Brad,
Could you tell us more about what infrastructure is required to support the 2400 subscriber system you are referring to? How many tower locations, sectors per tower, backhaul used, etc.? This is interesting stuff for sure. I was wondering if we were ever going to hear any Alvarion stories here. I hear success stories on many different brand gear on the lists and I know people use Alvarion successfully but we rarely hear any stories about the systems. Is this Alvarion customer a member of this list server? I would love to hear from him also, or any other Alvarion based WISP for that matter, how their system performs in different conditions, scalability, etc. This is an open industry list and provided the information is used in a context of informing WISPs and is not a sales advertisement I would gladly listen to what you guys have to say about the VL platform. Brad, do you think this 2400 subscriber WISP operator would be interested in joining WISPA? We could use some input from more WISPs who are doing well.
Thanks,
Scriv


Brad Larson wrote:

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.






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Reply via email to