At 10/1/2010 12:33 AM, you wrote:
Fred, I think were saying the same thing?
I wrote mine before receiving yours, but in any case, we were giving
different information relevant to the topic. You gave a good link
for a site to compute the HAAT of a given location. I went a bit
deeper into
On Behalf Of Tom
DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick
forest/trees easilly 70ft tall.
A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow
At 10/1/2010 02:27 PM, Matt Jenkins wrote:
What are the headings for your chart? I don't understand it
Eudora had trouble with cut-and-paste of the original document.
The first column is height above average terrain, from x to y meters
(10 but less than 30, from 30 but less than 50...).
Thanks for the explanation. I think I understand it. I
have a couple more quick questions.
What is the difference between co-channel and adjacent channel?
Does that mean if I am more than 68 km from a station I can operate a
fixed TVWS Base station at up to 600 meters HAAT?
- Matt
On
At 10/1/2010 03:18 PM, Matt Jenkins wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. I think I understand it. I have a couple
more quick questions.
What is the difference between co-channel and adjacent channel?
Co-channel means the same frequency, so if you're on channel 31,
you're protecting a channel
Does that
mean if I
am more than 68 km from a station I can operate a fixed TVWS Base
station
at up to 600 meters HAAT?
No. This was what IEEE 802 proposed. The FCC's Order
referenced it, and then simply said that the maximum ground HAAT was 75
meters, full stop. Such is the
Eudora! Now there is a program I havent seen in years!
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.comwrote:
At 10/1/2010 02:27 PM, Matt Jenkins wrote:
What are the headings for your chart? I don't understand it
Eudora had trouble with cut-and-paste of the
At 10/1/2010 05:47 PM, you wrote:
Eudora! Now there is a program I havent seen in years!
Four years discontinued, there's still nothing as good out there to
replace it (on Windows).
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Fred Goldstein
mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.comfgoldst...@ionary.com wrote:
At
@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom
DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick
forest/trees easilly 70ft tall.
to be the only major improvement in the rules.)
Brian
*From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [
mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Tom DeReggi
*Sent:* Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM
*To:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
Yeah, that really sucks
@wispa.org
[
mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom
DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas need
[
mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick
forest/trees easilly 70ft tall.
A 90ft height, just wouldn't
*To:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick
forest/trees easilly 70ft tall.
A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow enough of the signal to have
open air, and the signal would be going through trees most
Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick forest/trees
easilly 70ft tall.
A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow enough of the signal to have open
DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick
forest/trees
easilly 70ft tall.
A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow enough of the signal to have open
Of *Tom DeReggi
*Sent:* Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM
*To:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick
forest/trees easilly 70ft tall.
A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow enough
General List
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick
forest/trees easilly 70ft tall.
A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow enough of the signal to have
open air, and the signal would be going through trees most
: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
But what if you are able to use spectrum around 200 or 300 MHz? That
certainly goes through trees.
Brian
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Tom
, September 23, 2010 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
But what if you are able to use spectrum around 200 or 300 MHz? That
certainly goes through trees.
Brian
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent
: mailto:bwebs...@wirelessmapping.comBrian Webster
To: mailto:wireless@wispa.org'WISPA General List'
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
But what if you are able to use spectrum around 200 or 300 MHz? That
certainly goes through trees.
Brian
From
...@wirelessmapping.com; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
There is one other benefit of this No body else will be able to install
higher either.
Mounting lower to the ground, its more likely a WISP will be able to install
their own tower, and no longer have to pay huge
...@wispa.org] *On
Behalf Of *Tom DeReggi
*Sent:* Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM
*To:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick forest/trees
easilly 70ft tall.
A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow
I did a HAAT for my sites where I would use this. The results
Antenna elevation above sea level : 1096.27m
Average ground elevation above sea level: 1216.56m
HAAT: -120.28998046875m(5m antenna)
Antenna elevation above sea
At 9/24/2010 05:03 PM, Brian Webster wrote:
Fred,
Have you actually studied some locations that might
be in this situation and computed the HAAT using the tool on the
FCC web site or some other HAAT calculation tool? If you look at a
calculation for a site such as my office
This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes
it useless to WISPs in much of the country.
In places where the routine variation in elevation is more than 75
meters, there will be houses (subscribers) that are more than 76
meters AAT. I notice this in the areas I'm
, 2010 4:36 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes it
useless to WISPs in much of the country.
In places where the routine variation in elevation is more than 75 meters,
there will be houses
not have a great impact on station coverage.
Brian
*From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
*On Behalf Of *Fred Goldstein
*Sent:* Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM
*To:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
This item alone may
-boun...@wispa.org]
On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes
it useless to WISPs in much of the country.
In places where the routine
not have a great impact on station coverage.
Brian
*From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [
mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Fred Goldstein
*Sent:* Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM
*To:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
This item alone
) of the transmitter site
usually do not have a great impact on station coverage.
Brian
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
This item
List
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes it
useless to WISPs in much of the country.
In places where the routine variation in elevation is more than 75 meters
: Fred mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com Goldstein
To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes it
useless to WISPs in much
DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick
forest/trees easilly 70ft tall.
A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow enough of the signal to have open
air, and the signal
33 matches
Mail list logo
