Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
Yep it's too bad that many wireless ISPs have no interest in learning about wireless. Scottie Arnett wrote: I am reading your response and can not decipher all your algorithms? Point that out and I will have a much more understanding of what you are scientifically trying to say. Most WISPS have absolutely no scientific background! John -- Original Message -- From: "Lawrence E. Bakst" Reply-To: WISPA General List Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 00:15:45 -0400 I think you guys know most of this already, but here is my take FWIW. I'm not a WISP, but I spent 5 years leading the design and development of an 802.11[agb] security system. We did our own polling solution based on 802.11e HCCA to solve the RTS/hidden node problem. All things being equal (which they often aren't) 802.11b will give you a higher S/N and C/I than 802.11g, because in almost all cases and especially at higher speeds. 802.11g has to lower the PA power because of the PAPR of OFDM and meeting the 802.11g EVM spec. It is true that 2.4 GHz can be very polluted. We found the noise floor to be really awful. You would be surprised by the number of "entities" that know they are way over the FCC max power in 2.4 GHz, but I digress. We once measured over 300 PHY errors a second on an "unused" 2.4 GHz channel. The number went down to 150 PHY errors a second inside an FCC chamber, if you can believe that. Having said all that we didn't use 802.11b at all because it's data rates are too low for video. Also while we supported 2.4 GHz, we mostly deployed at 5.8 GHz ISM because of the increased power available there and the pollution was much less, but that maybe different now. For 802.11[ag] mutlipoint, the sweet spot speed wise is 18-36 Mbps. It's very hard to keep a multipoint system at 48 or 54 Mbps because you need a great deal of link margin and with all cards you loose power as the speed increases to maintain PAPR/EVM. For point to point with direction antenna relief you can often maintain 48 or 54. Antennae make a big difference, as others have noted horizontal polarization is usually best and make the beam as narrow as you can afford because it raises the effective gain. However, if you are in an area where everyone else is horizontal it can make sense to try vertical. With some of the antennae we used that was as simple as rotating the antenna 90 deg at both ends. Watch out for crappy antennae, cheap cable, bad connectors, and so on. That can often cost you a few dB. In the product I designed I spent more time then I care to admit trying to make a very tough loss budget that I set out as a goal. There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have enough. I can confirm that our sweeps with a spectrum analyzer show lots of opportunity to use 5 and 10 MHz channels, as others have also noted. For WISPs it would be "nice" if chip vendors designed the radios so that you could set the channel bandwidth from 5-40 MHz in 1 MHz increments. It can be done but probably won't be, although maybe the Microsoft WhiteFI stuff force the chip vendors to do it. In WiMax and LTE they are already doing some things close to this. Still 5, 10, and 20 isn't bad and probably hits the sweet spot or 80/20 rule. One of the down sides of fitting a 5 or 10 MHz channel in a sweet spot is that it can change at any time. Best, leb At 9:58 AM -0500 10/1/09, Jason Hensley wrote: In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or G? Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a mix? Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the extra speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more stable? I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided less bandwidth. I've gotten some info that may counter that. What's the real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined with a higher useage AP? I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while. We've started having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k and fluctuate constantly. We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and nothing seems to have improved the stability. For testing purposes we put up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble with. Switched two of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they seem to be doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be. This is on Deliberant AP's (Duos). The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we can pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP. We have other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one so we know it's not limitations of the equipment. AP is on top of a water tower. Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it did not reveal anything significant. With just one customer on the AP started acting up again.
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
I am reading your response and can not decipher all your algorithms? Point that out and I will have a much more understanding of what you are scientifically trying to say. Most WISPS have absolutely no scientific background! John -- Original Message -- From: "Lawrence E. Bakst" Reply-To: WISPA General List Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 00:15:45 -0400 >I think you guys know most of this already, but here is my take FWIW. > >I'm not a WISP, but I spent 5 years leading the design and development of an >802.11[agb] security system. We did our own polling solution based on 802.11e >HCCA to solve the RTS/hidden node problem. > >All things being equal (which they often aren't) 802.11b will give you a >higher S/N and C/I than 802.11g, because in almost all cases and especially at >higher speeds. 802.11g has to lower the PA power because of the PAPR of OFDM >and meeting the 802.11g EVM spec. > >It is true that 2.4 GHz can be very polluted. We found the noise floor to be >really awful. You would be surprised by the number of "entities" that know >they are way over the FCC max power in 2.4 GHz, but I digress. We once >measured over 300 PHY errors a second on an "unused" 2.4 GHz channel. The >number went down to 150 PHY errors a second inside an FCC chamber, if you can >believe that. > >Having said all that we didn't use 802.11b at all because it's data rates are >too low for video. > >Also while we supported 2.4 GHz, we mostly deployed at 5.8 GHz ISM because of >the increased power available there and the pollution was much less, but that >maybe different now. > >For 802.11[ag] mutlipoint, the sweet spot speed wise is 18-36 Mbps. It's very >hard to keep a multipoint system at 48 or 54 Mbps because you need a great >deal of link margin and with all cards you loose power as the speed increases >to maintain PAPR/EVM. For point to point with direction antenna relief you can >often maintain 48 or 54. > >Antennae make a big difference, as others have noted horizontal polarization >is usually best and make the beam as narrow as you can afford because it >raises the effective gain. However, if you are in an area where everyone else >is horizontal it can make sense to try vertical. With some of the antennae we >used that was as simple as rotating the antenna 90 deg at both ends. > >Watch out for crappy antennae, cheap cable, bad connectors, and so on. That >can often cost you a few dB. In the product I designed I spent more time then >I care to admit trying to make a very tough loss budget that I set out as a >goal. > >There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have enough. > >I can confirm that our sweeps with a spectrum analyzer show lots of >opportunity to use 5 and 10 MHz channels, as others have also noted. For WISPs >it would be "nice" if chip vendors designed the radios so that you could set >the channel bandwidth from 5-40 MHz in 1 MHz increments. It can be done but >probably won't be, although maybe the Microsoft WhiteFI stuff force the chip >vendors to do it. In WiMax and LTE they are already doing some things close to >this. Still 5, 10, and 20 isn't bad and probably hits the sweet spot or 80/20 >rule. > >One of the down sides of fitting a 5 or 10 MHz channel in a sweet spot is that >it can change at any time. > >Best, > >leb > >At 9:58 AM -0500 10/1/09, Jason Hensley wrote: >>In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or G? >>Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a mix? >> >>Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the extra >>speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more stable? >>I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided less >>bandwidth. I've gotten some info that may counter that. What's the >>real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined with >>a higher useage AP? >> >>I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while. We've started >>having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k and >>fluctuate constantly. We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and >>nothing seems to have improved the stability. For testing purposes we put >>up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble with. Switched two >>of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they seem to be >>doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be. This is on >>Deliberant AP's (Duos). The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we can >>pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP. We have >>other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one so we >>know it's not limitations of the equipment. AP is on top of a water tower. >>Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it did >>not reveal anything significant. With just one customer on the AP started >>acting up again.
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
I think you guys know most of this already, but here is my take FWIW. I'm not a WISP, but I spent 5 years leading the design and development of an 802.11[agb] security system. We did our own polling solution based on 802.11e HCCA to solve the RTS/hidden node problem. All things being equal (which they often aren't) 802.11b will give you a higher S/N and C/I than 802.11g, because in almost all cases and especially at higher speeds. 802.11g has to lower the PA power because of the PAPR of OFDM and meeting the 802.11g EVM spec. It is true that 2.4 GHz can be very polluted. We found the noise floor to be really awful. You would be surprised by the number of "entities" that know they are way over the FCC max power in 2.4 GHz, but I digress. We once measured over 300 PHY errors a second on an "unused" 2.4 GHz channel. The number went down to 150 PHY errors a second inside an FCC chamber, if you can believe that. Having said all that we didn't use 802.11b at all because it's data rates are too low for video. Also while we supported 2.4 GHz, we mostly deployed at 5.8 GHz ISM because of the increased power available there and the pollution was much less, but that maybe different now. For 802.11[ag] mutlipoint, the sweet spot speed wise is 18-36 Mbps. It's very hard to keep a multipoint system at 48 or 54 Mbps because you need a great deal of link margin and with all cards you loose power as the speed increases to maintain PAPR/EVM. For point to point with direction antenna relief you can often maintain 48 or 54. Antennae make a big difference, as others have noted horizontal polarization is usually best and make the beam as narrow as you can afford because it raises the effective gain. However, if you are in an area where everyone else is horizontal it can make sense to try vertical. With some of the antennae we used that was as simple as rotating the antenna 90 deg at both ends. Watch out for crappy antennae, cheap cable, bad connectors, and so on. That can often cost you a few dB. In the product I designed I spent more time then I care to admit trying to make a very tough loss budget that I set out as a goal. There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have enough. I can confirm that our sweeps with a spectrum analyzer show lots of opportunity to use 5 and 10 MHz channels, as others have also noted. For WISPs it would be "nice" if chip vendors designed the radios so that you could set the channel bandwidth from 5-40 MHz in 1 MHz increments. It can be done but probably won't be, although maybe the Microsoft WhiteFI stuff force the chip vendors to do it. In WiMax and LTE they are already doing some things close to this. Still 5, 10, and 20 isn't bad and probably hits the sweet spot or 80/20 rule. One of the down sides of fitting a 5 or 10 MHz channel in a sweet spot is that it can change at any time. Best, leb At 9:58 AM -0500 10/1/09, Jason Hensley wrote: >In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or G? >Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a mix? > >Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the extra >speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more stable? >I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided less >bandwidth. I've gotten some info that may counter that. What's the >real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined with >a higher useage AP? > >I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while. We've started >having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k and >fluctuate constantly. We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and >nothing seems to have improved the stability. For testing purposes we put >up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble with. Switched two >of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they seem to be >doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be. This is on >Deliberant AP's (Duos). The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we can >pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP. We have >other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one so we >know it's not limitations of the equipment. AP is on top of a water tower. >Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it did >not reveal anything significant. With just one customer on the AP started >acting up again. Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have one going >bad and still no luck. > >2.4 antennas are H-pol. We have a ton of noise in the area, but we've been >through basically every channel and it did not help either. Other AP's in >the vicinity are performing fine. Thought of the multipath issue so we >raised our test AP up a little higher than the other one. As I said, the >test AP seems to be better, but next to it on top of the tower we can get >around 8 or 9 meg d
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
I swore I saw a document on the FCC's site saying it was, but I cannot find it any more. UBNT has submitted everything to the FCC, just waiting for the final approval. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "jp" Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 2:42 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) > On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:08:02PM -0400, David Hulsebus wrote: >> I have used 411 AP's with XR5 cards and NS5L's with good success in >> small subdivision projects. 1/2 to 1 mile using 5M channels running G, >> mostly horizontal. We lock the rates lower than 54 if we see any CCQ >> numbers consistently below 66%. We've had our best success at 36MB. >> Lowering not raising the power in most cases improves our CCQ. But >> again, we're mostly within a half mile. We don't have a sector broader >> than 90 deg, run mostly 5.4 on the AP and 5.7 on our backhauls. One site >> Dave Hulsebus > > I'm curious what you use that is cheap and legal for 5.4 APs? I know > that nothing UBNT makes is legal for 5.4 use in the US. Not being a > frequency nazi, just looking for something legal for me to use. > > -- > /* > Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL >KB1IOJ| Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting > http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/ > */ > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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/
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
FCC has very strict rules in 5.4, very different from ETSI. Its all about special DFS requirements that are not met by regular DFS implementation on the rest of the world Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 7:15 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) Curious note: Ubiquiti Nanostation 5 is 5.4 GHz certified in .br, which has similar requirements to FCC or ETSI certification on that band. My guess it's ETSI certified as well. I would welcome the $100 but my guess is Anatel certification don't qualify, so let's earn it the old way. Rubens On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Gino Villarini wrote: > Where? > > This is the FCC cert for the M5 Rocket > > http://tinyurl.com/yaolxlj > > its only certified for 5.8 ghz AND get this, for PTMP its only certified > with 6db omnis . so how come they are selling sectors for them . > > Show me where its certified for 5.4, ill send you a $100 paypal > > Gino A. Villarini > g...@aeronetpr.com > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Mike Hammett > Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:42 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) > > Actually, their new M series has 5.4 GHz certification. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "jp" > Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 2:42 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) > >> On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:08:02PM -0400, David Hulsebus wrote: >>> I have used 411 AP's with XR5 cards and NS5L's with good success in >>> small subdivision projects. 1/2 to 1 mile using 5M channels running > G, >>> mostly horizontal. We lock the rates lower than 54 if we see any CCQ >>> numbers consistently below 66%. We've had our best success at 36MB. >>> Lowering not raising the power in most cases improves our CCQ. But >>> again, we're mostly within a half mile. We don't have a sector > broader >>> than 90 deg, run mostly 5.4 on the AP and 5.7 on our backhauls. One > site >>> Dave Hulsebus >> >> I'm curious what you use that is cheap and legal for 5.4 APs? I know >> that nothing UBNT makes is legal for 5.4 use in the US. Not being a >> frequency nazi, just looking for something legal for me to use. >> >> -- >> /* >> Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL >> KB1IOJ | Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting >> http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Maine http://www.midcoast.com/ >> */ >> >> >> > > >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> 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 Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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 Wants You! Join today! 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/
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
Curious note: Ubiquiti Nanostation 5 is 5.4 GHz certified in .br, which has similar requirements to FCC or ETSI certification on that band. My guess it's ETSI certified as well. I would welcome the $100 but my guess is Anatel certification don't qualify, so let's earn it the old way. Rubens On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Gino Villarini wrote: > Where? > > This is the FCC cert for the M5 Rocket > > http://tinyurl.com/yaolxlj > > its only certified for 5.8 ghz AND get this, for PTMP its only certified > with 6db omnis . so how come they are selling sectors for them . > > Show me where its certified for 5.4, ill send you a $100 paypal > > Gino A. Villarini > g...@aeronetpr.com > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Mike Hammett > Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:42 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) > > Actually, their new M series has 5.4 GHz certification. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "jp" > Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 2:42 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) > >> On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:08:02PM -0400, David Hulsebus wrote: >>> I have used 411 AP's with XR5 cards and NS5L's with good success in >>> small subdivision projects. 1/2 to 1 mile using 5M channels running > G, >>> mostly horizontal. We lock the rates lower than 54 if we see any CCQ >>> numbers consistently below 66%. We've had our best success at 36MB. >>> Lowering not raising the power in most cases improves our CCQ. But >>> again, we're mostly within a half mile. We don't have a sector > broader >>> than 90 deg, run mostly 5.4 on the AP and 5.7 on our backhauls. One > site >>> Dave Hulsebus >> >> I'm curious what you use that is cheap and legal for 5.4 APs? I know >> that nothing UBNT makes is legal for 5.4 use in the US. Not being a >> frequency nazi, just looking for something legal for me to use. >> >> -- >> /* >> Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL >> KB1IOJ | Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting >> http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Maine http://www.midcoast.com/ >> */ >> >> >> > > >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> 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 Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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/
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
So G makes sense for an upgrade or would the money be better spent on another technology such as mimo? -RickG On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: > We are in the process of replacing all of our old 802.11b gear with > 802.11g AP/CPE running on 10mhz channels. 802.11g on 10mhz channels > is a great solution, as it takes up less spectrum, has more interference > resistance and delivers about 2x the speeds of standard 802.11b. In > my experience, it has made it possible for us to double up the capacity > on our access points and offer 2-4meg speeds to our customers on those APs. > > I use StarOS for APs, and Tranzeo, Ubiquiti, Mikrotik and StarOS CPE > radios. Working great for me so far. > > Matt Larsen > vistabeam.com > > > > Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >> I've found that in noisy environments b works better. Just did a repair at >> a customer's site, 400 to 700k down, 2 to 3 megs upload. Switched from b/g >> to b only and no he gets a steady 4 megs both ways. Go figure. >> >> Mikrotik with xr2 card. Power set to 20dB with 13dB 120* hpol sector. >> About 25 subs on this one. LOTS of other 2.4 in the area. >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Jason Hensley" >> To: "'WISPA General List'" >> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 7:58 AM >> Subject: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) >> >> >> >>> In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or >>> G? >>> Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a mix? >>> >>> Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the >>> extra >>> speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more stable? >>> I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided less >>> bandwidth. I've gotten some info that may counter that. What's the >>> real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined >>> with >>> a higher useage AP? >>> >>> I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while. We've started >>> having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k and >>> fluctuate constantly. We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and >>> nothing seems to have improved the stability. For testing purposes we put >>> up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble with. Switched >>> two >>> of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they seem to >>> be >>> doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be. This is on >>> Deliberant AP's (Duos). The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we can >>> pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP. We have >>> other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one so >>> we >>> know it's not limitations of the equipment. AP is on top of a water >>> tower. >>> Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it did >>> not reveal anything significant. With just one customer on the AP started >>> acting up again. Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have one >>> going >>> bad and still no luck. >>> >>> 2.4 antennas are H-pol. We have a ton of noise in the area, but we've >>> been >>> through basically every channel and it did not help either. Other AP's in >>> the vicinity are performing fine. Thought of the multipath issue so we >>> raised our test AP up a little higher than the other one. As I said, the >>> test AP seems to be better, but next to it on top of the tower we can get >>> around 8 or 9 meg down (locked into G mode), but at the CPE's we're still >>> barely getting 2.5-2.8meg. >>> >>> Any thoughts? We changed everything we can. The new "test" AP has a 9db >>> antenna compared to the 13db on the "production" AP. Other than that, >>> they >>> are identical as far as equipment goes. >>> >>> So, back to the subject question though, what's real-world experience with >>> G-only mode in the field? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> 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 Wants You! Join today! >> 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 Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ >
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
We are in the process of replacing all of our old 802.11b gear with 802.11g AP/CPE running on 10mhz channels.802.11g on 10mhz channels is a great solution, as it takes up less spectrum, has more interference resistance and delivers about 2x the speeds of standard 802.11b.In my experience, it has made it possible for us to double up the capacity on our access points and offer 2-4meg speeds to our customers on those APs. I use StarOS for APs, and Tranzeo, Ubiquiti, Mikrotik and StarOS CPE radios.Working great for me so far. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > I've found that in noisy environments b works better. Just did a repair at > a customer's site, 400 to 700k down, 2 to 3 megs upload. Switched from b/g > to b only and no he gets a steady 4 megs both ways. Go figure. > > Mikrotik with xr2 card. Power set to 20dB with 13dB 120* hpol sector. > About 25 subs on this one. LOTS of other 2.4 in the area. > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "Jason Hensley" > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 7:58 AM > Subject: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) > > > >> In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or >> G? >> Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a mix? >> >> Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the >> extra >> speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more stable? >> I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided less >> bandwidth. I've gotten some info that may counter that. What's the >> real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined >> with >> a higher useage AP? >> >> I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while. We've started >> having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k and >> fluctuate constantly. We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and >> nothing seems to have improved the stability. For testing purposes we put >> up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble with. Switched >> two >> of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they seem to >> be >> doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be. This is on >> Deliberant AP's (Duos). The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we can >> pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP. We have >> other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one so >> we >> know it's not limitations of the equipment. AP is on top of a water >> tower. >> Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it did >> not reveal anything significant. With just one customer on the AP started >> acting up again. Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have one >> going >> bad and still no luck. >> >> 2.4 antennas are H-pol. We have a ton of noise in the area, but we've >> been >> through basically every channel and it did not help either. Other AP's in >> the vicinity are performing fine. Thought of the multipath issue so we >> raised our test AP up a little higher than the other one. As I said, the >> test AP seems to be better, but next to it on top of the tower we can get >> around 8 or 9 meg down (locked into G mode), but at the CPE's we're still >> barely getting 2.5-2.8meg. >> >> Any thoughts? We changed everything we can. The new "test" AP has a 9db >> antenna compared to the 13db on the "production" AP. Other than that, >> they >> are identical as far as equipment goes. >> >> So, back to the subject question though, what's real-world experience with >> G-only mode in the field? >> >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> 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 Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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/
Re: [WISPA] Multipath
2.4 gig. All products. I've found that g handles it better than b. But b handles interference better than g. Right tool, right job. 50% science, 62% black magic. Some days I really do love this business! grin marlon - Original Message - From: "Josh Luthman" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Multipath > Marlon, > > Those experiences - what band and product? > > On 10/1/09, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >> First, your signal is much too high. Multipath is a reflected signal. >> The >> newer radios hear quite nicely down to -94 or lower. The AVERAGE >> reflected >> signal is about 30dB. >> >> So if you have a signal any greater than -65 you'll be MORE likely to get >> multipath. It can't always be helped but I try >> >> If you think it might be multipath move the radio up or DOWN by a foot or >> so >> at a time. Sometimes I've had to put a radio very close to the ground or >> something in order to get it to work right. >> >> Up is the direction you want to go if you can, but sometimes down will >> actually work better. I've doubled people's speeds by moving the >> antennas >> down by as little as 2 feet. >> >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Mark McElvy" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:39 AM >> Subject: [WISPA] Multipath >> >> >>>I am curious if anyone thinks this is multipath and has a suggestion on >>> how to fix. >>> >>> >>> >>> This just happens to be my dads house, radio mounted to a j-mount on eve >>> of house, clear LOS to tower <1 mile away, -56 signal. This eve is over >>> the porch roof to the east and signal shoots over the south plane of the >>> roof which is an approx 30deg angle. I was over this morning and he is >>> complaining the Internet is not working and I go in to do some >>> troubleshooting. I setup a constant ping to the AP and I am getting >>> <1ms, I start to browse and the pings jump to >300ms and random lost >>> packets. >>> >>> Configure a new radio in the house and have a -75 signal in the house, >>> try the ping thing again and all seems fine. I replace he radio on the >>> roof and I am back to the poor ping times again. >>> >>> >>> >>> Now I don't understand multipath as well I should but it seems to make >>> sense in this case. Is it possible to reduce or remedy without moving >>> the radio to a totally different location? >>> >>> >>> >>> Mark McElvy >>> AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> 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 Wants You! Join today! >> 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/ >> > > > -- > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however > improbable, must be the truth." > --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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/
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
I know the mikrotik R52N card is.. I was so excited... Until I read closer. It's certified as a client device, but not as an AP. The AP has to do all the heavy DFS/TPC lifting :( Randy jp wrote: > I'll send one lucky winner $30 paypal if they can show me within a week > the M series is 5.4 certified via an FCC document. > > On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 09:18:30PM -0400, Gino Villarini wrote: > >> Where? >> >> This is the FCC cert for the M5 Rocket >> >> http://tinyurl.com/yaolxlj >> >> its only certified for 5.8 ghz AND get this, for PTMP its only certified >> with 6db omnis . so how come they are selling sectors for them . >> >> Show me where its certified for 5.4, ill send you a $100 paypal >> >> Gino A. Villarini >> g...@aeronetpr.com >> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Mike Hammett >> Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:42 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) >> >> Actually, their new M series has 5.4 GHz certification. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> -- >> From: "jp" >> Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 2:42 PM >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) >> >> >>> On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:08:02PM -0400, David Hulsebus wrote: >>> I have used 411 AP's with XR5 cards and NS5L's with good success in small subdivision projects. 1/2 to 1 mile using 5M channels running >> G, >> mostly horizontal. We lock the rates lower than 54 if we see any CCQ numbers consistently below 66%. We've had our best success at 36MB. Lowering not raising the power in most cases improves our CCQ. But again, we're mostly within a half mile. We don't have a sector >> broader >> than 90 deg, run mostly 5.4 on the AP and 5.7 on our backhauls. One >> site >> Dave Hulsebus >>> I'm curious what you use that is cheap and legal for 5.4 APs? I know >>> that nothing UBNT makes is legal for 5.4 use in the US. Not being a >>> frequency nazi, just looking for something legal for me to use. >>> >>> -- >>> /* >>> Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL >>>KB1IOJ| Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting >>> http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/ >>> */ >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> 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 Wants You! Join today! >> 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 Wants You! Join today! >> 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 Wants You! Join today! 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/
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
I've found that in noisy environments b works better. Just did a repair at a customer's site, 400 to 700k down, 2 to 3 megs upload. Switched from b/g to b only and no he gets a steady 4 megs both ways. Go figure. Mikrotik with xr2 card. Power set to 20dB with 13dB 120* hpol sector. About 25 subs on this one. LOTS of other 2.4 in the area. marlon - Original Message - From: "Jason Hensley" To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 7:58 AM Subject: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) > In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol is better - B or > G? > Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a mix? > > Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the > extra > speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more stable? > I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided less > bandwidth. I've gotten some info that may counter that. What's the > real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined > with > a higher useage AP? > > I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while. We've started > having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k and > fluctuate constantly. We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and > nothing seems to have improved the stability. For testing purposes we put > up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble with. Switched > two > of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they seem to > be > doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be. This is on > Deliberant AP's (Duos). The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we can > pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP. We have > other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one so > we > know it's not limitations of the equipment. AP is on top of a water > tower. > Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it did > not reveal anything significant. With just one customer on the AP started > acting up again. Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have one > going > bad and still no luck. > > 2.4 antennas are H-pol. We have a ton of noise in the area, but we've > been > through basically every channel and it did not help either. Other AP's in > the vicinity are performing fine. Thought of the multipath issue so we > raised our test AP up a little higher than the other one. As I said, the > test AP seems to be better, but next to it on top of the tower we can get > around 8 or 9 meg down (locked into G mode), but at the CPE's we're still > barely getting 2.5-2.8meg. > > Any thoughts? We changed everything we can. The new "test" AP has a 9db > antenna compared to the 13db on the "production" AP. Other than that, > they > are identical as far as equipment goes. > > So, back to the subject question though, what's real-world experience with > G-only mode in the field? > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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/
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
I'll send one lucky winner $30 paypal if they can show me within a week the M series is 5.4 certified via an FCC document. On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 09:18:30PM -0400, Gino Villarini wrote: > Where? > > This is the FCC cert for the M5 Rocket > > http://tinyurl.com/yaolxlj > > its only certified for 5.8 ghz AND get this, for PTMP its only certified > with 6db omnis . so how come they are selling sectors for them . > > Show me where its certified for 5.4, ill send you a $100 paypal > > Gino A. Villarini > g...@aeronetpr.com > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Mike Hammett > Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:42 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) > > Actually, their new M series has 5.4 GHz certification. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "jp" > Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 2:42 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:08:02PM -0400, David Hulsebus wrote: > >> I have used 411 AP's with XR5 cards and NS5L's with good success in > >> small subdivision projects. 1/2 to 1 mile using 5M channels running > G, > >> mostly horizontal. We lock the rates lower than 54 if we see any CCQ > >> numbers consistently below 66%. We've had our best success at 36MB. > >> Lowering not raising the power in most cases improves our CCQ. But > >> again, we're mostly within a half mile. We don't have a sector > broader > >> than 90 deg, run mostly 5.4 on the AP and 5.7 on our backhauls. One > site > >> Dave Hulsebus > > > > I'm curious what you use that is cheap and legal for 5.4 APs? I know > > that nothing UBNT makes is legal for 5.4 use in the US. Not being a > > frequency nazi, just looking for something legal for me to use. > > > > -- > > /* > > Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL > >KB1IOJ| Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting > > http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/ > > */ > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > > 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 Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! > 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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ| Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/ */ WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/
Re: [WISPA] Thoughts on AirMAX Conference - Chicago
Oh, forgot to add to the comment about the UBNT supply issue. Robert Pera said, after being forced to see the supply issue, that he had decided to cancel his plans to attend the other conferences and was going to spend that Time in Asia to push for the UBNT product manufacturers to increase his orders and to deliver to the distributors ASAP. The man seemed very, very honest and humbled after every single attendee voiced their total and unwavering praise for the quality of his products and their absolute disappointment in availability. I would love to be in the position to have not one customer complain about the quality of my product but I would certainly lose lots of sleep knowing that potential customers are turned away because I couldn't deliver. Can't wait for that 3FT Rocket Dish! Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 3:12 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Thoughts on AirMAX Conference - Chicago Thanks for the post Robert. It is good to hear about what went on. Did you get a free rocket? Did they run out? -RickG On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Robert West wrote: > No one is posting anything about the UBNT conference > > For those who didn't attend, Founder and President of UBNT, Robert Pera gave > a talk and asked what the biggest issue we as users had with the company. > >From all corners, a loud "SUPPLY!". We could tell from his demeanor he got > the message and he even said as much. Hopefully availability will be better > sometime in the near future. Also, the question "Where's my free shirt?" > was also heard. The answer? Email me your address... Yeah, okay. > That one I'm not waiting for. > > A bunch of us were gawking in wonder at the little silicone boots on the > Rocket RSMA connectors and saying to each other "They seriously don't expect > that to keep the water out, do they?" In a previous thread about the pretty > pictures of wireless gear and nice shiny N connectors and how it's not real > life... In a Q and A session, someone asked that very question, what > those little boots were for, certainly not to weatherproof the > thing.. the answer, and this is the REAL answer that was said. > It was done for marketing purposes. Marketing to who? The large group of > people basically pointing and shaking their heads at these stupid little > silicone boots and talking about taking them off in order to put tape on > the connectors? Okay, we must be the ones. > > > Also lots of not so subtle hints about some new features and products coming > down the pipe. Me, I'd rather they perfect the supply chain on the existing > offerings before they introduce more things that I want but can't find in > stock. > > In all it was a great seminar as much as a seminar can be, I suppose, and > the parking fee of 24 bucks was fun too. > > > > Robert West > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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 Wants You! Join today! 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/
Re: [WISPA] Thoughts on AirMAX Conference - Chicago
Hey, we're talking about Ubiquiti here. The passing out of the free Rockets was at the end and it was Mike in the corner of the room with a laptop looking up the name of each person who registered to be there and making sure the person asking for the Rocket matched. Of course, no organization with it, the entire room was pushing into the corner with no line, just a mass of rocket-grabbing geekness. I left the pile twice and finally left for good and sent an email to Mike from my laptop while sitting in the parking lot to just mail us the things. I also suggested they tweak the distribution process of the free goods for the next conferences. Another suggestion that I made to them, and I suggested all of it in a friendly manner, (not like your 80 year old neighbor boy who keeps yelling at you from over the fence to stop doing this or that because of whatever) Was to possibly have a registration book or something outside the room and possibly a nametag or something to tell the rest of the room who the heck you are. We all came from all over and unless someone wore a logo from their company or could overhear a name or company while someone was talking there was no way of hooking up with people that we only know online. Basic stuff, I thought. But that's just me. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 3:12 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Thoughts on AirMAX Conference - Chicago Thanks for the post Robert. It is good to hear about what went on. Did you get a free rocket? Did they run out? -RickG On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Robert West wrote: > No one is posting anything about the UBNT conference > > For those who didn't attend, Founder and President of UBNT, Robert Pera gave > a talk and asked what the biggest issue we as users had with the company. > >From all corners, a loud "SUPPLY!". We could tell from his demeanor he got > the message and he even said as much. Hopefully availability will be better > sometime in the near future. Also, the question "Where's my free shirt?" > was also heard. The answer? Email me your address... Yeah, okay. > That one I'm not waiting for. > > A bunch of us were gawking in wonder at the little silicone boots on the > Rocket RSMA connectors and saying to each other "They seriously don't expect > that to keep the water out, do they?" In a previous thread about the pretty > pictures of wireless gear and nice shiny N connectors and how it's not real > life... In a Q and A session, someone asked that very question, what > those little boots were for, certainly not to weatherproof the > thing.. the answer, and this is the REAL answer that was said. > It was done for marketing purposes. Marketing to who? The large group of > people basically pointing and shaking their heads at these stupid little > silicone boots and talking about taking them off in order to put tape on > the connectors? Okay, we must be the ones. > > > Also lots of not so subtle hints about some new features and products coming > down the pipe. Me, I'd rather they perfect the supply chain on the existing > offerings before they introduce more things that I want but can't find in > stock. > > In all it was a great seminar as much as a seminar can be, I suppose, and > the parking fee of 24 bucks was fun too. > > > > Robert West > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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 Wants You! Join today! 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/
Re: [WISPA] Thoughts on AirMAX Conference - Chicago
Thanks for the post Robert. It is good to hear about what went on. Did you get a free rocket? Did they run out? -RickG On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Robert West wrote: > No one is posting anything about the UBNT conference > > For those who didn't attend, Founder and President of UBNT, Robert Pera gave > a talk and asked what the biggest issue we as users had with the company. > >From all corners, a loud "SUPPLY!". We could tell from his demeanor he got > the message and he even said as much. Hopefully availability will be better > sometime in the near future. Also, the question "Where's my free shirt?" > was also heard. The answer? Email me your address... Yeah, okay. > That one I'm not waiting for. > > A bunch of us were gawking in wonder at the little silicone boots on the > Rocket RSMA connectors and saying to each other "They seriously don't expect > that to keep the water out, do they?" In a previous thread about the pretty > pictures of wireless gear and nice shiny N connectors and how it's not real > life... In a Q and A session, someone asked that very question, what > those little boots were for, certainly not to weatherproof the > thing.. the answer, and this is the REAL answer that was said. > It was done for marketing purposes. Marketing to who? The large group of > people basically pointing and shaking their heads at these stupid little > silicone boots and talking about taking them off in order to put tape on > the connectors? Okay, we must be the ones. > > > Also lots of not so subtle hints about some new features and products coming > down the pipe. Me, I'd rather they perfect the supply chain on the existing > offerings before they introduce more things that I want but can't find in > stock. > > In all it was a great seminar as much as a seminar can be, I suppose, and > the parking fee of 24 bucks was fun too. > > > > Robert West > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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/
