Wireless Update 10-29-02

I promised an update as soon as I heard anything from CWC. I met with them a few hours ago, so here is what's going on.

CWC has the tower up and operational, but are having problems still with signal strengths. They have had several engineers on the tower over the last couple weeks to try and correct the problem but so far no luck. Last Friday CWC hired a team to go on the tower and run a full sweap, they are awaiting the results of that test.

CWC has gotten the local loop ready to go, and once the signal problems on the tower is corrected they can have the bandwidth to the internet turned on within 10 days.

The Web Comittee is meeting and discussing options with CWC at this point. If you would like to know more, please attend our next meeting.

John


---------------
Got Broadband?

 

Do we know how much allocated bandwidth they will have available? If they are only getting a couple Ts I do not think that will be enough for demand especially considering the timeframe it took to get these put in.
thx,

DwArFlOrD

 

Any update on CWC? I haven't seen anything for over a month.

Just curious and anxious!



thx

 

Back in July, we were expecting CWC to start taking customers in a couple weeks. Its mid-December now.... Im guessing they dont know what they're doing. If they did, it shouldn't have taken so long. I can understand the local loop, but CWC should have had everything completed way before the local loop was done. Not sure about these guys.

DwArFlOrD

 

Well, CWC was (and I guess still is) having problems getting their equipment working correctly. They are only hitting .5 miles with their setup. They did ask for help, and we asked around and provided feedback. To answer any questions, here /was/ their setup at that time.

(1) Cisco Air-BR350 configured as a root AP with max power out only using the primary antenna. This unit is connected to a YDI 500mW amplifier and then sent to a 1Watt DC injector. The DC Injector is connected to 200 feet of LMR-600 cable and terminates into a Teletronics 2400-1.0 Smartamp. The Smart Amp is connected to a Cisco Lightning protector and then to a Telex 2443AB 120degree sector antenna at a height of 142' above the ground level (which is 350 elevation). The Antenna has a 120 degree mechanical down tilt.

Here are 2 responses from wireless ISPs already in the business that I asked, both were forwarded to CWC.

First:
First of all, the 1 watt SmartAmp with the 12 dBi Telex 2443 120 degree sector is illegal. This would produce +42 dBm, and the limit is +36 dBm for PtMP.

Secondly, you probably don't need the 500 mW amp at all. If I recall, the Cisco 350 series is 100 mW (+20 dBm). Also, 200 feet of LMR-600 should give 8.8 dB loss, so with some other connectors and pigtails, 10 dB loss sounds about right. The TT 1W Smartamp only requires 1mW (0 dBm) to work, and provides up to 24 dB gain. (200 mW MAXIMUM input)So, with the 500mW amp, you have 50mW (+17 dBm)at the SmartAmp input. Without the 500mW amp, you have 10mW (+10 dBm) at the SmartAmp input and +30 dBm into the antenna, and +42 dBm EIRP. (Still illegal)

You should be using no more than a +24 dBm (250mW) output amplifier at the antenna to stay legal.

The 120 degree sector antenna should be pointed a few degrees below the horizon at most (unless you are on a mountain). It has provisions for up to -20 degrees, but in this case you don't need the full downtilt.

There is still a possibility of interference or equipment failure, but a site survey and good troubleshooting will resolve these in time.

Second:
First off double amping can fry radios and is in general bad for the radio. The Cisco 350 series can take POE, relocate the radio in a NEMA box to the top of the tower without any amps and have them test again.

If they don't like this solution, and want to continue using the 500mw they need to turn the power output on the cisco radio to 5mw to avoid over driving the YDI amp which is most likely what is causing their problems. Using any additional power with an amp directly connected to the radio will damge both the amp and the radio. You only need 1mw to drive the amp and as additional power out the radio doesn't translate to increase power at the amp. (Look at the amp as a 500mw transmitter in it's own right).

Now another thing to think about is that neither of those amps are certified for the cisco so if the FCC ever went out to inspect the tower for any reason, even if it wasn't for the WISP, the WISP will be asked to remove the amps anyway.

At a minimum I would remove the YDI at the bottom of the tower and keep the radio at full output so that it can drive the Teletronics amp properly.

CWC as far as I know did not do much with this information. I believe they removed an amp and then replaced the Cisco 350s with 1200s. Their signal is exactly the same as before, and right now that's all I know. I wish them all the luck and hope in the world getting it working but right now there is nothing else we can do.

John

---------------
Got Broadband?

Edited by - hornerjo on 12/19/2002 10:11:46

 

Sorry if this was already covered in your latest meeting, I was not able to attend. I just moved into the community in October (Overland Park, courtyard homes).

I was curious as to whether security issues related to wireless internet access have been addressed. I am sure that you are familiar with the term "war driving".

Also, is this service going to be subscriber based? What kind of fees will be associated with usage of the service?

Thanks,
Timothy David
Humbolt Square

 

Any update on the wireless system yet?

Spence Neufeld

 

Since CWC [}] seems to be out of the picture now and it has been almost a year since we started working with them, could we start back at square one with RFPs to additional wireless providers? The local loop is already in place so I would suspect the only time constraint would be with testing, and getting the equipment in place. Im sure some other wireless providers have resolved the types of problems CWC seems to be incapable of solving..[8D]
Wha d'ya guys think?[]

 

That's pretty much where we are. Eric and I have already met with another provider with a very slick optical solution. They are working on deploying their network in another community and once thats done we're going to check it out (still half a year away though). Beyond that we have tried to get back in touch with other providers (like Openband).

Other than that, keep your eyes open I guess. We're always ready to talk to any provider who is serious about being our ISP and has a very solid business plan and has the track record to prove their products work.

John
hornerjo@yahoo.com

 

Thanks Joe,
We all appreciate all the hard work you and the other team members put into this. If you ever need any help on this stuff, just chime in and Im sure you'll get some volunteers. Thanks for the update.

 

Has anyone given thought to starting a project such as the one in Cascades?

Forums:
http://www.cascadesva.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=14;DaysPrune=1000

Wireless Interest Participation:
http://www.cascadesva.com/wireless/wireless_interest_overview.htm

 

This looks almost exactly like what Joe and Gotham Communications posted about doing. But it looks like these guys have done a lot more legwork! Pretty neat, Joe should take a look at this and maybe go talk to them.

John

 

Does anyone in Broadlands have Adelphia for internet access? If so, has it gotten any better recently? The reason I ask is because in my area the latency and bandwidth have gotten much better, I live in Ashburn Village. So I was just wondering if you all have seen the improvements?

Also, hornejo said "Eric and I have already met with another provider with a very slick optical solution"

could you let us know who that other provider is? Just incase Adelphia goes back to crap!