than the other one.  As I said, the
 test AP seems to be better, but next to it on top of the tower we can get
 around 8 or 9 meg down (locked into G mode), but at the CPE's we're still
 barely getting 2.5-2.8meg.

 Any thoughts?  We changed everything we can.  The new test AP has a 9db
 antenna compared to the 13db on the production AP.  Other than that, they
 are identical as far as equipment goes.

 So, back to the subject question though, what's real-world experience with
 G-only mode in the field?





 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-01 Thread Ryan Spott
-- oh, wait, this is not the Canopy list. LOL! :)

How many users per AP?

ryan

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Jayson Baker jay...@spectrasurf.com wrote:
 I'll tell you what we do, but won't get into defending it for the next month
 -- oh, wait, this is not the Canopy list...

 Our 2.4GHz spectrum is completely filled with vertical Canopy.

 We run UBNT AP's.  Fixed at 2mi ACK.  No RTS.  Fixed G-only.  Horizontal
 polarity.  Max data rate of 54Mbps.  Sectors.

 Customers are all within 2 miles, use Loco2's.  Customers are Auto ACK.  No
 RTS.  Fixed G-Only.  Horizontal.  Max 54Mbps.

 On almost every single install we get at least 12Mbps down, 6Mbps up (our
 rate limit).  Without limit, we usually see up to 18.

 Funny... those lusers on the other guys Canopy pay like $40/mo for 1.5Mbps.
 We give 12Mbps for $24.95/mo.

 Don't use B.  It's DSSS.  G is OFDM.  Performs much better.

 On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Jason Hensley ja...@jaggartech.com wrote:

 In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or G?
 Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a mix?

 Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the extra
 speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more stable?
 I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided less
 bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.  What's the
 real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined with
 a higher useage AP?

 I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while.  We've started
 having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k and
 fluctuate constantly.  We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and
 nothing seems to have improved the stability.  For testing purposes we put
 up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble with.  Switched
 two
 of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they seem to
 be
 doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be.  This is on
 Deliberant AP's (Duos).  The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we can
 pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP.  We have
 other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one so we
 know it's not limitations of the equipment.  AP is on top of a water tower.
 Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it did
 not reveal anything significant.  With just one customer on the AP started
 acting up again.  Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have one going
 bad and still no luck.

 2.4 antennas are H-pol.  We have a ton of noise in the area, but we've been
 through basically every channel and it did not help either.  Other AP's in
 the vicinity are performing fine.  Thought of the multipath issue so we
 raised our test AP up a little higher than the other one.  As I said, the
 test AP seems to be better, but next to it on top of the tower we can get
 around 8 or 9 meg down (locked into G mode), but at the CPE's we're still
 barely getting 2.5-2.8meg.

 Any thoughts?  We changed everything we can.  The new test AP has a 9db
 antenna compared to the 13db on the production AP.  Other than that, they
 are identical as far as equipment goes.

 So, back to the subject question though, what's real-world experience with
 G-only mode in the field?





 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-01 Thread Jayson Baker
I dunno?  Not a ton.  Maybe 40 at the most.  This segment of our network is
very small.  We mainly focus on big businesses.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Ryan Spott rsp...@cspott.com wrote:

 -- oh, wait, this is not the Canopy list. LOL! :)

 How many users per AP?

 ryan

 On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Jayson Baker jay...@spectrasurf.com
 wrote:
  I'll tell you what we do, but won't get into defending it for the next
 month
  -- oh, wait, this is not the Canopy list...
 
  Our 2.4GHz spectrum is completely filled with vertical Canopy.
 
  We run UBNT AP's.  Fixed at 2mi ACK.  No RTS.  Fixed G-only.  Horizontal
  polarity.  Max data rate of 54Mbps.  Sectors.
 
  Customers are all within 2 miles, use Loco2's.  Customers are Auto ACK.
  No
  RTS.  Fixed G-Only.  Horizontal.  Max 54Mbps.
 
  On almost every single install we get at least 12Mbps down, 6Mbps up (our
  rate limit).  Without limit, we usually see up to 18.
 
  Funny... those lusers on the other guys Canopy pay like $40/mo for
 1.5Mbps.
  We give 12Mbps for $24.95/mo.
 
  Don't use B.  It's DSSS.  G is OFDM.  Performs much better.
 
  On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Jason Hensley ja...@jaggartech.com
 wrote:
 
  In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or
 G?
  Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a
 mix?
 
  Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the
 extra
  speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more
 stable?
  I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided
 less
  bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.  What's the
  real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined
 with
  a higher useage AP?
 
  I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while.  We've started
  having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k
 and
  fluctuate constantly.  We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and
  nothing seems to have improved the stability.  For testing purposes we
 put
  up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble with.  Switched
  two
  of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they seem
 to
  be
  doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be.  This is
 on
  Deliberant AP's (Duos).  The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we
 can
  pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP.  We have
  other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one so
 we
  know it's not limitations of the equipment.  AP is on top of a water
 tower.
  Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it
 did
  not reveal anything significant.  With just one customer on the AP
 started
  acting up again.  Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have one
 going
  bad and still no luck.
 
  2.4 antennas are H-pol.  We have a ton of noise in the area, but we've
 been
  through basically every channel and it did not help either.  Other AP's
 in
  the vicinity are performing fine.  Thought of the multipath issue so we
  raised our test AP up a little higher than the other one.  As I said,
 the
  test AP seems to be better, but next to it on top of the tower we can
 get
  around 8 or 9 meg down (locked into G mode), but at the CPE's we're
 still
  barely getting 2.5-2.8meg.
 
  Any thoughts?  We changed everything we can.  The new test AP has a
 9db
  antenna compared to the 13db on the production AP.  Other than that,
 they
  are identical as far as equipment goes.
 
  So, back to the subject question though, what's real-world experience
 with
  G-only mode in the field?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 
 
 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 
 
  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 
 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA 

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-01 Thread Mike
You don't say if you are using 5Mhz or 10MHz channels.  I assume 10 
with 40 customers.

With the smaller bandwidth and slower speeds I think fractional 
channels limit the number of subscribers you can put on an AP. Does 
anybody have any empirical data on the number of users that can use a 
5MHz and 10MHz Ap?

I am not doing it, but think 40 is too many for a 5MHz channel, and 
has to be approaching the limit for a 10MHz channel.  Thoughts?

At 06:13 PM 10/1/2009, you wrote:
I dunno?  Not a ton.  Maybe 40 at the most.  This segment of our network is
very small.  We mainly focus on big businesses.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Ryan Spott rsp...@cspott.com wrote:

  -- oh, wait, this is not the Canopy list. LOL! :)
 
  How many users per AP?
 
  ryan
 
  On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Jayson Baker jay...@spectrasurf.com
  wrote:
   I'll tell you what we do, but won't get into defending it for the next
  month
   -- oh, wait, this is not the Canopy list...
  
   Our 2.4GHz spectrum is completely filled with vertical Canopy.
  
   We run UBNT AP's.  Fixed at 2mi ACK.  No RTS.  Fixed G-only.  Horizontal
   polarity.  Max data rate of 54Mbps.  Sectors.
  
   Customers are all within 2 miles, use Loco2's.  Customers are Auto ACK.
   No
   RTS.  Fixed G-Only.  Horizontal.  Max 54Mbps.
  
   On almost every single install we get at least 12Mbps down, 6Mbps up (our
   rate limit).  Without limit, we usually see up to 18.
  
   Funny... those lusers on the other guys Canopy pay like $40/mo for
  1.5Mbps.
   We give 12Mbps for $24.95/mo.
  
   Don't use B.  It's DSSS.  G is OFDM.  Performs much better.
  
   On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Jason Hensley ja...@jaggartech.com
  wrote:
  
   In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or
  G?
   Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a
  mix?
  
   Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the
  extra
   speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more
  stable?
   I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided
  less
   bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.  What's the
   real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined
  with
   a higher useage AP?
  
   I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while.  We've started
   having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k
  and
   fluctuate constantly.  We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and
   nothing seems to have improved the stability.  For testing purposes we
  put
   up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble with.  Switched
   two
   of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they seem
  to
   be
   doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be.  This is
  on
   Deliberant AP's (Duos).  The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we
  can
   pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP.  We have
   other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one so
  we
   know it's not limitations of the equipment.  AP is on top of a water
  tower.
   Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it
  did
   not reveal anything significant.  With just one customer on the AP
  started
   acting up again.  Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have one
  going
   bad and still no luck.
  
   2.4 antennas are H-pol.  We have a ton of noise in the area, but we've
  been
   through basically every channel and it did not help either.  Other AP's
  in
   the vicinity are performing fine.  Thought of the multipath issue so we
   raised our test AP up a little higher than the other one.  As I said,
  the
   test AP seems to be better, but next to it on top of the tower we can
  get
   around 8 or 9 meg down (locked into G mode), but at the CPE's we're
  still
   barely getting 2.5-2.8meg.
  
   Any thoughts?  We changed everything we can.  The new test AP has a
  9db
   antenna compared to the 13db on the production AP.  Other than that,
  they
   are identical as far as equipment goes.
  
   So, back to the subject question though, what's real-world experience
  with
   G-only mode in the field?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
   WISPA Wants You! Join today!
   http://signup.wispa.org/
  
  
  
 
  
   WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
  
   Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
   http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
  
   Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  
  
  
  
  
 
   WISPA Wants You! Join today!
   http://signup.wispa.org/
  
  
 
  
   WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
  
   

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-01 Thread Jayson Baker
Standard 20MHz channels.

I, too, thought it was impossible.  We started with Orinoco back in the day
(2002), it worked well up until 30 subs -- then it was like dailup.  Back
then, we offered 256Kbps service.  Turns out the big differences is not only
much better radios, much better software, but also the difference on B and
G.

For a very long time we got caught in the Canopy mentality my Canopy is
better than your any other vendor here  We finally opened our eyes, got
jumped out of the gang, and are very happy we did.  It seems a lot of Canopy
operators have the mentality that WiFi sucks -- probably because they too
started with it years ago, when it really did suck.

Canopy is good, but slow, and very expensive.  We have a 1 Day ROI.
Compared to when we were deploying Canopy, 8-10 MONTHS.

This network is small, and we don't push it much.  Like I said, we have a 1
Day ROI.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote:

 You don't say if you are using 5Mhz or 10MHz channels.  I assume 10
 with 40 customers.

 With the smaller bandwidth and slower speeds I think fractional
 channels limit the number of subscribers you can put on an AP. Does
 anybody have any empirical data on the number of users that can use a
 5MHz and 10MHz Ap?

 I am not doing it, but think 40 is too many for a 5MHz channel, and
 has to be approaching the limit for a 10MHz channel.  Thoughts?

 At 06:13 PM 10/1/2009, you wrote:
 I dunno?  Not a ton.  Maybe 40 at the most.  This segment of our network
 is
 very small.  We mainly focus on big businesses.
 
 On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Ryan Spott rsp...@cspott.com wrote:
 
   -- oh, wait, this is not the Canopy list. LOL! :)
  
   How many users per AP?
  
   ryan
  
   On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Jayson Baker jay...@spectrasurf.com
   wrote:
I'll tell you what we do, but won't get into defending it for the
 next
   month
-- oh, wait, this is not the Canopy list...
   
Our 2.4GHz spectrum is completely filled with vertical Canopy.
   
We run UBNT AP's.  Fixed at 2mi ACK.  No RTS.  Fixed G-only.
  Horizontal
polarity.  Max data rate of 54Mbps.  Sectors.
   
Customers are all within 2 miles, use Loco2's.  Customers are Auto
 ACK.
No
RTS.  Fixed G-Only.  Horizontal.  Max 54Mbps.
   
On almost every single install we get at least 12Mbps down, 6Mbps up
 (our
rate limit).  Without limit, we usually see up to 18.
   
Funny... those lusers on the other guys Canopy pay like $40/mo for
   1.5Mbps.
We give 12Mbps for $24.95/mo.
   
Don't use B.  It's DSSS.  G is OFDM.  Performs much better.
   
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Jason Hensley ja...@jaggartech.com
   wrote:
   
In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better -
 B or
   G?
Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do
 a
   mix?
   
Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about
 the
   extra
speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more
   stable?
I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided
   less
bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.  What's the
real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment,
 combined
   with
a higher useage AP?
   
I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while.  We've
 started
having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to
 200k
   and
fluctuate constantly.  We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc
 and
nothing seems to have improved the stability.  For testing purposes
 we
   put
up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble with.
  Switched
two
of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they
 seem
   to
be
doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be.  This
 is
   on
Deliberant AP's (Duos).  The backhaul part of it is not the issue -
 we
   can
pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP.  We
 have
other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this
 one so
   we
know it's not limitations of the equipment.  AP is on top of a water
   tower.
Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and
 it
   did
not reveal anything significant.  With just one customer on the AP
   started
acting up again.  Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have
 one
   going
bad and still no luck.
   
2.4 antennas are H-pol.  We have a ton of noise in the area, but
 we've
   been
through basically every channel and it did not help either.  Other
 AP's
   in
the vicinity are performing fine.  Thought of the multipath issue so
 we
raised our test AP up a little higher than the other one.  As I
 said,
   the
test AP seems to be better, but next to it on top of the tower we
 can
   get
around 8 or 9 meg down (locked into G mode), but at the CPE's we're
   still

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-01 Thread Mike
We get a capital fee up front that covers most of the equipment 
charges.  It was harder a few years ago with $380.00 radios, but like 
most electronic stuff they keep getting better and cheaper.  Soon 
they will just be giving them to us. :-)


At 06:49 PM 10/1/2009, you wrote:
   Like I said, we have a 1 Day ROI.





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-01 Thread RickG
We've been running B mode since 2004. I dont lock the rates down but
always shoot for 11Mbps. I like the idea of G mode but every time I
try it, performance drops on the customer side. It may be because
we're still on WRAP's running StarOS v2. I just started updating to
v3, and it seems to be better. I plan on testing out small channels
soon. I'm also debating between Routerboards w/Mikrotik versus
Ubiquiti.
-RickG

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Jason Hensley ja...@jaggartech.com wrote:
 In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or G?
 Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a mix?

 Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the extra
 speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more stable?
 I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided less
 bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.  What's the
 real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined with
 a higher useage AP?

 I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while.  We've started
 having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k and
 fluctuate constantly.  We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and
 nothing seems to have improved the stability.  For testing purposes we put
 up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble with.  Switched two
 of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they seem to be
 doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be.  This is on
 Deliberant AP's (Duos).  The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we can
 pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP.  We have
 other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one so we
 know it's not limitations of the equipment.  AP is on top of a water tower.
 Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it did
 not reveal anything significant.  With just one customer on the AP started
 acting up again.  Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have one going
 bad and still no luck.

 2.4 antennas are H-pol.  We have a ton of noise in the area, but we've been
 through basically every channel and it did not help either.  Other AP's in
 the vicinity are performing fine.  Thought of the multipath issue so we
 raised our test AP up a little higher than the other one.  As I said, the
 test AP seems to be better, but next to it on top of the tower we can get
 around 8 or 9 meg down (locked into G mode), but at the CPE's we're still
 barely getting 2.5-2.8meg.

 Any thoughts?  We changed everything we can.  The new test AP has a 9db
 antenna compared to the 13db on the production AP.  Other than that, they
 are identical as far as equipment goes.

 So, back to the subject question though, what's real-world experience with
 G-only mode in the field?




 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-01 Thread Travis Johnson




As soon as you can offer 7ms latency to 100 people off the same AP
using WiFi based radios, please let me know. I will buy 200 AP's and
5,000 CPE. ;)

Oh, and they need to operate on the same channels within a 5 mile
radius. ;)

Travis
Microserv

Jayson Baker wrote:

  Standard 20MHz channels.

I, too, thought it was impossible.  We started with Orinoco back in the day
(2002), it worked well up until 30 subs -- then it was like dailup.  Back
then, we offered 256Kbps service.  Turns out the big differences is not only
much better radios, much better software, but also the difference on B and
G.

For a very long time we got caught in the Canopy mentality "my Canopy is
better than your any other vendor here"  We finally opened our eyes, got
jumped out of the gang, and are very happy we did.  It seems a lot of Canopy
operators have the mentality that WiFi sucks -- probably because they too
started with it years ago, when it really did suck.

Canopy is good, but slow, and very expensive.  We have a 1 Day ROI.
Compared to when we were deploying Canopy, 8-10 MONTHS.

This network is small, and we don't push it much.  Like I said, we have a 1
Day ROI.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote:

  
  
You don't say if you are using 5Mhz or 10MHz channels.  I assume 10
with 40 customers.

With the smaller bandwidth and slower speeds I think fractional
channels limit the number of subscribers you can put on an AP. Does
anybody have any empirical data on the number of users that can use a
5MHz and 10MHz Ap?

I am not doing it, but think 40 is too many for a 5MHz channel, and
has to be approaching the limit for a 10MHz channel.  Thoughts?

At 06:13 PM 10/1/2009, you wrote:


  I dunno?  Not a ton.  Maybe 40 at the most.  This segment of our network
  

is


  very small.  We mainly focus on big businesses.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Ryan Spott rsp...@cspott.com wrote:

  
  
"-- oh, wait, this is not the Canopy list." LOL! :)

How many users per AP?

ryan

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Jayson Baker jay...@spectrasurf.com
wrote:


  I'll tell you what we do, but won't get into defending it for the
  

  

next


  
month


  -- oh, wait, this is not the Canopy list...

Our 2.4GHz spectrum is completely filled with vertical Canopy.

We run UBNT AP's.  Fixed at 2mi ACK.  No RTS.  Fixed G-only.
  

  

 Horizontal


  

  polarity.  Max data rate of 54Mbps.  Sectors.

Customers are all within 2 miles, use Loco2's.  Customers are Auto
  

  

ACK.


  
 No


  RTS.  Fixed G-Only.  Horizontal.  Max 54Mbps.

On almost every single install we get at least 12Mbps down, 6Mbps up
  

  

(our


  

  rate limit).  Without limit, we usually see up to 18.

Funny... those lusers on the other guys Canopy pay like $40/mo for
  

1.5Mbps.


  We give 12Mbps for $24.95/mo.

Don't use B.  It's DSSS.  G is OFDM.  Performs much better.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Jason Hensley ja...@jaggartech.com
  

wrote:


  
In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better -

  

  

B or


  
G?


  
Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do

  

  

a


  
mix?


  
Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about

  

  

the


  
extra


  
speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more

  

stable?


  
I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided

  

less


  
bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.  What's the
real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment,

  

  

combined


  
with


  
a higher useage AP?

I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while.  We've

  

  

started


  

  
having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to

  

  

200k


  
and


  
fluctuate constantly.  We've worked with RTS, ACK 

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-01 Thread Butch Evans
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 19:47 -0600, Travis Johnson wrote:
 As soon as you can offer 7ms latency to 100 people off the same AP
 using WiFi based radios, please let me know. I will buy 200 AP's and
 5,000 CPE. ;)

That kind of density is NOT necessary for MANY WISPs.  I know that is
the cry that nearly ALL Canopy Koolaid drinkers use, but it does not
apply to everyone.  For those that need it...Canopy offers a very nice
solution that works, works well and is affordable because it is NEEDED.
For those that don't...Canopy is WAY to expensive to be worth the extra
$$.  

Don't take this as a jab because it isn't intended that way, but why
would you post a message that indicates that someone was inviting you to
switch your Canopy out for WiFi?  Nobody made such a suggestion and
(IMHO) reacting in the way you did is just plain rude.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-01 Thread Tom Sharples
You'll see a dramatic improvement by upgrading from Wrap to Alix. Our net 
throughput easily doubled when we did that.

Tom S.

- Original Message - 
From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)


We've been running B mode since 2004. I dont lock the rates down but
always shoot for 11Mbps. I like the idea of G mode but every time I
try it, performance drops on the customer side. It may be because
we're still on WRAP's running StarOS v2. I just started updating to
v3, and it seems to be better. I plan on testing out small channels
soon. I'm also debating between Routerboards w/Mikrotik versus
Ubiquiti.
-RickG

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Jason Hensley ja...@jaggartech.com wrote:
 In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or 
 G?
 Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a mix?

 Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the 
 extra
 speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more stable?
 I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided less
 bandwidth. I've gotten some info that may counter that. What's the
 real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined 
 with
 a higher useage AP?

 I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while. We've started
 having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k and
 fluctuate constantly. We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and
 nothing seems to have improved the stability. For testing purposes we put
 up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble with. Switched 
 two
 of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they seem to 
 be
 doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be. This is on
 Deliberant AP's (Duos). The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we can
 pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP. We have
 other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one so 
 we
 know it's not limitations of the equipment. AP is on top of a water tower.
 Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it did
 not reveal anything significant. With just one customer on the AP started
 acting up again. Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have one going
 bad and still no luck.

 2.4 antennas are H-pol. We have a ton of noise in the area, but we've been
 through basically every channel and it did not help either. Other AP's in
 the vicinity are performing fine. Thought of the multipath issue so we
 raised our test AP up a little higher than the other one. As I said, the
 test AP seems to be better, but next to it on top of the tower we can get
 around 8 or 9 meg down (locked into G mode), but at the CPE's we're still
 barely getting 2.5-2.8meg.

 Any thoughts? We changed everything we can. The new test AP has a 9db
 antenna compared to the 13db on the production AP. Other than that, they
 are identical as far as equipment goes.

 So, back to the subject question though, what's real-world experience with
 G-only mode in the field?




 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/






No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.14.2/2408 - Release Date: 10/01/09 
18:23:00




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-01 Thread David Hulsebus
I've had much better success with B in a hostile rf environment. Walmart 
put in wireless scanners just to the south of a sector where we have 
been running a Mikrotik AP and CPE's on G for a couple of years. I 
couldn't change channels or channel sizes but moved to B and while 
slower we were able to move customers to 5.7 more gracefully. We've left 
the 2.4 at B and still have 15 low usage subs on it doing very well.

I have used 411 AP's with XR5 cards and NS5L's with good success in 
small subdivision projects. 1/2 to 1 mile using 5M channels running G, 
mostly horizontal. We lock the rates lower than 54 if we see any CCQ 
numbers consistently below 66%. We've had our best success at 36MB. 
Lowering not raising the power in most cases improves our CCQ. But 
again, we're mostly within a half mile. We don't have a sector broader 
than 90 deg, run mostly 5.4 on the AP and 5.7 on our backhauls. One site 
has grown to over 25 moderate usage clients and I can see a slowdown in 
the evenings from time to time. We do rate limit at the Mktik to 5 down 
and 3 up.  I've got several between 10 and 20 subs and have no issues.

It's hard to argue against a sub 25 client system of NS5L's verses 
anything else out there when its paid for day 1. I'm not looking to 
start a product flame just trying to get a ROI.

Dave Hulsebus

RickG wrote:
 We've been running B mode since 2004. I dont lock the rates down but
 always shoot for 11Mbps. I like the idea of G mode but every time I
 try it, performance drops on the customer side. It may be because
 we're still on WRAP's running StarOS v2. I just started updating to
 v3, and it seems to be better. I plan on testing out small channels
 soon. I'm also debating between Routerboards w/Mikrotik versus
 Ubiquiti.
 -RickG

 On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Jason Hensley ja...@jaggartech.com wrote:
   
 In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or G?
 Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a mix?

 Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the extra
 speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more stable?
 I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided less
 bandwidth.  I've gotten some info that may counter that.  What's the
 real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined with
 a higher useage AP?

 I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while.  We've started
 having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k and
 fluctuate constantly.  We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and
 nothing seems to have improved the stability.  For testing purposes we put
 up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble with.  Switched two
 of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they seem to be
 doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be.  This is on
 Deliberant AP's (Duos).  The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we can
 pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP.  We have
 other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one so we
 know it's not limitations of the equipment.  AP is on top of a water tower.
 Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it did
 not reveal anything significant.  With just one customer on the AP started
 acting up again.  Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have one going
 bad and still no luck.

 2.4 antennas are H-pol.  We have a ton of noise in the area, but we've been
 through basically every channel and it did not help either.  Other AP's in
 the vicinity are performing fine.  Thought of the multipath issue so we
 raised our test AP up a little higher than the other one.  As I said, the
 test AP seems to be better, but next to it on top of the tower we can get
 around 8 or 9 meg down (locked into G mode), but at the CPE's we're still
 barely getting 2.5-2.8meg.

 Any thoughts?  We changed everything we can.  The new test AP has a 9db
 antenna compared to the 13db on the production AP.  Other than that, they
 are identical as far as equipment goes.

 So, back to the subject question though, what's real-world experience with
 G-only mode in the field?




 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

 


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
  
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-01 Thread Jayson Baker
Yes, how childish.  Don't ever talk bad about Canopy to a Canopy Operator.
It'll get them all flustered and they start flaming.  I find it pretty
hilarious, really.  I've come to surmise that the reason EVERY Canopy
Operator gets so pissed off when you talk about anything non-Canopy is
because they realize $2000+ for an AP and $300-$1000 for an SM is so
rediculous for a maximum of... what... 14Mbps?  Ooo, it has a GPS antenna,
and ooo it will sync with other clusters in the area... never worked well
for us, because the other Canopy provider didn't buy a CMM and so was never
sync'ed.

Bleh.  Fine for them.  Less profit for them.  Makes them more likely to
fail.  When they do, and their subs switch to us, at least the cable is
already ran and the mount already in place.  :-)

Oh by the way, Smokeping indicates that most subs on our busiest AP have an
average latency of around 4-8ms.  And all those subs are limited to 6 up, 12
down.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com wrote:

 On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 19:47 -0600, Travis Johnson wrote:
  As soon as you can offer 7ms latency to 100 people off the same AP
  using WiFi based radios, please let me know. I will buy 200 AP's and
  5,000 CPE. ;)

 That kind of density is NOT necessary for MANY WISPs.  I know that is
 the cry that nearly ALL Canopy Koolaid drinkers use, but it does not
 apply to everyone.  For those that need it...Canopy offers a very nice
 solution that works, works well and is affordable because it is NEEDED.
 For those that don't...Canopy is WAY to expensive to be worth the extra
 $$.

 Don't take this as a jab because it isn't intended that way, but why
 would you post a message that indicates that someone was inviting you to
 switch your Canopy out for WiFi?  Nobody made such a suggestion and
 (IMHO) reacting in the way you did is just plain rude.

 --
 
 * Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
 * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
 * http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks   *
 * http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
 




 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-01 Thread Scottie Arnett
I agree. We first started as a Canopy 900 Mhz WISP. We have lots and I mean 
lots of hills around here. You normally can not go over 3 hundred feet without 
hitting a hill in your way. We started by using 900Mhz Canopy equipment. I will 
hear disputes from my partnerbut it is still the same. When we first 
started it was 900MHZ Canopy even in the small town we covered, even LOS!

I have been trading out Canopy 900 MHZ equipment for SHEESH Tik AP and 
UBIQUITY cpe AND HAVE HAD ) 0 (ZERO) PROBLEMS!

SCOTTIE

-- Original Message --
From: Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com
Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Date:  Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:39:26 -0500

On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 19:47 -0600, Travis Johnson wrote:
 As soon as you can offer 7ms latency to 100 people off the same AP
 using WiFi based radios, please let me know. I will buy 200 AP's and
 5,000 CPE. ;)

That kind of density is NOT necessary for MANY WISPs.  I know that is
the cry that nearly ALL Canopy Koolaid drinkers use, but it does not
apply to everyone.  For those that need it...Canopy offers a very nice
solution that works, works well and is affordable because it is NEEDED.
For those that don't...Canopy is WAY to expensive to be worth the extra
$$.  

Don't take this as a jab because it isn't intended that way, but why
would you post a message that indicates that someone was inviting you to
switch your Canopy out for WiFi?  Nobody made such a suggestion and
(IMHO) reacting in the way you did is just plain rude.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]



Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $30.00/mth.
Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html for information.



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

2009-10-01 Thread RickG
Tom,

Which OS?

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Tom Sharples tsharp...@qorvus.com wrote:
 You'll see a dramatic improvement by upgrading from Wrap to Alix. Our net
 throughput easily doubled when we did that.

 Tom S.

 - Original Message -
 From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 6:41 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)


 We've been running B mode since 2004. I dont lock the rates down but
 always shoot for 11Mbps. I like the idea of G mode but every time I
 try it, performance drops on the customer side. It may be because
 we're still on WRAP's running StarOS v2. I just started updating to
 v3, and it seems to be better. I plan on testing out small channels
 soon. I'm also debating between Routerboards w/Mikrotik versus
 Ubiquiti.
 -RickG

 On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Jason Hensley ja...@jaggartech.com wrote:
 In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or
 G?
 Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a mix?

 Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the
 extra
 speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more stable?
 I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided less
 bandwidth. I've gotten some info that may counter that. What's the
 real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined
 with
 a higher useage AP?

 I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while. We've started
 having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k and
 fluctuate constantly. We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and
 nothing seems to have improved the stability. For testing purposes we put
 up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble with. Switched
 two
 of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they seem to
 be
 doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be. This is on
 Deliberant AP's (Duos). The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we can
 pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP. We have
 other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one so
 we
 know it's not limitations of the equipment. AP is on top of a water tower.
 Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it did
 not reveal anything significant. With just one customer on the AP started
 acting up again. Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have one going
 bad and still no luck.

 2.4 antennas are H-pol. We have a ton of noise in the area, but we've been
 through basically every channel and it did not help either. Other AP's in
 the vicinity are performing fine. Thought of the multipath issue so we
 raised our test AP up a little higher than the other one. As I said, the
 test AP seems to be better, but next to it on top of the tower we can get
 around 8 or 9 meg down (locked into G mode), but at the CPE's we're still
 barely getting 2.5-2.8meg.

 Any thoughts? We changed everything we can. The new test AP has a 9db
 antenna compared to the 13db on the production AP. Other than that, they
 are identical as far as equipment goes.

 So, back to the subject question though, what's real-world experience with
 G-only mode in the field?




 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


 



 No virus found in this incoming message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.14.2/2408 - Release Date: 10/01/09
 18:23:00



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless