Interference in Wireless Service Providers

Interference in Wireless Service Providers http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r16137844 en Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:35:02 EDT Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:35:02 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16389755 ghmorris9 :

said by nranieri

:

Jack, I am wondering if you were able to make any headway with Alltell on this issue. Seems we may be in a similar situation. A couple of our longer 5.8 links just got squashed Friday evening. Alltell is on our main tower and they just put up a new one in the area where we are having problems.

The links were solid for several weeks to months and suddenly, they are just gone. Replaced hardware on both ends and have been pulling our hair out trying to figure out what is happening, then remembered this thread.

Any info you have would be greatly appreciated.

What make/model of equipment are you using? Do you have SNR readings or any spectrum analyzer data, either from your radios or from an external spec analyzer? Something that would identify an interference issue, and if so what kind, how much and exactly where in the bands...

Sounds like it may be one of those wonderful WMUX Tsunamis so loved by Telcos everywhere, possibly eating all of 5.8, or if you are really unlucky eating both 5.3 AND 5.8.

More info would be really helpful. Do you have any possibility of running these links on 5.3 for example?

George]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16389755 Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:37:57 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16389585 lutful :

said by jdmarti1

:

I know they have some 5.8Ghz stuff - you might contact Rich and see what he has.

We really should not generalize to 5.8Ghz/900Mhz interference before discussion of the specific problems this WISP is facing.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16389585 Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:14:35 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16389136 jdmarti1 : AS Lutful said we used on the the HighGain amped radios to get the customer up. I know they have some 5.8Ghz stuff - you might contact Rich and see what he has. Seems Alltel is using lot's of un-licensed stuff. I have no problems with that - but the radio's they use tend to take lotsa spectrum, and make it hard to play nice.
--
»magicwisp.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16389136 Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:09:45 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16388527 lutful :

said by nranieri

:

Replaced hardware on both ends and have been pulling our hair out trying to figure out what is happening, then remembered this thread.

In this case Alltel was using 2.4Ghz and the problem was solved using amplified 2.4Ghz radio. :)

Maybe you can start a new thread for your 5.8Ghz problem? You can mention if your link is PtP or PtMP and the RSSI levels before and after suspected Alltel link came up.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16388527 Tue, 27 Jun 2006 15:43:22 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16386156 nranieri : Jack, I am wondering if you were able to make any headway with Alltell on this issue. Seems we may be in a similar situation. A couple of our longer 5.8 links just got squashed Friday evening. Alltell is on our main tower and they just put up a new one in the area where we are having problems.

The links were solid for several weeks to months and suddenly, they are just gone. Replaced hardware on both ends and have been pulling our hair out trying to figure out what is happening, then remembered this thread.

Any info you have would be greatly appreciated.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16386156 Tue, 27 Jun 2006 09:44:06 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16211060 slipstream1 : I know the construction engineer for Texas and Oklahoma from Alltel. I could threaten to stop building cell site for him until he takes care of the problems that he may be causing you. Just a thought. LOL :D]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16211060 Wed, 31 May 2006 22:24:22 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16210134 lutful : Worth a try since you have a CB3 on hand. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16210134 Wed, 31 May 2006 20:25:01 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16209030 jdmarti1 : I am wondering if the CB3 would work better. Maybe if I put the filter on it and shoot it towards my ch 1 tower?
--
»magicwisp.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16209030 Wed, 31 May 2006 17:48:20 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16207235 lutful :

said by jdmarti1

:

Lutful are you saying I should try using the CB3?

I do not recommend the CB3 since late 2004 but I have used it for checking noisy RF environments. If a CB3 bridge works out at the tower, you could give customer an indoor router.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16207235 Wed, 31 May 2006 13:36:23 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16207182 rawgerz :

said by superdog

:

You need to keep the power levels low. Sorry, I should have mentioned that. :uhh:

I meant to say that even if he did lower it down to 17dBm with a dish I thought that with the high gain the thermal fade would be pretty high depending on the distance.
--
"Hows your French toast?" "Smelly and ungrateful, but this AMERICAN toast is great!"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16207182 Wed, 31 May 2006 13:30:29 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16207012 jdmarti1 : Lutful are you saying I should try using the CB3? I happen to have one sitting that we used to test with a couple of years ago. If you think that will work - I will get it up in the air.
--
»magicwisp.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16207012 Wed, 31 May 2006 13:08:49 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16206684 lutful : I will follow superdog1 advice and try high gain CPE antenna aimed very well to your own AP.

For radio choices, the receiver design and how low-level firmware calculates background noise level makes a difference in severe interference.

We have used several Realtek RTL818x boards from Ovislink, Abocom and Zinwell with different firmware (including Osbridge) and have seen occasional receiver lock-up and/or damage with high levels of interference.

Surprisingly, the old Senao CB3 receiver (Ubicom/Prism) is very robust and I used to aim them directly at amplified AP in 2003 to estimate TX output before I knew better.

In this situation, the CB3 will report very high signal level but very low signal quality. The numbers are quite useful to evaluate tough CPE sites.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16206684 Wed, 31 May 2006 12:19:56 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16206404 superdog :

said by rawgerz

:

Wouldn't this cause the case where his radio would 'scream' at the AP and 'deafen' it to the other subscribers? Sounds to me like he would need his own AP since the thermal resistance would be so high.

You need to keep the power levels low. Sorry, I should have mentioned that. :uhh:
--
»www.wavecrazy.net Join WISPA today! »www.wispa.org/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16206404 Wed, 31 May 2006 11:36:36 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16206392 jdmarti1 : We never use the max allowed on the CPE side. Just not a requirement. We do have the max allowed on the AP side - that just seems to make sense to me. If I had a very small area I needed to cover - I would only use the amount of power required to get it done. I am not a big believer in spraying RF everywhere. The less RF there is - the better off we all are. I try to be a good neighbor!! I do think there are places where max power can be used, but this isn't one of them. The CPE is not seeing the signal - I could put out 1k watts at the CPE and it wouldn't help it see.
--
»magicwisp.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16206392 Wed, 31 May 2006 11:34:51 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16205864 rawgerz :

said by superdog

:

If I were him, I would get rid of the DLB2300(There is a reason for this, bear with me, I love that radio) and find a card/radio that has a lower receive sensitivity and also get a 24dBi antenna or higher gain, even a dish with a great(Notice I didn't say good) FTB ratio and try installing it at this location.

Wouldn't this cause the case where his radio would 'scream' at the AP and 'deafen' it to the other subscribers? Sounds to me like he would need his own AP since the thermal resistance would be so high.
--
"Hows your French toast?" "Smelly and ungrateful, but this AMERICAN toast is great!"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16205864 Wed, 31 May 2006 09:57:52 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16205828 rawgerz :

said by harmetp

:

The dlb2300 is a good radio, but have you tried another brand not zinwell based like tranzeo or highgain

Highgainantennas does not use Zinwell PCB's, they do sell an OEM Zinwell now though.
--
"Hows your French toast?" "Smelly and ungrateful, but this AMERICAN toast is great!"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16205828 Wed, 31 May 2006 09:52:15 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16205676 superdog :

said by uscomputing

:

Hmm...

I have raging success by installing everything at 100% legal maximum if at all possible. You will likely never have interference problems at legal max. That is what the MAX is for. Use it !

Hopefully Superdog1 will chime in anytime now with a big long lecture about why this should not be done :)

Well, When I first read that paragraph, I had a few thoughts but I decided not to post at that time because I was afraid of starting a war, so I will try and be gentle I guess?. While the FCC has set levels for us to stay at or under, in 90% of the time, power levels that high are just not needed. When trying to make a link, You only EVER need enough gain to make it plus a 10 to 20dB fade margin(Whatever You are comfortable with). Running excessive power levels past what You need just slows down the thruput of Your radios and messes up the spectrum for everyone else. If You are in an area where interference is an issue, isolation is the key. This can be done by using a higher gain antenna and dropping the output of the radio. If I had a choice between using a 12dBi panel and 500mW or using a 24dBi antenna and 50mW, I will choose the latter EVERY TIME, as You will have a better link that is cleaner and has better thruput, as antenna gain is ALWAYS better than radio gain, end of story.
In the situation that Jack is in, the interference seems to be all around him, even though the only source he can find is the cell tower. If I were him, I would get rid of the DLB2300(There is a reason for this, bear with me, I love that radio) and find a card/radio that has a lower receive sensitivity and also get a 24dBi antenna or higher gain, even a dish with a great(Notice I didn't say good) FTB ratio and try installing it at this location. While the receive sensitivity of the DLB2300 is great and it allows You to make links that otherwise wouldn't be possible, it can also hurt You when trying to set something up in an area with a lot of noise. I run Raylink for this reason alone, as the receive sensitivity on these suck(it's like -86 for 2Mb), it works very well in an area where 2 other WISP's are using nothing but FHSS gear EVERYWHERE. I'll bet that funkyfelty use to climb up on his CO's tower and look down to see one of my radios directly under their PoP (I have one customer that when standing on his roof, You could spit on EvenLinks tower :D ) with a 24dBi grid on, and since he knew that I was only shooting a half mile to my PoP, he was probably scratching his head wondering what in the he!! I was doing?. In that situation, they were there first, so I took extra care to make sure that my radio would never interfere with theirs. By swapping polarities, using a high gain antenna and barrel adapters to choke the power down, I was able to get a stable link without going anywhere near maximum power levels, AND they really didn't even know that I was there. This is the correct way to setup a link. Using higher power levels then needed does not help anyone, including Yourself. While I have nothing against SipSizzurp

, I am glad that he is in TX and I am in PA. ;) He is correct in stating that You can legally run the Max EIRP on every link, and if he chooses to do so, that is his prerogative, I guess I am saying that it will never happen on my network.
--
»www.wavecrazy.net Join WISPA today! »www.wispa.org/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16205676 Wed, 31 May 2006 09:30:32 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16205320 harmetp : The dlb2300 is a good radio, but have you tried another brand not zinwell based like tranzeo or highgain - I found that sometimes an old demarc rwv (prism card/ubicom) would work in a situation where the zinwell wouldn't get a link. In my case I was trying to catch a back lobe off a sector antenna temporarily until we changed antenna configurations.

If it gets to the point where nothing will work, hga also has pretty cheap 5.8 radios now and you could setup a ptp ($200/radio).

Hope this helps, Pat

PS: maybe you could get the cell company to use a deliberant radio which plays nicer with your radios?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16205320 Wed, 31 May 2006 08:17:33 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16205246 uscomputing : Hmm...

I have raging success by installing everything at 100% legal maximum if at all possible. You will likely never have interference problems at legal max. That is what the MAX is for. Use it !

Hopefully Superdog1 will chime in anytime now with a big long lecture about why this should not be done :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16205246 Wed, 31 May 2006 07:59:29 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16204490 lutful :

said by jdmarti1

:

the microwave shot goes north from the tower. My customer is south of the tower - but I do have to aim right through it.

Maybe you can post a sketch showing relative positions of the Alltel PtP antennas and your AP and CPE.

If the far end 6ft dish of the Alltel backhaul is pointing within 12 degrees of your customer's CPE - there could still be a lot of signal left. They could even have aligned to a sidelobe with that much power.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16204490 Wed, 31 May 2006 01:25:15 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16204057 jdmarti1 : I use SR2 cards on my AP's and am already at legal max. I really am not too worried about the cell company being at legal limits - honestly. The Adtran specs say the 6k is 500mw - that is 27dB - I am not sure why the folks from Alltel said they were at 29dB at the output, but they measured it, with Adtran on the phone with them. I would assume the radio is +/- 2dB. I actually am happy they use a 6ft monster of a dish, it keeps their shot like a laser beam. So even if they are a little above the limits - I don't think it matters to me to much. My only concern is how to get this one customer back up. This seems really odd to me, because the microwave shot goes north from the tower. My customer is south of the tower - but I do have to aim right through it. It is the only signal I can find that seems to be of any real consequence.
--
»magicwisp.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16204057 Tue, 30 May 2006 23:49:35 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16203412 SipSizzurp :

said by lutful

:

Before thinking FCC violation, it will be best to check 6K series TX power with Adtran directly. Their old 4K series was 100mW only.

Is the OP going to feel any better discovering that it is a 100 Mw signal and not a 1 watt signal that is killing his link ? Is the OP himself at max legal ERP for his antenna ? Maybe it's time to amplify a little ? Maybe like, WAY PAST TIME TO AMPLIFY A LOT ???? You can get half watt amps for well under $100 that work splendidly on 11b or 11g if you so desire. I have raging success by installing everything at 100% legal maximum if at all possible. You will likely never have interference problems at legal max. That is what the MAX is for. Use it ! ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16203412 Tue, 30 May 2006 22:04:52 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16202951 lutful : Before thinking FCC violation, it will be best to check 6K series TX power with Adtran directly. Their old 4K series was 100mW only.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16202951 Tue, 30 May 2006 20:59:03 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16202902 jdmarti1 : I am only saying what I was told. The operations manager was on the phone with Adtran.
--
»magicwisp.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16202902 Tue, 30 May 2006 20:52:03 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16202269 lutful :

said by jdmarti1

:

29db radio

you need to confirm with Adtran if the 6000 series 2.4Ghz models output 29dBm.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16202269 Tue, 30 May 2006 19:11:46 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16202048 jdmarti1 : From the Telex site:
"According to FCC regulations, 2.4 GHz Part 15.247 point-to-point transmitters may use a 30 dBm transmitter with a 6 dBi antenna. For a 3 dB increase in antenna gain, the transmitter power output must be reduced by 1 dB. Power is measured at the antenna connector, so subtract any cable loss between the amplifier and the antenna. Refer to the following table."

That means that with a 29db radio, and figure a 3db cable loss(from a distance this looks like some serious cable - so I am being nice). That leaves 26db - the max antenna gain would be 18dB. Here is the link:

»www.telex.com/wireless/faq.nsf/c···art%2015
--
»magicwisp.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16202048 Tue, 30 May 2006 18:37:33 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16201693 lutful : They may not be violating FCC PtP rules (53dBm) since 6ft dish is less than 34dBi at 2.4Ghz.

You can mention that you worry about affecting their 2.4Ghz backhaul and point out that 6ft dish at 5.8 Ghz has much higher gain.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16201693 Tue, 30 May 2006 17:41:44 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16201511 jdmarti1 : Has anybody ever went against a cell tower and won somehow?
--
»magicwisp.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16201511 Tue, 30 May 2006 17:10:10 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16201302 lutful : Only if there is no other solution. :)

Edit: Mikrotik supports noise-floor-threshold parameter but says "Below this threshold we agree to transmit" which is confusing me a bit.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16201302 Tue, 30 May 2006 16:30:59 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16201243 jdmarti1 : You are talking about building a CPE based on WILI?
--
»magicwisp.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16201243 Tue, 30 May 2006 16:19:46 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16201211 lutful :

said by jdmarti1

:

Any other ideas?

Hopefully DLB2300 will work out soon. :)

If it does not and you are WILIng, set channels 1 and 11 in the autochannel list (see GUI) - it will measure background RSSI for both channels and choose Ch 1.

I have not tried this but I will setup a field test this weekend.

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16201211 Tue, 30 May 2006 16:15:31 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16199778 jdmarti1 : I spoke to Caleb - there is really no way to adjust the radio sensitivity. He said I could lock the radio to G or a higher Rx rate. I have my entire WISP locked to 11M B so I am not real excited about trying that. Any other ideas? I am running out of thoughts here.
--
»magicwisp.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16199778 Tue, 30 May 2006 12:35:28 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16198733 jdmarti1 : The Wi-Spy doesn't have any sort of external connector, so we can't connect it to the filter. We are using the 4 pole filter for the customer radio. That big spike is with the internal POS antenna in the Wi-Spy
--
»magicwisp.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16198733 Tue, 30 May 2006 09:27:29 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16197955 public :

said by jdmarti1

:

We purchased the filter to put them over on channel 1, coupled it to a 24dbi grid, and a DLB2300. We still cannot see anything!!! I am at a loss here. Does anybody have any ideas?

Can you make a spectrum scan like the one at the start of this thread at the output of the filter?
Are you using the 4 pole or the 8 pole filter?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16197955 Tue, 30 May 2006 02:58:06 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16197478 jdmarti1 : I will have to call Caleb tomorrow and see about the radio settings, I can't find any such setting. You said said it to 50dB? What confounds me is the fact the filter we installed should have yanked 45dB off of the signal - that should pretty much eliminate it - I would think - obviously don't know. I am really at a loss here.
--
»magicwisp.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16197478 Tue, 30 May 2006 00:07:45 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16196949 lutful : Based on WiSpy info, it seems there are interfering signals 30dB above receiver threshold.

Some receiver designs could be continuously trying to decode the preamble. Setting a high threshhold will keep it quiet until the signal exceeds that level at which point it will start its decoding.

Good receiver designs will know that if they detect a much higher signal level in the middle of their current decoding effort that they have to start fresh. See above example from a radio we designed in 2004.

I will also check if the radio receiver still works by testing it somewhere far away from the Adtran - it could have been damaged even if it was brand new.

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16196949 Mon, 29 May 2006 22:38:02 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16196838 jdmarti1 : This radio was brand new - if I could set the Rx threshold - I can't find this as an option in the DLB2300, what will that accomplish? When I do a site survey on the radio it shows nothing. We can see the towers visually, so I am really unsure why we can't get the Ch1 tower to work.
--
»magicwisp.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16196838 Mon, 29 May 2006 22:18:23 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16196758 lutful : Check if radio firmware allows manually setting the receive threshold to 50dBm. Hopefully the receiver has not been damaged already. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16196758 Mon, 29 May 2006 22:05:57 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16196537 jdmarti1 : OK - now I really need some help. I talked to the cell company - Alltel. They went out and verified their equipment (Adtran Tracer 6k). They said they are putting out 29dB at the radio. I still can't imagine they are legal as they have a short cable run, approx 50ft to a 6ft dish!!! They are using the Adtran B2 channel plan, so it looks about right on the spectrum. We decided that we should just move them to the second tower we can see from this customers home. We purchased the filter to put them over on channel 1, coupled it to a 24dbi grid, and a DLB2300. We still cannot see anything!!! I am at a loss here. Does anybody have any ideas?
--
»magicwisp.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16196537 Mon, 29 May 2006 21:33:15 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16151051 public :

said by jdmarti1

:

Has anybody used these?

»hyperlinktech.com/web/bpf24-4xx.php

If I want to use one the filters out everything except CH 1 - which one do I use? Reading the spec sheet - I assume BPF24-401,

Each filter passes 5 channels centered on the specified channel. If your AP is on ch1, then BPF24-401 or BPF24-801 is the correct filter to use.

The other vendor RF Linx uses 8 pole filters rather than 4 poles. These have steeper rejection of adjacent bands.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16151051 Mon, 22 May 2006 20:50:59 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16148511 jdmarti1 : Has anybody used these?

»hyperlinktech.com/web/bpf24-4xx.php

If I want to use one the filters out everything except CH 1 - which one do I use? Reading the spec sheet - I assume BPF24-401, but I want to not screw this up. The customer that is affected came to us from another WISP that was very unreliable (their words not mine). So far they have been great - and I call them daily with updates and information. I want this to work.
--
»magicwisp.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16148511 Mon, 22 May 2006 15:02:34 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16146633 slipstream1 : True, the cellular companies have the resources and spare parts to do 6 gig links everywhere, but the problem is they have to file for that license on a site specific basis. That is the reason the cell companies use 2.4 gig for a stop gap measure until a license comes through or someone raises hell about the link polluting the spectrum. Find the cell company and speak to the tech and the Network Operations Manager. They will take care of it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16146633 Mon, 22 May 2006 09:18:38 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16146133 public :

said by jdmarti1

said by public

:

Well no. The device is on channel 11.
Each 802.11 device uses 5 channels.
You could install a bandpass filter centered in ch5 at the CPE to block the interfering signal.

That is what I was thinking - and wondering about the bandpass filter.

Try something like this:
»www.rflinx.com/products/filters/2400/bpf/
about $150]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16146133 Mon, 22 May 2006 05:06:00 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16145312 polk5 : The cell co has access and the money to use licensed freq. They will not though if they do not have to. After Katrina we took them down with some proxim tsunami radios constantly. Not on purpose of course. :huh: The tech was pulling his hair out for a week. Finally after talking with them a few times they gave up and went licensed at least where our most important links were. We are working with them on the ones that are still up for the most part. I was told that they even tried reflashing their radios to get the most power out of them. Way over legal limits. They couldnt hang with the proxim tsunami though. These bad boys are like cork screws. :D]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16145312 Sun, 21 May 2006 23:43:08 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16141865 cybersank : Hey, I had a situation just like yours a while ago!
I can't remember exactly what it was called but I know it takes a bunch of channels on 2.4 for a 1/4 E1.
I contacted them directly and they kindly changed the polarity of their antennas. You should do the same! ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16141865 Sun, 21 May 2006 12:48:58 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16141664 IntraLink : That's got to be one of those old Western Multiplex radios.
They will crush you for sure.

We had this happen only it was a radio station. We didn't know it at the time because it was unmarked. So we unplugged the offending radio by unscrewing their N connector.

Yeah, they were pissed and threatedened legal action. Then we told them WE would threaten legal action and eventually came to an agreement. They shut down their stuff and used something else.

Most Cell carriers will work with you as the guys who implement the links usually have several options. They could just as easily have a 6GHz link in a shed somewhere they could deploy. Stupid of them to use 2.4GHz anymore anyways.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16141664 Sun, 21 May 2006 12:10:45 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16140970 jdmarti1 :

said by public

:

Well no. The device is on channel 11.
Each 802.11 device uses 5 channels.
You could install a bandpass filter centered in ch5 at the CPE to block the interfering signal.

That is what I was thinking - and wondering about the bandpass filter.
--
»magicwisp.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16140970 Sun, 21 May 2006 09:22:28 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16140546 public :

said by No Man :

Ok;

Jack...

Your interferer is using channel 12 as if it were a legal channel in the USA. His signal on Channel 12 is as strong as it is on Channel 11...

That is illegal...

Mark it down.

Take it to the bank.

-m-

Well no. The device is on channel 11.
Each 802.11 device uses 5 channels.
You could install a bandpass filter centered in ch5 at the CPE to block the interfering signal.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16140546 Sun, 21 May 2006 03:53:34 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16140218 Diddy1 : Somebody awhile back, here, posted a similar issue with a cell provider. They wouldn't cooperate witht the band requirements etc. The individual suggested to just fire away on the frequency to get them to take notice and correct whatever they are doing "against the rules". Can't find the post :(
Aaron]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16140218 Sun, 21 May 2006 01:42:44 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16140201 rawgerz :

said by jdmarti1

:

I took this with the Wi-spy attached to my car antenna

Wi-Spy Spectrum Analyzer: Cons: Doesn't read 5 GHz band, no external antenna support
Did you solder it on?
--
"Hows your French toast?" "Smelly and ungrateful, but this AMERICAN toast is great!"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16140201 Sun, 21 May 2006 01:39:46 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16139811 anon : Ok;

Jack...

Your interferer is using channel 12 as if it were a legal channel in the USA. His signal on Channel 12 is as strong as it is on Channel 11...

That is illegal...

Mark it down.

Take it to the bank.

-m-]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16139811 Sun, 21 May 2006 00:07:59 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16139575 ghmorris9 : Looks like a single-T1 Lynx PtP link running the B2 channel plan. One watt output and -94 receive sensitivity. Its a full duplex unit that makes continuous noise independant of data load. Will completely shut down our kind of equipment.

See page 5:
»www.pulsewan.com/wireless/glenay···x_t1.pdf

George ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16139575 Sat, 20 May 2006 23:24:26 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16139497 Diddy1 : There is one of these radios on a cell tower about 10 miles from me. I can't anything unless I'm right next to it.
Aaron]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16139497 Sat, 20 May 2006 23:10:48 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16139449 jdmarti1 : Ch 12? The offender looks to be centered closer to somewhere between 10 and 11 - but as we all know wi-fi channels overlap. I will say though that the offender cuts a very wide swath. I am wondering why I can't see my tower on ch 1. Somebody will have to back up my conclusion on this - but I am assuming that the power is so broad and intense (and seen as noise) that it is overpowering the front end of the DLB-2300. I am wondering if a filter to block everything except ch 1 would solve my problem (at least let me get this customer back up on another tower).
--
»magicwisp.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16139449 Sat, 20 May 2006 23:03:27 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16139150 anon : Your problem child is operating on channel 12. That is illegal in the USA.

Check the graph. He is at 100% in channel 12.
;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16139150 Sat, 20 May 2006 22:06:53 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16138685 slipstream1 : Most of the cellular companies will work with you. They stand to lose alot of money if they lose the T-1 backhaul they are running on the backhaul. Call them and ask to talk to the network operations manager for that area or try to find one of the cell techs. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16138685 Sat, 20 May 2006 20:22:10 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16138483 rawgerz : Is the red the noise floor? Wow..
I would think the FCC would call the cell phone tower unacceptable.
You might want to migrate to 900Mhz if more customers keep dropping
--
"Hows your French toast?" "Smelly and ungrateful, but this AMERICAN toast is great!"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16138483 Sat, 20 May 2006 19:40:16 EDT Re: Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16138262 ghmorris9 : There are still some T-1 Wmux Lynx radios around at cell sites. If they fire up one, this will guarnteed flatten any connectivity you have along the path of the Lynx.

George]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16138262 Sat, 20 May 2006 18:58:05 EDT Interference http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16137844 jdmarti1 : Has anybody ever seen 2.4G from a cell tower? We had a customer that has been up for over 4 months, and last Friday they just disappeared. I thought maybe the radio had failed, but wasn't sure why - it was a gorgeous sunny day. I called the customer - and they had just got home. I went out to the prem - and logged in, and the radio saw nothing. We replaced the radio with 2 other ones - just to make sure. No change. We even tried a 19dbi grid, same thing. We are using ch-11 for the tower they are on, but have another tower that is on ch-1. We can see neither with the radio. We can visually see the towers from the top of the roof. The distance is 8miles from our tower. We felt like it was interference - so we drove around with Netstumbler and saw another companies AP that we already knew about. It did not appear to awful. We drove 2.5 miles closer to our tower, in the same line as the shot - to a spot where we could see the towers. We held our CPE about 3ft off of the ground, without aiming it, and got -69. We knew it was not the AP nor was it a problem that was on the north side of where we were. I ordered a Wi-spy to see if I could find something. I found something ok. I took this with the Wi-spy attached to my car antenna, and was 50yds from the competetor AP on ch-6, I noticed ch 11 started to spike and drove to the point where it was highest. I looked south directly into a 4 or 5ft dish on a cell tower. I was at least 1/2 to 3/4 mile from the tower. I have attached a picture of the scan. Has anybody experienced this? We are going to go back in the morning and try to verify what I saw. Is there any chance the cell company will work with us to correct it? I may need to rent a real SA to try to get better numbers. Any ideas?
--
»magicwisp.com

Wi-Spy Trace

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16137844 Sat, 20 May 2006 17:32:28 EDT