User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/24/2016 2:21:53 PM EDT
[#1]
1100ft is far for wifi, even with a perfectly clear line of sight. With the right equipment it's possible but I wouldn't recommend it. The best solution is running fiber or coax between the buildings.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2016 3:22:25 PM EDT
[#2]
This would be a violation of the terms of service for the ISP.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2016 3:32:24 PM EDT
[#3]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2016 3:32:57 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This would be a violation of the terms of service for the ISP. Verizon is my ISP and there was nothing I can remember seeing in the ToS prohibiting the LAN from spanning multiple buildings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2016 3:47:01 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Verizon is my ISP and there was nothing I can remember seeing in the ToS prohibiting the LAN from spanning multiple buildings. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This would be a violation of the terms of service for the ISP. Verizon is my ISP and there was nothing I can remember seeing in the ToS prohibiting the LAN from spanning multiple buildings. You can't share service between multiple premises with ressential service. It's there, go read it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2016 4:39:17 PM EDT
[#6]
You can pay for a second Internet connection at the house and use a point to point wireless bridge. Line of sight is pretty important. Ubiquiti has some affordable solutions. In use, you would treat the bridge as if it was a cable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2016 5:37:36 PM EDT
[#7]
1. Upgrade your residential internet service to business class service. It shouldn't be much (or any) more expensive than what you have anyway.
2. 1100 ft of wireless bridge using WiFi radios is not difficult. You do need line of sight. At that distance you could possibly do it with a regular omni antenna. Even if not, it is certainly possible with other antenna options. Depending on antenna - if you have LOS - you can create a bridge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2016 9:26:54 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1100ft is far for wifi, even with a perfectly clear line of sight. With the right equipment it's possible but I wouldn't recommend it. The best solution is running fiber or coax between the buildings. I guess the fact I have a 19 mile 5.8 GHz shot running 45 Mbps up and down is a miracle... So if the legalities are GTG, look into Ubiquiti equipment. The new AC line is out so one could setup a fairly simple AP/Subscriber system and at 1100 feet that's fully capable of a full speed link (even running a fairly low power). You'll need a router at site 2 (assuming site 1 has a router using NAT) that has the ability to turn NAT off (Mikrotik has NAT off from default). For the AP, subscriber and and secondary router to a static IP on the main site's subnet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2016 4:25:58 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess the fact I have a 19 mile 5.8 GHz shot running 45 Mbps up and down is a miracle... So if the legalities are GTG, look into Ubiquiti equipment. The new AC line is out so one could setup a fairly simple AP/Subscriber system and at 1100 feet that's fully capable of a full speed link (even running a fairly low power). You'll need a router at site 2 (assuming site 1 has a router using NAT) that has the ability to turn NAT off (Mikrotik has NAT off from default). For the AP, subscriber and and secondary router to a static IP on the main site's subnet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
1100ft is far for wifi, even with a perfectly clear line of sight. With the right equipment it's possible but I wouldn't recommend it. The best solution is running fiber or coax between the buildings. I guess the fact I have a 19 mile 5.8 GHz shot running 45 Mbps up and down is a miracle... So if the legalities are GTG, look into Ubiquiti equipment. The new AC line is out so one could setup a fairly simple AP/Subscriber system and at 1100 feet that's fully capable of a full speed link (even running a fairly low power). You'll need a router at site 2 (assuming site 1 has a router using NAT) that has the ability to turn NAT off (Mikrotik has NAT off from default). For the AP, subscriber and and secondary router to a static IP on the main site's subnet. Ubiquiti is the correct answer outside of ToS issues. I have multiple ubiquiti links across KS that span 30+ miles. This is using multiple meter dishes and 250'-300' towers, but the equipment is capable. The 1100' will be a breeze if you have LOS. You could purchase some of the older airmax equipment for some cost savings, but I would probably get the AC or AClite gear for what you are attempting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2016 5:10:54 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ubiquiti is the correct answer outside of ToS issues. I have multiple ubiquiti links across KS that span 30+ miles. This is using multiple meter dishes and 250'-300' towers, but the equipment is capable. The 1100' will be a breeze if you have LOS. You could purchase some of the older airmax equipment for some cost savings, but I would probably get the AC or AClite gear for what you are attempting. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1100ft is far for wifi, even with a perfectly clear line of sight. With the right equipment it's possible but I wouldn't recommend it. The best solution is running fiber or coax between the buildings. I guess the fact I have a 19 mile 5.8 GHz shot running 45 Mbps up and down is a miracle... So if the legalities are GTG, look into Ubiquiti equipment. The new AC line is out so one could setup a fairly simple AP/Subscriber system and at 1100 feet that's fully capable of a full speed link (even running a fairly low power). You'll need a router at site 2 (assuming site 1 has a router using NAT) that has the ability to turn NAT off (Mikrotik has NAT off from default). For the AP, subscriber and and secondary router to a static IP on the main site's subnet. Ubiquiti is the correct answer outside of ToS issues. I have multiple ubiquiti links across KS that span 30+ miles. This is using multiple meter dishes and 250'-300' towers, but the equipment is capable. The 1100' will be a breeze if you have LOS. You could purchase some of the older airmax equipment for some cost savings, but I would probably get the AC or AClite gear for what you are attempting. Yes, Ubiquity is the answer. I have my ISP service drop 2.1 miles from my place at a local business in town. I'm outside of town where nothing good is available. But with a pair of $80 Ubiquity 5.8Ghz radios I have a wirespeed connection to my ISP. Before any of the TOS! whiners come along... I have a business account with Mediacom and they know exactly what I'm doing. They're more than happy to allow this since otherwise they can't provide me service. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2016 5:20:15 PM EDT
[#11]
Alternative option:
Find a Wireless ISP (WISP) in your area. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2016 6:54:22 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, Ubiquity is the answer. I have my ISP service drop 2.1 miles from my place at a local business in town. I'm outside of town where nothing good is available. But with a pair of $80 Ubiquity 5.8Ghz radios I have a wirespeed connection to my ISP. Before any of the TOS! whiners come along... I have a business account with Mediacom and they know exactly what I'm doing. They're more than happy to allow this since otherwise they can't provide me service. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1100ft is far for wifi, even with a perfectly clear line of sight. With the right equipment it's possible but I wouldn't recommend it. The best solution is running fiber or coax between the buildings. I guess the fact I have a 19 mile 5.8 GHz shot running 45 Mbps up and down is a miracle... So if the legalities are GTG, look into Ubiquiti equipment. The new AC line is out so one could setup a fairly simple AP/Subscriber system and at 1100 feet that's fully capable of a full speed link (even running a fairly low power). You'll need a router at site 2 (assuming site 1 has a router using NAT) that has the ability to turn NAT off (Mikrotik has NAT off from default). For the AP, subscriber and and secondary router to a static IP on the main site's subnet. Ubiquiti is the correct answer outside of ToS issues. I have multiple ubiquiti links across KS that span 30+ miles. This is using multiple meter dishes and 250'-300' towers, but the equipment is capable. The 1100' will be a breeze if you have LOS. You could purchase some of the older airmax equipment for some cost savings, but I would probably get the AC or AClite gear for what you are attempting. Yes, Ubiquity is the answer. I have my ISP service drop 2.1 miles from my place at a local business in town. I'm outside of town where nothing good is available. But with a pair of $80 Ubiquity 5.8Ghz radios I have a wirespeed connection to my ISP. Before any of the TOS! whiners come along... I have a business account with Mediacom and they know exactly what I'm doing. They're more than happy to allow this since otherwise they can't provide me service. Oh so you're doing this correctly and within the bounds of your Terms of Service? Good for you slugger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2016 7:57:01 PM EDT
[#13]
I will also second the Ubiquiti recommendation. I use them for all of my wifi hardware, including remote links for video streams and general wifi access.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2016 10:26:52 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh so you're doing this correctly and within the bounds of your Terms of Service? Good for you slugger. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1100ft is far for wifi, even with a perfectly clear line of sight. With the right equipment it's possible but I wouldn't recommend it. The best solution is running fiber or coax between the buildings. I guess the fact I have a 19 mile 5.8 GHz shot running 45 Mbps up and down is a miracle... So if the legalities are GTG, look into Ubiquiti equipment. The new AC line is out so one could setup a fairly simple AP/Subscriber system and at 1100 feet that's fully capable of a full speed link (even running a fairly low power). You'll need a router at site 2 (assuming site 1 has a router using NAT) that has the ability to turn NAT off (Mikrotik has NAT off from default). For the AP, subscriber and and secondary router to a static IP on the main site's subnet. Ubiquiti is the correct answer outside of ToS issues. I have multiple ubiquiti links across KS that span 30+ miles. This is using multiple meter dishes and 250'-300' towers, but the equipment is capable. The 1100' will be a breeze if you have LOS. You could purchase some of the older airmax equipment for some cost savings, but I would probably get the AC or AClite gear for what you are attempting. Yes, Ubiquity is the answer. I have my ISP service drop 2.1 miles from my place at a local business in town. I'm outside of town where nothing good is available. But with a pair of $80 Ubiquity 5.8Ghz radios I have a wirespeed connection to my ISP. Before any of the TOS! whiners come along... I have a business account with Mediacom and they know exactly what I'm doing. They're more than happy to allow this since otherwise they can't provide me service. Oh so you're doing this correctly and within the bounds of your Terms of Service? Good for you slugger. I was upfront when I ordered the service. They have another business customer in the same building as my point of connection. Their only condition was that I would be a business account a not a lower priced residential customer. I was fine with that since I *am* a business customer. With that I get guaranteed bandwidth, faster 24/7 repair service etc. I have a fixed IP address, can run servers on the connection etc. These are all common things for business customers to want to do. It's people trying to do it on the cheap and claiming they're residential users that get into problems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2016 10:39:57 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was upfront when I ordered the service. They have another business customer in the same building as my point of connection. Their only condition was that I would be a business account a not a lower priced residential customer. I was fine with that since I *am* a business customer. With that I get guaranteed bandwidth, faster 24/7 repair service etc. I have a fixed IP address, can run servers on the connection etc. These are all common things for business customers to want to do. It's people trying to do it on the cheap and claiming they're residential users that get into problems. +1 I run a business connection at my home, and I do it for exactly those reasons. I need my connection to do far more than the average user, and I'm willing to pay the premium to have it. As it happens, the only account that would provide all that was a business-class account. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2016 10:41:26 PM EDT
[#16]
this is easy. get a pair of ubiquiti powerbeams, or powerbeam acs if you need higher speed. once you have them installed it will take you about 20 minutes to have them up and running
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2016 11:08:47 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Absolutely, it's spelled clearly in ToS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2016 12:03:34 AM EDT
[#18]
Ubiquiti makes a product to do that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2016 11:37:40 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ubiquiti is the correct answer outside of ToS issues. I have multiple ubiquiti links across KS that span 30+ miles. This is using multiple meter dishes and 250'-300' towers, but the equipment is capable. The 1100' will be a breeze if you have LOS. You could purchase some of the older airmax equipment for some cost savings, but I would probably get the AC or AClite gear for what you are attempting. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1100ft is far for wifi, even with a perfectly clear line of sight. With the right equipment it's possible but I wouldn't recommend it. The best solution is running fiber or coax between the buildings. I guess the fact I have a 19 mile 5.8 GHz shot running 45 Mbps up and down is a miracle... So if the legalities are GTG, look into Ubiquiti equipment. The new AC line is out so one could setup a fairly simple AP/Subscriber system and at 1100 feet that's fully capable of a full speed link (even running a fairly low power). You'll need a router at site 2 (assuming site 1 has a router using NAT) that has the ability to turn NAT off (Mikrotik has NAT off from default). For the AP, subscriber and and secondary router to a static IP on the main site's subnet. Ubiquiti is the correct answer outside of ToS issues. I have multiple ubiquiti links across KS that span 30+ miles. This is using multiple meter dishes and 250'-300' towers, but the equipment is capable. The 1100' will be a breeze if you have LOS. You could purchase some of the older airmax equipment for some cost savings, but I would probably get the AC or AClite gear for what you are attempting. I think Cambium makes a far better product (metal housing, IS rated, etc) but for less than 1/4 the price of many Cambium products Ubiquiti is hard to beat. Depending on the budget there are several different options. The LiteBeam products are fairly inexpensive (though only 27 dBm on the TX side versus the full 30 dBm of stuff such as Rockets and Nanostations) so there is 3 dB less in the link budget for the longer shots (4+ miles). What I would recommend is a Rocket AC on an RF Products sector (they have some small/compact waveguide style sectors ranging from 30-90 degrees) and building accordingly for the AP and a LiteBeam AC. However, twin LiteBeam ACs will also work as an initial setup (with the one being used as an AP being migrated to a secondary site as a subscriber later on) and likely cost less. Though I don't like them due to the lack of the full spectrum, the LiteBeam series has some interesting features and I did have a 7 mile link running on a M series LiteBeam (now it's running on a Nanostation LOCO a whopping 0.5 miles on a DFS channel) and it did okay. I hear the AC series radios are actually supposed to have some adjacent channel rejection on them but we haven't begun migrating due to the lack of full spectrum support yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2016 12:13:00 PM EDT
[#20]
You can't even compare the ubiquiti products to the cambiums. We have some cambium ptp 650s installed in some conditions that require antenna diversity and they perform extremely well. These are usually on 30+ mile links though. I also wouldn't compare an ~$6k link cost to ubiquiti's >$1k link cost (probably more like >$500 link cost).
The cambiums are fine radios, but they don't belong as an option in this discussion (less than 1100ft). |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2016 3:23:48 PM EDT
[#21]
To all the helpful people that answered my questions, thank you. I will look into the recommendations.
To the others, no-thanks for the useless answers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
This would be a violation of the terms of service for the ISP. Quote HistoryQuoted:
This would be a violation of the terms of service for the ISP. Make assumptions much? How do you know the terms of service? If his business office is currently located at the home, and the internet is currently behind paid for by the business but he wants to get the office moved to the business and just shoot the internet through the air to where the business is actually located, how the hell can you determine that would be a TOS violation without actually reading his TOS? 
Quoted:
Alternative option: Find a Wireless ISP (WISP) in your area. Short story: there are valid reasons for not choosing a wireless ISP. Long store: Wireless ISP's have been available in his area for years, there is a reason he never switched to them; they couldn't provide reliable, speedy service, at a cost he was ok with. The fiber optic line just got put in a couple years ago and he finally got fed up with his DSL provider enough that he told them to stuff it. Only problem with that is that he couldn't get the fiber at the business so he got it at home and wants to get the signal to the business. Lets do some comparison: Wireless: 5 mb max speed at a cost of $80 per month, has bandwidth limits Fiberoptic: 100 mb max speed at a cost of $60 per month, no bandwidth limit (dad has the "40 for 40" speed, 40 mb for $40/mo) No comparison between the 2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2016 3:33:19 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lets do some comparison: Wireless: 5 mb max speed at a cost of $80 per month, has bandwidth limits Fiberoptic: 100 mb max speed at a cost of $60 per month, no bandwidth limit (dad has the "40 for 40" speed, 40 mb for $40/mo) No comparison between the 2. I think you're thinking Wireless as in 4g or LTE cellular service. Wireless ISP is completely different. And essentially does what you're trying to do except as a service provider. Also, I think you're saying bandwidth when you really mean data caps. Finally - if your dad does have a residential plan (and he most assuredly does if he is only paying $40 / month) And if he is getting it from one of the big 3 "fiber to the home" providers then it is almost a certainty shooting wireless to another premises (address) is against the TOS. You should double check to be sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2016 4:13:28 PM EDT
[#23]
EDIT Doubletap during the server up/downs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2016 4:14:55 PM EDT
[#24]
.... That is the longest double tap hang fire I have seen on ARFCOM.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2016 7:54:42 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think you're thinking Wireless as in 4g or LTE cellular service. Wireless ISP is completely different. And essentially does what you're trying to do except as a service provider. Also, I think you're saying bandwidth when you really mean data caps. Finally - if your dad does have a residential plan (and he most assuredly does if he is only paying $40 / month) And if he is getting it from one of the big 3 "fiber to the home" providers then it is almost a certainty shooting wireless to another premises (address) is against the TOS. You should double check to be sure. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Lets do some comparison: Wireless: 5 mb max speed at a cost of $80 per month, has bandwidth limits Fiberoptic: 100 mb max speed at a cost of $60 per month, no bandwidth limit (dad has the "40 for 40" speed, 40 mb for $40/mo) No comparison between the 2. I think you're thinking Wireless as in 4g or LTE cellular service. Wireless ISP is completely different. And essentially does what you're trying to do except as a service provider. Also, I think you're saying bandwidth when you really mean data caps. Finally - if your dad does have a residential plan (and he most assuredly does if he is only paying $40 / month) And if he is getting it from one of the big 3 "fiber to the home" providers then it is almost a certainty shooting wireless to another premises (address) is against the TOS. You should double check to be sure. I'm very much aware of what wireless ISP is. That is the rate in his locale. You're right on the data cap thing. Finally, it's not one of the big 3 fiber providers, it's a small start-up company and he has checked into this thoroughly with them, the ISP stated that what he wants to do is not a problem, they've even pointed him to a local business that will set it all up for him. That business came out and gave an estimate of $8500 to set it up. I think they are just trying to take advantage of him because he doesn't know anything about wireless networks other than the fact that they work and that is what he wants/needs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2016 10:36:26 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm very much aware of what wireless ISP is. That is the rate in his locale. You're right on the data cap thing. Finally, it's not one of the big 3 fiber providers, it's a small start-up company and he has checked into this thoroughly with them, the ISP stated that what he wants to do is not a problem, they've even pointed him to a local business that will set it all up for him. That business came out and gave an estimate of $8500 to set it up. I think they are just trying to take advantage of him because he doesn't know anything about wireless networks other than the fact that they work and that is what he wants/needs.Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lets do some comparison: Wireless: 5 mb max speed at a cost of $80 per month, has bandwidth limits Fiberoptic: 100 mb max speed at a cost of $60 per month, no bandwidth limit (dad has the "40 for 40" speed, 40 mb for $40/mo) No comparison between the 2. I think you're thinking Wireless as in 4g or LTE cellular service. Wireless ISP is completely different. And essentially does what you're trying to do except as a service provider. Also, I think you're saying bandwidth when you really mean data caps. Finally - if your dad does have a residential plan (and he most assuredly does if he is only paying $40 / month) And if he is getting it from one of the big 3 "fiber to the home" providers then it is almost a certainty shooting wireless to another premises (address) is against the TOS. You should double check to be sure. I'm very much aware of what wireless ISP is. That is the rate in his locale. You're right on the data cap thing. Finally, it's not one of the big 3 fiber providers, it's a small start-up company and he has checked into this thoroughly with them, the ISP stated that what he wants to do is not a problem, they've even pointed him to a local business that will set it all up for him. That business came out and gave an estimate of $8500 to set it up. I think they are just trying to take advantage of him because he doesn't know anything about wireless networks other than the fact that they work and that is what he wants/needs.That's a decent price. The techs I would send to do this bill at $150/hour, and they'll install a pair of masts too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 3:50:25 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's a decent price. The techs I would send to do this bill at $150/hour, and they'll install a pair of masts too. Maybe decent for high-end equipment and longer distances but $8500 to get it 1100 feet? Appears to me that a Ubiquiti NanoBeam (thanks to those that recommended the Ubiquiti products) will cover this quite well at ~$140 for 2 of them plus a little install time and a little network/setup on my part. I can't see how this could possibly be more than a 2-3 hour job for somebody that knows what they are doing. And yes, I do realize that a business has to make a profit, and I have no problems with them making a profit. And no I don't know what equipment they were planning to use. That being said, if their price is out of line then I have the right to explore alternatives and either A) find a better, cheaper option or B) find out that maybe their price wasn't out of line and go crawling back to them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 4:19:06 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe decent for high-end equipment and longer distances but $8500 to get it 1100 feet? Appears to me that a Ubiquiti NanoBeam (thanks to those that recommended the Ubiquiti products) will cover this quite well at ~$140 for 2 of them plus a little install time and a little network/setup on my part. I can't see how this could possibly be more than a 2-3 hour job for somebody that knows what they are doing. And yes, I do realize that a business has to make a profit, and I have no problems with them making a profit. And no I don't know what equipment they were planning to use. That being said, if their price is out of line then I have the right to explore alternatives and either A) find a better, cheaper option or B) find out that maybe their price wasn't out of line and go crawling back to them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's a decent price. The techs I would send to do this bill at $150/hour, and they'll install a pair of masts too. Maybe decent for high-end equipment and longer distances but $8500 to get it 1100 feet? Appears to me that a Ubiquiti NanoBeam (thanks to those that recommended the Ubiquiti products) will cover this quite well at ~$140 for 2 of them plus a little install time and a little network/setup on my part. I can't see how this could possibly be more than a 2-3 hour job for somebody that knows what they are doing. And yes, I do realize that a business has to make a profit, and I have no problems with them making a profit. And no I don't know what equipment they were planning to use. That being said, if their price is out of line then I have the right to explore alternatives and either A) find a better, cheaper option or B) find out that maybe their price wasn't out of line and go crawling back to them. That's for a pair of NanoBeams and a couple of masts and some direct bury cat-5. Tech time is expensive, these are smart guys and they're well compensated for it. $8500 is bottom dollar, if this were business critical we'd be talking about $30-50k for Trango licensed links or running buried conduit for multi-mode fiber. You could probably muddle your way through putting up some masts, and getting cable buried which would save you some billable time so the techs would just have to install and aim the bridge. Long story short, that price is not out of line and you would be wise to remember this adage: Good, Fast, Cheap. You can only pick two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 6:10:50 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's for a pair of NanoBeams and a couple of masts and some direct bury cat-5. Tech time is expensive, these are smart guys and they're well compensated for it. $8500 is bottom dollar, if this were business critical we'd be talking about $30-50k for Trango licensed links or running buried conduit for multi-mode fiber. You could probably muddle your way through putting up some masts, and getting cable buried which would save you some billable time so the techs would just have to install and aim the bridge. Long story short, that price is not out of line and you would be wise to remember this adage: Good, Fast, Cheap. You can only pick two. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's a decent price. The techs I would send to do this bill at $150/hour, and they'll install a pair of masts too. Maybe decent for high-end equipment and longer distances but $8500 to get it 1100 feet? Appears to me that a Ubiquiti NanoBeam (thanks to those that recommended the Ubiquiti products) will cover this quite well at ~$140 for 2 of them plus a little install time and a little network/setup on my part. I can't see how this could possibly be more than a 2-3 hour job for somebody that knows what they are doing. And yes, I do realize that a business has to make a profit, and I have no problems with them making a profit. And no I don't know what equipment they were planning to use. That being said, if their price is out of line then I have the right to explore alternatives and either A) find a better, cheaper option or B) find out that maybe their price wasn't out of line and go crawling back to them. That's for a pair of NanoBeams and a couple of masts and some direct bury cat-5. Tech time is expensive, these are smart guys and they're well compensated for it. $8500 is bottom dollar, if this were business critical we'd be talking about $30-50k for Trango licensed links or running buried conduit for multi-mode fiber. You could probably muddle your way through putting up some masts, and getting cable buried which would save you some billable time so the techs would just have to install and aim the bridge. Long story short, that price is not out of line and you would be wise to remember this adage: Good, Fast, Cheap. You can only pick two. I've yet to play with the Trangos. Most of the licensed usage near me currently uses GE MDS for 3.65 GHz or Aviat for 10 GHz. Then again, Ubiquiti's Air Fiber does run $1200 per side for the radio hardware...it's still unlicensed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 7:01:10 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've yet to play with the Trangos. Most of the licensed usage near me currently uses GE MDS for 3.65 GHz or Aviat for 10 GHz. Then again, Ubiquiti's Air Fiber does run $1200 per side for the radio hardware...it's still unlicensed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's a decent price. The techs I would send to do this bill at $150/hour, and they'll install a pair of masts too. Maybe decent for high-end equipment and longer distances but $8500 to get it 1100 feet? Appears to me that a Ubiquiti NanoBeam (thanks to those that recommended the Ubiquiti products) will cover this quite well at ~$140 for 2 of them plus a little install time and a little network/setup on my part. I can't see how this could possibly be more than a 2-3 hour job for somebody that knows what they are doing. And yes, I do realize that a business has to make a profit, and I have no problems with them making a profit. And no I don't know what equipment they were planning to use. That being said, if their price is out of line then I have the right to explore alternatives and either A) find a better, cheaper option or B) find out that maybe their price wasn't out of line and go crawling back to them. That's for a pair of NanoBeams and a couple of masts and some direct bury cat-5. Tech time is expensive, these are smart guys and they're well compensated for it. $8500 is bottom dollar, if this were business critical we'd be talking about $30-50k for Trango licensed links or running buried conduit for multi-mode fiber. You could probably muddle your way through putting up some masts, and getting cable buried which would save you some billable time so the techs would just have to install and aim the bridge. Long story short, that price is not out of line and you would be wise to remember this adage: Good, Fast, Cheap. You can only pick two. I've yet to play with the Trangos. Most of the licensed usage near me currently uses GE MDS for 3.65 GHz or Aviat for 10 GHz. Then again, Ubiquiti's Air Fiber does run $1200 per side for the radio hardware...it's still unlicensed. We've deployed a lot of those, they work really great for short shots with high bandwidth. Reeeaaaalllly susceptible to weather interference, especially heavy snow. This is of course the 24Ghz stuff, we've not done much with the 5Ghz; which I expect to be less prone to interference from weather (but more from everything else going up in 5Ghz). Their MIMO stuff looks.....interesting. We never ever ever EVER do anything unlicensed that has an SLA on it though, because if we're charging way more to make sure it works, we make sure no one can fuck with us in the spectrum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 7:24:22 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe decent for high-end equipment and longer distances but $8500 to get it 1100 feet? Appears to me that a Ubiquiti NanoBeam (thanks to those that recommended the Ubiquiti products) will cover this quite well at ~$140 for 2 of them plus a little install time and a little network/setup on my part. I can't see how this could possibly be more than a 2-3 hour job for somebody that knows what they are doing. And yes, I do realize that a business has to make a profit, and I have no problems with them making a profit. And no I don't know what equipment they were planning to use. That being said, if their price is out of line then I have the right to explore alternatives and either A) find a better, cheaper option or B) find out that maybe their price wasn't out of line and go crawling back to them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's a decent price. The techs I would send to do this bill at $150/hour, and they'll install a pair of masts too. Maybe decent for high-end equipment and longer distances but $8500 to get it 1100 feet? Appears to me that a Ubiquiti NanoBeam (thanks to those that recommended the Ubiquiti products) will cover this quite well at ~$140 for 2 of them plus a little install time and a little network/setup on my part. I can't see how this could possibly be more than a 2-3 hour job for somebody that knows what they are doing. And yes, I do realize that a business has to make a profit, and I have no problems with them making a profit. And no I don't know what equipment they were planning to use. That being said, if their price is out of line then I have the right to explore alternatives and either A) find a better, cheaper option or B) find out that maybe their price wasn't out of line and go crawling back to them. So I wandered down to the field techs and showed them this post. Stuff that's involved, and they tried real hard to see how cheap they could go: -Conduit -Gel filled cable -Enclosure for PoE -Termination stuff -Mast materials -half ass tower base (they wanted to fill a 40gal drum with concrete and just stick a pole in it) -radios (they looked in the spares pile to sell to you at refurb prices, you'd have a choice between Mikrotik, Cambium, Canopy, and Ubiquiti and they said they'd throw in the reflectors) -Bucket Truck time (can't aim a radio on the ground) -Labor time They would need to survey, maybe clear some tree limbs, hard to say. If you laid the conduit on the ground rather than trenching it, and promised to never ever tell any building inspectors that they built a radio mast out of concrete, some steel pipe, and a 40gal drum, and paid straight up cash under the table. They could get the whole thing done in 6 hours for around $9k with the understanding that if anything goes wrong that you're totally on your own, this never happened, and they don't know you. Doing this shit above board with properly build masts up to code with building permits and the works? A hell of a lot more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 9:44:01 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We've deployed a lot of those, they work really great for short shots with high bandwidth. Reeeaaaalllly susceptible to weather interference, especially heavy snow. This is of course the 24Ghz stuff, we've not done much with the 5Ghz; which I expect to be less prone to interference from weather (but more from everything else going up in 5Ghz). Their MIMO stuff looks.....interesting. We never ever ever EVER do anything unlicensed that has an SLA on it though, because if we're charging way more to make sure it works, we make sure no one can fuck with us in the spectrum. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's a decent price. The techs I would send to do this bill at $150/hour, and they'll install a pair of masts too. Maybe decent for high-end equipment and longer distances but $8500 to get it 1100 feet? Appears to me that a Ubiquiti NanoBeam (thanks to those that recommended the Ubiquiti products) will cover this quite well at ~$140 for 2 of them plus a little install time and a little network/setup on my part. I can't see how this could possibly be more than a 2-3 hour job for somebody that knows what they are doing. And yes, I do realize that a business has to make a profit, and I have no problems with them making a profit. And no I don't know what equipment they were planning to use. That being said, if their price is out of line then I have the right to explore alternatives and either A) find a better, cheaper option or B) find out that maybe their price wasn't out of line and go crawling back to them. That's for a pair of NanoBeams and a couple of masts and some direct bury cat-5. Tech time is expensive, these are smart guys and they're well compensated for it. $8500 is bottom dollar, if this were business critical we'd be talking about $30-50k for Trango licensed links or running buried conduit for multi-mode fiber. You could probably muddle your way through putting up some masts, and getting cable buried which would save you some billable time so the techs would just have to install and aim the bridge. Long story short, that price is not out of line and you would be wise to remember this adage: Good, Fast, Cheap. You can only pick two. I've yet to play with the Trangos. Most of the licensed usage near me currently uses GE MDS for 3.65 GHz or Aviat for 10 GHz. Then again, Ubiquiti's Air Fiber does run $1200 per side for the radio hardware...it's still unlicensed. We've deployed a lot of those, they work really great for short shots with high bandwidth. Reeeaaaalllly susceptible to weather interference, especially heavy snow. This is of course the 24Ghz stuff, we've not done much with the 5Ghz; which I expect to be less prone to interference from weather (but more from everything else going up in 5Ghz). Their MIMO stuff looks.....interesting. We never ever ever EVER do anything unlicensed that has an SLA on it though, because if we're charging way more to make sure it works, we make sure no one can fuck with us in the spectrum. Haven't played with them yet. We were looking at options for a 12 mile gigabit shot...dust storms are the common issue we have to work around. Anyway back to topic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2016 12:55:24 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Haven't played with them yet. We were looking at options for a 12 mile gigabit shot...dust storms are the common issue we have to work around. Anyway back to topic. 12 miles? You'll likely get 650-750Mbps best case, with precipitation fade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2016 12:31:53 PM EDT
[#34]
I used an Engenius 5ghz bridge kit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 4:41:10 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
12 miles? You'll likely get 650-750Mbps best case, with precipitation fade. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Haven't played with them yet. We were looking at options for a 12 mile gigabit shot...dust storms are the common issue we have to work around. Anyway back to topic. 12 miles? You'll likely get 650-750Mbps best case, with precipitation fade. Debate is between 10 GHz licensed or a unlicensed 24 GHz setup. Of course, we don't have anything in those areas to begin with so couldn't tell you what the noise floor actually is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2016 4:12:39 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Debate is between 10 GHz licensed or a unlicensed 24 GHz setup. Of course, we don't have anything in those areas to begin with so couldn't tell you what the noise floor actually is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Haven't played with them yet. We were looking at options for a 12 mile gigabit shot...dust storms are the common issue we have to work around. Anyway back to topic. 12 miles? You'll likely get 650-750Mbps best case, with precipitation fade. Debate is between 10 GHz licensed or a unlicensed 24 GHz setup. Of course, we don't have anything in those areas to begin with so couldn't tell you what the noise floor actually is. My understanding of the 24Ghz setup would say no way on a 12 mile shot. We have some Dragonwave licensed links that run in the 11Ghz that have worked well for us in that range though. Ours are currently only licensed for 10Mb, I am sure they have something closer to 1Gb though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2016 9:00:47 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My understanding of the 24Ghz setup would say no way on a 12 mile shot. We have some Dragonwave licensed links that run in the 11Ghz that have worked well for us in that range though. Ours are currently only licensed for 10Mb, I am sure they have something closer to 1Gb though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Haven't played with them yet. We were looking at options for a 12 mile gigabit shot...dust storms are the common issue we have to work around. Anyway back to topic. 12 miles? You'll likely get 650-750Mbps best case, with precipitation fade. Debate is between 10 GHz licensed or a unlicensed 24 GHz setup. Of course, we don't have anything in those areas to begin with so couldn't tell you what the noise floor actually is. My understanding of the 24Ghz setup would say no way on a 12 mile shot. We have some Dragonwave licensed links that run in the 11Ghz that have worked well for us in that range though. Ours are currently only licensed for 10Mb, I am sure they have something closer to 1Gb though. We recently found some of the backhaul stuff that is available on 3.65 (as we have 3.65 licenses) and have been considering retrofitting some of our poorly performing Rocket 365's to better 365 backhauls as the 5 GHz backhauls we have now take a lot of work around (luckily no one else has discovered UNII-2 in the congested areas) to get around some of the 5 GHz capable routers. Currently we don't have anyway to achieve achieve gigabit connections at the master as we only have 150 Mbps service (paralleled through 2 ISPs) but we are looking toward the arrival of a fiber connection. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 2:22:38 PM EDT
[#38]
If it is the same property, maybe just lay down some fiber optic cable? 1,000' should be under $350, so go from there. (direct bury I am sure would be more)
I have had the wireless bridge between 2 properties, and I would much rather have a direct link. True this was years ago, but we put up towers on each side, and I was never really happy with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2016 12:37:46 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it is the same property, maybe just lay down some fiber optic cable? 1,000' should be under $350, so go from there. (direct bury I am sure would be more) I have had the wireless bridge between 2 properties, and I would much rather have a direct link. True this was years ago, but we put up towers on each side, and I was never really happy with it. Things have come a long way. The system I work on regularly started out as a Motorola RNet BBS (1200 buad), moved into a first generation Motorola Canopy system (10 Mbps max) and then a Ubiquiti M series 802.11n system. I just put up an 11 mile link (literally yesterday) that's pulling 104 Mbps on a 20 MHz wide channel (radio to radio). Still, 35 Mbps 30 miles away from a 100 Mbps ISP connection isn't bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2016 9:48:12 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it is the same property, maybe just lay down some fiber optic cable? 1,000' should be under $350, so go from there. (direct bury I am sure would be more) I have had the wireless bridge between 2 properties, and I would much rather have a direct link. True this was years ago, but we put up towers on each side, and I was never really happy with it. Just wanted to update this thread. I work with a guy that is a partner in a local wireless ISP. He put me in touch with his brother (the brains of the operation). He recommended Ubiquiti Nanostation M2's. That is what they use for their ISP and are easily getting 5 miles even through some trees. He is getting 1.5 miles from the 90' tower to his house and that goes over a rise through trees. I'm thinking 1200 feet is a piece of cake for these, at a cost of $170 for a pair it seems like a no-brainer. He did recommend reducing the channel width to 10 Mhz (or less even) which would increase the power spectral density giving it the ability to better "punch through" obstacles. I'm working on getting them all configured this week and I hope to report how well they work by next week. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2016 10:18:57 PM EDT
[#41]
For others reading this thread:
It appears some of you have experience or work with WISPs? In Texas? I have some questions and would appreciate your indulgence to ask them. Probably over IM. /hijack |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2016 12:37:51 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just wanted to update this thread. I work with a guy that is a partner in a local wireless ISP. He put me in touch with his brother (the brains of the operation). He recommended Ubiquiti Nanostation M2's. That is what they use for their ISP and are easily getting 5 miles even through some trees. He is getting 1.5 miles from the 90' tower to his house and that goes over a rise through trees. I'm thinking 1200 feet is a piece of cake for these, at a cost of $170 for a pair it seems like a no-brainer. He did recommend reducing the channel width to 10 Mhz (or less even) which would increase the power spectral density giving it the ability to better "punch through" obstacles. I'm working on getting them all configured this week and I hope to report how well they work by next week. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If it is the same property, maybe just lay down some fiber optic cable? 1,000' should be under $350, so go from there. (direct bury I am sure would be more) I have had the wireless bridge between 2 properties, and I would much rather have a direct link. True this was years ago, but we put up towers on each side, and I was never really happy with it. Just wanted to update this thread. I work with a guy that is a partner in a local wireless ISP. He put me in touch with his brother (the brains of the operation). He recommended Ubiquiti Nanostation M2's. That is what they use for their ISP and are easily getting 5 miles even through some trees. He is getting 1.5 miles from the 90' tower to his house and that goes over a rise through trees. I'm thinking 1200 feet is a piece of cake for these, at a cost of $170 for a pair it seems like a no-brainer. He did recommend reducing the channel width to 10 Mhz (or less even) which would increase the power spectral density giving it the ability to better "punch through" obstacles. I'm working on getting them all configured this week and I hope to report how well they work by next week. I use the ubiquiti stuff to link up remote-sited wireless cameras. The 900MHz M900 locostations will punch through trees pretty well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2016 6:09:10 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I use the ubiquiti stuff to link up remote-sited wireless cameras. The 900MHz M900 locostations will punch through trees pretty well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it is the same property, maybe just lay down some fiber optic cable? 1,000' should be under $350, so go from there. (direct bury I am sure would be more) I have had the wireless bridge between 2 properties, and I would much rather have a direct link. True this was years ago, but we put up towers on each side, and I was never really happy with it. Just wanted to update this thread. I work with a guy that is a partner in a local wireless ISP. He put me in touch with his brother (the brains of the operation). He recommended Ubiquiti Nanostation M2's. That is what they use for their ISP and are easily getting 5 miles even through some trees. He is getting 1.5 miles from the 90' tower to his house and that goes over a rise through trees. I'm thinking 1200 feet is a piece of cake for these, at a cost of $170 for a pair it seems like a no-brainer. He did recommend reducing the channel width to 10 Mhz (or less even) which would increase the power spectral density giving it the ability to better "punch through" obstacles. I'm working on getting them all configured this week and I hope to report how well they work by next week. I use the ubiquiti stuff to link up remote-sited wireless cameras. The 900MHz M900 locostations will punch through trees pretty well. I've never worked with Ubiquite before but I just finished configuring them. Took about an hour (I'm a newb and went slow to be certain I wasn't jacking crap up) and I'm posting through the P2P connection right now (granted the 2 antennas are only about 20 feet apart). As a guy that generally knows just enough to get myself in trouble I'm in love with these. SUPER easy to configure as a P2P bridge and they have a LOT of pro level features at a good price point. It comes with a built in spectrum analyzer. You can use the spectrum analyzer to figure out what part of the band is least crowded and you can change the operating frequency within the band to increase performance. Not that it's an issue for dad as he is out in the middle of nowhere, but for those in town etc that can be very handy. Lots of other features that I don't even understand and I'll just leave alone. At 10 Mhz channel width and 20 feet from antenna to antenna through 2 walls I'm getting 99% performance according to the airview monitor and speed test between the 2 antennas is 20 Mbps down to station and 25 Mbps up to AP (test was run through the station side). I certainly expect some performance degradation once it's installed but not a whole lot. I'll find out sometime in the next week or so (once dad gets the Cat5 cables and antenna mounts installed). |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2016 4:29:13 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For others reading this thread: It appears some of you have experience or work with WISPs? In Texas? I have some questions and would appreciate your indulgence to ask them. Probably over IM. /hijack Feel free to PM me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2016 4:39:43 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I use the ubiquiti stuff to link up remote-sited wireless cameras. The 900MHz M900 locostations will punch through trees pretty well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it is the same property, maybe just lay down some fiber optic cable? 1,000' should be under $350, so go from there. (direct bury I am sure would be more) I have had the wireless bridge between 2 properties, and I would much rather have a direct link. True this was years ago, but we put up towers on each side, and I was never really happy with it. Just wanted to update this thread. I work with a guy that is a partner in a local wireless ISP. He put me in touch with his brother (the brains of the operation). He recommended Ubiquiti Nanostation M2's. That is what they use for their ISP and are easily getting 5 miles even through some trees. He is getting 1.5 miles from the 90' tower to his house and that goes over a rise through trees. I'm thinking 1200 feet is a piece of cake for these, at a cost of $170 for a pair it seems like a no-brainer. He did recommend reducing the channel width to 10 Mhz (or less even) which would increase the power spectral density giving it the ability to better "punch through" obstacles. I'm working on getting them all configured this week and I hope to report how well they work by next week. I use the ubiquiti stuff to link up remote-sited wireless cameras. The 900MHz M900 locostations will punch through trees pretty well. Personally I'd use the Nanostation M5s. M2's work (I have a M2 LOCO at home) but there are some things one needs to understand about how wifi works. M series radios run on 802.11n. Maximum bandwidth you will get on a 802.11n radio (with 20+ db SNR) is about 300 Mbps on a 40 MHz wide channel, 150 Mbps on a 20 MHz wide channel, 75 Mbps on a 10 MHz wide channel. Everyone has a 2.4 GHz radio in their routers and 98% of them are going to be running 40 MHz wide channels (so there's noise in any residential situation). Not everyone has 5 GHz gear up and Nanostation M series and Rocket M series will run 5.1 GHz all the way to 5.8 GHz (that's a lot of 10 or 20 MHz wide channels). Not to mention, on 2.4...it's a little inconsiderate to run high erp levels in other areas as it causes creates everyone else's 2.4 GHz radios on their routers degrading their performance (which in turn interfere's with you as their AP's try to get the subscribers you stepped on to re-associate). |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2016 4:53:17 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Personally I'd use the Nanostation M5s. M2's work (I have a M2 LOCO at home) but there are some things one needs to understand about how wifi works. M series radios run on 802.11n. Maximum bandwidth you will get on a 802.11n radio (with 20+ db SNR) is about 300 Mbps on a 40 MHz wide channel, 150 Mbps on a 20 MHz wide channel, 75 Mbps on a 10 MHz wide channel. Everyone has a 2.4 GHz radio in their routers and 98% of them are going to be running 40 MHz wide channels (so there's noise in any residential situation). Not everyone has 5 GHz gear up and Nanostation M series and Rocket M series will run 5.1 GHz all the way to 5.8 GHz (that's a lot of 10 or 20 MHz wide channels). Not to mention, on 2.4...it's a little inconsiderate to run high erp levels in other areas as it causes creates everyone else's 2.4 GHz radios on their routers degrading their performance (which in turn interfere's with you as their AP's try to get the subscribers you stepped on to re-associate). The tighter Fresnel Zone with 5GHz+ radios can help with punch a signal out between trees, but the lower-frequency 900MHz bridges are superior for going through foliage. I just put up a link through several hundred yards of dense pines and oaks, and used 900MHz ubiquiti hardware. Full signal strength. I haven't had nearly that kind of luck with 5GHz. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2016 7:33:25 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The tighter Fresnel Zone with 5GHz+ radios can help with punch a signal out between trees, but the lower-frequency 900MHz bridges are superior for going through foliage. I just put up a link through several hundred yards of dense pines and oaks, and used 900MHz ubiquiti hardware. Full signal strength. I haven't had nearly that kind of luck with 5GHz. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Personally I'd use the Nanostation M5s. M2's work (I have a M2 LOCO at home) but there are some things one needs to understand about how wifi works. M series radios run on 802.11n. Maximum bandwidth you will get on a 802.11n radio (with 20+ db SNR) is about 300 Mbps on a 40 MHz wide channel, 150 Mbps on a 20 MHz wide channel, 75 Mbps on a 10 MHz wide channel. Everyone has a 2.4 GHz radio in their routers and 98% of them are going to be running 40 MHz wide channels (so there's noise in any residential situation). Not everyone has 5 GHz gear up and Nanostation M series and Rocket M series will run 5.1 GHz all the way to 5.8 GHz (that's a lot of 10 or 20 MHz wide channels). Not to mention, on 2.4...it's a little inconsiderate to run high erp levels in other areas as it causes creates everyone else's 2.4 GHz radios on their routers degrading their performance (which in turn interfere's with you as their AP's try to get the subscribers you stepped on to re-associate). The tighter Fresnel Zone with 5GHz+ radios can help with punch a signal out between trees, but the lower-frequency 900MHz bridges are superior for going through foliage. I just put up a link through several hundred yards of dense pines and oaks, and used 900MHz ubiquiti hardware. Full signal strength. I haven't had nearly that kind of luck with 5GHz. This ^^ Lower frequency is better for going THROUGH foliage etc. I didn't want to drop down to the loco to get the 900 Mhz so I stayed with the standard Mseries and chose 2.4 Ghz. I can understand the concern of "stepping all over people" in some areas but my dad is pretty remote. There are only 4 houses within 2 miles in the direction his antenna will be pointing. Once the antennas get installed I plan to run the spectrum analyzer to see which part of the band is more open and I'll try to keep the signal in that area of the band. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2016 11:08:27 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This ^^ Lower frequency is better for going THROUGH foliage etc. I didn't want to drop down to the loco to get the 900 Mhz so I stayed with the standard Mseries and chose 2.4 Ghz. I can understand the concern of "stepping all over people" in some areas but my dad is pretty remote. There are only 4 houses within 2 miles in the direction his antenna will be pointing. Once the antennas get installed I plan to run the spectrum analyzer to see which part of the band is more open and I'll try to keep the signal in that area of the band. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Personally I'd use the Nanostation M5s. M2's work (I have a M2 LOCO at home) but there are some things one needs to understand about how wifi works. M series radios run on 802.11n. Maximum bandwidth you will get on a 802.11n radio (with 20+ db SNR) is about 300 Mbps on a 40 MHz wide channel, 150 Mbps on a 20 MHz wide channel, 75 Mbps on a 10 MHz wide channel. Everyone has a 2.4 GHz radio in their routers and 98% of them are going to be running 40 MHz wide channels (so there's noise in any residential situation). Not everyone has 5 GHz gear up and Nanostation M series and Rocket M series will run 5.1 GHz all the way to 5.8 GHz (that's a lot of 10 or 20 MHz wide channels). Not to mention, on 2.4...it's a little inconsiderate to run high erp levels in other areas as it causes creates everyone else's 2.4 GHz radios on their routers degrading their performance (which in turn interfere's with you as their AP's try to get the subscribers you stepped on to re-associate). The tighter Fresnel Zone with 5GHz+ radios can help with punch a signal out between trees, but the lower-frequency 900MHz bridges are superior for going through foliage. I just put up a link through several hundred yards of dense pines and oaks, and used 900MHz ubiquiti hardware. Full signal strength. I haven't had nearly that kind of luck with 5GHz. This ^^ Lower frequency is better for going THROUGH foliage etc. I didn't want to drop down to the loco to get the 900 Mhz so I stayed with the standard Mseries and chose 2.4 Ghz. I can understand the concern of "stepping all over people" in some areas but my dad is pretty remote. There are only 4 houses within 2 miles in the direction his antenna will be pointing. Once the antennas get installed I plan to run the spectrum analyzer to see which part of the band is more open and I'll try to keep the signal in that area of the band. Just because he's remote does not mean there isn't stuff to step on. Because it's remote means the use of P2P and P2Multi is actually higher, and you could be causing some poor wireless engineer a massive headache when you're done with this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2016 7:34:08 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just because he's remote does not mean there isn't stuff to step on. Because it's remote means the use of P2P and P2Multi is actually higher, and you could be causing some poor wireless engineer a massive headache when you're done with this. That's my plan: to cause as much headache as possible for the "poor" (likely overpaid) wireless engineer that wanted $8500 to install a $200 system. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2016 12:01:46 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's my plan: to cause as much headache as possible for the "poor" (likely overpaid) wireless engineer that wanted $8500 to install a $200 system. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Just because he's remote does not mean there isn't stuff to step on. Because it's remote means the use of P2P and P2Multi is actually higher, and you could be causing some poor wireless engineer a massive headache when you're done with this. That's my plan: to cause as much headache as possible for the "poor" (likely overpaid) wireless engineer that wanted $8500 to install a $200 system. Well, tell that to the 200 customers that would then have degraded service. Did you pick a clean channel? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
