Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
I was mistaken, the R52N was tested with a Metalink Mtw_RGPlus_5.0VB_001 AP (whatever that is). https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=1109553&native_or_pdf=pdf I know I saw one recently that was tested against a cisco. In any case, it was tested as a client, and not as an AP. Randy John Thomas wrote: > Cisco's 1242's are certified for 5.4-5.7 GHz. Could you use Cisco APs' > and Mikrotik clients? > > John > > > Randy Cosby wrote: > >> 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 Maine
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
Cisco's 1242's are certified for 5.4-5.7 GHz. Could you use Cisco APs' and Mikrotik clients? John Randy Cosby wrote: > 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! >&g
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
Right. Sorry, I meant to add, on our UBNT Loco's and PS's. On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > Well, it all depends on what you're using. Some systems need at least -65 > just to achieve maximum modulation. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "Jayson Baker" > Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 10:16 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) > > > Agreed. We turn down power levels on a lot of things--for that reason. > > > > i.e. we have a handful of customers that could spit and hit our tower. > > Their OP is down as low as it'll go (5dB), because if higher, not only > > does > > it overpower the receiver (-30dBm signal), but it will cause issues for > > all > > other clients on that sector. > > > > We've found that -70 is good, -60 is pushing it, and -50 is too hot. IN > > MOST CASES -- see I said IN MOST CASES -- you don't need to flame me up > > and > > down, saying why I'm wrong, it'll never work, we have no idea what we're > > doing. It works for us. > > > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Marlon K. Schafer > > wrote: > > > >> "There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have > >> enough." > >> > >> Sigh. THIS attitude is why there is so much noise in many areas! > >> > >> Use the power you need, not what's available. No one drives with thier > >> foot > >> well and truly glued to the floor all of the time! If you did, you'll > >> crash, sooner or later. > >> > >> Too much power is often as big, sometimes more of one, than outside > >> interference. You'll create your own interference this way. > >> marlon > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "Lawrence E. Bakst" > >> To: "WISPA General List" > >> Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 9:15 PM > >> Subject: 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 > >
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
Well, it all depends on what you're using. Some systems need at least -65 just to achieve maximum modulation. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Jayson Baker" Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 10:16 AM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) > Agreed. We turn down power levels on a lot of things--for that reason. > > i.e. we have a handful of customers that could spit and hit our tower. > Their OP is down as low as it'll go (5dB), because if higher, not only > does > it overpower the receiver (-30dBm signal), but it will cause issues for > all > other clients on that sector. > > We've found that -70 is good, -60 is pushing it, and -50 is too hot. IN > MOST CASES -- see I said IN MOST CASES -- you don't need to flame me up > and > down, saying why I'm wrong, it'll never work, we have no idea what we're > doing. It works for us. > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Marlon K. Schafer > wrote: > >> "There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have >> enough." >> >> Sigh. THIS attitude is why there is so much noise in many areas! >> >> Use the power you need, not what's available. No one drives with thier >> foot >> well and truly glued to the floor all of the time! If you did, you'll >> crash, sooner or later. >> >> Too much power is often as big, sometimes more of one, than outside >> interference. You'll create your own interference this way. >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Lawrence E. Bakst" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 9:15 PM >> Subject: 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
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
You got that right, Marlon! Example. Point to point I recently had a backhaul I was having problems with and looked at my other links and we had a dish almost 8 miles away pointing towards this location with the noise issues. Cranked down the power at the offending site and it cleaned it all up. I caused my own unwanted noise miles way. Making a point to point at full power when only half will do it nicely just pollutes the available spectrum. I knew that when I put it in but neglected to follow my own thinking until it slapped me in the face. Link margin is good but you have to think of the other guy down the line, it might even be you. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 11:05 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) "There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have enough." Sigh. THIS attitude is why there is so much noise in many areas! Use the power you need, not what's available. No one drives with thier foot well and truly glued to the floor all of the time! If you did, you'll crash, sooner or later. Too much power is often as big, sometimes more of one, than outside interference. You'll create your own interference this way. marlon - Original Message - From: "Lawrence E. Bakst" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 9:15 PM Subject: 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? >&
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
Agreed. We turn down power levels on a lot of things--for that reason. i.e. we have a handful of customers that could spit and hit our tower. Their OP is down as low as it'll go (5dB), because if higher, not only does it overpower the receiver (-30dBm signal), but it will cause issues for all other clients on that sector. We've found that -70 is good, -60 is pushing it, and -50 is too hot. IN MOST CASES -- see I said IN MOST CASES -- you don't need to flame me up and down, saying why I'm wrong, it'll never work, we have no idea what we're doing. It works for us. On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > "There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have enough." > > Sigh. THIS attitude is why there is so much noise in many areas! > > Use the power you need, not what's available. No one drives with thier > foot > well and truly glued to the floor all of the time! If you did, you'll > crash, sooner or later. > > Too much power is often as big, sometimes more of one, than outside > interference. You'll create your own interference this way. > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "Lawrence E. Bakst" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 9:15 PM > Subject: 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 > > &g
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
"There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have enough." Sigh. THIS attitude is why there is so much noise in many areas! Use the power you need, not what's available. No one drives with thier foot well and truly glued to the floor all of the time! If you did, you'll crash, sooner or later. Too much power is often as big, sometimes more of one, than outside interference. You'll create your own interference this way. marlon - Original Message - From: "Lawrence E. Bakst" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 9:15 PM Subject: 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 purpos
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
My apologies to the list, it was supposed to have been off-list. My apologies to Jack and Lawrence too. I took Jack's post the wrong way and responded in an unprofessional manner. Tends to show one's IQ level at 3:00 AM after a few too many late night drinks after a rough week. Cheers, Scott -- Original Message -- From: RickG Reply-To: WISPA General List Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 21:25:03 -0400 >I have been on this list since 2001. I have seen many toot their own >horns whenever they can and I have seen others that dont. I have also >seen many get their feathers ruffled way too easy. Either way, there >are some that can talk the talk, some that walk the walk, some that >talk the walk, and some that walk the talk. As they say, just because >you can do something doesnt mean you should. Most of the "talkers" >have left the list with their undies in a bind. I suggest that before >sending out an email, try to rein your ego in a bit and the list will >be better for it. After all isnt this list to help others, or get >help, not to be self-serving? > >This is not pointed at any one person, just my two cents on the subject. > >With that said, its been my experience in visiting many WISP's around >the country that they are some of the sharpest people around. In my >mind, WISP's are a perfect example of good 'ol business ingenuity and >entrepreneurship if there ever was one. My hat is off to all of you! >-RickG > >On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Rick Harnish wrote: >> Scottie, >> >> I read the whole thread and I don't see any remarks by Jack Unger that >> should be taken personally. He made a very fair and honest observation. I >> only wish I knew more about wireless. I have read Jack's book and recommend >> it as well, but I think I should read it a few more times and pick up some >> other scientific journals to also enhance my knowledge of the subject. >> >> I also didn't see anything wrong with your post in reply to Lawrence. >> Acronyms are used often in present times and I often have to look up the >> acronym to see what the author is referring to. Usually in a few keystrokes >> I can find the answer, which is a credit to the Internet industry. >> >> This is a forum of intelligent people and it often challenges our diligence >> to enhance our intelligence even more. I do not believe Jack's post was a >> direct comment towards Scottie Arnett. I have known Jack for many years and >> am always very impressed with the amount of dedication and time he devotes >> to our industry. I can only hope that you will someday advance beyond >> trying to read extra content into other's posts and understand that most >> people don't know who Scottie Arnett is or what contributions you have made >> to the industry. I'm sure you have great respect for your accomplishments in >> your local marketplace and I applaud you for that. However, WISPA is bigger >> than any one small marketplace. WISPA is the sum of lots of small >> marketplaces and operators who realize the strength of cooperating and >> collaborating with others who have similar interests and challenges. >> >> Respectfully, >> >> Rick Harnish >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Scottie Arnett >> Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 3:32 AM >> To: wireless@wispa.org >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) >> >> Ok Jack, I have to admit, I have not read your book, but if it reads like >> this discussion, I have no desire too, unless you 1. either state that your >> book is for the advanced wireless subjects, or 2. Thoroughly describe your >> acronyms. >> >> FYI, I do understand most of the poster's acronyms, but for the average WISP >> operator, I doubt they do. I have a BS in Electrical Engineering and a BS in >> Management of Information Sciences, not to be tooting my own horn. No, I do >> not work for Alvarion or Motorola, nor do I have a desire too. >> >> Maybe I was in the wrong with my post about the poster's acronyms and my >> direct criticism with the use of acronyms. I also believe your post was in >> direct comment to me about my understanding and involvement of WISP >> activities. I publicly admit, I am not a member of WISPA at the moment, and >> as long as as an acting officer or "supreme WISPA being" is degrading me, I >> will not become a member. >> >> Scottie Arnett >> President >> Info-Ed, Inc. >> Broadband Internet Service Provid
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
I have been on this list since 2001. I have seen many toot their own horns whenever they can and I have seen others that dont. I have also seen many get their feathers ruffled way too easy. Either way, there are some that can talk the talk, some that walk the walk, some that talk the walk, and some that walk the talk. As they say, just because you can do something doesnt mean you should. Most of the "talkers" have left the list with their undies in a bind. I suggest that before sending out an email, try to rein your ego in a bit and the list will be better for it. After all isnt this list to help others, or get help, not to be self-serving? This is not pointed at any one person, just my two cents on the subject. With that said, its been my experience in visiting many WISP's around the country that they are some of the sharpest people around. In my mind, WISP's are a perfect example of good 'ol business ingenuity and entrepreneurship if there ever was one. My hat is off to all of you! -RickG On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Rick Harnish wrote: > Scottie, > > I read the whole thread and I don't see any remarks by Jack Unger that > should be taken personally. He made a very fair and honest observation. I > only wish I knew more about wireless. I have read Jack's book and recommend > it as well, but I think I should read it a few more times and pick up some > other scientific journals to also enhance my knowledge of the subject. > > I also didn't see anything wrong with your post in reply to Lawrence. > Acronyms are used often in present times and I often have to look up the > acronym to see what the author is referring to. Usually in a few keystrokes > I can find the answer, which is a credit to the Internet industry. > > This is a forum of intelligent people and it often challenges our diligence > to enhance our intelligence even more. I do not believe Jack's post was a > direct comment towards Scottie Arnett. I have known Jack for many years and > am always very impressed with the amount of dedication and time he devotes > to our industry. I can only hope that you will someday advance beyond > trying to read extra content into other's posts and understand that most > people don't know who Scottie Arnett is or what contributions you have made > to the industry. I'm sure you have great respect for your accomplishments in > your local marketplace and I applaud you for that. However, WISPA is bigger > than any one small marketplace. WISPA is the sum of lots of small > marketplaces and operators who realize the strength of cooperating and > collaborating with others who have similar interests and challenges. > > Respectfully, > > Rick Harnish > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Scottie Arnett > Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 3:32 AM > To: wireless@wispa.org > Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) > > Ok Jack, I have to admit, I have not read your book, but if it reads like > this discussion, I have no desire too, unless you 1. either state that your > book is for the advanced wireless subjects, or 2. Thoroughly describe your > acronyms. > > FYI, I do understand most of the poster's acronyms, but for the average WISP > operator, I doubt they do. I have a BS in Electrical Engineering and a BS in > Management of Information Sciences, not to be tooting my own horn. No, I do > not work for Alvarion or Motorola, nor do I have a desire too. > > Maybe I was in the wrong with my post about the poster's acronyms and my > direct criticism with the use of acronyms. I also believe your post was in > direct comment to me about my understanding and involvement of WISP > activities. I publicly admit, I am not a member of WISPA at the moment, and > as long as as an acting officer or "supreme WISPA being" is degrading me, I > will not become a member. > > Scottie Arnett > President > Info-Ed, Inc. > Broadband Internet Service Provider > > -- Original Message -- > From: Jack Unger > Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 22:39:38 -0700 > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Yep it's too bad that many wireless ISPs have no interest in learning >>about wireless. >> >>Scottie Arnett wrote: >>> type="cite"> >> 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: &
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
Scottie, I read the whole thread and I don't see any remarks by Jack Unger that should be taken personally. He made a very fair and honest observation. I only wish I knew more about wireless. I have read Jack's book and recommend it as well, but I think I should read it a few more times and pick up some other scientific journals to also enhance my knowledge of the subject. I also didn't see anything wrong with your post in reply to Lawrence. Acronyms are used often in present times and I often have to look up the acronym to see what the author is referring to. Usually in a few keystrokes I can find the answer, which is a credit to the Internet industry. This is a forum of intelligent people and it often challenges our diligence to enhance our intelligence even more. I do not believe Jack's post was a direct comment towards Scottie Arnett. I have known Jack for many years and am always very impressed with the amount of dedication and time he devotes to our industry. I can only hope that you will someday advance beyond trying to read extra content into other's posts and understand that most people don't know who Scottie Arnett is or what contributions you have made to the industry. I'm sure you have great respect for your accomplishments in your local marketplace and I applaud you for that. However, WISPA is bigger than any one small marketplace. WISPA is the sum of lots of small marketplaces and operators who realize the strength of cooperating and collaborating with others who have similar interests and challenges. Respectfully, Rick Harnish -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scottie Arnett Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 3:32 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) Ok Jack, I have to admit, I have not read your book, but if it reads like this discussion, I have no desire too, unless you 1. either state that your book is for the advanced wireless subjects, or 2. Thoroughly describe your acronyms. FYI, I do understand most of the poster's acronyms, but for the average WISP operator, I doubt they do. I have a BS in Electrical Engineering and a BS in Management of Information Sciences, not to be tooting my own horn. No, I do not work for Alvarion or Motorola, nor do I have a desire too. Maybe I was in the wrong with my post about the poster's acronyms and my direct criticism with the use of acronyms. I also believe your post was in direct comment to me about my understanding and involvement of WISP activities. I publicly admit, I am not a member of WISPA at the moment, and as long as as an acting officer or "supreme WISPA being" is degrading me, I will not become a member. Scottie Arnett President Info-Ed, Inc. Broadband Internet Service Provider -- Original Message -- From: Jack Unger Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 22:39:38 -0700 > > > > > > > >Yep it's too bad that many wireless ISPs have no interest in learning >about wireless. > >Scottie Arnett wrote: > type="cite"> > 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" mailto:m...@iridescent.org";> >Reply-To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org";> >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 may
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 02:31 -0500, Scottie Arnett wrote: > Ok Jack, I have to admit, I have not read your book, but if it > reads like this discussion, I have no desire too, unless you 1. > either state that your book is for the advanced wireless subjects, > or 2. Thoroughly describe your acronyms. I have read Jack's book and I must say that it is very well written and is very easy to understand. It is, however, VERY technical. There is a lot of math, but that is out of necessity. Personally, I highly recommend the book. http://www.ask-wi.com/book.html for those that don't know about it. -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * 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 :-)
Google has been a great solution to my ignorance. It's like downlading from the Matrix :-) From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 7:29 AM To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) Here is my opinion for what it is worth: The post Lawrence put up was worth thousands of dollars that a WISP would have to spend in both time and equipment to figure out the lessons he's already learned. He posted his knowledge to the group for FREE as additional input to the original question. For that we should all be thankful. If a person does not understand a particular topic or all of the information contained in the message they can, one delete the message and move on, two ask some follow up questions in a polite manor in hopes that they can gain further understanding of the topic. My father in law has a rule in his house and I try to stick to it in life. The rule is (especially at his bar), if we don't have something nice to say about a person, we won't say anything at all. It keeps the negativity down. Everyone likes to hang out at his place (nice positive environment). It's not that we always have to be in agreement with everyone, but we just don't need to be doing things with a negative attitude. There are plenty of ways to have the discussion in a more constructive fashion. Thank You, Brian Webster Scottie Arnett wrote: Ok Jack, I have to admit, I have not read your book, but if it reads like this discussion, I have no desire too, unless you 1. either state that your book is for the advanced wireless subjects, or 2. Thoroughly describe your acronyms. FYI, I do understand most of the poster's acronyms, but for the average WISP operator, I doubt they do. I have a BS in Electrical Engineering and a BS in Management of Information Sciences, not to be tooting my own horn. No, I do not work for Alvarion or Motorola, nor do I have a desire too. Maybe I was in the wrong with my post about the poster's acronyms and my direct criticism with the use of acronyms. I also believe your post was in direct comment to me about my understanding and involvement of WISP activities. I publicly admit, I am not a member of WISPA at the moment, and as long as as an acting officer or "supreme WISPA being" is degrading me, I will not become a member. Scottie Arnett President Info-Ed, Inc. Broadband Internet Service Provider -- Original Message -- From: Jack Unger <mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com> Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 22:39:38 -0700 Yep it's too bad that many wireless ISPs have no interest in learning about wireless. Scottie Arnett wrote: mailto:mid:200910040029.aa21037...@mail.info-ed.com> type="cite"> 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" mailto:m...@iridescent.org";<mailto:m...@iridescent.org>><mailto:m...@iridescent.org> Reply-To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org";<mailto:wireless@wispa.org>><mailto:wireless@wispa.org> 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
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
as the snow starts to fall and have a great day! ryan On Oct 4, 2009, at 7:10 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > I'm not sure what HCCA, PA, PAPR, or EVM are, but I don't think that > WISPs > need to. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > ------ > From: "Gino Villarini" > Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 6:04 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) > >> Lawrence post wasn't too technical at all Stuff wisps >> operators or >> at least the RF guy of a wisp should know >> >> >> >> Gino A. Villarini >> g...@aeronetpr.com >> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >> >> ____________ >> >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- >> boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Jack Unger >> Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 1:40 AM >> To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List >> Subject: 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" <mailto:m...@iridescent.org >> > >> >> Reply-To: WISPA General List >> <mailto:wireless@wispa.org> >> 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 w
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
Title: Thank You, Here is my opinion for what it is worth: The post Lawrence put up was worth thousands of dollars that a WISP would have to spend in both time and equipment to figure out the lessons he's already learned. He posted his knowledge to the group for FREE as additional input to the original question. For that we should all be thankful. If a person does not understand a particular topic or all of the information contained in the message they can, one delete the message and move on, two ask some follow up questions in a polite manor in hopes that they can gain further understanding of the topic. My father in law has a rule in his house and I try to stick to it in life. The rule is (especially at his bar), if we don't have something nice to say about a person, we won't say anything at all. It keeps the negativity down. Everyone likes to hang out at his place (nice positive environment). It's not that we always have to be in agreement with everyone, but we just don't need to be doing things with a negative attitude. There are plenty of ways to have the discussion in a more constructive fashion. Thank You, Brian Webster Scottie Arnett wrote: Ok Jack, I have to admit, I have not read your book, but if it reads like this discussion, I have no desire too, unless you 1. either state that your book is for the advanced wireless subjects, or 2. Thoroughly describe your acronyms. FYI, I do understand most of the poster's acronyms, but for the average WISP operator, I doubt they do. I have a BS in Electrical Engineering and a BS in Management of Information Sciences, not to be tooting my own horn. No, I do not work for Alvarion or Motorola, nor do I have a desire too. Maybe I was in the wrong with my post about the poster's acronyms and my direct criticism with the use of acronyms. I also believe your post was in direct comment to me about my understanding and involvement of WISP activities. I publicly admit, I am not a member of WISPA at the moment, and as long as as an acting officer or "supreme WISPA being" is degrading me, I will not become a member. Scottie Arnett President Info-Ed, Inc. Broadband Internet Service Provider -- Original Message -- From: Jack Unger Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 22:39:38 -0700 Yep it's too bad that many wireless ISPs have no interest in learning about wireless. Scottie Arnett wrote: "mid:200910040029.aa21037...@mail.info-ed.com" type="cite"> 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" "mailto:m...@iridescent.org"> Reply-To: WISPA General List "mailto:wireless@wispa.org"> 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
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
I'm not sure what HCCA, PA, PAPR, or EVM are, but I don't think that WISPs need to. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Gino Villarini" Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 6:04 AM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) > Lawrence post wasn't too technical at all Stuff wisps operators or > at least the RF guy of a wisp should know > > > > Gino A. Villarini > g...@aeronetpr.com > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 1:40 AM > To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List > Subject: 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" <mailto:m...@iridescent.org> > > Reply-To: WISPA General List > <mailto:wireless@wispa.org> > 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,
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
At 11:15 PM 10/3/2009, Lawrence wrote: >... >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. Given, and considering OFDM modulation vice CCK, there are a couple things to note. With G, and the faster data rates, client transactions are over faster and tend to give the AP back sooner, especially if the operator elects to transmit the PLCP header with a short (56 bit) preamble. This is true for at least 90% of the traffic on my network which is very bursty activity. Get 'em out of the way faster! Additionally, OFDM survives in a multi-path environment much better. In my environment, water towers, barns, machine sheds, silos all seem to reflect the signal around. >Having said all that we didn't use 802.11b at all because it's data >rates are too low for video. There are some links which, because of a lower signal to noise, where B just works much better. But, while they are "on" are using the resources of the sector much longer than their G counterparts. >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. In my environment neither is saturated. 2.4 works better because of the variability in terrain. Signals arriving over corn fields also work better than signals arriving over bean fields. :-) >There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have enough. I like to do installs this time of year. Foliage is at maximum growth for the year. Crops are mature and waving in the breeze. The leaves are drying but still on the trees. Rain water collects in those trees. If it works now, and I have sufficient fade margin, it will only get better this winter as the leaves drop. >Tne of the down sides of fitting a 5 or 10 MHz channel in a sweet >spot is that it can change at any time. This is true of any "public" frequency, but the effects on a half or quarter channel are less pronounced, and the fractional channels give an immediate boost in the SI over a 20 MHz channel size. I think there is room for ANY lively discussions on this list; administrative, technical or otherwise. Long live wireless and free enterprise! Mike 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 :-)
Lawrence post wasn't too technical at all Stuff wisps operators or at least the RF guy of a wisp should know Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 1:40 AM To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List Subject: 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" <mailto:m...@iridescent.org> Reply-To: WISPA General List <mailto:wireless@wispa.org> 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
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
Ok Jack, I have to admit, I have not read your book, but if it reads like this discussion, I have no desire too, unless you 1. either state that your book is for the advanced wireless subjects, or 2. Thoroughly describe your acronyms. FYI, I do understand most of the poster's acronyms, but for the average WISP operator, I doubt they do. I have a BS in Electrical Engineering and a BS in Management of Information Sciences, not to be tooting my own horn. No, I do not work for Alvarion or Motorola, nor do I have a desire too. Maybe I was in the wrong with my post about the poster's acronyms and my direct criticism with the use of acronyms. I also believe your post was in direct comment to me about my understanding and involvement of WISP activities. I publicly admit, I am not a member of WISPA at the moment, and as long as as an acting officer or "supreme WISPA being" is degrading me, I will not become a member. Scottie Arnett President Info-Ed, Inc. Broadband Internet Service Provider -- Original Message -- From: Jack Unger Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 22:39:38 -0700 > > > > > > > >Yep it's too bad that many wireless ISPs have no interest in learning >about wireless. > >Scottie Arnett wrote: > type="cite"> > 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" href="mailto:m...@iridescent.org";> >Reply-To: WISPA General List href="mailto:wireless@wispa.org";> >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
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] 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] To G or not to G :-)
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/
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/
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
Tranzeo TR-5A series is legal. Gino Villarini wrote: > Yeah UBNT 5 ghz is only FCC approved on 5.8 ghz, > > 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 jp > Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 3:43 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. > > 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 :-)
Yeah UBNT 5 ghz is only FCC approved on 5.8 ghz, 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 jp Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 3:43 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 :-)
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/
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
I built one of the very first Canopy networks back in 2002. Joe Schneider even sat at my desk and helped configure the first cluster. We even helped them iron out some problems with the early CMM. Ken Magro was near the top of my speed dial list. The only serious competition at the time was Alvarion frequency hoppers. The system worked well except over water paths, where we had scintillation, where water towers were near the path; in other words, wherever there were multi path issues it didn't work well. My only point is that in Urban areas, Canopy is a good choice if there is a lot of contention for spectrum and you need to win. If you are in a rural setting, with longer distances with path obstacles and multi path, OFDM modulation just works better, and it's cheaper. Apples and oranges troops! Neither is better than the other, and there is a solution that will solve most of your engineering problems. At 01:24 AM 10/2/2009, you wrote: >Here was the original part of the message (that somehow got left off >your reply): > >"For a very long time we got caught in the Canopy mentality "my Canopy is > >better than your <>" We finally opened our eyes, got >jumped out of the gang, and are very happy we did. It seems a lot of Canopy >operators have the mentality that WiFi sucks -- probably because they too >started with it years ago, when it really did suck."And I am buying >Canopy AP's and SM's for way less than MSRP WAY LESS. > >Travis >Microserv > >Butch Evans wrote: >> >>On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 19:47 -0600, Travis Johnson wrote: >> >>> >>>As soon as you can offer 7ms latency to 100 people off the same AP >>>using WiFi based radios, please let me know. I will buy 200 AP's and >>>5,000 CPE. ;) >>> >> >> >>That kind of density is NOT necessary for MANY WISPs. I know that is >>the cry that nearly ALL Canopy Koolaid drinkers use, but it does not >>apply to everyone. For those that need it...Canopy offers a very nice >>solution that works, works well and is affordable because it is NEEDED. >>For those that don't...Canopy is WAY to expensive to be worth the extra >>$$. >> >>Don't take this as a "jab" because it isn't intended that way, but why >>would you post a message that indicates that someone was inviting you to >>switch your Canopy out for WiFi? Nobody made such a suggestion and >>(IMHO) reacting in the way you did is just plain rude. >> >> > > > >WISPA Wants You! Join today! >http://signup.wispa.org/ > > >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
Here was the original part of the message (that somehow got left off your reply): "For a very long time we got caught in the Canopy mentality "my Canopy is better than your <>" We finally opened our eyes, got jumped out of the gang, and are very happy we did. It seems a lot of Canopy operators have the mentality that WiFi sucks -- probably because they too started with it years ago, when it really did suck." And I am buying Canopy AP's and SM's for way less than MSRP WAY LESS. Travis Microserv Butch Evans wrote: On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 19:47 -0600, Travis Johnson wrote: As soon as you can offer 7ms latency to 100 people off the same AP using WiFi based radios, please let me know. I will buy 200 AP's and 5,000 CPE. ;) That kind of density is NOT necessary for MANY WISPs. I know that is the cry that nearly ALL Canopy Koolaid drinkers use, but it does not apply to everyone. For those that need it...Canopy offers a very nice solution that works, works well and is affordable because it is NEEDED. For those that don't...Canopy is WAY to expensive to be worth the extra $$. Don't take this as a "jab" because it isn't intended that way, but why would you post a message that indicates that someone was inviting you to switch your Canopy out for WiFi? Nobody made such a suggestion and (IMHO) reacting in the way you did is just plain rude. 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 :-)
Wow... are we really going to start this _again_? I started in 1997 with WaveLan 900mhz ISA cards in DOS based 386 PC routers using Novell drivers to make a router box. We have used WaveLan, Solectek, Orinoco, CM3's, 3Com, Trango, Mikrotik and lately Canopy. I have built a network from 0 customers to almost 6,000 wireless customers in Idaho of all places. We cover 30,000 square miles with over 90 towers and we own and maintain all of it ourselves... no phone companies, no cable companies. Trust me when I tell you, right now, nothing else scales like Canopy. I have used and tested everything out there... you just can NOT scale to any size on a single tower (or even in the same regional area) without GPS sync. Your AP will not handle hundreds of customers without polling. And, I can tell you now that I am buying AP's for _much_ less than you quoted and SM's as well... so, while I continue to install 250 new customers per month, you can tell me that I don't know what I am doing and I have no clue about equipment. ;) Travis Microserv Jayson Baker wrote: Yes, how childish. Don't ever talk bad about Canopy to a Canopy Operator. It'll get them all flustered and they start flaming. I find it pretty hilarious, really. I've come to surmise that the reason EVERY Canopy Operator gets so pissed off when you talk about anything non-Canopy is because they realize $2000+ for an AP and $300-$1000 for an SM is so rediculous for a maximum of... what... 14Mbps? Ooo, it has a GPS antenna, and ooo it will sync with other clusters in the area... never worked well for us, because the other Canopy provider didn't buy a CMM and so was never sync'ed. Bleh. Fine for them. Less profit for them. Makes them more likely to fail. When they do, and their subs switch to us, at least the cable is already ran and the mount already in place. :-) Oh by the way, Smokeping indicates that most subs on our busiest AP have an average latency of around 4-8ms. And all those subs are limited to 6 up, 12 down. On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Butch Evans wrote: On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 19:47 -0600, Travis Johnson wrote: As soon as you can offer 7ms latency to 100 people off the same AP using WiFi based radios, please let me know. I will buy 200 AP's and 5,000 CPE. ;) That kind of density is NOT necessary for MANY WISPs. I know that is the cry that nearly ALL Canopy Koolaid drinkers use, but it does not apply to everyone. For those that need it...Canopy offers a very nice solution that works, works well and is affordable because it is NEEDED. For those that don't...Canopy is WAY to expensive to be worth the extra $$. Don't take this as a "jab" because it isn't intended that way, but why would you post a message that indicates that someone was inviting you to switch your Canopy out for WiFi? Nobody made such a suggestion and (IMHO) reacting in the way you did is just plain rude. -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * 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 :-)
Tom, Which OS? On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Tom Sharples wrote: > You'll see a dramatic improvement by upgrading from Wrap to Alix. Our net > throughput easily doubled when we did that. > > Tom S. > > - Original Message - > From: "RickG" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 6:41 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) > > > We've been running B mode since 2004. I dont lock the rates down but > always shoot for 11Mbps. I like the idea of G mode but every time I > try it, performance drops on the customer side. It may be because > we're still on WRAP's running StarOS v2. I just started updating to > v3, and it seems to be better. I plan on testing out small channels > soon. I'm also debating between Routerboards w/Mikrotik versus > Ubiquiti. > -RickG > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:58 AM, 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 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/ > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
I agree. We first started as a Canopy 900 Mhz WISP. We have lots and I mean lots of hills around here. You normally can not go over 3 hundred feet without hitting a hill in your way. We started by using 900Mhz Canopy equipment. I will hear disputes from my partnerbut it is still the same. When we first started it was 900MHZ Canopy even in the small town we covered, even LOS! I have been trading out Canopy 900 MHZ equipment for "SHEESH" Tik AP and UBIQUITY cpe AND HAVE HAD ) 0 (ZERO) PROBLEMS! SCOTTIE -- Original Message -- From: Butch Evans Reply-To: WISPA General List Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:39:26 -0500 >On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 19:47 -0600, Travis Johnson wrote: >> As soon as you can offer 7ms latency to 100 people off the same AP >> using WiFi based radios, please let me know. I will buy 200 AP's and >> 5,000 CPE. ;) > >That kind of density is NOT necessary for MANY WISPs. I know that is >the cry that nearly ALL Canopy Koolaid drinkers use, but it does not >apply to everyone. For those that need it...Canopy offers a very nice >solution that works, works well and is affordable because it is NEEDED. >For those that don't...Canopy is WAY to expensive to be worth the extra >$$. > >Don't take this as a "jab" because it isn't intended that way, but why >would you post a message that indicates that someone was inviting you to >switch your Canopy out for WiFi? Nobody made such a suggestion and >(IMHO) reacting in the way you did is just plain rude. > >-- > >* Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* >* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * >* http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * >* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * > > > > > >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/ >--- >[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > > Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $30.00/mth. Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html for information. 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 :-)
Yes, how childish. Don't ever talk bad about Canopy to a Canopy Operator. It'll get them all flustered and they start flaming. I find it pretty hilarious, really. I've come to surmise that the reason EVERY Canopy Operator gets so pissed off when you talk about anything non-Canopy is because they realize $2000+ for an AP and $300-$1000 for an SM is so rediculous for a maximum of... what... 14Mbps? Ooo, it has a GPS antenna, and ooo it will sync with other clusters in the area... never worked well for us, because the other Canopy provider didn't buy a CMM and so was never sync'ed. Bleh. Fine for them. Less profit for them. Makes them more likely to fail. When they do, and their subs switch to us, at least the cable is already ran and the mount already in place. :-) Oh by the way, Smokeping indicates that most subs on our busiest AP have an average latency of around 4-8ms. And all those subs are limited to 6 up, 12 down. On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Butch Evans wrote: > On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 19:47 -0600, Travis Johnson wrote: > > As soon as you can offer 7ms latency to 100 people off the same AP > > using WiFi based radios, please let me know. I will buy 200 AP's and > > 5,000 CPE. ;) > > That kind of density is NOT necessary for MANY WISPs. I know that is > the cry that nearly ALL Canopy Koolaid drinkers use, but it does not > apply to everyone. For those that need it...Canopy offers a very nice > solution that works, works well and is affordable because it is NEEDED. > For those that don't...Canopy is WAY to expensive to be worth the extra > $$. > > Don't take this as a "jab" because it isn't intended that way, but why > would you post a message that indicates that someone was inviting you to > switch your Canopy out for WiFi? Nobody made such a suggestion and > (IMHO) reacting in the way you did is just plain rude. > > -- > > * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* > * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * > * http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * > * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * > > > > > > > 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 had much better success with B in a hostile rf environment. Walmart put in wireless scanners just to the south of a sector where we have been running a Mikrotik AP and CPE's on G for a couple of years. I couldn't change channels or channel sizes but moved to B and while slower we were able to move customers to 5.7 more gracefully. We've left the 2.4 at B and still have 15 low usage subs on it doing very well. 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 has grown to over 25 moderate usage clients and I can see a slowdown in the evenings from time to time. We do rate limit at the Mktik to 5 down and 3 up. I've got several between 10 and 20 subs and have no issues. It's hard to argue against a sub 25 client system of NS5L's verses anything else out there when its paid for day 1. I'm not looking to start a product flame just trying to get a ROI. Dave Hulsebus RickG wrote: > We've been running B mode since 2004. I dont lock the rates down but > always shoot for 11Mbps. I like the idea of G mode but every time I > try it, performance drops on the customer side. It may be because > we're still on WRAP's running StarOS v2. I just started updating to > v3, and it seems to be better. I plan on testing out small channels > soon. I'm also debating between Routerboards w/Mikrotik versus > Ubiquiti. > -RickG > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:58 AM, 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 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/ >
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
You'll see a dramatic improvement by upgrading from Wrap to Alix. Our net throughput easily doubled when we did that. Tom S. - Original Message - From: "RickG" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 6:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) We've been running B mode since 2004. I dont lock the rates down but always shoot for 11Mbps. I like the idea of G mode but every time I try it, performance drops on the customer side. It may be because we're still on WRAP's running StarOS v2. I just started updating to v3, and it seems to be better. I plan on testing out small channels soon. I'm also debating between Routerboards w/Mikrotik versus Ubiquiti. -RickG On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:58 AM, 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 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/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.14.2/2408 - Release Date: 10/01/09 18:23:00 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 :-)
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 19:47 -0600, Travis Johnson wrote: > As soon as you can offer 7ms latency to 100 people off the same AP > using WiFi based radios, please let me know. I will buy 200 AP's and > 5,000 CPE. ;) That kind of density is NOT necessary for MANY WISPs. I know that is the cry that nearly ALL Canopy Koolaid drinkers use, but it does not apply to everyone. For those that need it...Canopy offers a very nice solution that works, works well and is affordable because it is NEEDED. For those that don't...Canopy is WAY to expensive to be worth the extra $$. Don't take this as a "jab" because it isn't intended that way, but why would you post a message that indicates that someone was inviting you to switch your Canopy out for WiFi? Nobody made such a suggestion and (IMHO) reacting in the way you did is just plain rude. -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * 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 :-)
As soon as you can offer 7ms latency to 100 people off the same AP using WiFi based radios, please let me know. I will buy 200 AP's and 5,000 CPE. ;) Oh, and they need to operate on the same channels within a 5 mile radius. ;) Travis Microserv Jayson Baker wrote: Standard 20MHz channels. I, too, thought it was impossible. We started with Orinoco back in the day (2002), it worked well up until 30 subs -- then it was like dailup. Back then, we offered 256Kbps service. Turns out the big differences is not only much better radios, much better software, but also the difference on B and G. For a very long time we got caught in the Canopy mentality "my Canopy is better than your <>" We finally opened our eyes, got jumped out of the gang, and are very happy we did. It seems a lot of Canopy operators have the mentality that WiFi sucks -- probably because they too started with it years ago, when it really did suck. Canopy is good, but slow, and very expensive. We have a 1 Day ROI. Compared to when we were deploying Canopy, 8-10 MONTHS. This network is small, and we don't push it much. Like I said, we have a 1 Day ROI. On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Mike wrote: You don't say if you are using 5Mhz or 10MHz channels. I assume 10 with 40 customers. With the smaller bandwidth and slower speeds I think fractional channels limit the number of subscribers you can put on an AP. Does anybody have any empirical data on the number of users that can use a 5MHz and 10MHz Ap? I am not doing it, but think 40 is too many for a 5MHz channel, and has to be approaching the limit for a 10MHz channel. Thoughts? At 06:13 PM 10/1/2009, you wrote: I dunno? Not a ton. Maybe 40 at the most. This segment of our network is very small. We mainly focus on big businesses. On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Ryan Spott wrote: "-- oh, wait, this is not the Canopy list." LOL! :) How many users per AP? ryan On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Jayson Baker wrote: I'll tell you what we do, but won't get into defending it for the next month -- oh, wait, this is not the Canopy list... Our 2.4GHz spectrum is completely filled with vertical Canopy. We run UBNT AP's. Fixed at 2mi ACK. No RTS. Fixed G-only. Horizontal polarity. Max data rate of 54Mbps. Sectors. Customers are all within 2 miles, use Loco2's. Customers are Auto ACK. No RTS. Fixed G-Only. Horizontal. Max 54Mbps. On almost every single install we get at least 12Mbps down, 6Mbps up (our rate limit). Without limit, we usually see up to 18. Funny... those lusers on the other guys Canopy pay like $40/mo for 1.5Mbps. We give 12Mbps for $24.95/mo. Don't use B. It's DSSS. G is OFDM. Performs much better. On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:58 AM, 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
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
We've been running B mode since 2004. I dont lock the rates down but always shoot for 11Mbps. I like the idea of G mode but every time I try it, performance drops on the customer side. It may be because we're still on WRAP's running StarOS v2. I just started updating to v3, and it seems to be better. I plan on testing out small channels soon. I'm also debating between Routerboards w/Mikrotik versus Ubiquiti. -RickG On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:58 AM, 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 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 :-)
We get a capital fee up front that covers most of the equipment charges. It was harder a few years ago with $380.00 radios, but like most electronic stuff they keep getting better and cheaper. Soon they will just be giving them to us. :-) At 06:49 PM 10/1/2009, you wrote: > Like I said, we have a 1 Day ROI. 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 :-)
Standard 20MHz channels. I, too, thought it was impossible. We started with Orinoco back in the day (2002), it worked well up until 30 subs -- then it was like dailup. Back then, we offered 256Kbps service. Turns out the big differences is not only much better radios, much better software, but also the difference on B and G. For a very long time we got caught in the Canopy mentality "my Canopy is better than your <>" We finally opened our eyes, got jumped out of the gang, and are very happy we did. It seems a lot of Canopy operators have the mentality that WiFi sucks -- probably because they too started with it years ago, when it really did suck. Canopy is good, but slow, and very expensive. We have a 1 Day ROI. Compared to when we were deploying Canopy, 8-10 MONTHS. This network is small, and we don't push it much. Like I said, we have a 1 Day ROI. On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Mike wrote: > You don't say if you are using 5Mhz or 10MHz channels. I assume 10 > with 40 customers. > > With the smaller bandwidth and slower speeds I think fractional > channels limit the number of subscribers you can put on an AP. Does > anybody have any empirical data on the number of users that can use a > 5MHz and 10MHz Ap? > > I am not doing it, but think 40 is too many for a 5MHz channel, and > has to be approaching the limit for a 10MHz channel. Thoughts? > > At 06:13 PM 10/1/2009, you wrote: > >I dunno? Not a ton. Maybe 40 at the most. This segment of our network > is > >very small. We mainly focus on big businesses. > > > >On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Ryan Spott wrote: > > > > > "-- oh, wait, this is not the Canopy list." LOL! :) > > > > > > How many users per AP? > > > > > > ryan > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Jayson Baker > > > wrote: > > > > I'll tell you what we do, but won't get into defending it for the > next > > > month > > > > -- oh, wait, this is not the Canopy list... > > > > > > > > Our 2.4GHz spectrum is completely filled with vertical Canopy. > > > > > > > > We run UBNT AP's. Fixed at 2mi ACK. No RTS. Fixed G-only. > Horizontal > > > > polarity. Max data rate of 54Mbps. Sectors. > > > > > > > > Customers are all within 2 miles, use Loco2's. Customers are Auto > ACK. > > > No > > > > RTS. Fixed G-Only. Horizontal. Max 54Mbps. > > > > > > > > On almost every single install we get at least 12Mbps down, 6Mbps up > (our > > > > rate limit). Without limit, we usually see up to 18. > > > > > > > > Funny... those lusers on the other guys Canopy pay like $40/mo for > > > 1.5Mbps. > > > > We give 12Mbps for $24.95/mo. > > > > > > > > Don't use B. It's DSSS. G is OFDM. Performs much better. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:58 AM, 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. Thoug
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
You don't say if you are using 5Mhz or 10MHz channels. I assume 10 with 40 customers. With the smaller bandwidth and slower speeds I think fractional channels limit the number of subscribers you can put on an AP. Does anybody have any empirical data on the number of users that can use a 5MHz and 10MHz Ap? I am not doing it, but think 40 is too many for a 5MHz channel, and has to be approaching the limit for a 10MHz channel. Thoughts? At 06:13 PM 10/1/2009, you wrote: >I dunno? Not a ton. Maybe 40 at the most. This segment of our network is >very small. We mainly focus on big businesses. > >On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Ryan Spott wrote: > > > "-- oh, wait, this is not the Canopy list." LOL! :) > > > > How many users per AP? > > > > ryan > > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Jayson Baker > > wrote: > > > I'll tell you what we do, but won't get into defending it for the next > > month > > > -- oh, wait, this is not the Canopy list... > > > > > > Our 2.4GHz spectrum is completely filled with vertical Canopy. > > > > > > We run UBNT AP's. Fixed at 2mi ACK. No RTS. Fixed G-only. Horizontal > > > polarity. Max data rate of 54Mbps. Sectors. > > > > > > Customers are all within 2 miles, use Loco2's. Customers are Auto ACK. > > No > > > RTS. Fixed G-Only. Horizontal. Max 54Mbps. > > > > > > On almost every single install we get at least 12Mbps down, 6Mbps up (our > > > rate limit). Without limit, we usually see up to 18. > > > > > > Funny... those lusers on the other guys Canopy pay like $40/mo for > > 1.5Mbps. > > > We give 12Mbps for $24.95/mo. > > > > > > Don't use B. It's DSSS. G is OFDM. Performs much better. > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:58 AM, 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 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
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
I dunno? Not a ton. Maybe 40 at the most. This segment of our network is very small. We mainly focus on big businesses. On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Ryan Spott wrote: > "-- oh, wait, this is not the Canopy list." LOL! :) > > How many users per AP? > > ryan > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Jayson Baker > wrote: > > I'll tell you what we do, but won't get into defending it for the next > month > > -- oh, wait, this is not the Canopy list... > > > > Our 2.4GHz spectrum is completely filled with vertical Canopy. > > > > We run UBNT AP's. Fixed at 2mi ACK. No RTS. Fixed G-only. Horizontal > > polarity. Max data rate of 54Mbps. Sectors. > > > > Customers are all within 2 miles, use Loco2's. Customers are Auto ACK. > No > > RTS. Fixed G-Only. Horizontal. Max 54Mbps. > > > > On almost every single install we get at least 12Mbps down, 6Mbps up (our > > rate limit). Without limit, we usually see up to 18. > > > > Funny... those lusers on the other guys Canopy pay like $40/mo for > 1.5Mbps. > > We give 12Mbps for $24.95/mo. > > > > Don't use B. It's DSSS. G is OFDM. Performs much better. > > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:58 AM, 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 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 L
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
"-- oh, wait, this is not the Canopy list." LOL! :) How many users per AP? ryan On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Jayson Baker wrote: > I'll tell you what we do, but won't get into defending it for the next month > -- oh, wait, this is not the Canopy list... > > Our 2.4GHz spectrum is completely filled with vertical Canopy. > > We run UBNT AP's. Fixed at 2mi ACK. No RTS. Fixed G-only. Horizontal > polarity. Max data rate of 54Mbps. Sectors. > > Customers are all within 2 miles, use Loco2's. Customers are Auto ACK. No > RTS. Fixed G-Only. Horizontal. Max 54Mbps. > > On almost every single install we get at least 12Mbps down, 6Mbps up (our > rate limit). Without limit, we usually see up to 18. > > Funny... those lusers on the other guys Canopy pay like $40/mo for 1.5Mbps. > We give 12Mbps for $24.95/mo. > > Don't use B. It's DSSS. G is OFDM. Performs much better. > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:58 AM, 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 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] To G or not to G :-)
I'll tell you what we do, but won't get into defending it for the next month -- oh, wait, this is not the Canopy list... Our 2.4GHz spectrum is completely filled with vertical Canopy. We run UBNT AP's. Fixed at 2mi ACK. No RTS. Fixed G-only. Horizontal polarity. Max data rate of 54Mbps. Sectors. Customers are all within 2 miles, use Loco2's. Customers are Auto ACK. No RTS. Fixed G-Only. Horizontal. Max 54Mbps. On almost every single install we get at least 12Mbps down, 6Mbps up (our rate limit). Without limit, we usually see up to 18. Funny... those lusers on the other guys Canopy pay like $40/mo for 1.5Mbps. We give 12Mbps for $24.95/mo. Don't use B. It's DSSS. G is OFDM. Performs much better. On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:58 AM, 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 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 have almost 100% Tranzeo CPEs and almost any CPQ and SL2 can do 20 10 or 5Mhz channels with the new 4.0.5 Firm. 5 and 10Mhz has really helped in some noisy areas. I had one tower I was about to take the sectors down and once going to 5mhz I have 15 new clients. Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, vision cleared, ambition inspired, and success achieved. - Helen Keller -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jason Hensley Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 1:26 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) Smaller channel sizes is one thing we haven't done yet, but we can'd do it permanently unless we swap out a few CPE's. Have a couple of older Tranzeo's and an older Deliberant or two that don't support smaller channel sizes. Appreciate the info and help. We are going to try it on the Test AP we have up to see if it makes a difference on the couple of clients we have on there right now. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 11:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) I have a lot of Deliberant CPE in my network, just a few of their APS. But the newer generation stock with Atheros cards supports 20/10/5 MHz channels. From their site, concerning the Duos: Product contains: * Dual-Radio with adjustable RF Output Power * Rugged cast aluminum hinged enclosure * Full, half, and quarter bandwidth channels * Multi-BSSID support (VSSID) with VLAN tags * PoE built-in for single cable installation * Configurable Multi-mode AP * AP mode/AP client mode * WDS * AP router/AP client router * AP repeater * Redundant PtP bridge with STP At 11:37 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote: >Yeah, I think they use the same cards -- Willi Atheros. Goota set >IEEE mode to G first, then half/quarter channels are available. > >At 11:04 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote: > >Mike - you mean 5mhz and 10mhz channels? > > > >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 > > > > > >On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Mike wrote: > > > > > The Atheros Deliberant cards will do half and quarter channels on G. > > > > > > > > > At 10:42 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote: > > > >If you aren't sectorized, you should do that first. > > > > > > > >Neither normal b or g or b/g are ideal in high noise. I don't mix. > > > > > > > >I like a little better g-mode on 10mhz channels using radio cards that > > > >support listening on 5/10 mhz channels like the xr2. (Many listen on > > > >20mhz) You're more than twice as likely to find a clearer channel. > > > > > > > >On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:58:30AM -0500, 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 > > > >
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
Smaller channel sizes is one thing we haven't done yet, but we can'd do it permanently unless we swap out a few CPE's. Have a couple of older Tranzeo's and an older Deliberant or two that don't support smaller channel sizes. Appreciate the info and help. We are going to try it on the Test AP we have up to see if it makes a difference on the couple of clients we have on there right now. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 11:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) I have a lot of Deliberant CPE in my network, just a few of their APS. But the newer generation stock with Atheros cards supports 20/10/5 MHz channels. From their site, concerning the Duos: Product contains: * Dual-Radio with adjustable RF Output Power * Rugged cast aluminum hinged enclosure * Full, half, and quarter bandwidth channels * Multi-BSSID support (VSSID) with VLAN tags * PoE built-in for single cable installation * Configurable Multi-mode AP * AP mode/AP client mode * WDS * AP router/AP client router * AP repeater * Redundant PtP bridge with STP At 11:37 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote: >Yeah, I think they use the same cards -- Willi Atheros. Goota set >IEEE mode to G first, then half/quarter channels are available. > >At 11:04 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote: > >Mike - you mean 5mhz and 10mhz channels? > > > >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 > > > > > >On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Mike wrote: > > > > > The Atheros Deliberant cards will do half and quarter channels on G. > > > > > > > > > At 10:42 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote: > > > >If you aren't sectorized, you should do that first. > > > > > > > >Neither normal b or g or b/g are ideal in high noise. I don't mix. > > > > > > > >I like a little better g-mode on 10mhz channels using radio cards that > > > >support listening on 5/10 mhz channels like the xr2. (Many listen on > > > >20mhz) You're more than twice as likely to find a clearer channel. > > > > > > > >On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:58:30AM -0500, 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 brou
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
I have a lot of Deliberant CPE in my network, just a few of their APS. But the newer generation stock with Atheros cards supports 20/10/5 MHz channels. From their site, concerning the Duos: Product contains: * Dual-Radio with adjustable RF Output Power * Rugged cast aluminum hinged enclosure * Full, half, and quarter bandwidth channels * Multi-BSSID support (VSSID) with VLAN tags * PoE built-in for single cable installation * Configurable Multi-mode AP * AP mode/AP client mode * WDS * AP router/AP client router * AP repeater * Redundant PtP bridge with STP At 11:37 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote: >Yeah, I think they use the same cards -- Willi Atheros. Goota set >IEEE mode to G first, then half/quarter channels are available. > >At 11:04 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote: > >Mike - you mean 5mhz and 10mhz channels? > > > >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 > > > > > >On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Mike wrote: > > > > > The Atheros Deliberant cards will do half and quarter channels on G. > > > > > > > > > At 10:42 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote: > > > >If you aren't sectorized, you should do that first. > > > > > > > >Neither normal b or g or b/g are ideal in high noise. I don't mix. > > > > > > > >I like a little better g-mode on 10mhz channels using radio cards that > > > >support listening on 5/10 mhz channels like the xr2. (Many listen on > > > >20mhz) You're more than twice as likely to find a clearer channel. > > > > > > > >On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:58:30AM -0500, 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 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/ > > > > > > > > >
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
Yeah, I think they use the same cards -- Willi Atheros. Goota set IEEE mode to G first, then half/quarter channels are available. At 11:04 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote: >Mike - you mean 5mhz and 10mhz channels? > >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 > > >On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Mike wrote: > > > The Atheros Deliberant cards will do half and quarter channels on G. > > > > > > At 10:42 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote: > > >If you aren't sectorized, you should do that first. > > > > > >Neither normal b or g or b/g are ideal in high noise. I don't mix. > > > > > >I like a little better g-mode on 10mhz channels using radio cards that > > >support listening on 5/10 mhz channels like the xr2. (Many listen on > > >20mhz) You're more than twice as likely to find a clearer channel. > > > > > >On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:58:30AM -0500, 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 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/ > > > > > >-- > > >/* > > >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: > > >h
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
Mike - you mean 5mhz and 10mhz channels? 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 On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Mike wrote: > The Atheros Deliberant cards will do half and quarter channels on G. > > > At 10:42 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote: > >If you aren't sectorized, you should do that first. > > > >Neither normal b or g or b/g are ideal in high noise. I don't mix. > > > >I like a little better g-mode on 10mhz channels using radio cards that > >support listening on 5/10 mhz channels like the xr2. (Many listen on > >20mhz) You're more than twice as likely to find a clearer channel. > > > >On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:58:30AM -0500, 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 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/ > > > >-- > >/* > >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
Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
The Atheros Deliberant cards will do half and quarter channels on G. At 10:42 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote: >If you aren't sectorized, you should do that first. > >Neither normal b or g or b/g are ideal in high noise. I don't mix. > >I like a little better g-mode on 10mhz channels using radio cards that >support listening on 5/10 mhz channels like the xr2. (Many listen on >20mhz) You're more than twice as likely to find a clearer channel. > >On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:58:30AM -0500, 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 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/ > >-- >/* >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 :-)
If you aren't sectorized, you should do that first. Neither normal b or g or b/g are ideal in high noise. I don't mix. I like a little better g-mode on 10mhz channels using radio cards that support listening on 5/10 mhz channels like the xr2. (Many listen on 20mhz) You're more than twice as likely to find a clearer channel. On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:58:30AM -0500, 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 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/ -- /* 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/
