[WISPA] Amazon Wireless coming soon??

[Lists]

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-amazon-globalstar-20130823,0,4792322.story

Looks like they are trying to get a Wifi channel opened up that we could be 
using. They threw the term "Managed" in there as well.

Curt

Lists



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

Re: [WISPA] Be careful out/up there

[paulgkeny]

  Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. From: Clay StewartSent: Friday, August 23, 2013 20:11To: Scott Parsons; WISPA General ListReply To: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] Be careful out/up thereYeah, NTelos lost a contractor near me last week... experienced climber fell 100'. It takes 2.5 seconds to fall 100' ... not enough time to say to yourself, "Wh, but I know I had clipped in, I wonder wha."
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Scott Parsons  wrote:




Guys, Be extra careful up there.
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323980604579027133430671484.html?mod=ITP_marketplace_0

 
Scott
sc...@e-zy.net___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
-- -- SCS       Clay Stewart   CEO, Tye River Farms, Inc.,   DBA Stewart Computer Services     434.263.6363 O   434.942.6510 C
  cstew...@stewartcomputerservices.com  “We Keep You Up and Running”            Wireless Broadband           Programming          Network Services

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

Re: [WISPA] Be careful out/up there

[Clay Stewart]

Yeah, NTelos lost a contractor near me last week... experienced climber
fell 100'. It takes 2.5 seconds to fall 100' ... not enough time to say to
yourself, "Wh, but I know I had clipped in, I wonder wha."

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Scott Parsons  wrote:

>  Guys, Be extra careful up there.
>
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323980604579027133430671484.html?mod=ITP_marketplace_0
>
> Scott
> sc...@e-zy.net
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>


-- 


-- 
SCS
  Clay Stewart
  CEO, Tye River Farms, Inc.,
  DBA Stewart Computer Services
  434.263.6363 O
  434.942.6510 C
  cstew...@stewartcomputerservices.com
“We Keep You Up and Running”
   Wireless Broadband
   Programming
  Network Services
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] LTE Chipset for Unlicensed bands?

[Sean Heskett]

plus it's a mobile protocol which as we've seen with WiMax is not always
the best for fixed wireless.  latency is usually higher with mobile
protocols.

2cents


On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Ryan Spott  wrote:

> Would LTE, as a protocol be useful in the unlicensed bands?
>
> Does anyone make a chipset for this?
>
> ryan
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas

[TJ Trout]

900ghz? I bet it would be great nlos, you could just burn through the trees
:)
On Aug 22, 2013 1:35 PM, "Fred Goldstein"  wrote:

>  On 8/22/2013 4:09 PM, Steve Barnes wrote:
>
>  But Mike that is the Rub. All things are never the same.  900 is dirty
> and Susceptible to so much noise and reflection because the signal does not
> die as quick.  I understand the “Theory” but still have a hard time
> understanding how a slower carrier wave (900MHz) can carry the same Data as
> 5800MHz carrier wave but I know that it could in a vacuum. The issue is we
> don’t live in a vacuum.  
> ** **
>
>
> The "carrier" frequency has no impact on data-carrying capacity.
> Shannon's Law dictates that the capacity of a channel to carry information
> is a function of its bandwidth and its signal to noise ratio.  If it is 10
> MHz wide from 902 to 912, or 10 MHz from 5800 to 5810, it's still 10 MHz.
> And if the SNR is the same, the usable capacity is the same.
>
> The issue of vacuum relates to things that make a path worse than the
> theoretical free space attenuation would dictate.  Take the 60 GHz band
> (57-64 GHz).  It has a primary allocation for satellite-to-satellite use.
> Now there's your vacuum!  It's unlicensed because oxygen absorption at 60
> GHz is around 14 dB/km, so anything done down here at the surface is
> unlikely to reach a satellite.  It's thus great for high-speed WLAN use,
> like WiGig.  And the FCC last week raised the power limit for outdoor
> point-to-point use to 82 dBm, provided the antenna gain is 51 dB (derated 2
> dB for each dB of lower gain that the antenna has).  This will allow huge
> bit rates because it's 7 GHz wide, but range at normal atmospheric pressure
> is going to be very limited.
>
> 900 GHz is nice in wooded areas because it gets through foliage much
> better than higher frequencies, but in many places it's already congested
> with meter readers and other devices.  Those, plus the limited bandwidth,
> are more likely to limit real-world performance than anything else.  A 6
> GHz TVWS channel will do as well as 6 GHz on higher frequencies, though.
> Better, actually, if you can get a big enough antenna.  But lower
> frequencies tend to need bigger antennas.  Maybe those old TV antennas we
> used to all have before cable will make a comeback. ;-)
>
> --
>  Fred R. Goldstein  fred "at" interisle.net
>  Interisle Consulting Group
>  +1 617 795 2701
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] LTE Chipset for Unlicensed bands?

[Gino Villarini]

It was built to deal with self-interference, not with  OPP…

Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
787.273.4143
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 11:18 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] LTE Chipset for Unlicensed bands?

I've heard that LTE can't handle interference well. *shrugs*


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


From: "Ryan Spott" mailto:rsp...@irongoat.net>>
To: "WISPA General List" mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 10:26:04 AM
Subject: [WISPA] LTE Chipset for Unlicensed bands?

Would LTE, as a protocol be useful in the unlicensed bands?

Does anyone make a chipset for this?

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

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

Re: [WISPA] LTE Chipset for Unlicensed bands?

[Mike Hammett]

I've heard that LTE can't handle interference well. *shrugs* 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Ryan Spott"  
To: "WISPA General List"  
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 10:26:04 AM 
Subject: [WISPA] LTE Chipset for Unlicensed bands? 

Would LTE, as a protocol be useful in the unlicensed bands? 

Does anyone make a chipset for this? 

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

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

[WISPA] LTE Chipset for Unlicensed bands?

[Ryan Spott]

Would LTE, as a protocol be useful in the unlicensed bands?

Does anyone make a chipset for this?

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

Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas

[Mike Hammett]

You're actually spot on. Now only if they were dual polarity. ;-) 

Well, not saying that's what you need to make UBNT 900 work, but a 25 dB 900 
MHz grid dish is 8' in diameter. 


http://www.zdacomm.com/images/PDF/ZDAGP900C.pdf 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Greg Osborn"  
To: "WISPA General List"  
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 7:14:57 AM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 



To make the ubnt 900 work, Mike, you would need one of those sat dishes from 
the early 80’s. 



From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:32 PM 
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 


How would it be impossible? 

These calcs aren't going to be able to factor in the foliage loss because of 
how variable it is. We'll just use 5 miles of free space as the loss. 

Rocket + UBNT sector as the AP and a NanoBridge as the CPE. 

AP -> CPE = -63 
CPE -> AP = -61 

Now if we had antenna of the same gain in 900 as I'm using in 5 GHz (18 AP, 25 
CPE) 

AP -> CPE = -49 
CPE -> AP = -56 

So I guess its not as optimistic as I thought because of the PtP rule in 5 GHz, 
but in the downstream direction (AP - CPE), we're 14 is dB better and CPE to AP 
we're 5 dB. 

Manufacturers, give us bigger antenna! 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -


From: "Erik Anderson" < erik.ander...@hocking.net > 
To: wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:16:39 PM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 

With Cambium, we have connections that are stable at -82 dB. 

We have a backup backhaul for a tower that is about 5 miles. One ridge in 
between towers must have trees that interfere with freznel zone. Towers are 
200'. Originally had a Cambium 900 with 6 foot single polarity yagis. It worked 
for emergencies in most situations (sometimes rain or snow would interfere). 
Put in UBNT with UBNT dual polarity yagis. Bandwidth available is slightly 
lower than the Cambium. 

>From what I have experienced with UBNT 900, it works marginally better than 
>2.4 with tree penetration. Cambium 900 actually does work, even without 
>freznel zone clearance at times. There are many situations it will not work, 
>but it will reach 50% more of the households than UBNT. 

As for interference, I have mounted a Cambium 900 SM with the UBNT dual 
polarity with 40 foot horizontal separation without interference (for testing 
purposes, not real world implementation). It did work. 

GPS sync is better. I have two horizontal 900 omnis and 1 vertical omni mounted 
with less than 12" of horizontal separation on a tower using Cambium (no 
sectors will not work in this situation, and additional tower space is not 
available). It works. 

We have a tower currently with a 900 backhaul and 900 ap for distribution. Sync 
makes this possible. When we raise the tower another 100 feet this 900 backhaul 
will go away. 2.4/5.x do not work on this. A few 80+ foot trees (somewhere) are 
the problem 

Yes, the smartmeter usage of 900 spectrum is problematic around here and they 
seem to be a 919 mhz center channel. Using channels higher than 915 becomes 
more difficult. 

This is why I state that UBNT 900 is not good. Increasing signal by 15 dB is 
IMPOSSIBLE for our situations... well, legally that is. 

On 8/22/2013 10:14 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me, there just 
isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76 and wondering why it 
doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try again. The Canopy will work a 
little better because it requires less signal, but it also has nowhere near the 
same throughput, so they're really apples and oranges. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -


From: "Josh Luthman"  
To: "WISPA General List"  
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:20:24 AM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 

Ubnt 900 apparently has extremely poor nlos for 900 MHz. I've heard 
this a handful of people but haven't tried it myself. 

Josh Luthman 
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St 
Suite 1337 
Troy, OH 45373 


On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Mike Hammett  
wrote: 
> How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz 
> system was junk had a poor RF environment. 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
>  
> From: "Erik Anderson"  
> To: "WISPA General List"  
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM 
> 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 
> 
> 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other 
> produc

Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas

[Mike Hammett]

No, they were building DFS the entire time, people just took it into their 
hands to use the band illegally before DFS was ready. Even though DFS has been 
available for some time, people are still getting busted because they aren't 
paying attention. 

I'm a believer in bigger antennas and smaller radios. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Erik Anderson"  
To: wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 9:05:31 AM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 


Yes, but wind load is dramatically different. 

Bottom line is there is simply not enough demand for high windload antennas to 
justify the compliance risk. UBNT was "safe" until they started making some 
decent money. Then, after massive legal bills, they were forced to implement 
DFS because their customers were not being compliant. Production line had to be 
modified, coding had to be done to appease the FCC and their communications 
lawyers. It was not UBNT's fault, but in the eyes of our beautiful regulators 
it was. In the 5.x range, higher gain is manufactured due to licensed 
frequencies being available, and thus the ability to shift liability while 
increasing demand. 

As I said, the problem is the regulations, not the manufacturers. But if you 
disagree, you just might have another business opportunity. 

I am not trying to argue. I am not happy about the regs/equipment limitations. 
I use 900 mhz a lot. I would love to take some 4W transceiver amps in the 900 
range and throw in 17 dbi antennas (I know of a few installations that have 
done this). But just because one can get away with it does not mean it is good 
business practice. The public sector does not seem to worry about compliance. 
Why not? Perhaps the WISPS should simply start filling out FCC forms reporting 
violations from the smart meters. Or better yet, start writing press releases 
about smart meter non compliance with the regulations and getting the releases 
into the hands of the smart meter activists (start with infowars.com and 
drudgereport.com) who can flood the FCC with reported violations. That seems 
like an activity WISPA could handle. If this was done, I suspect the 
regulations would change which would result in equipment being available. 

On 8/23/2013 9:26 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



All of the other bands have EIRP limits. You have to worry on The AP side in 
2.4 and 5.8. You have to worry on both the AP and CPE in 5.3 and 5.4. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Erik Anderson"  
To: wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 8:15:27 AM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 

On 8/22/2013 5:23 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 
> I do not yet know of any source for dual polarity 900 MHz 90* sectors 
> that are 18 dB nor any 900 MHz dual polarity CPE antenna that are 25 
> dB of gain. 
Agreed, but again, what would be the point? EIRP of 36 - 25 dBi antenna 
- 1dB line loss = 11 dBm TPO. Are you really going to turn down the 
radio to 11 dBm? The manufacturers are not doing it because they know 
that they are creating giant antennas with massive wind low to permit 
you to break the regulations and incur an FCC visit. I suspect most 
WISPs have installations that are not in compliance. In fact, most 
public sector installations and energy companies are probably non compliant. 
___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 



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



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

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

Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas

[Erik Anderson]

Yes, but wind load is dramatically different.

Bottom line is there is simply not enough demand for high windload 
antennas to justify the compliance risk. UBNT was "safe" until they 
started making some decent money. Then, after massive legal bills, they 
were forced to implement DFS because their customers were not being 
compliant. Production line had to be modified, coding had to be done to 
appease the FCC and their communications lawyers. It was not UBNT's 
fault, but in the eyes of our beautiful regulators it was. In the 5.x 
range, higher gain is manufactured due to licensed frequencies being 
available, and thus the ability to shift liability while increasing demand.


As I said, the problem is the regulations, not the manufacturers. But if 
you disagree, you just might have another business opportunity.


I am not trying to argue. I am not happy about the regs/equipment 
limitations. I use 900 mhz a lot. I would love to take some 4W 
transceiver amps in the 900 range and throw in 17 dbi antennas (I know 
of a few installations that have done this). But just because one can 
get away with it does not mean it is good business practice. The public 
sector does not seem to worry about compliance. Why not? Perhaps the 
WISPS should simply start filling out FCC forms reporting violations 
from the smart meters.*Or better yet, start writing press releases about 
smart meter non compliance with the regulations and getting the releases 
into the hands of the smart meter activists (start with infowars.com and 
drudgereport.com) who can flood the FCC with reported violations.* That 
seems like an activity WISPA could handle. If this was done, I suspect 
the regulations would change which would result in equipment being 
available.


On 8/23/2013 9:26 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
All of the other bands have EIRP limits. You have to worry on The AP 
side in 2.4 and 5.8. You have to worry on both the AP and CPE in 5.3 
and 5.4.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


*From: *"Erik Anderson" 
*To: *wireless@wispa.org
*Sent: *Friday, August 23, 2013 8:15:27 AM
*Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas

On 8/22/2013 5:23 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> I do not yet know of any source for dual polarity 900 MHz 90* sectors
> that are 18 dB nor any 900 MHz dual polarity CPE antenna that are 25
> dB of gain.
Agreed, but again, what would be the point? EIRP of 36 - 25 dBi antenna
- 1dB line loss = 11 dBm TPO. Are you really going to turn down the
radio to 11 dBm? The manufacturers are not doing it because they know
that they are creating giant antennas with massive wind low to permit
you to break the regulations and incur an FCC visit. I suspect most
WISPs have installations that are not in compliance. In fact, most
public sector installations and energy companies are probably non 
compliant.

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



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


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

Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas

[Mike Hammett]

All of the other bands have EIRP limits. You have to worry on The AP side in 
2.4 and 5.8. You have to worry on both the AP and CPE in 5.3 and 5.4. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Erik Anderson"  
To: wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 8:15:27 AM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 

On 8/22/2013 5:23 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 
> I do not yet know of any source for dual polarity 900 MHz 90* sectors 
> that are 18 dB nor any 900 MHz dual polarity CPE antenna that are 25 
> dB of gain. 
Agreed, but again, what would be the point? EIRP of 36 - 25 dBi antenna 
- 1dB line loss = 11 dBm TPO. Are you really going to turn down the 
radio to 11 dBm? The manufacturers are not doing it because they know 
that they are creating giant antennas with massive wind low to permit 
you to break the regulations and incur an FCC visit. I suspect most 
WISPs have installations that are not in compliance. In fact, most 
public sector installations and energy companies are probably non compliant. 
___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 

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

Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas

[Erik Anderson]

On 8/22/2013 5:23 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> I do not yet know of any source for dual polarity 900 MHz 90* sectors 
> that are 18 dB nor any 900 MHz dual polarity CPE antenna that are 25 
> dB of gain.
Agreed, but again, what would be the point? EIRP of 36 - 25 dBi antenna 
- 1dB line loss = 11 dBm TPO. Are you really going to turn down the 
radio to 11 dBm? The manufacturers are not doing it because they know 
that they are creating giant antennas with massive wind low to permit 
you to break the regulations and incur an FCC visit. I suspect most 
WISPs have installations that are not in compliance. In fact, most 
public sector installations and energy companies are probably non compliant.
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas

[Greg Osborn]

To make the ubnt 900 work, Mike, you would need one of those sat dishes from 
the early 80’s.

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas

 

How would it be impossible?

These calcs aren't going to be able to factor in the foliage loss because of 
how variable it is. We'll just use 5 miles of free space as the loss.

Rocket + UBNT sector as the AP and a NanoBridge as the CPE.

AP -> CPE = -63
CPE -> AP = -61

Now if we had antenna of the same gain in 900 as I'm using in 5 GHz (18 AP, 25 
CPE)

AP -> CPE = -49
CPE -> AP = -56

So I guess its not as optimistic as I thought because of the PtP rule in 5 GHz, 
but in the downstream direction (AP - CPE), we're 14 is dB better and CPE to AP 
we're 5 dB.

Manufacturers, give us bigger antenna!



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

 

  _  

From: "Erik Anderson" mailto:erik.ander...@hocking.net> >
To: wireless@wispa.org  
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:16:39 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas

With Cambium, we have connections that are stable at -82 dB.

We have a backup backhaul for a tower that is about 5 miles. One ridge in 
between towers must have trees that interfere with freznel zone. Towers are 
200'. Originally had a Cambium 900 with 6 foot single polarity yagis. It worked 
for emergencies in most situations (sometimes rain or snow would interfere). 
Put in UBNT with UBNT dual polarity yagis. Bandwidth available is slightly 
lower than the Cambium.

>From what I have experienced with UBNT 900, it works marginally better than 
>2.4 with tree penetration. Cambium 900 actually does work, even without 
>freznel zone clearance at times. There are many situations it will not work, 
>but it will reach 50% more of the households than UBNT.

As for interference, I have mounted a Cambium 900 SM with the UBNT dual 
polarity with 40 foot horizontal separation without interference (for testing 
purposes, not real world implementation). It did work.

GPS sync is better. I have two horizontal 900 omnis and 1 vertical omni mounted 
with less than 12" of horizontal separation on a tower using Cambium (no 
sectors will not work in this situation, and additional tower space is not 
available). It works. 

We have a tower currently with a 900 backhaul and 900 ap for distribution. Sync 
makes this possible. When we raise the tower another 100 feet this 900 backhaul 
will go away. 2.4/5.x do not work on this. A few 80+ foot trees (somewhere) are 
the problem

Yes, the smartmeter usage of 900 spectrum is problematic around here and they 
seem to be a 919 mhz center channel. Using channels higher than 915 becomes 
more difficult.

This is why I state that UBNT 900 is not good. Increasing signal by 15 dB is 
IMPOSSIBLE for our situations... well, legally that is.

On 8/22/2013 10:14 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me, there just 
isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76 and wondering why it 
doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try again. The Canopy will work a 
little better because it requires less signal, but it also has nowhere near the 
same throughput, so they're really apples and oranges.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

 


  _  


From: "Josh Luthman"   

To: "WISPA General List"   
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:20:24 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas

Ubnt 900 apparently has extremely poor nlos for 900 MHz.  I've heard
this a handful of people but haven't tried it myself.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Mike Hammett  
  wrote:
> How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz
> system was junk had a poor RF environment.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> 
> From: "Erik Anderson"   
> 
> To: "WISPA General List"   
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
>
> 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other
> products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better.
> Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these
> technologies have very low bandwidth.
>
> On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote:
>
> What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both
> Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put
> u