Dustin, Typically 50 feet above the tree line for this customer gets their 1
mile cell sites which is what the business model plans for. They garner
better tower rates when not asking for the primo higher tower locations.
I've been trying to get Tom to travel and see a site for a long time. The
base station antennas are the 90 or 120 sectors we ship with the
BreezeAccess VL platform. Brad


Brad Larson
Northeast Regional Manager
Alvarion 



-----Original Message-----
From: dustin jurman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:48 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz


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/

 
 
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/

Reply via email to