I have a few horizontal and they do tend to traverse through woods better than the verticals, but the noise floor for us is just the opposite. There are a half dozen Canopy systems running horizontal omni's just to my east destroying most of the 900 spectrum. I don't have any sectors wider than 120 deg.- most 60 to100 and all the verticals I have are Antel. I use one 120 MTI horizontal and one pac wireless 120 horizontal.
I do have a one Tranzeo that uses the integrated panel to feed three houses. I would have to look and see if it's vertical or horizontal, it's been a few years since I've been up that tower and it points away from the rest of my network so I've never really cared. I guess I like the Cushcraft's because of durability and mostly within 2-3 miles we use a 6dbd that costs about $35 verses the 13 dbd that costs $130 for further out. Thanks again, Dave D. Ryan Spott wrote: > David Hulsebus wrote: > >> Ryan, How do you like the Moonblink antennas? >> > Eh, they are OK. Getting timely shipping and shipping information out of > Moonblink makes ordering from them a head-ache for my ordering person. > The antennas are sleek aluminum but they are fragile so you can't handle > them much past one installation. > >> I've been using Cushcraft >> for some time, they've worked very well. I've used the M2inc. but found >> rain to be an issue with the open round beam holding water. >> >> If I have line of sight I can get 8-10 miles out of a link, but never >> through many trees. I have two small 120 vertical sectors using Tranzeo >> and I wish we could get links that are as stable as the WaveRiders we >> have in place. I do use a 908.4 filter on the Tranzeos and reduced my >> noise floor from -75 to -95. They were designed for WaveRiders but work >> well for a 5MHz channel at 908 on the Tranzeos. I even tried the >> Mikrotik 900 and had even poorer luck with them. >> >> > Ditch the Verticle sectors. They are noise vacuums. I am using a simple > TR902-11 panel for my AP. When I use the sectors my noise floor gets so > loud as to make the AP unusable. > >> I won't say the WaveRiders were my best decision, but having tested >> Trango, Canopy first, it was the best for my environment at the time. >> I've still got 400 EUM3000-3005's in place across 15 sectors. We can get >> 1.2MB down and 800K up for about 30-35 clients. We added their new >> CCU8000 and a dozen clients so far on a new build out this year and >> expect to max out at 30-40 subs per AP and if they are like the >> CCU3000's will still give everyone 6 MB down and 4 MB up. We pay >> extremely high prices for the WaveRider EUM's which really hurts the ROI. >> >> > Yeah, the waveriders. I think the only reason you have the CCU3000s is > because of the competitive pressure of Tranzeo/UBNT handing out > 802.11b/g type speeds over 900mhz. > > ryan > >> Dave >> >> D. Ryan Spott wrote: >> >> >>> http://www.tranzeofaq.com/images/lewis.jpg >>> This is a 900Mhz Client running at 5Mhz on TR902 radios. The AP is a >>> TR902-13 and the client is a TR902-N with a 15DB yagi from Moonblink >>> wireless. </images/lewis.jpg> >>> >>> ryan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
