The calculations I posted earlier took a 36 dB EIRP into account. Yes, obviously you can't directly compare a 40 MHz channel and a 20 MHz comparison is close to meaningless. A 10 MHz channel would be the most useful test. However, I do not yet know of any source for dual polarity 900 MHz 90* sectors that are 18 dB nor any 900 MHz dual polarity CPE antenna that are 25 dB of gain. Heck, probably even 20 dB would be sufficient to prove the concept. If someone knows where to find these things, I'd love to try it out. My brother just bought a wooded property a couple miles away, so it'd make for a great test. There are some pager transmitters about 90* to the right and there are electric grid monitors within a couple degrees of direct.
My point is that some of 900 MHz's bad rep can be mitigated by using antenna with proper beamwidths. I'm not trying to compare UBNT and Canopy because GPS is very important in a small band. I'm just trying to defend the band from people using it improperly. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Anderson" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:47:17 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas It is not the gear that is the issue. It is the regulations, unless your name is Progeny. The max TPO is 30 dBm and EIRP is 36. So, at 17 dBi antenna means you should only be running about 20 dBm out of your transceiver. The frequency regulations have a significant impact on throughput in the frequency ranges too. A 20 mHz channel is the entire 900 band while it is merely a channel in 2.4 or 5.x . I wish I could get out of 900 completely. Nothing else (we can use) can penetrate, refract, reflect like it does. But it just cannot deliver bandwidth to enough customers. So, stepping back a little, I must say that a cheap pair of UBNT units is worth testing in your area to see if it is sufficient. But unless you hang it on the tower for testing, your tests will be meaningless. As to which brand equipment will work better, it depends on your definition of better. You cannot get the throughput out of Cambium right now. You might be able to get it from UBNT. You can get sync with Cambium which allows for more APs without tight RF engineering. If your tower and customer distribution can support sectors, you may be in luck with UBNT. If you are going to support more than 20-30 people with omnis, you had better look at Cambium with GPS sync. I wish it was different. But that is our real world, non-vacuum test, experience. Hope that helps make a decision. If not, spend a few hundred bucks to test UBNT in your area. On 8/22/2013 4:13 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: The frequency that it operates has no impact on the throughput or the latency. Sure there's more noise in our 900 MHz band, but that's because of other users, not something native to that frequency. The bulk of the 900 MHz gear that we have just doesn't have sufficient gain, small enough beamwidth (kinda same thing), sufficient shielding. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Barnes" <[email protected]> To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:09:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 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 ----- Original Message ----- 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: <blockquote> 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 ----- Original Message ----- 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: <blockquote> 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 </blockquote> _______________________________________________ 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 </blockquote> _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
_______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
