With Cambium, we have connections that are stable at -82 dB.
We have a backup backhaul for a tower that is about 5 miles. One ridge
in between towers must have trees that interfere with freznel zone.
Towers are 200'. Originally had a Cambium 900 with 6 foot single
polarity yagis. It worked for emergencies in most situations (sometimes
rain or snow would interfere). Put in UBNT with UBNT dual polarity
yagis. Bandwidth available is slightly lower than the Cambium.
From what I have experienced with UBNT 900, it works marginally better
than 2.4 with tree penetration. Cambium 900 actually does work, even
without freznel zone clearance at times. There are many situations it
will not work, but it will reach 50% more of the households than UBNT.
As for interference, I have mounted a Cambium 900 SM with the UBNT dual
polarity with 40 foot horizontal separation without interference (for
testing purposes, not real world implementation). It did work.
GPS sync is better. I have two horizontal 900 omnis and 1 vertical omni
mounted with less than 12" of horizontal separation on a tower using
Cambium (no sectors will not work in this situation, and additional
tower space is not available). It works.
We have a tower currently with a 900 backhaul and 900 ap for
distribution. Sync makes this possible. When we raise the tower another
100 feet this 900 backhaul will go away. 2.4/5.x do not work on this. A
few 80+ foot trees (somewhere) are the problem
Yes, the smartmeter usage of 900 spectrum is problematic around here and
they seem to be a 919 mhz center channel. Using channels higher than 915
becomes more difficult.
This is why I state that UBNT 900 is not good. Increasing signal by 15
dB is IMPOSSIBLE for our situations... well, legally that is.
On 8/22/2013 10:14 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me,
there just isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76
and wondering why it doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try
again. The Canopy will work a little better because it requires less
signal, but it also has nowhere near the same throughput, so they're
really apples and oranges.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Josh Luthman" <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>
*To: *"WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
*Sent: *Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:20:24 AM
*Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
Ubnt 900 apparently has extremely poor nlos for 900 MHz. I've heard
this a handful of people but haven't tried it myself.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Mike Hammett
<wispawirel...@ics-il.net> wrote:
> How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz
> system was junk had a poor RF environment.
>
>
>
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Erik Anderson" <erik.ander...@hocking.net>
> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
>
> 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but
their other
> products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is
better.
> Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these
> technologies have very low bandwidth.
>
> On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote:
>
> What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've
used both
> Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We
just put
> up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning
towards the
> UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really
satisfied
> with.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
_______________________________________________
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
_______________________________________________
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
_______________________________________________
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
