http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon–Hartley_theorem
Its all in the math. On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Steve Barnes wrote: > But Mike that is the Rub. All things are never the same. 900 is dirty and > Susceptible to so much noise and reflection because the signal does not die > as quick. I understand the “Theory” but still have a hard time understanding > how a slower carrier wave (900MHz) can carry the same Data as 5800MHz carrier > wave but I know that it could in a vacuum. The issue is we don’t live in a > vacuum. > > Steve Barnes > General Manager > PCSWIN.com > Howard LLC. > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Mike Hammett > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:28 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas > > 900 will move the same amount as data as 2.4, 3.65 and 5 GHz with all else > being the same. > > If your throughput is low, you have too little signal for the noise you're > seeing. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > From: "Sam Tetherow" <[email protected]> > To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:13:52 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas > > I don't have anything to compare it to other than Tranzeo 900, but I have had > decent results with it. It obviously won't push the throughput that 5G or > even 2.4G will, even with the same channel sizes, but UBNT salvaged most of > my 900 customers when the Tranzeo gear started running into problems. > > > On 08/22/2013 09:03 AM, Mike Hammett 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" <[email protected]> > To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> > 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 > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
_______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
