Mac, nothing I said should have been even remotely insulting. I have read you trading insults with people and my post was quite tame in comparison. Your response was actually quite insulting and shows you can dish it out. Methinks you do this to get your way.
I did not say anything about X2 cloaking requiring any particular brand of software and I will not even mention what we use. There are lots of systems that now support 5 & 10 MHz RF bandwidths. If you put your head back in the sand I hope you know what is exposed. The phone company ignored technology for years too, and then new guys who embraced technology jumped in and showed them up. At one time you embraced new technology, now you just want to sit back and make money from the investment you have already made. We develop new techniques to solve old problems using technology. Nobody says you have to use it. You maybe should but hey, that is up to you. Lonnie Lonnie On 2/4/07, Mac Dearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
See inline please Mac Dearman -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 1:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas We run as many as 4 G mode with 16 dB 60 degree sectors. The AP uses WLM54SuperG Atheros radios with X2 cloaking so this means the 4 channels are not overlapping. We are in a valley and the AP sites are typically on the sides, so that we do not require coverage on the back side. Some of my towers use only 2 radios with 16 dB 60 degree sectors pointed straight down the valley and people from the back side can still get a usable -85 dB. We use the WLM54SuperG radios (from Compex) on the AP and client and we are very happy with the performance. The Client is using a 14 dB Rootenna for the case and antenna in one. Just drop the cat5 with POE to the user provided switch and it is online. **This sounds like the answer I was looking for, but you failed horribly in announcing that all the CPE would have to be StarOS as well. Why don't you make something that will work with what we already have so many of? I am not now nor will I ever be an ISP that is totally dependant on one mans gear or software. All my eggs are never in one basket :-) <big snip> B is dead and is holding the Industry back. If you use B mode then you NEED 400 mW radios because of the noise. **Now you are talking outside your arena and insulting the majority on this list. You don't know what my noise floor is as I live in Louisiana and my noise floor is just that - -MINE. I created the noise and I live with I have created. That's one of the purposes for the sectors. Furthermore - "B" is not dead. I might as well say unless you live a new house and drive a new car, own a crew cab truck with a big diesel engine in it then you aren't a successful in life. Do you have a new home, car and a big truck Lonnie? You need to learn to NOT be so radical with what you say as well as take into account that not everyone owns a software company and runs 100% Mikrotik or StarOS which is what it would take to cut the spectrum up in chunks as you are doing. I can bet I would never hear Tully make the comment that "B" is dead!! That really Galls my Grapes and scorches my Tater patch! If "B" were dead - - I guess I would be buried. You know what they say - - opinions are like # holes - - some of us just don't mind exposing ourselves in public places. If you use G mode and X2 cloaking then you need less than 100 mW and you'll have WAY better performance. Just to be sure about this point --> I am speaking from EXPERIENCE. This is not some plan I someday hope to try. It is what we use and is what a lot of others use as well. **I know a bunch of folks on this list PERSONALLY and don't know of even 1 that is all "G" unless they have only a couple APs out. As far as the "old hands" at wireless - - we are using a menagerie of different gear as so many vendors and software writers stuff was not suitable or they had more bugs than good drivers. We still have to tolerate different screw ups from you software writers from time to time. OFDM was invented as an improvement over previous modulation techniques. Why do people have such a hard time accepting that it actually works better? Is it because you have an investment in B only radios and realize you have to reinvest in G radios? **I have about 70 MikroTik (as well as Proxim, Trango, and others) APs/routers in the air today. I have "G" capable radios in every AP and is the reason for my asking my original "non insulting" question. I hate I feel like a June bug and you are the Duck! You really crack me up Lonnie - - Get off that box! It is sort of like the phone companies hanging onto their copper lines. Wireless started to cream them and now you are seeing that G is creaming B, so that the old established operators are in trouble. **Just more trash talk and smack! I hate I even entered into this thread now - I am outta here!!! Mac Lonnie On 2/4/07, Mac Dearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How are y'all running "G" in so many places? I would love to implement G, > but I have so many towers sectored out and then we have so many clients > running wireless routers close to the CPE that I feel like there would be > trouble in Paradise here!! > > Are any of you running G on anything but an Omni antenna? (Multiple > antennas on one tower?) > > Mac > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler > Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:30 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas > > Totally agree. A bad G link will still give as good as a GOOD B link. > G will give 5 mbps even when it is close to not connecting and B > requires superb signals to get 5 mbps. > > Lonnie > > On 2/4/07, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have quite abit of G out there. All the clients and ap's I install > > today are G. > > 60's is great, 70's work just fine too. > > 60's get top performance, 70' is still a great very fast connection and > > even low 80's beat B. > > > > B stands for Bad > > G stands for Good > > > > > > > > > > > > Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > > > It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. > > > > > > Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas > > > that you need to make it work right. > > > > > > Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, > > > and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. > > > > > > laters, > > > marlon > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom DeReggi" > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > > > Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM > > > Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas > > > > > > > > >> I wanted to get some feedback from the List. > > >> > > >> Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short > > >> Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? > > >> Is 18 dbi enough? > > >> > > >> I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long > > >> range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be > > >> good for? > > >> Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? > > >> > > >> I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but > > >> PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 > > >> cards. The beamwidth of 18dbi (< 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for > > >> interference resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was > > >> needed it could be accommodated with higher power radios such > > >> Teletronic's >18dbm Atheros cards or Ubiquiti's SR5 18-26db cards. > > >> > > >> Tom DeReggi > > >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > > >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > >> > > >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > >> > > >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > > > > > -- > > George Rogato > > > > Welcome to WISPA > > > > www.wispa.org > > > > 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/ > > > > > -- > Lonnie Nunweiler > Valemount Networks Corporation > http://www.star-os.com/ > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
-- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
