cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| reply to LLigetfa
Re: PtP vs. PtMP and max EIRP
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 |
|
LLigetfa
join:2006-05-15
Fort Frances, ON
| 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. |
|
lutful
Premium
join:2005-06-16
Ottawa, ON
| 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. |
|
LLigetfa
join:2006-05-15
Fort Frances, ON
| said by lutful  :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. |
|
lutful
Premium
join:2005-06-16
Ottawa, ON
1 edit | 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. |
|
LLigetfa
join:2006-05-15
Fort Frances, ON
| said by lutful :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.  |
|
lutful
Premium
join:2005-06-16
Ottawa, ON | It is best to use methods that facilitate fair usage of the spectrum by both parties. They are also effective against DoS attacks.  |
|
