Hey Brad, what are the heights of the base stations? Are they tower mounted and what antenna's are they using?
Dustin -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:34 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Not all OFDM radios are created equally (especially PTMP). In many areas of NorthEast USA we have 1 mile radius's with eave mounted BreezeAccess VL Subscribers (5.8 Ghz) doing mod 6 which reflects a 10 meg true data rate. Typically these are obstructed NLOS links instead of going thru 1 mile of solid treelines. Rain/Ice does occasionally change mod levels but more than adequate data rates are achieved with this model. I have 2,400 subscribers (and growing) deployed in this fashion with one customer. Brad -----Original Message----- From: Blair Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 9:37 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz My practical tests show that 2.4GHz works better in a rural Near LosS environment. This is using 802.11b/g vs 802.11a. I have had no luck with 5.3/5.8GHz in a rural Near/Non LoS environment. On the other hand, 5.8Ghz seems to be fine at range in LoS conditions. Go figure. Paul Hendry wrote: >Just noticed that the document also says that 5GHz is better for >passing through damp tree areas than 2.4GHz as 2.4GHz is very close to >the O-H frequency which water is full of and therefore water absorbs >2.4GHz signals considerably more than 5GHz. If this is true then why is >2.4GHz better for tree NLOS environments than 5GHz? > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Paul Hendry >Sent: 03 January 2006 11:48 >To: 'WISPA General List' >Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz > >I thought that was it but needed someone to clarify ;) What about 5GHz >penetrating walls much better than 2.4GHz? > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Mike Delp >Sent: 03 January 2006 11:44 >To: 'WISPA General List' >Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz > >Paul, > >5 GHz works NLOS in an urban environment. Bouncing around buildings, etc. >Look at the success of Redline and Orthogon. OFDM and 5 GHz works well >for them. An environment with trees is different. Trees absorb the >signals, instead of bouncing them. Especially wet trees! > >We utilize 2.4 at every pop, mainly because of the low cost for >deployment, and general coverage. We utilize 5 GHz frequently and also >900 MHz for NLOS >issues. > > >I hope this helps > >Mike > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Paul Hendry >Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:44 AM >To: 'WISPA General List' >Subject: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz > >Ola everybody, > > I hope everyone had a great Christmas and New Year and are all ready >for 2006, the year of the WISP :) > When I have setup wireless in an area it has always depended on the >Geographic's of the area as to if we deploy 2.4GHz or 5GHz and I have always >decided that 2.4 should be used where NLOS could be an issue. This >decision has always been based on the fact that the lower frequency >will pass through >trees a lot easier however I have recently read a white paper that >suggests otherwise. Basically the document says that the higher the >frequency, the better the scatter (the ability to bounce of and around >objects). It also says that 5GHz is better at penetrating walls. > So my question is, have I been basing some of our deployments on false >information or am I missing something here? I know that in tests I have >seen a more stable signal at 2.4GHz in a NLOS environment but is this >just a fluke? > >Cheers, > >P. > > > > -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com **************************************************************************** ******** This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. **************************************************************************** ******** This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com **************************************************************************** ******** This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. **************************************************************************** ******** -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
