>>>
>>>> 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
>
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
&g
telligent 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
ber 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
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
lon
>
> - 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 ta
aturday, 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
d 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
trength 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:
s@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
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 acrony
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 inp
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 [mailt
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
M
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 Wirele
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
a.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 Ar
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
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
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 --
F
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 (whi
l.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 succes
-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
...@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 certificatio
ut 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
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: [
dband 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
&
or.
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 lo
et 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 Lis
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: [W
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 use
, 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 runn
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 consiste
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
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
operato
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 custo
"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,
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. Wh
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
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
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
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 ne
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.
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 bette
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
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
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
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
"-- 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 com
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.
-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
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
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 en
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
>Tr
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 P
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 th
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 li
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 st
59 matches
Mail list logo
