I've got a 10 year old PtP at 5.3GHz.

--
On 2/12/2014 5:56 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
On 2/12/2014 5:23 PM, Chuck Hogg wrote:
Yea, but the power levels of some are not likely usable in an outdoor WISP environment.
A good explanation is at Wikipedia strange enough...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-NII

People running equipment in frequencies at a power level higher than intended is the issue. Also, the 5470-5725 band requires DFS.


Actually, so does 5.25-5.35, as of 2004 or so. It didn't originally, but when they added the 5.47-5.725 band, which needs DFS, they added the requirement to the original U-NII-2A band. So
15.407(h)(2) Radar Detection Function of Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS).
    U-NII devices operating in the 5.25-5.35 GHz and5  
<http://www.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2013/5/47-5/section.pdf>.47-5  
<http://sujan.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2013/5/47-5/index.php>.725 GHz bands
    shall employ a DFS radar detection mechanism to detect the presence of
    radar systems and to avoid co-channel operation with radar systems.

The power level down there is adequate for some applications, like half-mile links. Lots of old Motorola PTP-400s are legally pumping +5 to +9 dBm into panels... one urban path is working over 2 miles, though we're replacing it.


On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Art Stephens <asteph...@ptera.com <mailto:asteph...@ptera.com>> wrote:

    5265-5320
    5500-5580
    5660-5700
    5735-5840

    Are these not USA channels?
    If am wrong let  me know and I will change them.


    On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller
    <par...@cyberbroadband.net <mailto:par...@cyberbroadband.net>> wrote:


        Forrest...what is your offlist email ?

        Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

        ----- Reply message -----
        From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)"
        <li...@packetflux.com <mailto:li...@packetflux.com>>
        To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org
        <mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>
        Subject: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700
        frequencies?
        Date: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 11:53 AM


        I'm going to agree with others...

        Running outside legal limits doesn't look good to the FCC,
        and it sounds like you are definitely running outside the
        limits since you are whining about the ability to run your
        radios in a mode which seems to have no use than to exceed
        the limits.

        I will also add that if you're running all your radios hotter
        than they should be that your nose floor problem is most
        likely self inflicted.   My experience over the years is that
        radios are designed to run at a specific tx power and if
        you're exceeding it you get a lot of out of channel bleed
        over.  Even if the radios don't do this you are introducing
        far more rf than is likely needed causing an overall rising
        of the noise floor.

        Please don't interpret everyone's ire incorrectly.   We've
        just all either dealt with an operator like you are now or
        have been an operator like you are now.  And right now we're
        trying to gain credibility with the FCC which is hard to do
        when some operators are flagrantly breaking the rules.  Which
        makes us a bit grumpy.

        I'm sure some of your neighbors out there would love to help
        you better understand what you are doing to yourself and help
        you improve your operations which will in turn improve your
        quality of service.   Heck, I'd drive over there for a
        weekend if my schedule wasn't so packed.

        In any case please ask for help in appropriate spots and let
        us help you reap the rewards of a correctly and legally
        operating network.

        On Feb 8, 2014 4:49 PM, "Art Stephens" <asteph...@ptera.com
        <mailto:asteph...@ptera.com>> wrote:

            Recent events make me wonder if the FCC is trying to
            muscle wisps out of these frequencies.
            Since we are primarily Ubiquiti equipment I can only
            speak from that platform.
            First the latest firmware update removes compliance test
            which for about 40% of our equipment deployed would
            render them unusable since 5735 - 5840 runs at - 50dBm or
            higher noise levels in our area,
            Second is new product released only supports 5735 - 5840.
            Seems like DFS is such a pain that manufacturers do not
            want to mess with it.
            Case in point the new NanoBeam M series only support
            5725-5850 for USA.
            Worldwide version which we are not allowed to buy or
            deploy supports 5170-5875.

            Seems the only alternative is to go with licensed P2MP
            which makes more money for the FCC and drives the cost of
            wireless internet up for both wisps and consumers.

-- Arthur Stephens
            Senior Networking Technician
            Ptera Inc.
            PO Box 135
            24001 E Mission Suite 50
            Liberty Lake, WA 99019
            509-927-7837 <tel:509-927-7837>
            ptera.com <http://ptera.com>
            facebook.com/PteraInc <http://facebook.com/PteraInc> |
            twitter.com/Ptera <http://twitter.com/Ptera>
             
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

            "This message may contain confidential and/or propriety
            information, and is intended for the person/entity to
            whom it was originally addressed.
            Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note
            that any views or opinions presented in this email are
            solely those of the author and are not intended to
            represent those of the company."

            _______________________________________________
            Wireless mailing list
            Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
            http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


        _______________________________________________
        Wireless mailing list
        Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
        http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless




-- Arthur Stephens
    Senior Networking Technician
    Ptera Inc.
    PO Box 135
    24001 E Mission Suite 50
    Liberty Lake, WA 99019
    509-927-7837 <tel:509-927-7837>
    ptera.com <http://ptera.com>
    facebook.com/PteraInc <http://facebook.com/PteraInc> |
    twitter.com/Ptera <http://twitter.com/Ptera>
     
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "This message may contain confidential and/or propriety
    information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was
    originally addressed.
    Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any
    views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the
    author and are not intended to represent those of the company."

    _______________________________________________
    Wireless mailing list
    Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
    http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless




_______________________________________________
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


--
  Fred R. Goldstein      k1io     fred "at" interisle.net
  Interisle Consulting Group
  +1 617 795 2701


_______________________________________________
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

--
West Michigan Wireless ISP
Allegan, Michigan  49010
269-686-8648

A Division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC

_______________________________________________
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Reply via email to