Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

The original question was asked by someone in upstate New York, far from the tropics last I checked. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 8/2/2011 5:25 PM, Jeremy Parr wrote: On 2 August 2011 16:32, Matt Larsen - Lists > wrote: I have had a 3 mile 24ghz Ligowave link u

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

On 2 August 2011 16:32, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: > I have had a 3 mile 24ghz Ligowave link up for two years with very > little rain fade - maybe 15 minutes worth in the past two years. > Rain in the tropics and rain in the midwest are two *very* different things.

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

I think you just jinxed that link! On 8/2/2011 2:32 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: > I have had a 3 mile 24ghz Ligowave link up for two years with very > little rain fade - maybe 15 minutes worth in the past two years. > > Matt Larsen > vistabeam.com > > On 8/2/2011 1:13 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

I have had a 3 mile 24ghz Ligowave link up for two years with very little rain fade - maybe 15 minutes worth in the past two years. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 8/2/2011 1:13 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: > At 8/2/2011 01:34 PM, Gino Villarini wrote: >> Content-Language: en-US >> Content-Type: multi

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

At 8/2/2011 01:34 PM, Gino Villarini wrote: >Content-Language: en-US >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > >boundary="_000_D26588DB857E2948835D6C7A27C9879E15DBBD68AEROMAIL1aerone_" > >Both Radwin and Motorola PTP500 would work well under high >interference, but if you want to go to a whole diff

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

11:36 AM To: wireless@wispa.org<mailto:wireless@wispa.org> Subject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ? Guys, I appreciate all the feedback. We're looking into Exalt 24GHz for a 3-mile link. Not sure if it will reach that far ... Anyone have direct experience with Exalt? We

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

ilto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>> [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org><mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>>] On Behalf Of Cameron Crum >> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 12:22 PM >> To: WISPA Gener

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

reless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Richardson Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 12:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ? 24GHz @ 3 miles is not going to be stable unless is never rains What about 5.4GHz? Moto PTP500 Lite will do 52Mb

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

02, 2011 8:36 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ? Guys, I appreciate all the feedback. We're looking into Exalt 24GHz for a 3-mile link. Not sure if it will reach that far ... Anyone have direct experience with Exalt? We're using Dragonwav

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ? Guys, I appreciate all the feedback. We're looking into Exalt 24GHz for a 3-mile link. Not sure if it will reach that far ... Anyone have direct experience with Exalt? We're using Dragonwave and love it, bu

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 3:52 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ? > > > ARC panel and nv2 in 40mhz? > On Jul 29, 2011 6:48 PM, "Jerry Richardson" <<mailto:jrichard...@aircloud.com>jrichard...@aircloud.com

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

oun...@wispa.org<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>> >> >> [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org><mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>>] >> On Behalf Of Cameron Crum >> Sent: Friday,

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

pa.org>> [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org><mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>>] On Behalf Of Cameron Crum >> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 12:22 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Su

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

oun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 3:52 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ? > > > ARC panel and nv2 in 40mhz? > On Jul 29, 2011 6:48 PM, "Jerry Richardson" mailto:jrichard...@

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

OK, now just need to find 40MHz of spectrum. Oh wait, there isn't any - Jerry From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 3:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 bac

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

gt; Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 12:22 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ? > > Licensed or unlic? If unlic, still no. I can put together an unlicensed link for for less than $500 that will probably perform as well as something co

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

What would you use to put together a 100Mbps FDX link for 500 bucks? - Jerry From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Cameron Crum Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 12:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

273.4143 >> >> *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On >> Behalf Of *Cameron Crum >> *Sent:* Friday, July 29, 2011 3:11 PM >> >> *To:* WISPA General List >> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ? >&g

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

r.com<mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 787.273.4143 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Cameron Crum Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 3:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ? Licensed o

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On > Behalf Of *Cameron Crum > *Sent:* Friday, July 29, 2011 3:11 PM > > *To:* WISPA General List > *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ? > > ** ** > > $8000 is expensive to me for an unlicensed freq

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

ct: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ? $8000 is expensive to me for an unlicensed frequency. For just a bit more you can get licensed. If I'm getting out of the $100s range then I'll bite the bullet and go all the way. The difference between $8000 and $12000 is not that m

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On > Behalf Of *Cameron Crum > *Sent:* Friday, July 29, 2011 2:58 PM > > *To:* WISPA General List > *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ? > > ** ** > > I'm aware of all that, but 24GHz still attenua

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

29, 2011 2:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ? I'm aware of all that, but 24GHz still attenuates fairly quickly and rain fade will be a problem if you try to go too far. It would be good for short hops, though. It still seems a bit pricey. On F

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

I'm aware of all that, but 24GHz still attenuates fairly quickly and rain fade will be a problem if you try to go too far. It would be good for short hops, though. It still seems a bit pricey. On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: > At 7/29/2011 02:38 PM, Cameron Crum wrote: > >

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

At 7/29/2011 02:38 PM, Cameron Crum wrote: I just assumed if you pay that much for a link it would be in the licensed band. Still though, I can't imagine too many people using the unlicensed 24 ghz band, It should be pretty clear, but if you can't bgo bigger than a 2ft dish, I guess you are pre

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

s-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Cameron Crum Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 2:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ? I just assumed if you pay that much for a link it would be in the licensed band. Still though, I can't

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

143 > > *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On > Behalf Of *Me > *Sent:* Friday, July 29, 2011 2:12 PM > *To:* WISPA General List > > *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ? > > ** ** > > 24ghz is unlicen

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

Friday, July 29, 2011 2:12 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ? 24ghz is unlicensed. Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless -Original message- From: Cameron Crum To: WISPA General List Sent: Thu, Jul 28, 2011 14:02:52 GMT+00:00 Subject: Re:

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

24ghz is unlicensed. Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless -Original message- From: Cameron Crum To: WISPA General List Sent: Thu, Jul 28, 2011 14:02:52 GMT+00:00 Subject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul ?

2' dishes Matt Larsen Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless -Original message- From: Gino Villarini To: WISPA General List Cc: WISPA General List Sent: Thu, Jul 28, 2011 13:10:27 GMT+00:00 Subject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 bac

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul?

:wireless-boun...@wispa.org> [<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Bob Moldashel Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 10:25 PM To: <mailto:wireless@wispa.org> wireless@wispa.org<mailto:wireless@wispa.org> Subject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensiv

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul?

his > >>> radio is for Licensed 24 ? > >>> > >>> Gino A. Villarini > >>> > >>> g...@aeronetpr.com <mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com> > >>> > >>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > >>> > >>> 787.273

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul?

, FCC regulations specify cross Pol... I think this >>> radio is for Licensed 24 ? >>> >>> Gino A. Villarini >>> >>> g...@aeronetpr.com <mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com> >>> >>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>> >>> 787.273.4143

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul?

*From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org> [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Bob Moldashel *Sent:* Wednesday, July 27, 2011 10:25 PM *To:* wireless@wispa.org <mailto:wireless@wispa.org> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul?

reless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul? Maybe it is. I am only going by word of mouth on that. That's why I said "I am told.." Don't want to put my foot in my mouth... :-) On 7/27/2011 10:11 PM, Gino Villarini wrote: That's weird, FCC

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul?

> *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org > [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > *On Behalf Of *Bob Moldashel > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 27, 2011 10:25 PM > *To:* wireless@wispa.org > *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul? > > ** ** > > Two more things

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul?

rp. > 787.273.4143 > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org> [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>] On Behalf Of Bob Moldashel > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 10:05 PM > To: WISP

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul?

tpr.com > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > 787.273.4143 > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Bob Moldashel > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 10:17 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject:

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul?

less-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>> >> [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org> >> <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>>] On Behalf Of Bob Moldashel >> > Sent:

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul?

ubject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul? So no way for a 6 mile link even with 6 foot dishes? No idea what to put in a path calc without knowing gains of dishes. On Jul 27, 2011 10:09 PM, "Bob Moldashel" mailto:lakel...@gbcx.net>> wrote: > Anything f

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul?

alf Of Bob Moldashel Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 10:25 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul? Two more things... Radio has built in spectrum analyzer that works :-) And I am told link is plane polarity so only uses one polarity plane for data...Not two.

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul?

.com> >> > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >> > 787.273.4143 >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org> >> [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org >> <mailto:wireless-

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul?

To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul? Street price is about $7500 with 1' antennas and 200 Mbps aggregate with power supplies. About a 4 week lead time. But 3 non-overlapping channels is the best On 7/27/2011 9:56 PM, Gino Villarini wrote: > Nic

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul?

l Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org> [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>] On Behalf Of Bob Moldashel > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 10:05 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul?

ispa.org> [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>] >> On Behalf Of Bob Moldashel >> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 9:50 PM >> To: wireless@wispa.org <mailto:wireless@wispa.org> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 b

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul?

Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Bob Moldashel > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 10:05 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul? > > No. Its unlicensed 24 Ghz. Spec sheet attached >

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul?

t Wireless Broadband Corp. > 787.273.4143 > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Bob Moldashel > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 10:05 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul?

: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul? No. Its unlicensed 24 Ghz. Spec sheet attached -B- On 7/27/2011 9:44 PM, Gino Villarini wrote: > IIRC the Exalt unit is for Licensed Fiber Tower Freqs? No? > > Gino A. Villarini > g...@aeronetpr.com > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul?

9:50 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul? The Snaplink only does about 22 Mbps. Exalt just came out with a 24 Ghz. Full Duplex TDD radio that will do 100 Mbps and is capable of 3 non-overlapping channels. The price is the same or cheaper. I believe

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul?

The Snaplink only does about 22 Mbps. Exalt just came out with a 24 Ghz. Full Duplex TDD radio that will do 100 Mbps and is capable of 3 non-overlapping channels. The price is the same or cheaper. I believe its 2 year warranty also. -B- On 7/27/2011 7:23 PM, Adam Greene wrote: > Has any

Re: [WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul?

Has anyone tried the SnapLink Blast? http://www.wisptech.com/index.php/Microwave_Backhaul_Comparison_Chart shows 24GHz, 160M half-duplex, $6k ... if it really works, that's pretty good, in my book On 7/26/2011 10:47 AM, Adam Greene wrote: > This question has probably been asked on this list bef

[WISPA] inexpensive non-2.4/5.8 backhaul?

This question has probably been asked on this list before ... if needed, just tell me to check the archives ... Becoming increasingly frustrated with chasing apparent interference issues on our Alvarion & Mikrotik 2.4GHz and 5.4 - 5.8GHz point to point links, I am wondering if anyone has a sugg