I did a climb for a local WISP back in 2002.  We put a 325 foot run of
LMR400 up a tower with 1 watt amps at the top and bottom. This fed into a
Cisco 340 and an omni.  Could see that thing on a site survey 30 miles away.
-- 
Justin Wilson <j...@mtin.net>
Aol & Yahoo IM: j2sw
http://www.mtin.net/blog ­ xISP News
http://www.twitter.com/j2sw ­ Follow me on Twitter
Wisp Consulting ­ Tower Climbing ­ Network Support




From: Ryan Goldberg <rgoldb...@compudyne.net>
Reply-To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:14:08 +0000
To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org>
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

Hey hey hey now, what are you sayin? ­ about a million years ago (well, 11
years) I put up a 12dBi omni (fed over ~100 feet of lmr600) with a hyperlink
amp on it.  That was about 3 weeks after I got hired (as a java
programmer?!?) soŠ
 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 8:17 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.
 
Well I was thinking an amp was involved to compensate...

On Dec 29, 2010 9:15 PM, "Robert West" <robert.w...@just-micro.com> wrote:
> That's what I thought too especially since he's probably using a 12dbi omni
> or worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Josh Luthman
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 9:05 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.
> 
> 
> 
> Coax up the tower? There has to be some serious loss there.
> 
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Robert West <robert.w...@just-micro.com>
> wrote:
> 
> Old boy is using old Bullet2 with a stick omni. Has the antenna on top of
> the tower or leg with coax running all the way down to the ground where he
> has the Bullet. No sectors anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> New boy is outfitted with a modern and professional setup. 3 UBNT MIMO
> sectors per AP with Rocket2M. Backhauls are Bullet5M on a 29dbi Pacific
> Wireless grid. All links are at 10MHz channel width including the
> backhauls. 
> 
> 
> 
> We've discussed finding a way to turn off one chain of the rockets, I really
> wish UBNT had thought about that from the get go on these, seems to be a no
> brainer, anyhow we talked about that and honestly that would be a good idea
> but from all I've been hearing, I really don't think this is the entire
> issue old boy is having. With all the phone calls and noise he's been
> making, I'm thinking a lot of it comes from him just being pissed over
> having someone in his territory and doing it better than him. I would put
> money on the idea that even if new boy was able to turn off one chain of his
> rockets, old boy would still complain because he has been blaming new boy
> for every issue he can think of and word has it that the quality of his
> network sucked before any of this happened.
> 
> 
> 
> And again, New Boy planned around the existing RF environment and it
> shouldn't have been an issue if not for his low power omnis. The other side
> should be able to admit that he needs to upgrade a bit in order to meet half
> way, I think. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 5:02 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.
> 
> 
> 
> Robert,
> 
> 
> 
> Still missing some relevent detail...
> 
> 
> 
> New WISP uses 2.4 sectors.
> 
> Is the Old WISP boy also using 2.4G sectors?
> 
> 
> 
> As well, is the Rocket gear Single Pol or MIMO dual pol gear?
> 
> Expecially, is the new provider's 5.8G PTP and Rocket Sectors MIMO?
> 
> 
> 
> Legally- Part15 means everyone must deploy assuming the risk that there
> could be interference. There are two potential outcomes. 1) Coordination and
> cooperation or 2) survival of the fittest. This might also come down to who
> has the best contract with the grain towers. Whether anyone gained solid
> non-interference clauses or spectrum exclusivity clauses in their contracts,
> versus hand shake deals.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont agree with the assessment that the problem is the Old Boy's "bad"
> design or unwillingness to change. (see below for justification)
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, he was there first and had the flexibility to design optimally
> for his need, and there was really no need for him to design for the new
> providers need, becaue the new provider did not exist at that time. At the
> end oif the day, he has pre-existing custoemrs that need him and that he
> needs revenue from, and he isn;t going to bail on that pre-existing money
> tree, that has been in motion for years. He will fight harder than the new
> provider because, he has more at stake to protect, even though it may be on
> a smaller scale.
> 
> 
> 
> Both parties are equally obligated to build their networks as interference
> resilent as possible. But there are multiple dissimilar approaches to
> accomplishing that that is jsut as good as another. So who's to say what is
> ultimately the best practice. Its tough for a company who has built a
> network on a single pol and 20Mhz design, and change to a dual pol 10Mhz
> design.
> 
> Whats less efficient? Dual Omnis each single pol, or two sectors with dual
> pol? Omnis are not always bad, IF there is adequate physical obstruction
> isolation between grain towers, and using polarity as a mechanism of
> interference isolation also helps. If some else is operating on 20Mhz, a
> new provider on 10Mhz may not help, because it still steps on half the 20Mhz
> channel. 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd argue that the best way to coexist is to get rid of the Dual Pol on the
> New provider's Mimo rockets, IF THEY are using Dual POl MIMO. If Old BOy is
> using Omnis everywhere he likely is using Verticle pol everywhere. So, New
> WISP should physically CAP the verticle pol on their Rocket radios, and
> leave Chain Zero on Horizontal polarity only. Then move new WISP back to
> 20Mhz if you need to to regain the capacity. Problem solved. But if you
> rely on polarity as the mechanism of isolation, it simplifies everything, so
> much easier than channel coordination. Remember that Polarity isolation
> often has much better isolation than adjacent channel isolation. With OFDM
> you really need 20db of SNR min, and polarity isolation will get you that.
> Its hard to get that without polarity isolation. Bottom line is, if you
> both choose a different polarity, and stick to it, you wont interfere with
> each other, just with yourself. But, self-interference is much easier to
> isolate, when you know everything about your own network, and can make the
> best choices and trade off for your network. And you can make those changes
> without answering or coordinating with someone else. Thats the benefit of
> relying on Pol isolation. If old boy is using Omni, and new WISP is using
> sectors, its a perfect situation for old boy to take Verticle and New WISP
> to take Horizontal.
> 
> 
> 
> Dont get me wrong, I love Ubiquiti MIMO when I can use it, but MIMO has a
> major flaw, and that is co-existing with others is much more difficult,
> expecially if they are using 20Mhz gear.
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to say it, but ethically, I'd side with Old WISP boy. Comming in new
> with MIMO gear would surely going to cause interference to pre-existing
> deployments, and the MIMO would restrict your flexibility to resolve. If a
> new provider came in with UNiquiti standard (non MIMO model), Id call it
> even more irresponsbile. Bulilt-in spectrum analyzers are NEEDED in today's
> day and age to adeqautely co-exist.
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest... I really think the burden to prevent interference belongs to
> the new installer during installation. An installtion should not continue,
> if its known to cause interference. This is the reason its so important for
> Freq Spectrum Analyzers to be built-in to all APs. Thats the biggest benefit
> to Ubiquiti-M ! Did the new provider scan before they deployed? Or did they
> just make a template and start putting it up accross all the grain towers
> everywhere? 2.4Ghz does not have a lot of channels to share, and its pushing
> it to come in enw and overbuilding a pre-existing 2.4 network, as it would
> be almost guarateed to cause some interference. Ive never respected the
> Built first by brute force, and deal with it later approach, while
> pre-existing boy's customers scream outage. All that does is create
> animosity that maybe the new WISP things they can just come in and run over
> everybody without consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> Dont automatically assume that sectoring the Old Boy's network will solve
> the problem. It depends on where the interference is. If he has an Omni he's
> only using one channel, and when he adds sectors he'll be using three, that
> will be scarces to come by. For secorization to help enough, you'd need to
> be confident that the towers are far enough apart, that the channel reuse
> will be possible. And its also possible that some omni locations may not
> support sectors cosmetically. Such as if he uses a home on tall ground as
> relay points.
> 
> 
> 
> The good news is that sectorization no longer has to be expensive, When
> Rockets and antenna can be had for under $250. (Allthough there is still
> cabling, Arrestors, switches , etc that add up). So maybe Old WISP Boy
> could also benefit from sectorization in some places, to justify his own
> cooperation.
> 
> 
> 
> You also were not clear on whether primary interference was on the 2.4G or
> 5.8G, backhauls or sectors?
> 
> 
> 
> As well, I'd suggest fully exploring whether all the available freq ranges
> are being used to their potential to avoid interference. For example... I'm
> sure 5.8Ghz is being used for sectors mostly, because that is what is FCC
> legal to use with Ubiquiti. But what about the backhauls? 5.3 and 5.4
> backhauls can go 7-10 miles, with 2-3ft dish on both ends. HAve the
> backhauls been converted to 5.3-4?
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that switching sectors from 2.4 to 5.8 or 5.3/4 likely wont work
> against the foliage and trees. But, if interference is at 5.8, you may very
> well do OK with 5.3/4 PTPs for backhaul.
> 
> 
> 
> If your interference is at 2.4G, dont lock your self down to that. You
> mentioned that you are trying 3.65, but dont forget 900Mhz. Sure its lower
> capacity, but it will help with the trees.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll also note... Dont just assume its equally the responsibility for old
> boy to pay to rebuild his network to accommodate a new arrival. In all my
> tower contracts, I have first in protection.
> 
> If a new arrival wants me to change my infrasstructure to make room for them
> to also deploy, IF I agree, the new arrival is responsbile for paying the
> cost to cover my relocation or change plan.
> 
> 
> 
> As well, lets look at it from the old boys perception. He considered the
> grain towers his home market. Then some new guy comes to town, and takes ALL
> the grain towers away from him, and takes away the old boy's expansion
> market. Old boy feels violated by New Boy. If I were the NEw WISP, I'd not
> only worry about interference, but I'd also worry about behind the scene
> retaliation. How far would someone go to protect their home? Vandalism? Bad
> mouthing? Intentional interference? Its a risky business to go overbuild
> someone's home market.
> 
> 
> 
> What I can tell you is that with 2.4Ghz, a survival of the fittest spectrum
> battle will not have any winners, there just isn't enough spectrum in
> 2.4Ghz. 
> 
> The ONLY way to work it out has to be to work it out amicably. It really
> doesn;t matter how many times the Old boy pciks up the phone to call new
> WISP, the calls are never gonna stop until teh Old Boy doesn't have
> itnerference. If his interference is not solved, he'll make sure he puts you
> in a position, where you'll be calling him soon enough to try to resolve
> interference.
> 
> When it comes to unlicensed RF, its an equal playing field, the small guy
> doesn't have to accept being pushed around or bullied by the bigger guy, and
> I'm sure that is what the samller guy feels, whether its true or not..
> 
> 
> 
> Also, no need to be consistent everywhere. There is no reason you cant use
> two 2.4 sectors ata tower and have the third sector be 3.65, if only one
> direction is a pain point. For example, everywhere facing one of Old Boy's
> towers use 3.65 or 900.
> 
> 
> 
> As well, dont assume 5-10 miles sector coverage is to long. That is a common
> distance built into many WISP networks, to make it possible for a ROI in a
> rural market.
> 
> 
> 
> LAstly, the new WISP is lighting up tons of new grain towers. Old boy has 60
> subs. How many towers could Old Boy realistically have with only 60
> customers?
> 
> This really doesn't sound like such a difficult challenge to resolve. If new
> WISP is lighting up tons of grain legs (aka lots of markets), It wouldn't
> be that painful to stay off old Old Boy's network area, it cant be all that
> large?
> 
> 
> 
> I can give an example of one of our markets, where there are about 400 homes
> and three WISPs, where 900Mhz is the ONLY option.. .
> 
> I use sectors, they tend to use Omnis. We manage to co-exist. Omnis are
> plusses, because I know their is a financial incenticve for them to select
> Verticle pol, so when I use sectors it makes it much easier for me to steer
> around them. And I'm not greedy. I let them have their 50 subs, closest to
> their towers, and wouldn't ever think about marketing their backdoor step..
> 
> I'd rather focus on the 200 customers in the other direction that I'm closer
> to. There is enough market to go around. All new undeployed markets are fair
> game to who get their first.
> 
> 
> 
> So summary of recommendation....
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Check contractual protections in both WISP's grain tower contracts.
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Try each picking a unique exclusive polarity for their radios.
> 
> 
> 
> 3) ONly Deploy AP and BAckhaul radios that have built-in spectrum analyzers.
> (Ubiquiti-M or Trango Tlink). If using Ubiquiti and MIMO, for Rockets cap
> off chain 1 antenna to disable, or using Bullets that are single pol MIMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 4) Use 5.2/4 for backhauls everywhere possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 5) Where non-interference cant be acheived at 2.4G, use 3.65 and 900Mhz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also another approach.... IF coexistance can be acheived. Then you are back
> at aquisition discussion. How can aquisition be avoided. Two ways...
> 
> 
> 
> 1) AP sharing 
> 
> or 
> 
> 2) Customer swapping.
> 
> 
> 
> 1- Come to the realizing that two tower cant exist next to each other in the
> same market. Agree to share your APs with him, and and vice versa, at an
> equal bi-direction monitary rate to each other. Some APs will get taken
> down. You will control some towers and he'll control others. But neither
> will loose control of their customer.
> 
> 
> 
> 2- All your customers next to his tower you sell to him, and his customers
> next to you he sells to you. Do it on a 1 to 1 trade. And stop tradding when
> there is no more interference. Pay the same rate bi-directionally, so no
> dolalrs have to change hands. Then its just a few phone calls... Hey... let
> me introduce you to your new provider, you'll get bills from him now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> From: Robert West <mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com>
> 
> To: 'WISPA General List' <mailto:wireless@wispa.org>
> 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 9:55 AM
> 
> Subject: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm throwing this out there for another WISP to see if anyone has any
> experience with something like this or any ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> Within the past year this operator was asked by a grain operator to bring
> broadband to all of their grain legs. The operator had the idea of, instead
> of charging the grain dealer for the install, to offer the broadband for
> free in exchange for using the legs for access points and sell the service
> to local customers. The grain dealer agreed, obviously, so he built out a
> fairly good sized network. For equipment he is using all Ubiquiti radios
> and CPE units and with Pac grids and Bullets for his back haul and Rockets
> with sectors at the APs. Network has been working perfectly.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the setup. Now for the trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> There was and still is an existing WISP in the area. 60 customers or so.
> (Grain dealer is associated with OLD wisp in a roundabout way but chose not
> to use him for whatever reason) It's reported that boy is in love with
> Bullets and OMNI antennas on all of his APs. For CPEs he goes for large
> grids and Bullets, I believe. He also pushes it as far as he can go, 5
> miles or more on those OMNI APs. New operator is using 5.8 for Back Haul,
> 2.4 for CPE. Old WISP calls new WISP almost immediately. Interference
> taking down his network. New wisp changes channels to those suggested by
> old wisp. Calls again, interference. New wisp changes channels again.
> Another phone call, he changes yet again. Then drops down to 10MHz channels
> to give more room. Still the phone calls. For a time it was every evening
> he would have to deal with old wisp and still he wouldn't be happy. Old
> wisp then starts calling the owners of the grain legs raising hell and bad
> mouthing new wisp. Leg owner calls new wisp, "What's Up?" Old wisp then
> wants to sell his network to new wisp for fantasy cash. I tell new wisp,
> "Chill, don't even think of buying that idiot and his duct tape network".
> New wisp then buys a 3.65 license but we all know how long that sucker takes
> and the limitations it has with number of channels and the $$ premium per
> unit. New wisp has been very nice to all parties and has done, from what I
> see, about all he can do. He's within all power regulations and has bent
> over backwards to every request put to him by this guy. (One of the last
> comments from old WISP was that he would get a sector and, in so many words,
> blast him and take down his network)
> 
> 
> 
> Now the latest. Old wisp has contacted the leg owners and has put together
> a meeting between old wisp, all of new wisps grain leg owners, new wisp and
> two outside parties, one of which is related to old wisp boy.
> 
> 
> 
> New Wisp is at a loss to what more can be accomplished other than old wisp
> upgrade his OMNIs to sectors in order to isolate the RF away from a
> competing channel.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone have any solid resolutions that he can throw out to old wisp boy ?
> Surely someone here has been there before.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> Robert West
> 
> Just Micro Digital Services Inc.
> 
> 740-335-7020
> 
> 
> 
> Logo5
> 
> 
> 
> _____ 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> 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: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> 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: wireless@wispa.org

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: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Reply via email to