I was gonna say the same! I have my own WISP archive from 6 years on this list and could put together a book using Tom's writings! Thanks Tom!
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Chuck Hogg <ch...@shelbybb.com> wrote: > Tom: > > I'm always impressed with the time you take in writing the responses you > do. I wish I had that kind of time, I barely have enough time to read them. > > Regards, > > Chuck > > > > On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Tom DeReggi <wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net>wrote: > >> Robert, >> >> Still missing some relevent detail... >> >> New WISP uses 2.4 sectors. >> Is the Old WISP boy also using 2.4G sectors? >> >> As well, is the Rocket gear Single Pol or MIMO dual pol gear? >> Expecially, is the new provider's 5.8G PTP and Rocket Sectors MIMO? >> >> Legally- Part15 means everyone must deploy assuming the risk that there >> could be interference. There are two potential outcomes. 1) Coordination and >> cooperation or 2) survival of the fittest. This might also come down to >> who has the best contract with the grain towers. Whether anyone gained solid >> non-interference clauses or spectrum exclusivity clauses in their contracts, >> versus hand shake deals. >> >> I dont agree with the assessment that the problem is the Old Boy's "bad" >> design or unwillingness to change. (see below for justification) >> >> The fact is, he was there first and had the flexibility to design >> optimally for his need, and there was really no need for him to design for >> the new providers need, becaue the new provider did not exist at that time. >> At the end oif the day, he has pre-existing custoemrs that need him and that >> he needs revenue from, and he isn;t going to bail on that pre-existing money >> tree, that has been in motion for years. He will fight harder than the new >> provider because, he has more at stake to protect, even though it may be on >> a smaller scale. >> >> Both parties are equally obligated to build their networks as interference >> resilent as possible. But there are multiple dissimilar approaches to >> accomplishing that that is jsut as good as another. So who's to say what is >> ultimately the best practice. Its tough for a company who has built a >> network on a single pol and 20Mhz design, and change to a dual pol 10Mhz >> design. >> Whats less efficient? Dual Omnis each single pol, or two sectors with dual >> pol? Omnis are not always bad, IF there is adequate physical obstruction >> isolation between grain towers, and using polarity as a mechanism of >> interference isolation also helps. If some else is operating on 20Mhz, >> a new provider on 10Mhz may not help, because it still steps on half the >> 20Mhz channel. >> >> I'd argue that the best way to coexist is to get rid of the Dual Pol on >> the New provider's Mimo rockets, IF THEY are using Dual POl MIMO. If Old BOy >> is using Omnis everywhere he likely is using Verticle pol everywhere. So, >> New WISP should physically CAP the verticle pol on their Rocket radios, and >> leave Chain Zero on Horizontal polarity only. Then move new WISP back to >> 20Mhz if you need to to regain the capacity. Problem solved. But if you >> rely on polarity as the mechanism of isolation, it simplifies everything, so >> much easier than channel coordination. Remember that Polarity isolation >> often has much better isolation than adjacent channel isolation. With OFDM >> you really need 20db of SNR min, and polarity isolation will get you that. >> Its hard to get that without polarity isolation. Bottom line is, if you >> both choose a different polarity, and stick to it, you wont interfere with >> each other, just with yourself. But, self-interference is much easier to >> isolate, when you know everything about your own network, and can make the >> best choices and trade off for your network. And you can make those changes >> without answering or coordinating with someone else. Thats the benefit of >> relying on Pol isolation. If old boy is using Omni, and new WISP is using >> sectors, its a perfect situation for old boy to take Verticle and New WISP >> to take Horizontal. >> >> Dont get me wrong, I love Ubiquiti MIMO when I can use it, but MIMO has a >> major flaw, and that is co-existing with others is much more difficult, >> expecially if they are using 20Mhz gear. >> >> I hate to say it, but ethically, I'd side with Old WISP boy. Comming in >> new with MIMO gear would surely going to cause interference to pre-existing >> deployments, and the MIMO would restrict your flexibility to resolve. If a >> new provider came in with UNiquiti standard (non MIMO model), Id call it >> even more irresponsbile. Bulilt-in spectrum analyzers are NEEDED in today's >> day and age to adeqautely co-exist. >> >> To be honest... I really think the burden to prevent interference belongs >> to the new installer during installation. An installtion should not >> continue, if its known to cause interference. This is the reason its so >> important for Freq Spectrum Analyzers to be built-in to all APs. Thats the >> biggest benefit to Ubiquiti-M ! Did the new provider scan before they >> deployed? Or did they just make a template and start putting it up accross >> all the grain towers everywhere? 2.4Ghz does not have a lot of channels to >> share, and its pushing it to come in enw and overbuilding a pre-existing 2.4 >> network, as it would be almost guarateed to cause some interference. Ive >> never respected the Built first by brute force, and deal with it later >> approach, while pre-existing boy's customers scream outage. All that does >> is create animosity that maybe the new WISP things they can just come in and >> run over everybody without consequences. >> >> Dont automatically assume that sectoring the Old Boy's network will solve >> the problem. It depends on where the interference is. If he has an Omni he's >> only using one channel, and when he adds sectors he'll be using three, that >> will be scarces to come by. For secorization to help enough, you'd need to >> be confident that the towers are far enough apart, that the channel reuse >> will be possible. And its also possible that some omni locations may not >> support sectors cosmetically. Such as if he uses a home on tall ground as >> relay points. >> >> The good news is that sectorization no longer has to be expensive, When >> Rockets and antenna can be had for under $250. (Allthough there is still >> cabling, Arrestors, switches , etc that add up). So maybe Old WISP Boy >> could also benefit from sectorization in some places, to justify his own >> cooperation. >> >> You also were not clear on whether primary interference was on the 2.4G or >> 5.8G, backhauls or sectors? >> >> As well, I'd suggest fully exploring whether all the available freq ranges >> are being used to their potential to avoid interference. For example... I'm >> sure 5.8Ghz is being used for sectors mostly, because that is what is FCC >> legal to use with Ubiquiti. But what about the backhauls? 5.3 and 5.4 >> backhauls can go 7-10 miles, with 2-3ft dish on both ends. HAve the >> backhauls been converted to 5.3-4? >> >> I agree that switching sectors from 2.4 to 5.8 or 5.3/4 likely wont work >> against the foliage and trees. But, if interference is at 5.8, you may very >> well do OK with 5.3/4 PTPs for backhaul. >> >> If your interference is at 2.4G, dont lock your self down to that. You >> mentioned that you are trying 3.65, but dont forget 900Mhz. Sure its lower >> capacity, but it will help with the trees. >> >> I'll also note... Dont just assume its equally the responsibility for old >> boy to pay to rebuild his network to accommodate a new arrival. In all my >> tower contracts, I have first in protection. >> If a new arrival wants me to change my infrasstructure to make room for >> them to also deploy, IF I agree, the new arrival is responsbile for paying >> the cost to cover my relocation or change plan. >> >> As well, lets look at it from the old boys perception. He considered the >> grain towers his home market. Then some new guy comes to town, and takes ALL >> the grain towers away from him, and takes away the old boy's expansion >> market. Old boy feels violated by New Boy. If I were the NEw WISP, I'd not >> only worry about interference, but I'd also worry about behind the scene >> retaliation. How far would someone go to protect their home? Vandalism? Bad >> mouthing? Intentional interference? Its a risky business to go overbuild >> someone's home market. >> >> What I can tell you is that with 2.4Ghz, a survival of the fittest >> spectrum battle will not have any winners, there just isn't enough spectrum >> in 2.4Ghz. >> The ONLY way to work it out has to be to work it out amicably. It really >> doesn;t matter how many times the Old boy pciks up the phone to call new >> WISP, the calls are never gonna stop until teh Old Boy doesn't have >> itnerference. If his interference is not solved, he'll make sure he puts you >> in a position, where you'll be calling him soon enough to try to resolve >> interference. >> When it comes to unlicensed RF, its an equal playing field, the small guy >> doesn't have to accept being pushed around or bullied by the bigger guy, and >> I'm sure that is what the samller guy feels, whether its true or not.. >> >> Also, no need to be consistent everywhere. There is no reason you cant use >> two 2.4 sectors ata tower and have the third sector be 3.65, if only one >> direction is a pain point. For example, everywhere facing one of Old Boy's >> towers use 3.65 or 900. >> >> As well, dont assume 5-10 miles sector coverage is to long. That is a >> common distance built into many WISP networks, to make it possible for a ROI >> in a rural market. >> >> LAstly, the new WISP is lighting up tons of new grain towers. Old boy has >> 60 subs. How many towers could Old Boy realistically have with only 60 >> customers? >> This really doesn't sound like such a difficult challenge to resolve. If >> new WISP is lighting up tons of grain legs (aka lots of markets), It >> wouldn't be that painful to stay off old Old Boy's network area, it cant be >> all that large? >> >> I can give an example of one of our markets, where there are about 400 >> homes and three WISPs, where 900Mhz is the ONLY option.. . >> I use sectors, they tend to use Omnis. We manage to co-exist. Omnis are >> plusses, because I know their is a financial incenticve for them to select >> Verticle pol, so when I use sectors it makes it much easier for me to steer >> around them. And I'm not greedy. I let them have their 50 subs, closest to >> their towers, and wouldn't ever think about marketing their backdoor step.. >> I'd rather focus on the 200 customers in the other direction that I'm >> closer to. There is enough market to go around. All new undeployed markets >> are fair game to who get their first. >> >> So summary of recommendation.... >> >> 1) Check contractual protections in both WISP's grain tower contracts. >> >> 2) Try each picking a unique exclusive polarity for their radios. >> >> 3) ONly Deploy AP and BAckhaul radios that have built-in spectrum >> analyzers. (Ubiquiti-M or Trango Tlink). If using Ubiquiti and MIMO, for >> Rockets cap off chain 1 antenna to disable, or using Bullets that are single >> pol MIMO. >> >> 4) Use 5.2/4 for backhauls everywhere possible. >> >> 5) Where non-interference cant be acheived at 2.4G, use 3.65 and 900Mhz. >> >> >> Also another approach.... IF coexistance can be acheived. Then you are >> back at aquisition discussion. How can aquisition be avoided. Two ways... >> >> 1) AP sharing >> or >> 2) Customer swapping. >> >> 1- Come to the realizing that two tower cant exist next to each other in >> the same market. Agree to share your APs with him, and and vice versa, at an >> equal bi-direction monitary rate to each other. Some APs will get taken >> down. You will control some towers and he'll control others. But neither >> will loose control of their customer. >> >> 2- All your customers next to his tower you sell to him, and his customers >> next to you he sells to you. Do it on a 1 to 1 trade. And stop tradding when >> there is no more interference. Pay the same rate bi-directionally, so no >> dolalrs have to change hands. Then its just a few phone calls... Hey... let >> me introduce you to your new provider, you'll get bills from him now. >> >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Robert West <robert.w...@just-micro.com> >> *To:* 'WISPA General List' <wireless@wispa.org> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 29, 2010 9:55 AM >> *Subject:* [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy. >> >> I’m throwing this out there for another WISP to see if anyone has any >> experience with something like this or any ideas. >> >> >> >> Within the past year this operator was asked by a grain operator to bring >> broadband to all of their grain legs. The operator had the idea of, instead >> of charging the grain dealer for the install, to offer the broadband for >> free in exchange for using the legs for access points and sell the service >> to local customers. The grain dealer agreed, obviously, so he built out a >> fairly good sized network. For equipment he is using all Ubiquiti radios >> and CPE units and with Pac grids and Bullets for his back haul and Rockets >> with sectors at the APs. Network has been working perfectly. >> >> >> >> That’s the setup. Now for the trouble. >> >> >> >> There was and still is an existing WISP in the area. 60 customers or so. >> (Grain dealer is associated with OLD wisp in a roundabout way but chose not >> to use him for whatever reason) It’s reported that boy is in love with >> Bullets and OMNI antennas on all of his APs. For CPEs he goes for large >> grids and Bullets, I believe. He also pushes it as far as he can go, 5 >> miles or more on those OMNI APs. New operator is using 5.8 for Back Haul, >> 2.4 for CPE. Old WISP calls new WISP almost immediately. Interference >> taking down his network. New wisp changes channels to those suggested by >> old wisp. Calls again, interference. New wisp changes channels again. >> Another phone call, he changes yet again. Then drops down to 10MHz channels >> to give more room. Still the phone calls. For a time it was every evening >> he would have to deal with old wisp and still he wouldn’t be happy. Old >> wisp then starts calling the owners of the grain legs raising hell and bad >> mouthing new wisp. Leg owner calls new wisp, “What’s Up?” Old wisp then >> wants to sell his network to new wisp for fantasy cash. I tell new wisp, >> “Chill, don’t even think of buying that idiot and his duct tape network”. >> New wisp then buys a 3.65 license but we all know how long that sucker takes >> and the limitations it has with number of channels and the $$ premium per >> unit. New wisp has been very nice to all parties and has done, from what I >> see, about all he can do. He’s within all power regulations and has bent >> over backwards to every request put to him by this guy. (One of the last >> comments from old WISP was that he would get a sector and, in so many words, >> blast him and take down his network) >> >> >> >> Now the latest. Old wisp has contacted the leg owners and has put >> together a meeting between old wisp, all of new wisps grain leg owners, new >> wisp and two outside parties, one of which is related to old wisp boy. >> >> >> >> New Wisp is at a loss to what more can be accomplished other than old wisp >> upgrade his OMNIs to sectors in order to isolate the RF away from a >> competing channel. >> >> >> >> Anyone have any solid resolutions that he can throw out to old wisp boy >> ? Surely someone here has been there before. >> >> >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> >> Robert West >> >> Just Micro Digital Services Inc. >> >> 740-335-7020 >> >> >> >> [image: Logo5] >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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/ > -- -RickG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
