Not the case, 14 mbps is 2x mode, but the only reason for all your Sm's would be a 1x would be cause they are old radios (p7,p8) or you have very poor links ...
Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 7:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon So the AP will deliver 14Mbps of bandwidth even if all the SM's are only running at 1x rate? Travis Microserv Mike Bushard, Jr wrote: >Run Advantage AP's and Legacy SM's. > >With the Advantage AP's and legacy SM's you get the Latency, and High >Priority Channel all the time, and can burst to full 2X Rate. If you need >the full 2x Rate Sustained, buy an Advantage SM. > > >To answer your question, yes the Advantage AP will deliver the full 14Mb >Aggregate. > >Mike Bushard, Jr >Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Travis Johnson >Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:51 AM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon > >Another quick question... > >If you are running a Canopy Advantage AP and you use regular Canopy >SM's, can the AP still deliver the 14Mbps of bandwidth, or will it be >limited to 7Mbps (like the SM's)? > >Trying to decide if I want to use Advantage SM's or just regular? > >Travis >Microserv > >Anthony Will wrote: > > > >>Well I have had 2.4ghz radio's link up at -89db (not very well mind >>you but...) so I don't know what to tell you other then Moto has >>traditionally understated there spec sheets. The GPS is what sets the >>timing for the AP's. The AP's coordinate the timing slots for all >>SM's registered to them. So how it works is that all AP's on channel >>1 across the world all transmit at the same time, and all SM's synced >>to a AP on channel 1 with GPS timing from the AP listen at the same >>time. Distance is not relevant unless you are utilizing the feature >>set of the SM to retransmit a GPS sync pulse that it receives from and >>AP to a BH or AP. The lag that is introduced by having to transmit >>that pulse info across the wireless link to the SM retransmitting is >>the only time that distance can come into play. The application this >>is used for is for a cheap repeater system so that you dont have to >>have a GPS synchronizing device at every tower. >> />SM >>GPS -->AP#1 / >> \ >> \>SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) -->AP#2 >>-->SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) -->AP#3 (this AP will be out of >>sync with AP#1) >> >>Basically the timing is measured in nano seconds so it takes to long >>for RF to transmit the data across the wireless links to continue to >>propagate the timing signal. But if you put a GPS sync generating >>device at AP#3 it would be in perfect time with AP#1 and close enough >>timing with AP#2 that they all would get along. >> >>One thing to keep in mind is if you are the only Canopy shop in the >>area you can have your AP's generate the sync pulse and avoid the cost >>of the GPS synchronizing items. Also again as for the distance >>statement. 6 AP's in a cluster sharing 3 channels have to be synced. >>believe me the messy antenna on the Canopy units dont have a good >>enough F/B ratio to not hear another AP 6" away from it. The two AP's >>that are back to back share the same channel so that when they >>transmit the SM's that are listening are as far away from each other >>as possible and thus reduce any chance of talking over each other. >>The largest benefit that GPS sync allows is to add additional capacity >>to area's by allowing for more towers to be in a smaller area without >>self interference. If long range rural deployments are the plan then >>GPS sync will only benefit you if you have competitors utilizing the >>same equipment and configuration in the area. So a Moto advantage >>cluster has about 84mb total (Classic Canopy would be 42mb) FTP >>bandwidth available to it. If more is needed you can place the towers >>with in a few miles and divide a cell into two micro cells each with a >>possible 84mb of total bandwidth for a total of 168mb serviced to a >>given area. One last note, GPS timing will not allow for two separate >>clusters of the same type ( two 2.4ghz clusters) to be on the same >>tower. I can't write out whats in my head on this.... getting a >>little late in the night but if you wanted to I could talk to you over >>the phone and explain it. Send me an email to anthonyw (at) >>broadband-mn.com and Ill give you my cell phone number or give you a >>call. >> >>Anthony Will >>Broadband Corp. >> >>Travis Johnson wrote: >> >> >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>First, the spec sheet on Motorola's website says -86 RSSI. >>> >>>What happens when you have more than 3 towers outside of the 8 mile >>>range of GPS sync? The 2.4ghz signal will definately travel that far, >>>causing self-interference, correct? >>> >>>Travis >>>Microserv >>> >>>Anthony Will wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Answers in-line >>>> >>>>Travis Johnson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Hi, >>>>> >>>>>I'd like to go back to the specs on different radios just so I can >>>>>compare for myself... >>>>> >>>>>Trango 2.4ghz: >>>>>5Mbps auto ratio >>>>>8 non-overlapping channels >>>>>10mhz spectrum per channel >>>>>-90 Receive level >>>>>15 mile range (without a grid) >>>>>External connector and dual-pol integrated antenna >>>>>$879 AP (WISP price) >>>>>$479 SU (WISP price) >>>>> >>>>>Canopy 2.4ghz (regular): >>>>>7Mbps fixed ratio >>>>>3 non-overlapping channels >>>>>20mhz spectrum per channel >>>>>-86 Receive level >>>>> >>>>> >>>>2.4 canopy has a -89 receive level >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>5 mile range (without a dish) >>>>>$902 AP (reseller price online) >>>>>$490 SU (reseller price online) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>I am guessing your quoting single prices here. Now that maybe >>>>viable for this discussion but realistically if a WISP is not >>>>financially able to purchase in 25 packs they likely are very >>>>underfunded. So that the information is available a 25 pack of the >>>>"Classic" 2.4 ghz Canopy units is $6709 so if you break that down to >>>>single price that is about $269ea + $50 for reflector for a total of >>>>$319ea. http://www.doubleradius.com It is possible to get them >>>>cheaper then this but you will have to deal with co-op's or ebay.com >>>>Also I would never install a unit with a 60* pattern (Trango or >>>>Canopy). Just include the$50 for a reflector or stinger from >>>>http://www.wirelessbehive.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Based on the information from Mike, I could not use Canopy. In >>>>>several areas, I have 4-5 towers located within 5 miles of each >>>>>other.... how do I do that with Canopy? With Trango, I use a >>>>>different channel for the sector pointing toward another tower >>>>>(frequency planning and coordination is very important) and >>>>>everything works great. Is there a solution for this with Canopy? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>This is where GPS sync comes in. You can point two different tower >>>>locations on the same frequency at each other and they will not >>>>interfere with each other. This is how it is possible to do a 6 AP >>>>cluster on one tower with only 3 non overlapping channels. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Also, by using only a 10mhz spectrum per channel, Trango's channel >>>>>1 and channel 8 are actually outside the reach of Canopy and 802.11 >>>>>(for the most part) and thus can almost always be used in a noisy >>>>>environment. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Remember with Canopy you generally don't have to avoid >>>>interference. Find the cleanest channel and 90% of the time you >>>>will be the few db louder then the noise that you need to make a >>>>viable link. >>>> >>>>Anthony Will >>>>Broadband Corp >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Travis >>>>>Microserv >>>>> >>>>>Mike Bushard, Jr wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Well, so far as we can tell the only thing that can kill canopy, >>>>>>IS CANOPY. >>>>>>We have put it up against WaveRider, Alvarion, and 802.11b. They >>>>>>all fell of >>>>>>the face of the earth. >>>>>>We have 16 tower sites deployed, all 900Mhz and 2.4, over 1000 CPE >>>>>>and more >>>>>>on the way. (I realize there are many people bigger than us.) >>>>>> >>>>>>We use a mix of MTI Omni's, MTI or Tiltek 120deg Sectors (MTI for >>>>>>Horizontal >>>>>>and Tiltek for Vertical) and integrated 60deg sectors (I really >>>>>>wish someone >>>>>>would come out with a descent H-pol as I don't like the integrated >>>>>>antenna) >>>>>>with 900. Cyclone Omni's or 120deg sectors on 2.4. >>>>>> >>>>>>Here is what I have found with GPS Sourced Sync vs. Generate Sync: >>>>>> >>>>>>If you want channel reuse you need GPS sourced sync. >>>>>>If you have a tower more than 8 miles away, you need to use different >>>>>>channels no matter what, even with GPS sourced sync you still have >>>>>>speed of >>>>>>light issues from tower to tower. >>>>>> >>>>>>Can you Generate sync and deploy multiple AP's in a given area, >>>>>>yes. You >>>>>>just need to make sure you have Frequency separation. Does this >>>>>>mean I >>>>>>recommend it, NO. >>>>>> >>>>>>Also even with every site GPS Synced, you still can only put so >>>>>>many AP's in >>>>>>a given area be for you need to go to a different polarity. At >>>>>>least we know >>>>>>there will never be another 900Mhz based ISP in one of our towns..... >>>>>> >>>>>>Also on a side note, I have never found a problem with 2.4, it is >>>>>>900 that >>>>>>will give you problems, it just carries so far. If the noise floor >>>>>>was >>>>>>lower, and Canopy could run at -90 we would have coverage for a >>>>>>long ways. >>>>>>It seems like we can always pick up a AP at -80. >>>>>> >>>>>>YMMV. >>>>>> >>>>>>Mike Bushard, Jr >>>>>>Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>>>>>Behalf Of Matt Liotta >>>>>>Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 5:07 PM >>>>>>To: WISPA General List >>>>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon >>>>>> >>>>>>Patrick Leary wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>I'm speaking about multipoint matt, not ptp. The dedicated ptp >>>>>>>you are >>>>>>>doing is by far the exception. Canopy is designed, built, and >>>>>>>sold to be >>>>>>>primarily a pmp system. I've never met or heard of a Canopy pmp >>>>>>>network >>>>>>>of any scale that did not require GPS. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>I'd be interested in further explanation on this topic. We have >>>>>>some Canopy pmp and haven't found the lack of GPS a problem. >>>>>>Granted we don't have a large amount of pmp, but I would certainly >>>>>>like to understand any future pain before we experience it. >>>>>> >>>>>>-Matt >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- 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/
