superdog
I Need A Drink
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA
| Thoughts on this article???
After Lutful posted a link to another website on another thread, I started looking around a little, and I found this:
»www.meridianmicrowave.com/unlice···sed.html
I am undecided as to whether or not I believe what was written there, as I believe that I could save a LOT of cash for a lot of business' and give them the same reliability of a licensed frequency in some cases?. When it comes to short links under a mile, I am pretty sure that I could set up a link with 99.999% availability no matter what went on around the link unless something really crazy happened???.................... For the sake of discussion, Prove me wrong. 
--
»www.wavecrazy.net Join WISPA today! »www.wispa.org/ |
|
viperm
Carpe Diem
Premium
join:2002-07-09
Winchester, CA
1 edit | Are you talking about unlicensed? I agree but some areas are just a mess of unlicensed stuff all over.
But then again shame on the person who just goes in blindly without doing a good spectrum analisys of the area from both ends to check out the noise floor.
I agree but also disagree I am not sure they should be slapping carrior grade on things such as HMM smartbridges? comes to mind. I would trust more the likes of Alvarion, redline etc and in no particular order. Each radio has its place and limitations and you have to know what they are and when to use them. I too am like you I could set something up for less then $5k that would be rock solid at short distances and possibly longer distances it just all depends on the area and the noise floor. I think what has happend is to many people like he said are trying to cash in without know what they are doing. We here are a very smart group and hopefully people will learn from us and our mistakes at times 
--
ComTrain Certified Tower Climber. American Tower Certified approved contractor |
|
jarosoup
join:2003-01-14
 ·Qwest.net
| reply to superdog
What's not to believe? The author makes a lot of good points. Anyone can deploy unlicensed and cause interference which can ultimately cost you customers and money. If you have licensed you simply don't have to worry about this - if something goes wrong with your link(s) chances are it isn't related to someone else putting up something on the same channel (though it could still happen, but you can actually force them off).
Ask anyone who has put up a POP thinking nothing will ever happen, only to have some new yahoo deploy a full Canopy cluster 1/4 mile away in order to "compete" for your customers...it's always a possibility and does happen. You are lucky if you don't have to worry about this  |
|
AnonDOG
@208.66.x.x
| reply to superdog
He made some points. He blew some as well.
Verizon runs a trunking system all over eastern Virginia. It is dead smack in the middle of 900 ISM spectrum. So I guess he blew the point that large carriers always use licensed spectrum. That system is also grossly over power but that is not at issue yet.
Get far enough up into the spectrum and nothing is licensed but you will find major carrier backhaul systems. These are not licensed and are most certainly carrier grade systems.
The idea that you can't build a carrier class ISP using unlicensed spectrum is just plain uninformed. You most certainly can but you had better make informed choices about spectrum and architecture.
If we had to wait for licensed spectrum and hardware to get to a price point where we could actually build a WISP, we would be better off just folding up our tents and going home.
Currently Earthlink and the plethora of muni-wireless deployements appear to be opting for unlicensed spectrum and they seem to be having some success. Clearly they believe they can build out a carrier grade system with unlicensed spectrum.
Bottom line? It is about the quality of the hardware you deploy, not about the licensing of the spectrum. The only way you can deploy good quality hardware at a reasonable price point is for the vendor to be able to sell ten, twenty, or a hundred thousand units. That will not be happening in licensed spectrum any time soon. |
|
lutful
Premium
join:2005-06-16
Ottawa, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to superdog
superdog, I had no idea about the company's fear-and-doubt (FUD) campaign when I posted the link about FCC PtP licensing procedure. 
said by superdog  :I am pretty sure that I could set up a link with 99.999% availability no matter what went on around the link unless something really crazy happened An interfering radio pointed straight into the beam path will be crazy, but all other interference beyond 6ft can be taken care of using narrow beam antenna with sidelobe reducing foam.
I say this with such confidence because of we did some cool field tests this summer:
FCC/IC compliant unlicensed 5Ghz PtP links can be designed to be "more reliable" than FCC/IC compliant 11-24Ghz licensed links at any distance. |
|
superdog
I Need A Drink
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA
| said by lutful :superdog, I had no idea about the company's fear-and-doubt (FUD) campaign when I posted the link about FCC PtP licensing procedure. I know. All You did was provide a link to one page with good info. on it. I just started to nose around.
said by lutful :FCC/IC compliant unlicensed 5Ghz PtP links can be designed to be "more reliable" than FCC/IC compliant 11-24Ghz licensed links at any distance. That was my thought?. I mean, at those frequencies, rain, fog etc. is a major factor that has to be overcome. 
--
»www.wavecrazy.net Join WISPA today! »www.wispa.org/ |
|
AMD Phreak
Premium
join:2003-12-14 | reply to superdog
Nice read, but as always everything is relative.
Does that say enough ? |
|
slipstream1
Premium
join:2005-11-15
Jacksonville, TX | reply to AnonDOG
The major carriers also use 2.4 Ghz for PtP backhauls also. I have a set of Lynx multi T-1 radios and matching 2.4 Ghz grids. The grids are about 42" in diameter. |
|
