PtP vs. PtMP and max EIRP in Wireless Service Providers http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r16869508 en Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:20:40 EDT Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:20:40 EDT Re: PtP vs. PtMP and max EIRP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16878233 lutful : It is best to use methods that facilitate fair usage of the spectrum by both parties. They are also effective against DoS attacks. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16878233 Sun, 10 Sep 2006 20:59:48 EDT Re: PtP vs. PtMP and max EIRP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16878089 LLigetfa :
said by lutful See Profile :

LLigetfa, Industry Canada spectrum group do not expect irrefutable proof but they will also not act on mere suspicion.
Only once in my life, back in my teenage years dabbling with MATV, amateur, and CB radio did I ever lodge a complaint with what was then DOC (department of communications). It was over a leaking Ontario Hydro insulator and they drove out 60 miles to investigate it.

I have no intention of performing any sort of DoS against other WISPs regardless how uncooperative they are. In fact, I have no proof of any illegal EIRP, only the hearsay of others that might possibly be trying to get me off their scent. All I know is if I plug in some of the tower coords and specs into RM, some links report as not viable and if I ask for details, I get nothing.

For all I know they could be real nice folks lurking here on this board. ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16878089 Sun, 10 Sep 2006 20:28:49 EDT Re: PtP vs. PtMP and max EIRP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16877722 lutful : LLigetfa, Industry Canada spectrum group do not expect irrefutable proof but they will also not act on mere suspicion.

They will accept even NetStumbler data if it is collected in a careful and methodical way and reasonably supports the illegal EIRP hypothesis. IC will do the rest with their fabulous CRC gizmos.

cmaenginsb, the "802.11 smarts" method to counter such WISPs can also be abused by hackers, so it is best not to discuss the details in public. They exploit standard 802.11 and various 802.11-derived MAC protocols and also the clear channel assessment (CCA) mechanisms in various 802.11 PHYs.

Such methods can be extended to "non-802.11 chipset" radios operating in 900Mhz and 5.8Ghz bands but only a few popular brand of equipment has been fully analyzed thus far.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16877722 Sun, 10 Sep 2006 19:20:57 EDT Re: PtP vs. PtMP and max EIRP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16876841 cmaenginsb : Lutful unless what you are recommending is illegal, why not post the information here for everyone's benefit.

LLigetfa, sounds like you're between a rock and a hard place. I tend to be a bit bullheaded when in those places so my methods are not what I would recommend to others.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16876841 Sun, 10 Sep 2006 16:35:41 EDT Re: PtP vs. PtMP and max EIRP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16876205 LLigetfa :
said by lutful See Profile :

I think you suggested WiSpy placed at the focus of a dish? That will work very well from a distance to capture raw data.
Three problems with that.
1. It is an uncalibrated piece of test equipment and gives unsubstantiated results. Yes, one could personally calibrate it against some known source but still not something you could take to the authorities as irrefutable.
2. It only does the 2.4GHz spectrum. The 5 gig and 900 meg spectrum is not covered.
3. You need to be within the beam of the PtP links some of which are as much as 200 feet high on towers.

It would give some useful info for general 2.4 spectrum use though and a general EIRP on PtMP setups.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16876205 Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:18:47 EDT Re: PtP vs. PtMP and max EIRP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16876049 lutful : It is possible to counter such WISPs with "802.11 smarts" that are perfectly legal, we can discuss details privately.

First you need to create a comprehensive profile of their AP sites and EIRP.

I think you suggested WiSpy placed at the focus of a dish? That will work very well from a distance to capture raw data.

If you take multiple readings at different distances from their APs, you can deduce the exact EIRP and channel usage.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16876049 Sun, 10 Sep 2006 13:50:58 EDT Re: PtP vs. PtMP and max EIRP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16875887 LLigetfa : Well... looks like I already "aired our laundry" in public so when you say "The few that won't can be bullied by yourself" you may as well hear the rest of the story. The WISP caught running illegal power refuses to divulge what he is running where and threatens social pressure if I trample his subs. My company rents tower space to this WISP and I have bosses that are their sub. I and my neighbors are also their sub. A quick way to be tarred, feathered, and be run out of town if one attempted to play hardball.

The school board hints career suicide on my part if I trample any of their PtP links and they have yet to divulge what they are running where. I suspect illegal EIRP but cannot prove it and they are not likely to 'fess up. The out of town cellular carrier/WISP was in bed with the school board but they had a falling out and the board is threatening to evict them. This WISP has deep pockets and plans to build new towers here, so is in the best position to win the spectrum wars.

There is little influence we can bring to bear on our American neighbors nor they on us except a war of escalation or perhaps to rat out on illegal EIRP if one could prove it or even get the attention of a regulatory body.

Even if one is morally bound by a code of ethics, hardball is not a gentleman's game and aggression is a dangerous card to play, even if it is just an idle threat, not to be carried through. As I said, nice guys don't win when it comes down to that.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16875887 Sun, 10 Sep 2006 13:18:38 EDT Re: PtP vs. PtMP and max EIRP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16875656 cmaenginsb : The number of clients thinking has been prevelent since the rules have been written. It used to be there was no exemption for the client side of a PTmP setup and those radios had to be within the PTmP spec as well. This has changed as of late.

Unfortunately the way the system works now it's still on # of clients (either 1 or > 1) which means that if you use a high gain omni with 1 client you are legal. However if you use that same omni for more than 1 client it's not legal. The antenna you linked to for example could only serve a single client and given it's cost it would be cheaper to throw up a grid to get the same gain. That assumes it's ever certified with a radio.

Vivato actually had a "steerable" antenna that allowed for a very narrow beam signal to be sent to each client individually, unlike the example you posted which just has 1 portion at higher gain, the Vivato's moved based on the location of the client within the 90 degrees of thier panel.

The rules and what you see in the field have long differed, one reason is that it just takes to long for lawmakers and the government to catch up with technology. Most WISPs I know of will play nice with you unless they are either ignorant or arrogant. They know it's good business not to engage in a spectrum war as in the long run no one will win. The few that won't can be bullied by yourself and the other WISPs who do play together into either coexisting or ceasing to exist.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16875656 Sun, 10 Sep 2006 12:22:58 EDT Re: PtP vs. PtMP and max EIRP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16875528 LLigetfa : Is Vivato the only one that got the exemption? That name doesn't jog my memory but then again, I've had a few too many bithdays.

I can see where a straight forward PtP for backhaul using narrrow beams are easy to justify but somehow, the number of clients and not the narrowness of the beam seem wrong. Someone can crank out high EIRP through an omni, spewing RF everywhere and justify it by the number of clients?

I am not an advocate of "Tim the toolman" thinking that more power is better but imaginge if someone took something like the Hotspot 16 »www.wlan.org.uk/hot%20spot%2016%20page.htm and set it up as a quad array, the mess they could make. Such is not likely to happen for a one client PtP EIRP justification but none the less, theoretically possible.

The specrum here is already a mess. It is so bad that the school board is planning to switch to a licensed band next year. Add to that, another WISP who is also a cellular carrier is planning to bring in Moto Canopy. This is a border town and not only are there too many Canadian players in the spectrum, but I think Tim the toolman lives just over on the US side of the border. "Tim" has a really short backhaul using a mesh to our water tower (on the Canadian side). I don't know if he is omni off the water tower. Tim's Canadian cousin is also on the water tower and was running illegal EIRP but was coerced into removing his amp.

I have a situation where there are three of us (myself included) on the same azimuth that I could easily hit all three with a mesh at the base while keeping the beam tight but that would be considered PtMP. Granted, I could still use the grid at the AP and keep it at legal EIRP and use a grid at the furthest CPE but margin would be tight. Also, cranking EIRP on the CPE, while legal, is not good stewardship of spectrum because the signal would cross over the water tower and hit Tim's backhaul.

The same thing goes with the elevation game. I could gain some advantage in the elevation game, since the company I work for owns some of the highest elevation not factoring broadcast radio and telco/cellular towers. Of course the cellular carrier/WISP can ultimately win.

Some manage their spectrum by containing "just enough" power by terrain and carefully reusing channels while others use all the channels and all the power to overcome lack of elevation as if nobody else needs the channels. Someone with callous disregard and the available elevation could really cause others greif. The "I was here first" guy uses social pressure of disgruntled subs to tar the newcomer.

I don't really know where I'm going with this topic. There is no sense of fair play. "I was here first" means nothing, good stewardship is unheard of, and nice guys never win.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16875528 Sun, 10 Sep 2006 11:55:59 EDT Re: PtP vs. PtMP and max EIRP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16873890 cmaenginsb : You're thinking of Vivato who used a phased array antenna. I can't speak for IC but the FCC certified this under the idea that each signal was "steered" towards the client so that the actual signal was a narrow beamwidth signal.

The original rules were quite blank and applied to both ends of a PTMP link, the FCC has since changed the rules about the client end and is looking more at the type of antenna used rather than the intent of it's usage.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16873890 Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:29:07 EDT Re: PtP vs. PtMP and max EIRP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16870012 IntraLink : Yeah, I've seen justification for PtP EIRP on PtMP antenna arrays.

IMO that is not allowed.

The PtP regulations in Part-15 were designed so that narrow beamwidth systems could have more power. Because they are narrow their effect is less on the area.

True, you can multiples of these systems and spread them out over degrees, but they should still be dedicated PtP.

The beam steering antennas think that every client they talk to is PtP and use the higer EIRP. Some may even be certified this way. But their use should still be PtP and I think users are instead creating a large PtMP array out of these by adding more clients per array element within the antenna.

This goes against the reasoning in Part-15 IMO.

You do this in the upper 5Ghz band and you could push a LOT of power on a "smart" sector. Which would be way above the 36dB EIRP level for traditional PtMP sectors.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16870012 Sat, 09 Sep 2006 11:17:03 EDT PtP vs. PtMP and max EIRP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16869508 LLigetfa : We were getting a little off topic in the thread »15 Miles shot. How to do it? so I thought I would start a new one.

In that thread, the deciding point whether the 36dB EIRP limit applied was the number of clients... more than one being PtMP. I initially thought it was based on the principle that highly directional antennas were allowed the higher EIRP based on the fact they are not spewing RF in all directions and not solely on the number of clients.

I've been reading through some of the IC regs, trying to get clarity but am not entirely clear on it. I thought I read somewhere that there are systems that deploy some sort of sequencing of AP arrays (directed beam) and somehow managed to convince FCC to allow PtP EIRP in both directions.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16869508 Sat, 09 Sep 2006 08:45:56 EDT