I did a climb for a local WISP back in 2002. We put a 325 foot run of LMR400 up a tower with 1 watt amps at the top and bottom. This fed into a Cisco 340 and an omni. Could see that thing on a site survey 30 miles away. -- Justin Wilson <j...@mtin.net> Aol & Yahoo IM: j2sw http://www.mtin.net/blog xISP News http://www.twitter.com/j2sw Follow me on Twitter Wisp Consulting Tower Climbing Network Support
From: Ryan Goldberg <rgoldb...@compudyne.net> Reply-To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:14:08 +0000 To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy. Hey hey hey now, what are you sayin? about a million years ago (well, 11 years) I put up a 12dBi omni (fed over ~100 feet of lmr600) with a hyperlink amp on it. That was about 3 weeks after I got hired (as a java programmer?!?) so From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 8:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy. Well I was thinking an amp was involved to compensate... On Dec 29, 2010 9:15 PM, "Robert West" <robert.w...@just-micro.com> wrote: > That's what I thought too especially since he's probably using a 12dbi omni > or worse. > > > > > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Josh Luthman > Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 9:05 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy. > > > > Coax up the tower? There has to be some serious loss there. > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > > > On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Robert West <robert.w...@just-micro.com> > wrote: > > Old boy is using old Bullet2 with a stick omni. Has the antenna on top of > the tower or leg with coax running all the way down to the ground where he > has the Bullet. No sectors anywhere. > > > > New boy is outfitted with a modern and professional setup. 3 UBNT MIMO > sectors per AP with Rocket2M. Backhauls are Bullet5M on a 29dbi Pacific > Wireless grid. All links are at 10MHz channel width including the > backhauls. > > > > We've discussed finding a way to turn off one chain of the rockets, I really > wish UBNT had thought about that from the get go on these, seems to be a no > brainer, anyhow we talked about that and honestly that would be a good idea > but from all I've been hearing, I really don't think this is the entire > issue old boy is having. With all the phone calls and noise he's been > making, I'm thinking a lot of it comes from him just being pissed over > having someone in his territory and doing it better than him. I would put > money on the idea that even if new boy was able to turn off one chain of his > rockets, old boy would still complain because he has been blaming new boy > for every issue he can think of and word has it that the quality of his > network sucked before any of this happened. > > > > And again, New Boy planned around the existing RF environment and it > shouldn't have been an issue if not for his low power omnis. The other side > should be able to admit that he needs to upgrade a bit in order to meet half > way, I think. > > > > > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Tom DeReggi > Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 5:02 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy. > > > > 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 <mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com> > > To: 'WISPA General List' <mailto: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 > > > > 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/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
