You're actually spot on. Now only if they were dual polarity. ;-) Well, not saying that's what you need to make UBNT 900 work, but a 25 dB 900 MHz grid dish is 8' in diameter.
http://www.zdacomm.com/images/PDF/ZDAGP900C.pdf ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Osborn" <gregwosb...@gmail.com> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 7:14:57 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas To make the ubnt 900 work, Mike, you would need one of those sat dishes from the early 80’s. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas How would it be impossible? These calcs aren't going to be able to factor in the foliage loss because of how variable it is. We'll just use 5 miles of free space as the loss. Rocket + UBNT sector as the AP and a NanoBridge as the CPE. AP -> CPE = -63 CPE -> AP = -61 Now if we had antenna of the same gain in 900 as I'm using in 5 GHz (18 AP, 25 CPE) AP -> CPE = -49 CPE -> AP = -56 So I guess its not as optimistic as I thought because of the PtP rule in 5 GHz, but in the downstream direction (AP - CPE), we're 14 is dB better and CPE to AP we're 5 dB. Manufacturers, give us bigger antenna! ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Anderson" < erik.ander...@hocking.net > To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:16:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 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 ----- Original Message ----- 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 _______________________________________________ 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
