Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces
Steve, I appreciate your insight into the possibility that license-exempt white space use might actually materialize. I very much hope that it does. jack Steve Stroh wrote: Jack: Consider... To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a "we'll stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity" manner is the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has been steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of Channels 70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of Channels 52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for powerful terrestrial broadcasting to "share" spectrum with low-power license-exempt usage, it's quite another for communications use to do the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears they are "bending" towards white space license-exempt usage, but very much on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space may serve to "pollute" the remaining television broadcast spectrum sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another decade or so). Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about as advocates for license-exempt use of white space television broadcast spectrum. Thanks, Steve On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24 09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote: Likelihood of unlicensed??? My guess is that the established communications carriers and the broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this space. I expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most effectively. -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Re: Steve Stroh writing
Scriv: Apologies for not responding sooner - I've been busy building new web sites :-) I don't want to make this into a commercial on the WISPA list, but because you asked... I'm back to writing full time about Broadband Wireless Internet Access for a series of highly-focused web sites, under a new company, Stroh Publications LLC. The "flagship" is Broadband Wireless Internet Access / WiMAX weblog - http://www.bwianews.com and there will be many others. The new sites will be announced there, on http://www.stevestroh.com, and on two additional sites (all of this is very much a work in progress). It's also a bit early to mention this, but enough of the pieces are in place to say this much- Wireless Tech Radio is coming back. More in a few weeks. Thanks, Steve On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24 10:12 AM, John Scrivner wrote: Steve and welcome back to writing for our industry. We missed your crystal ball. :-) Steve, could you send us a link(s) to where we can find what you are writing these days? Thanks, Scriv --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces
Jack: Consider... To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a "we'll stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity" manner is the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has been steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of Channels 70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of Channels 52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for powerful terrestrial broadcasting to "share" spectrum with low-power license-exempt usage, it's quite another for communications use to do the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears they are "bending" towards white space license-exempt usage, but very much on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space may serve to "pollute" the remaining television broadcast spectrum sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another decade or so). Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about as advocates for license-exempt use of white space television broadcast spectrum. Thanks, Steve On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24 09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote: Likelihood of unlicensed??? My guess is that the established communications carriers and the broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this space. I expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most effectively. -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces
Patrick is correct - Flarion was working on 802.20 (full mobility broadband) which, with the "borging" of Flarion by Qualcomm, has essentially terminated. Mobile Broadband standards work now seems to have shifted fully over to 802.16e / Mobile WiMAX (which will be 100% licensed spectrum.) I'll answer the last question on another post. Thanks, Steve On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24 10:12 AM, John Scrivner wrote: I knew there was an 802.22 effort but I had no idea that it was geared for any particular spectrum until now. Glad to hear the efforts are underway. Isn't Flarion's IP based closely on what will be 802.22? Was there an earlier effort for 802.22 standards development that was spectrum agnostic? This caught me completely by surprise. Thanks for the info Steve and welcome back to writing for our industry. We missed your crystal ball. :-) Steve, could you send us a link(s) to where we can find what you are writing these days? Thanks, Scriv --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces
You've HAD offers that have been refused... Thanks, Steve On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24 07:10 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: WISPA has been working on this for a couple of years now. Independently and with Cisco, New America, Media Access Project and I've recently had talks with the 802.22 (ieee white spaces standards group) folks. As always, we need more bodies to go a better job. laters, marlon --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] OT: Small office VoIP phone systems
WWW.TRIXBOX.ORG IS WORHT A LOOK Chuck Moses HIGH DESERT WIRELESS BROADBAND COMMUNICATION 16922 Airport Blvd # 17 Mojave CA 93501 661 824 3431 office 818 406 6818 cell -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Annas Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 8:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: Small office VoIP phone systems The SPA942 is a great phone for the money (not quite as nice as the Polycom 501 which isn't much more $. Regardless of which you use, an Asterisk PBX is the easiest and best solution for a system that size. Not only can connect your SIP handsets and 4 analog sets, you can build an IAX or SIP trunk to a provider such as Triad Telecom for SIP origination and termination. Let me know if you need any help. - Don -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ryan Spott Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 5:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] OT: Small office VoIP phone systems Sorry to be off topic here folks, but I trust all but one of you. :) I am looking for a small office VoIP phone system. It needs to support at least 4 Analog (outside) phone lines and at least 16 or so SIP based phones. Most of the Phones will be on a LAN in the building with about 4 phones off-site. I was looking at the LInksys SPA9000 coupled with the SPA400 to do this but I am always leery of Linksys stuff. Can any of you lead me in the right direction? Off list is fine and I can put together some synopsis when I get everyones info. thanks! ryan -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.19/663 - Release Date: 2/1/2007 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.25/669 - Release Date: 2/4/2007 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tele-Health Grants
I am afraid they will just build fiber business plans and not give wireless a second thought. Why should they consider wireless if they can get fiber for virtually free? Like I said...Gr. Scriv Tom DeReggi wrote: maybe the free money will change their policies :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 3:02 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tele-Health Grants This would be great news for me if the medical community around me did not have a policy against using wireless technology for data communications. Gr Scriv Peter R. wrote: FCC Grants Available for Telehealth And Telemedicine http://www.atsp.org/government/programs.asp?contentID=1895&FullStory=. Association of Telehealth Service Providers The FCC has recently announced a two-year pilot program that would fund up to 85% of the costs for the design, construction and use of dedicated broadband networks in order to expand the availability and use of telehealth and telemedicine, particularly in rural areas. Unlike existing rural health subsidy programs, this new program specifically contemplates that major urban health centers would be eligible to participate and receive funding if they include rural health care providers in the network. The benefit for urban hospitals is that they can use the funds to establish direct broadband links with rural providers, thus expanding their reach, while also improving their own telecommunications infrastructure and connecting with other networks and research institutions. The program makes approximately $55-60 million available for each of the two years of the pilot program. The funds come from the existing Rural Health Care Fund, which is part of the federal universal service program. Public and nonprofit health care providers, such as not-for-profit hospitals, may apply for the funds. For-profit health care providers can be part of the network, but they must pay their costs to connect. The FCC will look primarily at two criteria: 1. to what extent does the proposed network include rural health care providers; and 2. what is the business plan for eventually making the network self-sustaining. Thus, the key to a successful application is to pull together as many health care providers - both urban and rural - as possible in order to create regional networks. In this way, urban centers can expand their footprint into rural areas and the rural providers will gain access, via telemedicine, to the sophisticated practices and programs that urban centers provide. The program will also fund high-speed connections to the Internet2, a national broadband network dedicated to universities and research institutions, such as the NIH. Applications for the initial, first-year round of funding will be due sometime in the next couple of months. Applications can also be submitted later for the second year of funding. If accepted into the program by the FCC, the applicant will follow the standard procedures for funding from FCC universal service programs. The funding application must:identify the organization that will be legally and financially responsible for the conduct of activities supported by the fund; identify the goals and objectives of the proposed network (we believe that a proposal that connects multiple rural health care providers over a state or region and describes the types of telemedicine/telehealth services and benefits that can be provided over the network will have a better chance of being accepted); estimate the network's total costs for each year; describe how for-profit network participants will pay their fair share of the network costs; identify the source of financial support and anticipated revenues that will pay for costs not covered by the fund (this could come from increased patient referrals form the rural to urban centers or other fees associated with the provision of telemedicine/telehealth services; also additional funding might be available from state or other grant programs); list the health care facilities that will be included in the network; provide the address, zip code, rural urban commuting area (RUCA) code and phone number for each health care facility participating in the network; indicate previous experience in developing and managing telemedicine programs; provide a project management plan outlining the project�s leadership and management structure, as well as its work plan, schedule and budget; indicate how the telemedicine program will be coordinated throughout the state or region; and indicate to what extent the network can be self-sustaining once established. (Source: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo P.C.Law Firm, Press Release, January 31, 2007) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa
Re: [WISPA] Ceragon ? Axxcelera?
I just ordered an Alvarion B100 link that is supposed to match or exceed those specs. It should be here tomorrow actually. We will be using it for our first hop out which will carry all of our wireless network traffic. There is a link on http://www.wispa.org to tell Alvarion to have a sales rep call on you about it. Not pushing it as much as I am just hoping you will give our vendor member a shot at this business. I know Charles Wu sells a bunch of backhaul products too (maybe even Ceragon?) and he has paid his WISPA Vendor dues. He has not sent me his initial marketing message or anything but he will soon. Charles if you are here you might want to drop Mac a line to let him know what options you have for backhaul. Like I said, I am not pushing this as much as I hope our Vendor members will at least get a shot at this business. Thanks, Scriv Mac Dearman wrote: I am looking for some input from current Ceragon users. We are in a position that we have to upgrade 4 backhaul links to a higher throughput capacity. I have been looking at Ceragon for a while and know several folks on list that have their ISP's reputation built on the performance of these radios, but I am unsure what model# everyone is using. I am looking for ~ 48mbps links and I think the FibeAire 4800 would suit my needs at this time. Does anyone have any experience with these radios? What is NOT included that I will need? Thanks folks, Mac -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] OT: Small office VoIP phone systems
The SPA942 is a great phone for the money (not quite as nice as the Polycom 501 which isn't much more $. Regardless of which you use, an Asterisk PBX is the easiest and best solution for a system that size. Not only can connect your SIP handsets and 4 analog sets, you can build an IAX or SIP trunk to a provider such as Triad Telecom for SIP origination and termination. Let me know if you need any help. - Don -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ryan Spott Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 5:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] OT: Small office VoIP phone systems Sorry to be off topic here folks, but I trust all but one of you. :) I am looking for a small office VoIP phone system. It needs to support at least 4 Analog (outside) phone lines and at least 16 or so SIP based phones. Most of the Phones will be on a LAN in the building with about 4 phones off-site. I was looking at the LInksys SPA9000 coupled with the SPA400 to do this but I am always leery of Linksys stuff. Can any of you lead me in the right direction? Off list is fine and I can put together some synopsis when I get everyones info. thanks! ryan -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.19/663 - Release Date: 2/1/2007 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.25/669 - Release Date: 2/4/2007 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tele-Health Grants
maybe the free money will change their policies :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 3:02 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tele-Health Grants This would be great news for me if the medical community around me did not have a policy against using wireless technology for data communications. Gr Scriv Peter R. wrote: FCC Grants Available for Telehealth And Telemedicine http://www.atsp.org/government/programs.asp?contentID=1895&FullStory=. Association of Telehealth Service Providers The FCC has recently announced a two-year pilot program that would fund up to 85% of the costs for the design, construction and use of dedicated broadband networks in order to expand the availability and use of telehealth and telemedicine, particularly in rural areas. Unlike existing rural health subsidy programs, this new program specifically contemplates that major urban health centers would be eligible to participate and receive funding if they include rural health care providers in the network. The benefit for urban hospitals is that they can use the funds to establish direct broadband links with rural providers, thus expanding their reach, while also improving their own telecommunications infrastructure and connecting with other networks and research institutions. The program makes approximately $55-60 million available for each of the two years of the pilot program. The funds come from the existing Rural Health Care Fund, which is part of the federal universal service program. Public and nonprofit health care providers, such as not-for-profit hospitals, may apply for the funds. For-profit health care providers can be part of the network, but they must pay their costs to connect. The FCC will look primarily at two criteria: 1. to what extent does the proposed network include rural health care providers; and 2. what is the business plan for eventually making the network self-sustaining. Thus, the key to a successful application is to pull together as many health care providers - both urban and rural - as possible in order to create regional networks. In this way, urban centers can expand their footprint into rural areas and the rural providers will gain access, via telemedicine, to the sophisticated practices and programs that urban centers provide. The program will also fund high-speed connections to the Internet2, a national broadband network dedicated to universities and research institutions, such as the NIH. Applications for the initial, first-year round of funding will be due sometime in the next couple of months. Applications can also be submitted later for the second year of funding. If accepted into the program by the FCC, the applicant will follow the standard procedures for funding from FCC universal service programs. The funding application must:identify the organization that will be legally and financially responsible for the conduct of activities supported by the fund; identify the goals and objectives of the proposed network (we believe that a proposal that connects multiple rural health care providers over a state or region and describes the types of telemedicine/telehealth services and benefits that can be provided over the network will have a better chance of being accepted); estimate the network's total costs for each year; describe how for-profit network participants will pay their fair share of the network costs; identify the source of financial support and anticipated revenues that will pay for costs not covered by the fund (this could come from increased patient referrals form the rural to urban centers or other fees associated with the provision of telemedicine/telehealth services; also additional funding might be available from state or other grant programs); list the health care facilities that will be included in the network; provide the address, zip code, rural urban commuting area (RUCA) code and phone number for each health care facility participating in the network; indicate previous experience in developing and managing telemedicine programs; provide a project management plan outlining the project�s leadership and management structure, as well as its work plan, schedule and budget; indicate how the telemedicine program will be coordinated throughout the state or region; and indicate to what extent the network can be self-sustaining once established. (Source: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo P.C.Law Firm, Press Release, January 31, 2007) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/
[WISPA] Tranzeo 90-15 for 80-15 swap, anyone?
I have about 25 CPE90-15 radios that I would like to trade for 80-15 radios. The 90-15s work fine, but seem to have some kind of issues with my network at times that doesn't seem to affect the 80-15s, and my techs don't like the user interface, so we decided to get them out of the loop. Anyone interested, let me know. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Ceragon ? Axxcelera?
I am looking for some input from current Ceragon users. We are in a position that we have to upgrade 4 backhaul links to a higher throughput capacity. I have been looking at Ceragon for a while and know several folks on list that have their ISP's reputation built on the performance of these radios, but I am unsure what model# everyone is using. I am looking for ~ 48mbps links and I think the FibeAire 4800 would suit my needs at this time. Does anyone have any experience with these radios? What is NOT included that I will need? Thanks folks, Mac -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] TTP Calea
www.subsentio.com is who we are working with. I know verisign is doing it also. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC 320-256-WISP (9477) 320-256-9478 Fax -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 2:17 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] TTP Calea Who does this calea TTP besides Intelleq? How is Wispa coming on Calea? Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] TTP Calea
Who does this calea TTP besides Intelleq? How is Wispa coming on Calea? Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
So what's the answer Lonnie? Does Star OS cloaking do anything proprietary, or is it strictly unlocking the Atheros's ability to utilize smaller channels, and likely able to work with any wifi vendor that decides to unlock this Atheros feature? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "rabbtux rabbtux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Forgive my ignorance, but is this 'cloaking' you speak of, a feature of 802.11G, or is it exclusively starOS, or can I find in in Mikrotik as well?? On 2/5/07, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I won't join into the arguement of B versus G and Amp versus no amp, but I will say I got three links working last week, using Cloaking, that were not able to be made work without Cloaking ability. When I can make a software parameter change and go from bad link to good link, thats something that can not be ignored. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 12:07 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas > No you don't. > > wpci1: atheros100 -73dbm -96dbm 23 2442 sta,U1,x2 > 00:80:48:39:8e:42 > > war-platform ~ > starutil 10.10.251.1 password -rx > rx rate: 1220 KB/sec (Press Ctrl-C to exit) > war-platform ~ > > war-platform ~ > traceroute -n 10.10.251.1 > traceroute to 10.10.251.1 (10.10.251.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets > 1 10.10.67.1 5.532 ms 10.319 ms 4.523 ms > 2 10.10.12.5 6.805 ms 11.779 ms 4.623 ms > 3 10.10.227.1 5.018 ms 6.86 ms 5.174 ms > 4 10.10.226.254 5.307 ms 7.747 ms 5.948 ms > 5 10.10.251.1 8.279 ms 12.21 ms 5.814 ms > > This is the client at 13 miles in X2 cloaking. The AP is a 16 dB 60 > degree sector and the client is a 24 dB grid. If this were an AP in > the middle I could just as easily use a 15 dB omni and achieve almost > identical results. Both units have a Compex WLM-54SuperG radio. No > high power, no amplifiers. I don't need it and neither do you. > > An amplifier adds noise and worse, it increases the time to transition > from tx to rx, which requires that you use long preamble which slows > performance down. The worst thing it adds is signal, which you do not > need and which messes up areas outside your coverage. > > You have been using amps for so long you just believe you always have > to use them. A lot of companies have made a lot of money selling > unnecessary amplifiers and they prey on the guys who do not know any > better. That is fine normally and you would just laugh at the guy for > not knowing better, but when that guy is in the same area as you are > trying to serve, then it is not funny. > > Lonnie > > On 2/4/07, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> with sites that have 10 users in a 15 mile RADIUS, you have to have an >> amp >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:51 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas >> >> >> > Amps? >> > >> > The success of G is less noise and less power. IMHO >> > >> > Never looked for a G amp or tried a G high powered card. >> > >> > >> > Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >> >> Has anyone found an amp that'll work CORRECTLY with g AND b? >> >> marlon >> >> >> >> - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> >> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:21 AM >> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas >> >> >> >> >> >>> Nothing scientific Mac, but I think lots of G ap's work better >> >>> than >> >>> lots >> >>> of B ap's. >> >>> >> >>> Seems when I've seen high powered B ap's in the mix there can be >> >>> issues. >> >>> Where as when I see only low powered G things still work. >> >>> >> >>> The area I cover is fairly small, so i'm getting densly built out >> >>> with >> >>> omni's and sectors all over the place. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Mac Dearman wrote: >> >>> >> How are y'all running "G" in so many places? I would love to >> implement >> G, >> but I have so many towers sectored out and then we have so many >> clients >> running wireless routers close to the CPE that I feel like there >> would >> be >> trouble in Paradise here!! >> >> Are any of you running G on anything but an Omni antenna? >> (Multiple >> antennas on one tower?) >> >> Mac >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> On >> Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler >> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:30 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical
Re: [WISPA] Tele-Health Grants
Interesting. I didn't know there was a such thing as a non-profit health care facility. So am I understanding this correctly... They are funding a backbone network, but for-profit health care subscibers (generally everyone) pay for access? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 2:20 PM Subject: [WISPA] Tele-Health Grants FCC Grants Available for Telehealth And Telemedicine http://www.atsp.org/government/programs.asp?contentID=1895&FullStory=. Association of Telehealth Service Providers The FCC has recently announced a two-year pilot program that would fund up to 85% of the costs for the design, construction and use of dedicated broadband networks in order to expand the availability and use of telehealth and telemedicine, particularly in rural areas. Unlike existing rural health subsidy programs, this new program specifically contemplates that major urban health centers would be eligible to participate and receive funding if they include rural health care providers in the network. The benefit for urban hospitals is that they can use the funds to establish direct broadband links with rural providers, thus expanding their reach, while also improving their own telecommunications infrastructure and connecting with other networks and research institutions. The program makes approximately $55-60 million available for each of the two years of the pilot program. The funds come from the existing Rural Health Care Fund, which is part of the federal universal service program. Public and nonprofit health care providers, such as not-for-profit hospitals, may apply for the funds. For-profit health care providers can be part of the network, but they must pay their costs to connect. The FCC will look primarily at two criteria: 1. to what extent does the proposed network include rural health care providers; and 2. what is the business plan for eventually making the network self-sustaining. Thus, the key to a successful application is to pull together as many health care providers - both urban and rural - as possible in order to create regional networks. In this way, urban centers can expand their footprint into rural areas and the rural providers will gain access, via telemedicine, to the sophisticated practices and programs that urban centers provide. The program will also fund high-speed connections to the Internet2, a national broadband network dedicated to universities and research institutions, such as the NIH. Applications for the initial, first-year round of funding will be due sometime in the next couple of months. Applications can also be submitted later for the second year of funding. If accepted into the program by the FCC, the applicant will follow the standard procedures for funding from FCC universal service programs. The funding application must:identify the organization that will be legally and financially responsible for the conduct of activities supported by the fund; identify the goals and objectives of the proposed network (we believe that a proposal that connects multiple rural health care providers over a state or region and describes the types of telemedicine/telehealth services and benefits that can be provided over the network will have a better chance of being accepted); estimate the network's total costs for each year; describe how for-profit network participants will pay their fair share of the network costs; identify the source of financial support and anticipated revenues that will pay for costs not covered by the fund (this could come from increased patient referrals form the rural to urban centers or other fees associated with the provision of telemedicine/telehealth services; also additional funding might be available from state or other grant programs); list the health care facilities that will be included in the network; provide the address, zip code, rural urban commuting area (RUCA) code and phone number for each health care facility participating in the network; indicate previous experience in developing and managing telemedicine programs; provide a project management plan outlining the project�s leadership and management structure, as well as its work plan, schedule and budget; indicate how the telemedicine program will be coordinated throughout the state or region; and indicate to what extent the network can be self-sustaining once established. (Source: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo P.C.Law Firm, Press Release, January 31, 2007) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirele
Re: [WISPA] Tele-Health Grants
This would be great news for me if the medical community around me did not have a policy against using wireless technology for data communications. Gr Scriv Peter R. wrote: FCC Grants Available for Telehealth And Telemedicine http://www.atsp.org/government/programs.asp?contentID=1895&FullStory=. Association of Telehealth Service Providers The FCC has recently announced a two-year pilot program that would fund up to 85% of the costs for the design, construction and use of dedicated broadband networks in order to expand the availability and use of telehealth and telemedicine, particularly in rural areas. Unlike existing rural health subsidy programs, this new program specifically contemplates that major urban health centers would be eligible to participate and receive funding if they include rural health care providers in the network. The benefit for urban hospitals is that they can use the funds to establish direct broadband links with rural providers, thus expanding their reach, while also improving their own telecommunications infrastructure and connecting with other networks and research institutions. The program makes approximately $55-60 million available for each of the two years of the pilot program. The funds come from the existing Rural Health Care Fund, which is part of the federal universal service program. Public and nonprofit health care providers, such as not-for-profit hospitals, may apply for the funds. For-profit health care providers can be part of the network, but they must pay their costs to connect. The FCC will look primarily at two criteria: 1. to what extent does the proposed network include rural health care providers; and 2. what is the business plan for eventually making the network self-sustaining. Thus, the key to a successful application is to pull together as many health care providers - both urban and rural - as possible in order to create regional networks. In this way, urban centers can expand their footprint into rural areas and the rural providers will gain access, via telemedicine, to the sophisticated practices and programs that urban centers provide. The program will also fund high-speed connections to the Internet2, a national broadband network dedicated to universities and research institutions, such as the NIH. Applications for the initial, first-year round of funding will be due sometime in the next couple of months. Applications can also be submitted later for the second year of funding. If accepted into the program by the FCC, the applicant will follow the standard procedures for funding from FCC universal service programs. The funding application must:identify the organization that will be legally and financially responsible for the conduct of activities supported by the fund; identify the goals and objectives of the proposed network (we believe that a proposal that connects multiple rural health care providers over a state or region and describes the types of telemedicine/telehealth services and benefits that can be provided over the network will have a better chance of being accepted); estimate the network's total costs for each year; describe how for-profit network participants will pay their fair share of the network costs; identify the source of financial support and anticipated revenues that will pay for costs not covered by the fund (this could come from increased patient referrals form the rural to urban centers or other fees associated with the provision of telemedicine/telehealth services; also additional funding might be available from state or other grant programs); list the health care facilities that will be included in the network; provide the address, zip code, rural urban commuting area (RUCA) code and phone number for each health care facility participating in the network; indicate previous experience in developing and managing telemedicine programs; provide a project management plan outlining the project�s leadership and management structure, as well as its work plan, schedule and budget; indicate how the telemedicine program will be coordinated throughout the state or region; and indicate to what extent the network can be self-sustaining once established. (Source: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo P.C.Law Firm, Press Release, January 31, 2007) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
This thread has changed off its original intent. In case anyone was wondering why I started the thread A top quality 18dbi Dual Polarity antenna enclosure (5.1G-5.8G) is about to hit the market for a reasonable cost (near rootenna costs). I was trying to get a feel for how popular they will be in that configuration. The question is, "What percentage of one's installs could be obtained with an 18dbi CPE enclosure?" Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas that you need to make it work right. Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas I wanted to get some feedback from the List. Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? Is 18 dbi enough? I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be good for? Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 cards. The beamwidth of 18dbi (< 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for interference resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was needed it could be accommodated with higher power radios such Teletronic's >18dbm Atheros cards or Ubiquiti's SR5 18-26db cards. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
'Cloaking' is the term used by the StarOS to refer to the functionality that allows for changing channel width from 20Mhz to 10Mhz or 5Mhz. According to http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?p=30343&sid=d1e41e16905346726003d1f2 b84d7ea2 Mikrotik also has this functionality as of version 2.9.12 Alvarion VL radios also have this ability. However my current understanding is that this functionality may not fully interoperate with another mfg.'s equipment. Faisal Imtiaz SnappyDSL.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of rabbtux rabbtux Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 2:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Forgive my ignorance, but is this 'cloaking' you speak of, a feature of 802.11G, or is it exclusively starOS, or can I find in in Mikrotik as well?? On 2/5/07, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I won't join into the arguement of B versus G and Amp versus no amp, > but I will say > > I got three links working last week, using Cloaking, that were not > able to be made work without Cloaking ability. > When I can make a software parameter change and go from bad link to > good link, thats something that can not be ignored. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 12:07 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas > > > > No you don't. > > > > wpci1: atheros100 -73dbm -96dbm 23 2442 sta,U1,x2 > > 00:80:48:39:8e:42 > > > > war-platform ~ > starutil 10.10.251.1 password -rx rx rate: 1220 > > KB/sec (Press Ctrl-C to exit) war-platform ~ > war-platform ~ > > > traceroute -n 10.10.251.1 traceroute to 10.10.251.1 (10.10.251.1), > > 30 hops max, 40 byte packets > > 1 10.10.67.1 5.532 ms 10.319 ms 4.523 ms > > 2 10.10.12.5 6.805 ms 11.779 ms 4.623 ms > > 3 10.10.227.1 5.018 ms 6.86 ms 5.174 ms > > 4 10.10.226.254 5.307 ms 7.747 ms 5.948 ms > > 5 10.10.251.1 8.279 ms 12.21 ms 5.814 ms > > > > This is the client at 13 miles in X2 cloaking. The AP is a 16 dB 60 > > degree sector and the client is a 24 dB grid. If this were an AP in > > the middle I could just as easily use a 15 dB omni and achieve > > almost identical results. Both units have a Compex WLM-54SuperG > > radio. No high power, no amplifiers. I don't need it and neither do you. > > > > An amplifier adds noise and worse, it increases the time to > > transition from tx to rx, which requires that you use long preamble > > which slows performance down. The worst thing it adds is signal, > > which you do not need and which messes up areas outside your coverage. > > > > You have been using amps for so long you just believe you always > > have to use them. A lot of companies have made a lot of money > > selling unnecessary amplifiers and they prey on the guys who do not > > know any better. That is fine normally and you would just laugh at > > the guy for not knowing better, but when that guy is in the same > > area as you are trying to serve, then it is not funny. > > > > Lonnie > > > > On 2/4/07, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> with sites that have 10 users in a 15 mile RADIUS, you have to have > >> an amp > >> marlon > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: "WISPA General List" > >> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:51 AM > >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas > >> > >> > >> > Amps? > >> > > >> > The success of G is less noise and less power. IMHO > >> > > >> > Never looked for a G amp or tried a G high powered card. > >> > > >> > > >> > Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > >> >> Has anyone found an amp that'll work CORRECTLY with g AND b? > >> >> marlon > >> >> > >> >> - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" > >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >> To: "WISPA General List" > >> >> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:21 AM > >> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>> Nothing scientific Mac, but I think lots of G ap's work better > >> >>> than lots of B ap's. > >> >>> > >> >>> Seems when I've seen high powered B ap's in the mix there can > >> >>> be issues. > >> >>> Where as when I see only low powered G things still work. > >> >>> > >> >>> The area I cover is fairly small, so i'm getting densly built > >> >>> out with omni's and sectors all over the place. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Mac Dearman wrote: > >> >>> > >> How are y'all running "G" in so many places? I would love to > >> implement G, but I have so many towers sectored out and then > >> we have so many clients running wireless routers close to the > >> CPE that I feel like there would be trouble in Paradise here!! > >> > >> Are any of you running G on anything but an Omni antenna? > >> >>>
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
If I put my money behind the bet I'd say the RFLinx amps would likely be the winner. We've used their B/G OEM amp successfully. I do not have any real specs to back that opinion up, as I rarely ever use an AMP on the AP side, as it prevents using a high gain sector antenna based on FCC regs. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 2:42 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Has anyone found an amp that'll work CORRECTLY with g AND b? marlon - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Nothing scientific Mac, but I think lots of G ap's work better than lots of B ap's. Seems when I've seen high powered B ap's in the mix there can be issues. Where as when I see only low powered G things still work. The area I cover is fairly small, so i'm getting densly built out with omni's and sectors all over the place. Mac Dearman wrote: How are y'all running "G" in so many places? I would love to implement G, but I have so many towers sectored out and then we have so many clients running wireless routers close to the CPE that I feel like there would be trouble in Paradise here!! Are any of you running G on anything but an Omni antenna? (Multiple antennas on one tower?) Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Totally agree. A bad G link will still give as good as a GOOD B link. G will give 5 mbps even when it is close to not connecting and B requires superb signals to get 5 mbps. Lonnie On 2/4/07, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have quite abit of G out there. All the clients and ap's I install today are G. 60's is great, 70's work just fine too. 60's get top performance, 70' is still a great very fast connection and even low 80's beat B. B stands for Bad G stands for Good Marlon K. Schafer wrote: It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas that you need to make it work right. Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas I wanted to get some feedback from the List. Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? Is 18 dbi enough? I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be good for? Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 cards. The beamwidth of 18dbi (< 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for interference resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was needed it could be accommodated with higher power radios such Teletronic's >18dbm Atheros cards or Ubiquiti's SR5 18-26db cards. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
Our stategy has been to use high quality AP sector antennas with really good F/B ratio. Cutting out noise is equivellent to adding gain. Not that I'm against hipower cards, I'm just saying so many people forget about F/B radio in their antenna choices and that Noise is accumulative from 360 degrees. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Amps? The success of G is less noise and less power. IMHO Never looked for a G amp or tried a G high powered card. Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Has anyone found an amp that'll work CORRECTLY with g AND b? marlon - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Nothing scientific Mac, but I think lots of G ap's work better than lots of B ap's. Seems when I've seen high powered B ap's in the mix there can be issues. Where as when I see only low powered G things still work. The area I cover is fairly small, so i'm getting densly built out with omni's and sectors all over the place. Mac Dearman wrote: How are y'all running "G" in so many places? I would love to implement G, but I have so many towers sectored out and then we have so many clients running wireless routers close to the CPE that I feel like there would be trouble in Paradise here!! Are any of you running G on anything but an Omni antenna? (Multiple antennas on one tower?) Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Totally agree. A bad G link will still give as good as a GOOD B link. G will give 5 mbps even when it is close to not connecting and B requires superb signals to get 5 mbps. Lonnie On 2/4/07, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have quite abit of G out there. All the clients and ap's I install today are G. 60's is great, 70's work just fine too. 60's get top performance, 70' is still a great very fast connection and even low 80's beat B. B stands for Bad G stands for Good Marlon K. Schafer wrote: It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas that you need to make it work right. Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas I wanted to get some feedback from the List. Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? Is 18 dbi enough? I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be good for? Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 cards. The beamwidth of 18dbi (< 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for interference resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was needed it could be accommodated with higher power radios such Teletronic's >18dbm Atheros cards or Ubiquiti's SR5 18-26db cards. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
Forgive my ignorance, but is this 'cloaking' you speak of, a feature of 802.11G, or is it exclusively starOS, or can I find in in Mikrotik as well?? On 2/5/07, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I won't join into the arguement of B versus G and Amp versus no amp, but I will say I got three links working last week, using Cloaking, that were not able to be made work without Cloaking ability. When I can make a software parameter change and go from bad link to good link, thats something that can not be ignored. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 12:07 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas > No you don't. > > wpci1: atheros100 -73dbm -96dbm 23 2442 sta,U1,x2 > 00:80:48:39:8e:42 > > war-platform ~ > starutil 10.10.251.1 password -rx > rx rate: 1220 KB/sec (Press Ctrl-C to exit) > war-platform ~ > > war-platform ~ > traceroute -n 10.10.251.1 > traceroute to 10.10.251.1 (10.10.251.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets > 1 10.10.67.1 5.532 ms 10.319 ms 4.523 ms > 2 10.10.12.5 6.805 ms 11.779 ms 4.623 ms > 3 10.10.227.1 5.018 ms 6.86 ms 5.174 ms > 4 10.10.226.254 5.307 ms 7.747 ms 5.948 ms > 5 10.10.251.1 8.279 ms 12.21 ms 5.814 ms > > This is the client at 13 miles in X2 cloaking. The AP is a 16 dB 60 > degree sector and the client is a 24 dB grid. If this were an AP in > the middle I could just as easily use a 15 dB omni and achieve almost > identical results. Both units have a Compex WLM-54SuperG radio. No > high power, no amplifiers. I don't need it and neither do you. > > An amplifier adds noise and worse, it increases the time to transition > from tx to rx, which requires that you use long preamble which slows > performance down. The worst thing it adds is signal, which you do not > need and which messes up areas outside your coverage. > > You have been using amps for so long you just believe you always have > to use them. A lot of companies have made a lot of money selling > unnecessary amplifiers and they prey on the guys who do not know any > better. That is fine normally and you would just laugh at the guy for > not knowing better, but when that guy is in the same area as you are > trying to serve, then it is not funny. > > Lonnie > > On 2/4/07, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> with sites that have 10 users in a 15 mile RADIUS, you have to have an >> amp >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:51 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas >> >> >> > Amps? >> > >> > The success of G is less noise and less power. IMHO >> > >> > Never looked for a G amp or tried a G high powered card. >> > >> > >> > Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >> >> Has anyone found an amp that'll work CORRECTLY with g AND b? >> >> marlon >> >> >> >> - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> >> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:21 AM >> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas >> >> >> >> >> >>> Nothing scientific Mac, but I think lots of G ap's work better than >> >>> lots >> >>> of B ap's. >> >>> >> >>> Seems when I've seen high powered B ap's in the mix there can be >> >>> issues. >> >>> Where as when I see only low powered G things still work. >> >>> >> >>> The area I cover is fairly small, so i'm getting densly built out >> >>> with >> >>> omni's and sectors all over the place. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Mac Dearman wrote: >> >>> >> How are y'all running "G" in so many places? I would love to >> implement >> G, >> but I have so many towers sectored out and then we have so many >> clients >> running wireless routers close to the CPE that I feel like there >> would >> be >> trouble in Paradise here!! >> >> Are any of you running G on anything but an Omni antenna? (Multiple >> antennas on one tower?) >> >> Mac >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> On >> Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler >> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:30 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas >> >> Totally agree. A bad G link will still give as good as a GOOD B >> link. >> G will give 5 mbps even when it is close to not connecting and B >> requires superb signals to get 5 mbps. >> >> Lonnie >> >> On 2/4/07, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > I have quite abit of G out there. All the clients and ap's I >> > install >> > today are G. >> > 60's is great, 70's work just fine too. >> > 60's get top performance, 70' is still a great
Re: [WISPA] Speed test site
Would be a cool test if it didn't incorrectly report my 5 ms network to be a 295 ms network. No substitute for basic FTP tests. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 4:07 PM Subject: [WISPA] Speed test site Anyone seen this speed test? http://www.numion.com/YourSpeed3/Run.php?QuickStart=SelectDefaults -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
I won't join into the arguement of B versus G and Amp versus no amp, but I will say I got three links working last week, using Cloaking, that were not able to be made work without Cloaking ability. When I can make a software parameter change and go from bad link to good link, thats something that can not be ignored. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 12:07 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas No you don't. wpci1: atheros100 -73dbm -96dbm 23 2442 sta,U1,x2 00:80:48:39:8e:42 war-platform ~ > starutil 10.10.251.1 password -rx rx rate: 1220 KB/sec (Press Ctrl-C to exit) war-platform ~ > war-platform ~ > traceroute -n 10.10.251.1 traceroute to 10.10.251.1 (10.10.251.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 10.10.67.1 5.532 ms 10.319 ms 4.523 ms 2 10.10.12.5 6.805 ms 11.779 ms 4.623 ms 3 10.10.227.1 5.018 ms 6.86 ms 5.174 ms 4 10.10.226.254 5.307 ms 7.747 ms 5.948 ms 5 10.10.251.1 8.279 ms 12.21 ms 5.814 ms This is the client at 13 miles in X2 cloaking. The AP is a 16 dB 60 degree sector and the client is a 24 dB grid. If this were an AP in the middle I could just as easily use a 15 dB omni and achieve almost identical results. Both units have a Compex WLM-54SuperG radio. No high power, no amplifiers. I don't need it and neither do you. An amplifier adds noise and worse, it increases the time to transition from tx to rx, which requires that you use long preamble which slows performance down. The worst thing it adds is signal, which you do not need and which messes up areas outside your coverage. You have been using amps for so long you just believe you always have to use them. A lot of companies have made a lot of money selling unnecessary amplifiers and they prey on the guys who do not know any better. That is fine normally and you would just laugh at the guy for not knowing better, but when that guy is in the same area as you are trying to serve, then it is not funny. Lonnie On 2/4/07, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: with sites that have 10 users in a 15 mile RADIUS, you have to have an amp marlon - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas > Amps? > > The success of G is less noise and less power. IMHO > > Never looked for a G amp or tried a G high powered card. > > > Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >> Has anyone found an amp that'll work CORRECTLY with g AND b? >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:21 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas >> >> >>> Nothing scientific Mac, but I think lots of G ap's work better than >>> lots >>> of B ap's. >>> >>> Seems when I've seen high powered B ap's in the mix there can be >>> issues. >>> Where as when I see only low powered G things still work. >>> >>> The area I cover is fairly small, so i'm getting densly built out >>> with >>> omni's and sectors all over the place. >>> >>> >>> >>> Mac Dearman wrote: >>> How are y'all running "G" in so many places? I would love to implement G, but I have so many towers sectored out and then we have so many clients running wireless routers close to the CPE that I feel like there would be trouble in Paradise here!! Are any of you running G on anything but an Omni antenna? (Multiple antennas on one tower?) Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Totally agree. A bad G link will still give as good as a GOOD B link. G will give 5 mbps even when it is close to not connecting and B requires superb signals to get 5 mbps. Lonnie On 2/4/07, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have quite abit of G out there. All the clients and ap's I > install > today are G. > 60's is great, 70's work just fine too. > 60's get top performance, 70' is still a great very fast connection > and > even low 80's beat B. > > B stands for Bad > G stands for Good > > > > > > Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > >> It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. >> >> Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the >> antennas >> that you need to make it work right. >> >> Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the >> calcs, >> and comp
[WISPA] Tele-Health Grants
FCC Grants Available for Telehealth And Telemedicine http://www.atsp.org/government/programs.asp?contentID=1895&FullStory=. Association of Telehealth Service Providers The FCC has recently announced a two-year pilot program that would fund up to 85% of the costs for the design, construction and use of dedicated broadband networks in order to expand the availability and use of telehealth and telemedicine, particularly in rural areas. Unlike existing rural health subsidy programs, this new program specifically contemplates that major urban health centers would be eligible to participate and receive funding if they include rural health care providers in the network. The benefit for urban hospitals is that they can use the funds to establish direct broadband links with rural providers, thus expanding their reach, while also improving their own telecommunications infrastructure and connecting with other networks and research institutions. The program makes approximately $55-60 million available for each of the two years of the pilot program. The funds come from the existing Rural Health Care Fund, which is part of the federal universal service program. Public and nonprofit health care providers, such as not-for-profit hospitals, may apply for the funds. For-profit health care providers can be part of the network, but they must pay their costs to connect. The FCC will look primarily at two criteria: 1. to what extent does the proposed network include rural health care providers; and 2. what is the business plan for eventually making the network self-sustaining. Thus, the key to a successful application is to pull together as many health care providers - both urban and rural - as possible in order to create regional networks. In this way, urban centers can expand their footprint into rural areas and the rural providers will gain access, via telemedicine, to the sophisticated practices and programs that urban centers provide. The program will also fund high-speed connections to the Internet2, a national broadband network dedicated to universities and research institutions, such as the NIH. Applications for the initial, first-year round of funding will be due sometime in the next couple of months. Applications can also be submitted later for the second year of funding. If accepted into the program by the FCC, the applicant will follow the standard procedures for funding from FCC universal service programs. The funding application must:identify the organization that will be legally and financially responsible for the conduct of activities supported by the fund; identify the goals and objectives of the proposed network (we believe that a proposal that connects multiple rural health care providers over a state or region and describes the types of telemedicine/telehealth services and benefits that can be provided over the network will have a better chance of being accepted); estimate the network's total costs for each year; describe how for-profit network participants will pay their fair share of the network costs; identify the source of financial support and anticipated revenues that will pay for costs not covered by the fund (this could come from increased patient referrals form the rural to urban centers or other fees associated with the provision of telemedicine/telehealth services; also additional funding might be available from state or other grant programs); list the health care facilities that will be included in the network; provide the address, zip code, rural urban commuting area (RUCA) code and phone number for each health care facility participating in the network; indicate previous experience in developing and managing telemedicine programs; provide a project management plan outlining the project�s leadership and management structure, as well as its work plan, schedule and budget; indicate how the telemedicine program will be coordinated throughout the state or region; and indicate to what extent the network can be self-sustaining once established. (Source: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo P.C.Law Firm, Press Release, January 31, 2007) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Wireless companies
New tower could double wireless firm's business Baltimore Business Journal http://baltimore.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2007/02/05/story13.html?t=printable Southaven builds its own wireless network with city-owned MagnoliaWave Memphis Business Journal http://memphis.bizjournals.com/memphis/stories/2007/02/05/focus3.html?t=printable -- Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect & Communicate 813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 802.11a power limits
great! I was designing my first 'A' ap, and wanted to design in a special distant client/repeater and it wouldn't quite make it from the client side w/36db, however, a 28db antenna, no problem. My AP design will still have a couple db to spare. Thanks Marshall On 2/5/07, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 4 watts (36dB) at the tower. 1 watt radio output no limit on antenna size for cpe. marlon - Original Message - From: "rabbtux rabbtux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 9:02 PM Subject: [WISPA] 802.11a power limits > Anyone know the FCC power limits for point to multipoint 5.8Ghz > communications? > > Thanks > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 802.11a power limits
4 watts (36dB) at the tower. 1 watt radio output no limit on antenna size for cpe. marlon - Original Message - From: "rabbtux rabbtux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 9:02 PM Subject: [WISPA] 802.11a power limits Anyone know the FCC power limits for point to multipoint 5.8Ghz communications? Thanks -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
It's not quite so easy to forklift out entire customer bases when there are hundreds of cpe out there. 50 of them? Paying top dollar? No problem. A hobby wisp, that's not expected to feed a problem. No problem. There are some great new toys out there. We build our new wpops with as many of them as we can. The most important person in our network though is the customer, they are still quite happy with what they get from their b radios. marlon - Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 8:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas I believe I said we use reduced X2 cloaking for reduced RF spectrum usage, which you do not use because you have older gear or software that does not support it. You even agreed that reduced bandwidth works but that you chose not to use it. G mode does not have to play nice with B gear and that is why the newer drivers have selections for b only, b/g mixed or g only, so you cannot kill a G system with a single B client. If you simply replace that B client with a modern system you'll not have the troubles you do now. In my role of supporting people, I spend the bulk of my time dealing with people trying to make older B only systems work. They have reached the end of life simply due to the amount of B mode use out there. X2 cloaking extends the life of 2.4 GHz and in many cases is simply a software upgrade to get that new capability. It could also require an Atheros card to replace a prism or Orinoco and in more than a few cases it will require outright replacement of the entire system. You can't make a half hearted attempt at doing this. It is all or nothing. Try G mode with X2 cloaking and move over more and more big users to it. They will be happy and you will spend less time doing tech support. Even in a quiet environment X2 cloaking is still the way to go. Having double the number of non overlapping channels means much more spectrum to play with. X2 cloaking gives slightly higher power output, better receive sensitivity and higher digital processing conversion gain due to the reduced number OFDM RF carriers. It is superior. Simple. I do understand why people don't want to hear that. They have been operating on the basis that they were doing the right thing and they were making money, so they had it right. In reality they have been duped by the manufacturers who could not figure out how to do it right, or who made more money flogging last gen technology. So don't get mad at me, get mad at the guys who sold you your current B only client gear. They are the ones who mislead you. I'm just the messenger and the guy with a better system. You want what I have but you are angry that your current gear does not do it. I am on one location that has 7 other Access Points all beaming to the same town site. Nothing works if we use standard 20 MHz channels. X2 cloaking works on pretty much any channel I wish to use and I use 4 of those, so the total is 11 radios in 2.4 GHz from that site and all going to the same general location. My stuff works and I think their stuff works because we are just noise to them, and the whole concept of spread spectrum is not being bothered by noise. This is why I said B is dead and G is the new thing, simply because of the cloaking ability. If more people switched to cloaking then even the standard stuff would be better. This is sort of like the way 900 MHz is rebounding because nobody is using it anymore, plus the new radios and drivers can have 4 channels of 5 MHz RF spectrum. That 5 MHz can deliver a solid 6.5 mbps and up to 12 mbps with compression kicking in. Lonnie On 2/4/07, wispa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:59:18 -0800, Lonnie Nunweiler wrote > I know this goes farther than the B versus G debate that was started, > but the key thing in being able to do this is the cloaking with its > reduced RF spectrum use. A B mode AP cannot do cloaking, nor can > your AP do it if the AP is not an Atheros with a driver that > properly supports the ability. It must be, because running your gear, I cannot get G mode to work acceptably AT ALL. In my area, every channel has SOME noise on it. Even with signal levels in the low '60's, I could never achieve better than 350 to 400 KB / sec throughput for a DEPLOYED AP and client, and B mode could hit 1400 KB/sec using compressible data, about 650-700 wihtout compression. Narrowing channels appears to kill the G characteristic of waiting for completely clear air before it will transmit. Without cloaking, a nearly idle access point in G mode with a G client, will have varying 1 to 400 ms pings as it waits for clear air to transmit in. Switching to B mode gives you rock solid 1 to 7 ms pings on an active AP with a number of clients. > > B is dead and is holding the Industry back. If you use B mode then > you NEED 400 mW radios because of th
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
I could see it ptp George. But not omni to cpe... Unless a guy is using 200mw or higher radio cards. In which case, you did use an amp, it's just built into the radio eh? MY problem with high power radios is that they don't add any rec. gain like an external amp will. We're switching out our amps to three sector solutions when the customer volumes go high enough. marlon - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 8:22 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas I'm not so sure about that Marlon. I put in a 10 mile link the other day just using a pair of cm9's and rootennas. xxx x6:0e x5.688 -74 -66 48 54 C Of course this was A. I try to keep the long shots 5 gig and the short ones 2 gig. The way I figure it, there's a lot of 2 gig out there in all shapes and flavors and when you go 10 - 15 miles it's inevidable that there will be some interference. If we are talking the middle of nowhere, you can easily do 15 miles with cm9 G, no amps. Mark has issues with G because he is using mostly V2 G, I believe. V2 G is a diferent animal, a diferent driver than V3. V3 is the best to date. Marlon K. Schafer wrote: with sites that have 10 users in a 15 mile RADIUS, you have to have an amp marlon - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Amps? The success of G is less noise and less power. IMHO Never looked for a G amp or tried a G high powered card. Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Has anyone found an amp that'll work CORRECTLY with g AND b? marlon - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Nothing scientific Mac, but I think lots of G ap's work better than lots of B ap's. Seems when I've seen high powered B ap's in the mix there can be issues. Where as when I see only low powered G things still work. The area I cover is fairly small, so i'm getting densly built out with omni's and sectors all over the place. Mac Dearman wrote: How are y'all running "G" in so many places? I would love to implement G, but I have so many towers sectored out and then we have so many clients running wireless routers close to the CPE that I feel like there would be trouble in Paradise here!! Are any of you running G on anything but an Omni antenna? (Multiple antennas on one tower?) Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Totally agree. A bad G link will still give as good as a GOOD B link. G will give 5 mbps even when it is close to not connecting and B requires superb signals to get 5 mbps. Lonnie On 2/4/07, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have quite abit of G out there. All the clients and ap's I install today are G. 60's is great, 70's work just fine too. 60's get top performance, 70' is still a great very fast connection and even low 80's beat B. B stands for Bad G stands for Good Marlon K. Schafer wrote: It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas that you need to make it work right. Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas I wanted to get some feedback from the List. Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? Is 18 dbi enough? I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be good for? Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 cards. The beamwidth of 18dbi (< 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for interference resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was needed it could be accommodated with higher power radios such Teletronic's >18dbm Atheros cards or Ubiquiti's SR5 18-26db cards. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wirel
Re: [WISPA] Powerconsumption
Somewhere in the archives of this list, I posted a spreadsheet designed for very high reliability in northern climates. WRAP boards consume about 1A @12V. That's 24AH per day. Depending on your location, your WORST month's solar power capability will range from minimal to around 4 hours / day average. Thus, if are southern coastal, you can count on around 4 hours of sun per day. So, you need 24 AH divide by 4 hours of sun average 6 amps needed for 4 hours. 2 Kyocera KC65T's are 3.6 amps ea www.wholesalesolar.com Now, you need batteries. First, estimate your longest possible period without full sun... 3 days? 5 days? 10 days? for me, I had figured 10 days. So.. 10 days X 24 ah = 240 ah. Since you should not discharge more than 50%, i'll need 240 / .5 or 480 AH of battery c apacity @ 12V. That way, even long term weather won't damage the batteries. Your solar panels should go in series, with one of these: http://www.wholesalesolar.com/products.folder/controller- folder/sb2000wdisplay.html It makes the panels a LOT more efficient and produce considerably more power over the long term. Now, if you use the logic and formulas here, you should be able to roughly calculate for any size load and location. Use "insolation" charts for your location. They come with w/m ratings, and fortunately, those happen to be roughly equivalent to sun hours per day. On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:40:43 -0600, Mark McElvy wrote > I am trying to wrap my head around calculation power consumption > and run time calculations. I used a Kill-A-Watt, plugged in a WRAP > board w/ one each CM-9 and WLM54g. The CM-9 is the backhaul and > WLM54G is the AP with two clients connected. The following data > was collected. > > 330 Hours > 1.85 KWH > ..07 A > 05 WATT > 07 VA > > I could use some help deciphering. > > I need to understand battery capacities and how to calculate run times > based on the above info and a given battery size. Also charging > with solar, how to calculate charging capacity needed. > > Mark > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ mark at neofast dot net neofast, Inc, wireless internet for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
