RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz
John, Typically 4 sector base stations are built with either 5.3 or a licensed link as backhaul. With BreezeAccess VL, true data sector performance is 28 meg's in a 20 Mhz channel and half that in 10 Mhz Next firmware release is going to mid 30's in a 20 Mhz channel (again true data rates). I know of one sector that has 200 sub's attached although most sectors have less than 100. This customer looked at most manufacturer's gear and concluded Alvarion had the management feature sets, ease of batch processing for firmware uploads, obstructed NLOS for their application, and a host of other likes including Alvarion's support infrastructure. To be honest I don't think we have many Alvarion Operators that subscribe here but that doesn't mean there aren't a crap load of them out there which should be obviuos to everyone. Typically our Operators use Alvarion support Application Engineers and Alvarion web servers such as Mike Cowan's at ACC when needed. This could end up being a long dialog about the differences in operators, products, and ROI models but I won't go there. Brad -Original Message- From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 11:00 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Brad, Could you tell us more about what infrastructure is required to support the 2400 subscriber system you are referring to? How many tower locations, sectors per tower, backhaul used, etc.? This is interesting stuff for sure. I was wondering if we were ever going to hear any Alvarion stories here. I hear success stories on many different brand gear on the lists and I know people use Alvarion successfully but we rarely hear any stories about the systems. Is this Alvarion customer a member of this list server? I would love to hear from him also, or any other Alvarion based WISP for that matter, how their system performs in different conditions, scalability, etc. This is an open industry list and provided the information is used in a context of informing WISPs and is not a sales advertisement I would gladly listen to what you guys have to say about the VL platform. Brad, do you think this 2400 subscriber WISP operator would be interested in joining WISPA? We could use some input from more WISPs who are doing well. Thanks, Scriv Brad Larson wrote: Not all OFDM radios are created equally (especially PTMP). In many areas of NorthEast USA we have 1 mile radius's with eave mounted BreezeAccess VL Subscribers (5.8 Ghz) doing mod 6 which reflects a 10 meg true data rate. Typically these are obstructed NLOS links instead of going thru 1 mile of solid treelines. Rain/Ice does occasionally change mod levels but more than adequate data rates are achieved with this model. I have 2,400 subscribers (and growing) deployed in this fashion with one customer. Brad -Original Message- From: Blair Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 9:37 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz My practical tests show that 2.4GHz works better in a rural Near LosS environment. This is using 802.11b/g vs 802.11a. I have had no luck with 5.3/5.8GHz in a rural Near/Non LoS environment. On the other hand, 5.8Ghz seems to be fine at range in LoS conditions. Go figure. Paul Hendry wrote: Just noticed that the document also says that 5GHz is better for passing through damp tree areas than 2.4GHz as 2.4GHz is very close to the O-H frequency which water is full of and therefore water absorbs 2.4GHz signals considerably more than 5GHz. If this is true then why is 2.4GHz better for tree NLOS environments than 5GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: 03 January 2006 11:48 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz I thought that was it but needed someone to clarify ;) What about 5GHz penetrating walls much better than 2.4GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Delp Sent: 03 January 2006 11:44 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Paul, 5 GHz works NLOS in an urban environment. Bouncing around buildings, etc. Look at the success of Redline and Orthogon. OFDM and 5 GHz works well for them. An environment with trees is different. Trees absorb the signals, instead of bouncing them. Especially wet trees! We utilize 2.4 at every pop, mainly because of the low cost for deployment, and general coverage. We utilize 5 GHz frequently and also 900 MHz for NLOS issues. I hope this helps Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:44 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Ola everybody, I hope everyone had a great Christmas and New Year and are all ready for 2006, the year of the WISP :) When I have
RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz
Trees are sponges -- there is no scatter with them That said, you're are causing yourself undue headache trying to do NLoS with 2.4 -- especially when 900 MHz is readily available -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:44 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Ola everybody, I hope everyone had a great Christmas and New Year and are all ready for 2006, the year of the WISP :) When I have setup wireless in an area it has always depended on the Geographic's of the area as to if we deploy 2.4GHz or 5GHz and I have always decided that 2.4 should be used where NLOS could be an issue. This decision has always been based on the fact that the lower frequency will pass through trees a lot easier however I have recently read a white paper that suggests otherwise. Basically the document says that the higher the frequency, the better the scatter (the ability to bounce of and around objects). It also says that 5GHz is better at penetrating walls. So my question is, have I been basing some of our deployments on false information or am I missing something here? I know that in tests I have seen a more stable signal at 2.4GHz in a NLOS environment but is this just a fluke? Cheers, P. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.11/219 - Release Date: 02/01/2006 -- 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] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz
Paul, 5 GHz works NLOS in an urban environment. Bouncing around buildings, etc. Look at the success of Redline and Orthogon. OFDM and 5 GHz works well for them. An environment with trees is different. Trees absorb the signals, instead of bouncing them. Especially wet trees! We utilize 2.4 at every pop, mainly because of the low cost for deployment, and general coverage. We utilize 5 GHz frequently and also 900 MHz for NLOS issues. I hope this helps Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:44 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Ola everybody, I hope everyone had a great Christmas and New Year and are all ready for 2006, the year of the WISP :) When I have setup wireless in an area it has always depended on the Geographic's of the area as to if we deploy 2.4GHz or 5GHz and I have always decided that 2.4 should be used where NLOS could be an issue. This decision has always been based on the fact that the lower frequency will pass through trees a lot easier however I have recently read a white paper that suggests otherwise. Basically the document says that the higher the frequency, the better the scatter (the ability to bounce of and around objects). It also says that 5GHz is better at penetrating walls. So my question is, have I been basing some of our deployments on false information or am I missing something here? I know that in tests I have seen a more stable signal at 2.4GHz in a NLOS environment but is this just a fluke? Cheers, P. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.11/219 - Release Date: 02/01/2006 -- 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: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.10/218 - Release Date: 1/2/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz
My practical tests show that 2.4GHz works better in a rural Near LosS environment. This is using 802.11b/g vs 802.11a. I have had no luck with 5.3/5.8GHz in a rural Near/Non LoS environment. On the other hand, 5.8Ghz seems to be fine at range in LoS conditions. Go figure. Paul Hendry wrote: Just noticed that the document also says that 5GHz is better for passing through damp tree areas than 2.4GHz as 2.4GHz is very close to the O-H frequency which water is full of and therefore water absorbs 2.4GHz signals considerably more than 5GHz. If this is true then why is 2.4GHz better for tree NLOS environments than 5GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: 03 January 2006 11:48 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz I thought that was it but needed someone to clarify ;) What about 5GHz penetrating walls much better than 2.4GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Delp Sent: 03 January 2006 11:44 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Paul, 5 GHz works NLOS in an urban environment. Bouncing around buildings, etc. Look at the success of Redline and Orthogon. OFDM and 5 GHz works well for them. An environment with trees is different. Trees absorb the signals, instead of bouncing them. Especially wet trees! We utilize 2.4 at every pop, mainly because of the low cost for deployment, and general coverage. We utilize 5 GHz frequently and also 900 MHz for NLOS issues. I hope this helps Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:44 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Ola everybody, I hope everyone had a great Christmas and New Year and are all ready for 2006, the year of the WISP :) When I have setup wireless in an area it has always depended on the Geographic's of the area as to if we deploy 2.4GHz or 5GHz and I have always decided that 2.4 should be used where NLOS could be an issue. This decision has always been based on the fact that the lower frequency will pass through trees a lot easier however I have recently read a white paper that suggests otherwise. Basically the document says that the higher the frequency, the better the scatter (the ability to bounce of and around objects). It also says that 5GHz is better at penetrating walls. So my question is, have I been basing some of our deployments on false information or am I missing something here? I know that in tests I have seen a more stable signal at 2.4GHz in a NLOS environment but is this just a fluke? Cheers, P. -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz
The windows are probably low-E with a metalized film in the middle. Great radio reflector. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net The season is Christmas, not X-mas, not the holiday, but Christmas, because Christ was born to provide salvation to all who will believe! -- Original Message --- From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 10:07:47 -0500 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz We have a 5.8Ghz link where the antenna is directly behind concrete that works significantly better than through the windows in the same building. -Matt Blair Davis wrote: My practical tests show that 2.4GHz works better in a rural Near LosS environment. This is using 802.11b/g vs 802.11a. I have had no luck with 5.3/5.8GHz in a rural Near/Non LoS environment. On the other hand, 5.8Ghz seems to be fine at range in LoS conditions. Go figure. Paul Hendry wrote: Just noticed that the document also says that 5GHz is better for passing through damp tree areas than 2.4GHz as 2.4GHz is very close to the O-H frequency which water is full of and therefore water absorbs 2.4GHz signals considerably more than 5GHz. If this is true then why is 2.4GHz better for tree NLOS environments than 5GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: 03 January 2006 11:48 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz I thought that was it but needed someone to clarify ;) What about 5GHz penetrating walls much better than 2.4GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Delp Sent: 03 January 2006 11:44 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Paul, 5 GHz works NLOS in an urban environment. Bouncing around buildings, etc. Look at the success of Redline and Orthogon. OFDM and 5 GHz works well for them. An environment with trees is different. Trees absorb the signals, instead of bouncing them. Especially wet trees! We utilize 2.4 at every pop, mainly because of the low cost for deployment, and general coverage. We utilize 5 GHz frequently and also 900 MHz for NLOS issues. I hope this helps Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:44 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Ola everybody, I hope everyone had a great Christmas and New Year and are all ready for 2006, the year of the WISP :) When I have setup wireless in an area it has always depended on the Geographic's of the area as to if we deploy 2.4GHz or 5GHz and I have always decided that 2.4 should be used where NLOS could be an issue. This decision has always been based on the fact that the lower frequency will pass through trees a lot easier however I have recently read a white paper that suggests otherwise. Basically the document says that the higher the frequency, the better the scatter (the ability to bounce of and around objects). It also says that 5GHz is better at penetrating walls. So my question is, have I been basing some of our deployments on false information or am I missing something here? I know that in tests I have seen a more stable signal at 2.4GHz in a NLOS environment but is this just a fluke? Cheers, P. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- End of Original Message --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz
Hey Brad, what are the heights of the base stations? Are they tower mounted and what antenna's are they using? Dustin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:34 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Not all OFDM radios are created equally (especially PTMP). In many areas of NorthEast USA we have 1 mile radius's with eave mounted BreezeAccess VL Subscribers (5.8 Ghz) doing mod 6 which reflects a 10 meg true data rate. Typically these are obstructed NLOS links instead of going thru 1 mile of solid treelines. Rain/Ice does occasionally change mod levels but more than adequate data rates are achieved with this model. I have 2,400 subscribers (and growing) deployed in this fashion with one customer. Brad -Original Message- From: Blair Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 9:37 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz My practical tests show that 2.4GHz works better in a rural Near LosS environment. This is using 802.11b/g vs 802.11a. I have had no luck with 5.3/5.8GHz in a rural Near/Non LoS environment. On the other hand, 5.8Ghz seems to be fine at range in LoS conditions. Go figure. Paul Hendry wrote: Just noticed that the document also says that 5GHz is better for passing through damp tree areas than 2.4GHz as 2.4GHz is very close to the O-H frequency which water is full of and therefore water absorbs 2.4GHz signals considerably more than 5GHz. If this is true then why is 2.4GHz better for tree NLOS environments than 5GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: 03 January 2006 11:48 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz I thought that was it but needed someone to clarify ;) What about 5GHz penetrating walls much better than 2.4GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Delp Sent: 03 January 2006 11:44 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Paul, 5 GHz works NLOS in an urban environment. Bouncing around buildings, etc. Look at the success of Redline and Orthogon. OFDM and 5 GHz works well for them. An environment with trees is different. Trees absorb the signals, instead of bouncing them. Especially wet trees! We utilize 2.4 at every pop, mainly because of the low cost for deployment, and general coverage. We utilize 5 GHz frequently and also 900 MHz for NLOS issues. I hope this helps Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:44 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Ola everybody, I hope everyone had a great Christmas and New Year and are all ready for 2006, the year of the WISP :) When I have setup wireless in an area it has always depended on the Geographic's of the area as to if we deploy 2.4GHz or 5GHz and I have always decided that 2.4 should be used where NLOS could be an issue. This decision has always been based on the fact that the lower frequency will pass through trees a lot easier however I have recently read a white paper that suggests otherwise. Basically the document says that the higher the frequency, the better the scatter (the ability to bounce of and around objects). It also says that 5GHz is better at penetrating walls. So my question is, have I been basing some of our deployments on false information or am I missing something here? I know that in tests I have seen a more stable signal at 2.4GHz in a NLOS environment but is this just a fluke? Cheers, P. -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail
Re: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz
Brad, Could you tell us more about what infrastructure is required to support the 2400 subscriber system you are referring to? How many tower locations, sectors per tower, backhaul used, etc.? This is interesting stuff for sure. I was wondering if we were ever going to hear any Alvarion stories here. I hear success stories on many different brand gear on the lists and I know people use Alvarion successfully but we rarely hear any stories about the systems. Is this Alvarion customer a member of this list server? I would love to hear from him also, or any other Alvarion based WISP for that matter, how their system performs in different conditions, scalability, etc. This is an open industry list and provided the information is used in a context of informing WISPs and is not a sales advertisement I would gladly listen to what you guys have to say about the VL platform. Brad, do you think this 2400 subscriber WISP operator would be interested in joining WISPA? We could use some input from more WISPs who are doing well. Thanks, Scriv Brad Larson wrote: Not all OFDM radios are created equally (especially PTMP). In many areas of NorthEast USA we have 1 mile radius's with eave mounted BreezeAccess VL Subscribers (5.8 Ghz) doing mod 6 which reflects a 10 meg true data rate. Typically these are obstructed NLOS links instead of going thru 1 mile of solid treelines. Rain/Ice does occasionally change mod levels but more than adequate data rates are achieved with this model. I have 2,400 subscribers (and growing) deployed in this fashion with one customer. Brad -Original Message- From: Blair Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 9:37 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz My practical tests show that 2.4GHz works better in a rural Near LosS environment. This is using 802.11b/g vs 802.11a. I have had no luck with 5.3/5.8GHz in a rural Near/Non LoS environment. On the other hand, 5.8Ghz seems to be fine at range in LoS conditions. Go figure. Paul Hendry wrote: Just noticed that the document also says that 5GHz is better for passing through damp tree areas than 2.4GHz as 2.4GHz is very close to the O-H frequency which water is full of and therefore water absorbs 2.4GHz signals considerably more than 5GHz. If this is true then why is 2.4GHz better for tree NLOS environments than 5GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: 03 January 2006 11:48 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz I thought that was it but needed someone to clarify ;) What about 5GHz penetrating walls much better than 2.4GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Delp Sent: 03 January 2006 11:44 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Paul, 5 GHz works NLOS in an urban environment. Bouncing around buildings, etc. Look at the success of Redline and Orthogon. OFDM and 5 GHz works well for them. An environment with trees is different. Trees absorb the signals, instead of bouncing them. Especially wet trees! We utilize 2.4 at every pop, mainly because of the low cost for deployment, and general coverage. We utilize 5 GHz frequently and also 900 MHz for NLOS issues. I hope this helps Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:44 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Ola everybody, I hope everyone had a great Christmas and New Year and are all ready for 2006, the year of the WISP :) When I have setup wireless in an area it has always depended on the Geographic's of the area as to if we deploy 2.4GHz or 5GHz and I have always decided that 2.4 should be used where NLOS could be an issue. This decision has always been based on the fact that the lower frequency will pass through trees a lot easier however I have recently read a white paper that suggests otherwise. Basically the document says that the higher the frequency, the better the scatter (the ability to bounce of and around objects). It also says that 5GHz is better at penetrating walls. So my question is, have I been basing some of our deployments on false information or am I missing something here? I know that in tests I have seen a more stable signal at 2.4GHz in a NLOS environment but is this just a fluke? Cheers, P. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz
Dustin, Typically 50 feet above the tree line for this customer gets their 1 mile cell sites which is what the business model plans for. They garner better tower rates when not asking for the primo higher tower locations. I've been trying to get Tom to travel and see a site for a long time. The base station antennas are the 90 or 120 sectors we ship with the BreezeAccess VL platform. Brad Brad Larson Northeast Regional Manager Alvarion -Original Message- From: dustin jurman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:48 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Hey Brad, what are the heights of the base stations? Are they tower mounted and what antenna's are they using? Dustin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:34 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Not all OFDM radios are created equally (especially PTMP). In many areas of NorthEast USA we have 1 mile radius's with eave mounted BreezeAccess VL Subscribers (5.8 Ghz) doing mod 6 which reflects a 10 meg true data rate. Typically these are obstructed NLOS links instead of going thru 1 mile of solid treelines. Rain/Ice does occasionally change mod levels but more than adequate data rates are achieved with this model. I have 2,400 subscribers (and growing) deployed in this fashion with one customer. Brad -Original Message- From: Blair Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 9:37 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz My practical tests show that 2.4GHz works better in a rural Near LosS environment. This is using 802.11b/g vs 802.11a. I have had no luck with 5.3/5.8GHz in a rural Near/Non LoS environment. On the other hand, 5.8Ghz seems to be fine at range in LoS conditions. Go figure. Paul Hendry wrote: Just noticed that the document also says that 5GHz is better for passing through damp tree areas than 2.4GHz as 2.4GHz is very close to the O-H frequency which water is full of and therefore water absorbs 2.4GHz signals considerably more than 5GHz. If this is true then why is 2.4GHz better for tree NLOS environments than 5GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: 03 January 2006 11:48 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz I thought that was it but needed someone to clarify ;) What about 5GHz penetrating walls much better than 2.4GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Delp Sent: 03 January 2006 11:44 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Paul, 5 GHz works NLOS in an urban environment. Bouncing around buildings, etc. Look at the success of Redline and Orthogon. OFDM and 5 GHz works well for them. An environment with trees is different. Trees absorb the signals, instead of bouncing them. Especially wet trees! We utilize 2.4 at every pop, mainly because of the low cost for deployment, and general coverage. We utilize 5 GHz frequently and also 900 MHz for NLOS issues. I hope this helps Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:44 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Ola everybody, I hope everyone had a great Christmas and New Year and are all ready for 2006, the year of the WISP :) When I have setup wireless in an area it has always depended on the Geographic's of the area as to if we deploy 2.4GHz or 5GHz and I have always decided that 2.4 should be used where NLOS could be an issue. This decision has always been based on the fact that the lower frequency will pass through trees a lot easier however I have recently read a white paper that suggests otherwise. Basically the document says that the higher the frequency, the better the scatter (the ability to bounce of and around objects). It also says that 5GHz is better at penetrating walls. So my question is, have I been basing some of our deployments on false information or am I missing something here? I know that in tests I have seen a more stable signal at 2.4GHz in a NLOS environment but is this just a fluke? Cheers, P. -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer
