So there is no misunderstanding. My original comment was based on radios
like early WMUX, that used the whole spectrum range.
I have nothing against high capacity radios 100mbps FDX and Higher. I don't
have anything against selecting higher capacity radios when needed, or
chosing a radio that is less efficient because it is the only radio capable
to meet the need, or required to get the job done.
Where my beef is, is using an unefficient radio to accomplish something when
an efficient radio is available to deliver equivellent speed (at a
reasonable cost). Price is not everything. As WISPs we have a
responsibility to do the best job we can. We are not obligated to sacrifice,
but we are obligated to live by example and do the best we can, with
consideration of others in the environment. If someone is doing that, I
have no beef, regardless of the technology that is used.
My post was not about wether PTP or PTMP or any specific radio or deployment
design was more efficient than another, and irrelevent because there is a
requirement for all types that have issues more important than the
efficiency. My point was what ever method was chosen, the provider should be
aware to install the most efficient system possible that does not have a
significant trade off, within reason.
I'd always recommend a 100mbps FX radio that used 32 mhz of spectrum over
one that used 100Mhz of spectrum. There are so many people that just put up
links, and then say if I don't have problem with interference thats all that
matters. That is selfish and foolish. Its not true that interference is
bi-directional. The high gain system is going to kill the lower gain
system. The responsible thing to do is.... to do a channel scan/survey to
see the free-est channel, and then broadcast on that channel, with the
intent to avoid interference to others. It is clear as day what is and
isn't good etiquette, and those that do not follow it, will ultimately loose
in my prediction. In my earlier days, if I felt interference, I just
switched to another channel to avoid the conflict, an advantage Trango gave
me easilly. But we don't do it anymore, we hold our ground. If our link is
up, and we see new interference on it, we go after the interferer until they
move. I can tell you, if someone puts up a radio using all 100mhz of
spectrum, and it happens to cross one of our cellsite or subscribers taking
them down, the offendor's link will be taken down (made unusable) within 24
hours, that I promise and guarantee. Why do I say that, because I'm follow
your advise Bob, business is business. What comes around goes around. I got
a radio on the shelf that I call the Equalizer ready and waiting, and 200
class A/B roof tops to create a ligitimate PtP link to take it down. NOBODY
is above/invulnerable to interference. And a tech is fooling theirself is
their strategy is they are always going to deploy smarter than the next guy.
We all have the same gear available to us.
The length of this industry depends on the players. We can rush our selves
to extiction or we can preach and follow etiquette.
Bob, I also use narrow beam 2ft antenna with low tx power for short PTPs to
avoid interference, and sometimes that works well enough (even with spectrum
wasting radios). But not always. Sometimes it send a large number of
reflections bouncing all across the city which are adative to all the other
noise sources. I'd still argue using a radio that is more efficient will
have less risk, if one is available that can meet the need.
The problem with using a radio that uses full 100mhz is that there is no way
to immediately resurrect interference, with no channel to run to, without
contacting the interferor. This forces your interfered with to resort to
desperate measures to resolve the interference on their own link. It brings
out the worse in your newly created enemy. Its best to allow your apponent a
mechanism to cure the problem without being required to taking you down
back, and asking questions later. Its about conflict avoidance not winning a
conflict. The truth is its almost impossible to tell whether you will
interfere with some one else. The reason is that you can scan for noise, but
you can't tell what equipment the other party is using , what noise floor
they require to opperate, or the distance of their link. Again if you scan
first, and the channel is empty, there is no issue here. But I find it rare
in DC to find ANY channel that is "EMPTY". The challenge is usually what do
I have to do to get over the noise floor. A 2ft dish still have a beamwidth
of minimum 6deg, which covers a lot of territory indense Urban america.
Rant done.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Moldashel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Matt Liotta wrote:
Matt Liotta wrote:
Its not greedy; efficient maybe, but not greedy.
Whoops... meant inefficient.
-Matt
100 Mb FD on a 32 Mhz. channel.....That's not bad.....
Besides...get the GPS syc option and you can tie in a handful of links on
the same channel. That makes them very efficient....
-B-
--
Bob Moldashel
Lakeland Communications, Inc.
Broadband Deployment Group
1350 Lincoln Avenue
Holbrook, New York 11741 USA
800-479-9195 Toll Free US & Canada
631-585-5558 Fax
516-551-1131 Cell
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
