We have 3 towers with ubnt 900, doing ok offering up to 3meg plans, jitter is pretty poor though. Interference has been an occasional issue. We do get what I consider good foliage penetration up to 1-2 miles with the dual pol yagi as cpe. Better penetration than wimax 3.65.
The wimax we can do higher speeds and has been more reliable for customers who are nearLOS. This is using pmp320 AP on a Dual pol omni. Trees screw with the wimax terribly in wind/rain though. Pmp100 900mhz just seems like too little capacity to meet today's demands. On Aug 22, 2013 12:51 PM, "TJ Trout" <t...@fdisturlock.com> wrote: > Ubnt 900 is a joke > On Aug 22, 2013 7:43 AM, "Coenraad Loubser" <coenr...@wish.org.za> wrote: > >> Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's not even an April fools joke. >> http://www.google.com/loon/ >> >> Maybe if you can get hold of a human at Google you could interest them in >> running a trial with you... >> >> >> Coenraad Loubser >> >> WISH Networks (Pty) Ltd. >> 2nd Floor, Merriman Place, Cnr. Merriman & Bird Str, Stellenbosch, 7600, >> ZA >> >> Office: 087 805 7480 >> Skype: Wish_Support >> Email: coenr...@wish.org.za >> Cell: 073 772 1223 (By appointment) >> Web: http://wish.org.za >> >> -- Spending Money is like watering a plant. Your money is your ultimate >> ballot. >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Josh Luthman < >> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote: >> >>> Well the one I remember is Canopy and Ubnt on the same tower, both >>> 900. The Canopy would rx more than enough to work while Ubnt wouldn't >>> hear the AP at all. Moving around the trees (similar distance from >>> the tower) the signal would appear strong. >>> >>> Josh Luthman >>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>> 1100 Wayne St >>> Suite 1337 >>> Troy, OH 45373 >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Mike Hammett <wispawirel...@ics-il.net> >>> wrote: >>> > Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me, >>> there just >>> > isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76 and >>> wondering why >>> > it doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try again. The Canopy >>> will >>> > work a little better because it requires less signal, but it also has >>> > nowhere near the same throughput, so they're really apples and oranges. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ----- >>> > Mike Hammett >>> > Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> > http://www.ics-il.com >>> > >>> > ________________________________ >>> > From: "Josh Luthman" <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> >>> > >>> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >>> > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:20:24 AM >>> > >>> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas >>> > >>> > Ubnt 900 apparently has extremely poor nlos for 900 MHz. I've heard >>> > this a handful of people but haven't tried it myself. >>> > >>> > Josh Luthman >>> > Office: 937-552-2340 >>> > Direct: 937-552-2343 >>> > 1100 Wayne St >>> > Suite 1337 >>> > Troy, OH 45373 >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Mike Hammett < >>> wispawirel...@ics-il.net> >>> > wrote: >>> >> How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz >>> >> system was junk had a poor RF environment. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ----- >>> >> Mike Hammett >>> >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> >> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >> >>> >> ________________________________ >>> >> From: "Erik Anderson" <erik.ander...@hocking.net> >>> >> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >>> >> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM >>> >> >>> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas >>> >> >>> >> 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their >>> >> other >>> >> products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is >>> better. >>> >> Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these >>> >> technologies have very low bandwidth. >>> >> >>> >> On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: >>> >> >>> >> What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used >>> >> both >>> >> Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We >>> just >>> >> put >>> >> up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning >>> towards >>> >> the >>> >> UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really >>> >> satisfied >>> >> with. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Wireless mailing list >>> >> Wireless@wispa.org >>> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Wireless mailing list >>> >> Wireless@wispa.org >>> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Wireless mailing list >>> >> Wireless@wispa.org >>> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Wireless mailing list >>> > Wireless@wispa.org >>> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Wireless mailing list >>> > Wireless@wispa.org >>> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wireless mailing list >>> Wireless@wispa.org >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >
_______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
