On the UBNT900 sector, we would get 7-12Mbps within 5 miles, 4-8 withiin 8 miles using 8 to 10 CW.
The RFArmor shields for the 900 work very well, although add a lot of windload. I am going to try some radio shielding fabric to one or two this month too see how well that works, have one WISPer claiming that it is a winner of an approach. I also use Intellite MIMO 900 ant boxed for 900 rockets which is low profile and work really well for 2-3 miles. They also make a small sector, about a third the size of the UBNT sector which also works well with rockets... getting good speeds and signals so far out to 5 miles. I have a complete set of 2 TI M2s, 2 TI M5s, 2 RM900 Intelite sectors going up this week at 120' which from previous experience I believe is going to be a winner set up. One level will be 2 M2 TIs and 1 Intelite 900 sector and the second level will be 2 TI M5s and 1 Intelite 900 sector. Couple 3' RDM5s also will reside on tower. This is a monopole, but could do same on ROHN. On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 10:38 PM, heith petersen <wi...@mncomm.com> wrote: > On the 900 more or less just bandwidth throughput to a few customers, > more or less wanting more than I can give. This antenna is the stocker UBNT > panel. I never thought about someone like KP Performance. Is that what > you’d suggest? These customers, obviously, were on my 2.4 before and can > easily go back, providing I get them the bandwidth. This one was more or > less a test for an area I have never tried 900 before. > > On the Titanium sectors, I hear a lot of mixed emotions about them. I > installed one at a location we are testing and its not working out well, > however I believe its jammed in a highly intense 2.4 area as it is. > > You think the Canopy and UBNT 2.4 can co exist together until equipment is > swapped out? I have a buddy that installed 1 ubnt sector right below a > canopy omni as a test and has been running for close to 3 years. One of > those projects that never got finished > > heith > > *From:* Clay Stewart <cstew...@stewartcomputerservices.com> > *Sent:* Monday, January 06, 2014 9:13 PM > *To:* WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> > *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Fw: Antenna Array Suggestions > > I would place the smaller Rocket M5 UBNT Titanium sectors, along with > Rocket M2 Titanium sectors. As for your issue with the UBNT 900 I would > need more detail... stats such as signal/NF/CCQ etc... would be good. That > is an unshielded 900 and can be taken down or hurt fairly easily. Shielding > on the 900 is almost a must. There are also other possible solutions for > reducing windload for that 900 as well. > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:08 PM, heith petersen <wi...@mncomm.com> wrote: > >> >> >> I was looking for a suggestion on 3 120 degree panels for the tower in the >> picture. I have a connectorized Canopy 2.4 Omni on top at 60 foot, and its >> overloaded, in my opinion, with 73 subs. I am debating on throwing on a >> UBNT >> M5 panel in higher concentration area of current subs, however they are on >> the other side of the river and an average of 5 to 6 miles away. I don’t >> think I can get away cleanly with doing M5 sectors all the way around as >> some customers are 15 miles from this point with LOS issues. This tower >> sits >> a half mile from the river on the bluffs. So I am thinking of possible >> doing >> 3 connectorized Canopy APs. My question in doing this is looking for an >> antenna that I wont kill my self with self interference since I have just >> a >> little tower space to deal with. Using Canopy I would incorporate a >> smaller >> timing apparatus. The only other places that we are doing 120 degree >> sectors >> in 2.4 are with UBNT M2 on old school water towers around the tank. Most >> every where else is Canopy Omnis, and I am getting hammered by everyone >> streaming video nowadays. Being in flat country with huge buttes initially >> gave us lots of options, but now they just kick my butt. Maybe I need to >> look at something different altogether. I would hate to have a huge stock >> pile of Canopy 2.4 radios sitting around, I have tons of 5.7 & 900 >> collecting dust in the shop. >> >> The other antenna on this picture is a UBNT M900 AP, and with 5 subs on it >> and is not working as expected, I will likely yank it down and switch >> those >> few customers back to 2.4. The Canopy BH is a backup link to another tower >> down river. We are using a Nano Bridge M5 as the main feed for this tower >> and it has way more bandwidth capability than the tower is currently >> putting >> out. >> >> thanks >> heith >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> > > > -- > > > -- > SCS > Clay Stewart > CEO, Tye River Farms, Inc., > DBA Stewart Computer Services > 434.263.6363 O > 434.942.6510 C > cstew...@stewartcomputerservices.com > “We Keep You Up and Running” > Wireless Broadband > Programming > Network Services > > ------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > -- -- SCS Clay Stewart CEO, Tye River Farms, Inc., DBA Stewart Computer Services 434.263.6363 O 434.942.6510 C cstew...@stewartcomputerservices.com “We Keep You Up and Running” Wireless Broadband Programming Network Services
_______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
