Just curious how far your Wi-Fi access point is from your de

[Johann Beretta]

On 10/15/19 9:41 AM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:

On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 02:10:34 -0700, Johann Beretta wrote:

Unlikely. I own a wireless ISP (WISP) in Southern California. I've got a
number of Ubiquiti sectors and parabolics on mountain tops. I've picked
up signals (San Onofre Visitor WiFi as one example) from over 60 miles away.

Hi Johann Beretta,

Usenet is a potluck - where everyone brings what value they can, to share.

I know. I've been using USENET since 1996 or so.. Maybe 1997.. My memory
gets a bit foggy going back that far.

I've also been using computers since 1979. I'm not a newbie.

 

[Johann Beretta]

On 10/15/19 11:19 PM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
<snip>

It's jsut as if you harangue the tire shops for advertising
o "We balance tires"
Or
o "We balance wheels"

snip

Not a big deal when speaking to lay persons. More of a deal when
speaking to other "experts".

Once again, would you trust a doctor who pointed at your head and kept
saying you had a fractured tibia?

They're both bones.. Who gives a fuck, right?

 

[Johann Beretta]

On 10/15/19 8:17 PM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:

<snip>

Now you're back to your silly childish games, where people who play silly
childish games do it because they can't add any adult technical value.

Your error was easy to find. You've applied the table for 5.8 GHz to
2.4 GHz.

The 5.8 band is much more permissible and permits an EIRP of 53 dbm (30
dBm plus 23 dBi of antenna gain for example)

The 2.4 band is the more restrictive of the two and permits only 36 dbm
with a caveat: You can increase the antenna gain to get an EIRP above 36
dBm but for every 3dBi increase of antenna gain you must reduce the
transmit power by 1 dBm.

BTW, by design, my posts always mirror the implied intent of the poster
o Where your implied intent is sinister

And dead wrong. (AFAIK)

That's the problem. It's "AFAIK" and it's wrong.

For example, what do you think the EIRP is of this device Paul asked about?
https://dl.ubnt.com/qsg/PBE-M5-400/PBE-M5-400_EN.html

If you look at the UI of the PowerBeam M5, you'll notice under the
wireless tab you're given two options for the antenna.

1. Feed Only (2x2) 3 dbi
2. 400 (2x2) 25 dbi

When you select option 1, you can increase the output power to a maximum
of 26 dbm.

When you select option 2, you can increase the output power to a maximum
of ONLY 12 dbm.

Both options are legal as long as you select the TRUTHFUL option. It's
perfectly legal to run a Powerbeam feedhorn in a standalone situation.
However, why the fuck anyone would ever do that is beyond me.
Nevertheless that doesn't change the fact that it is legal (if odd) to
do so.

It is absolutely illegal to LIE in the configuration and choose the Feed
Only option when it's snapped into the dish.

<snip>

There is no way to violate the law if you use the equipment shown.

As I have just shown you above, that's absolutely incorrect.

I repeat: As far as I know, there's no way to violate the law, according to
what I've read on the Ubiquiti support site (we could dig it up if you wish
to argue - but you have to supply more than just a wild guess on your part
as your supporting facts for your sinister accusation).

<snip>

Johann - are you just trying to play silly games here on Usenet?
o Or do you have adult technical value to add to help everyone?

On several occasions now I have pointed out your errors. Your previous
antenna / radio design, if actually using the 2.4 band is patently
illegal. If you require further information, you can find it here:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2017-title47-vol1/pdf/CFR-2017-title47-vol1-sec15-247.pdf

To my knowledge, the Ubiquiti support people say there is no way to violate
the law if the unit is used with the equipment it was designed for.

Then they have lied to your face. It's absurdly easy to use the
equipment in an illegal manner. All it requires is that you lie in the
configuration. They should have said "There's no way to violate the law
if you're honest in the configuration section"

The Rocket line have a drop down selection that lists about a dozen
antennas (13 to be exact). One of the requirements for being legal is
being truthful about what antenna (or gain) you have attached the radio
to.

Specifying a 10 dbi antenna will let you choose up to 27 dbm of output
power. Specify the 36 dbi antenna and the slider will change to permit
a maximum of 2 dbm of power.

Guess what happens if I lie and attach a 36 dbi antenna but tell the
rocket I'm only using a 10dbi antenna? Yeah, the slider will allow me
to choose up to 27 dbm of power and I'll have an EIRP of 63 dbi which is
absolutely illegal.

There are also further restrictions on power depending on if you're
doing PtP or PtMP, but we won't get into those here as I honestly don't
feel like getting that deep into it.

If you are as technical as you 'say' you are, then you already know that
the router software is set up "by country", where you are forced to pick
the country upon initial setup, where, since the US has the most power
anyway (as far as I can tell), you just pick the US if you're in the US.

Yeah. It's now a violation of FCC rules to use equipment, made for use
overseas, inside the US. That came about this year if memory serves
because so many goddamn WISPs were purchasing equipment destined for
more permissible locations and then blasting RF all over the place.

I would not be surprised if we have a situation in the future where the
FCC mandates that a Rocket M5 (for example) will have to verify what
antenna it's attached to (via internal communication (RFID perhaps)) and
will refuse to operate if it's attached to a non-compliant antenna.

It's far too easy to simply lie in the internals and be in full blown
violation of FCC transmit rules. Right now we were on the fucking honor
system and, like all honor systems, it's failing.

<snip>

If you have an ADULT technical question, please feel free to ask.

You may want to reverse that. I suggest you start asking others your
technical questions.

And, as a final note, if I did in fact misread your original design and
you're using 5.8 then your design does appear to be fine. But if you're
using the 2.4 band then you need to redo your calcs, man. Because the
way you have them (if it's truly 2.4) you're encouraging people to
violate FCC transmit regulations.

Are the Feds gonna show up? Probably not. Well, not unless someone
complains and keeps complaining.. But they've (the FCC) have begun to be
a tad bit more proactive when responding to WISP complaints.

By the way, if you pull any of that transmit power / antenna lying B.S.
in the DFS bands and do interfere with radar, you can expect HUGE fines.
They're not playing that game any more. Do a google search on WISP and
Puerto Rico.

Those knuckleheads loaded foreign firmware (DD-WRT if memory serves)
onto their radios and then bypassed the DFS detection routines. The FCC
proceed to ass fuck them financially. Personally I think they should
have done a couple of months in prison. They actually interfered with
airport radar.. The $25K fine was far too lenient (IMHO).

 

[Johann Beretta]

On 10/15/19 9:41 AM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:

This is great information that you are fully aware of the WiFi power of the
type of equipment that we've been trying to discuss here as adults.

What brand do you mostly prefer in your WISP business?
o And what specific model of radios?

Brand is easy. I prefer Ubiquiti as they deliver the whole package.
Equipment, accessories, monitoring, etc. But, that's not to imply they
are the best. I'd say they are the best for my budget and/or situation.

Lately I've been unhappy with the direction that UBNT is headed so I've
been experimenting with Cambium. The UI is not nearly as polished, but
that's not necessarily a negative. I've had serious concerns of late
that Ubiquiti is more worried about eye candy and less about firmware
stability and have voiced such concerns to them. I'm not a large
operation, but I reckon I have somewhere in the general vicinity of
$60,000 of their gear in current deployment. The only reason I mention
that is to qualify my experience with them.

There is no real way to specify models. I suppose I purchase more
Litebeam M5s than any other type as I have found them to be a fairly
good ROI. But I also have dozens of Rocket M5s, Rocket ACs (PRISM) and a
metric ton of Powerbeams (M and AC) deployed. I choose the radio based
on the scenario and when at all possible I match links model to model
(tower to tower). I've used just about every model of equipment they
make (not counting their consumer crap (UniFi and such) in the
intervening years and have pretty much standardized on Litebeams, Nanos,
Rockets, and PowerBeams. I have one pair of AirFiber 5x than I never
got around to deploying as the piece of shit has no Site Survey function
and thus is mostly useless. Waste of $1K....

Here, near where Jeff Liebermann lives (other side of the hill), we all
started with the bullets, and then we trashed them for the nano's, which we
trashed for the 2.4 GHz rockets, and then, finally, we're kind of happy on
the 5GHz rockets.

I suspect many WISPS followed that exact same path. My own experience
mirrors it. I'm also quite familiar with Jeff's postings. He's got a
pretty solid amount of experience from what I can tell.

Less noise for sure.

Those days are over. The next big thing is going to be 24/60 GHz.
Almost all consumer routers now sold are dual frequency and they're
eating up the DFS bands which were the last "clean" spectrum we had.
Pile that on top of the fact that Ubiquiti can't seem to beat the false
DFS detections and...

The cunts over at Hughes and ViaSat need to be beaten to death with
their own severed limbs as their routers default to broadcasting an
80MHz signal. I can push 1.2GBps through an 80 MHz link. Why those
assholes are using 80 MHz to move a couple dozen mbps is beyond me. I
suspect it's deliberately to fuck over WISPs as the only people who'd
have satellite are in the exact territories that WISPs like to cover. A
single home, on a mountain top, with Hughes effectively poisons 1/4 of
the available spectrum in a given area. There is no fucking way that
was accidental and there's no way that the engineers at ViaSat/Hughes
don't have ulterior motives attached to that decision. I am unaware of
ANY consumer satellite system that delivers enough mbps to saturate a 20
Mhz wide transmission. So one must wonder why they decided to use 300%
more spectrum than they need.

Since we remove the "old stuff", we end up with a lot of Mikrotik
equipment, but we're mostly Ubiquiti.

How about you?
o What brand/model equipment do you prefer to erect on rooftops, and why?

I never bothered with MikroTik transmitters, beyond an isolated case or
two. I do use them exclusively for customer routers and I use a CCR on
the head end. Except for the very first transmitter I purchased (I can't
recall the manufacturer but it sucked) and a couple of abortive attempts
with using consumer grade routers when I first started experimenting, I
have been 100% Ubiquiti for RF generation.

Those days are over now. I'll be deploying my first Mimosa B24s, before
the end of the year, as tower-to-tower links. The high absorption rate
of the signals via atmospheric oxygen pretty much guarantees there will
not be any more RF interference. Rain may/may not be an issue but I
plan to keep 5GHz links on hot-standby until we go through a few heavy
rains (not common in So Cal of course). A few towers I have are just
outside the 2 mile limit, so I may have to keep some 5Ghz links in
operation, but I'll be working like hell to get towers in between.

I also plan on deploying a few MikroTik 60Ghz links for towers that are
only a few hundred yards apart as I know the rain will fuck with them,
but hopefully they'll be able to muscle through it on short links. I
already have one set on the bench and am experimenting with it. As
normal, MikroTik's UI sucks fat balls, but......

 

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 13:54:13 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote:

No it can't.

Hi Dan Purgert,

THANK YOU for that correction!
Mea culpa!

Also, THANK YOU FOR ADDING ADULT VALUE to this thread!

I respond to all purposefully helpful posts, where I _appreciate_ that you
found my statement above to be materially wrong (where, if I am
accidentally wrong, I admit it as soon as it's pointed out, if not sooner).

It's a characteristic of an adult.

As you may recall, I state that I aim for 100% credibility on material
facts, even after decades on Usenet, where you must admit to attain
anywhere near that kind of credibility on Usenet for material facts puts me
on the level of people like Marek Novotny, rest his soul.

I strive for 100% credibility because I own adult belief systems:
a. I base my initial belief system on assessment of facts, and,
b. If (and when) assessment of facts change, I modify my belief system
Such that my belief system is _always_ based & bolstered, by facts.

You may find that I harp on the trolls, where there are resaons for that
o The trolls infest any potluck picnic like gnats swarming around food
o The trolls have no intention to add value - they troll for amusement
o Hence, once the trolls infest a Q&A thread - the potluck is ruined

I try to swat the trolls ... to make it "less fun" for them to troll
o But, as William Unruh astutely noted ... that also adds to the noise
Where the hope is that the trolls find some other potluck to infest
(Where, the record shows, I don't feed them when they infest other threads)

Trolls like nospam apparently base their belief system on the results of a
coin toss (as far as anyone can tell), since they always fail this simple
test of their claims, when it comes to asking them for underlying facts:
o Name just one

I'm completely different from most Usenet posters (IMHO), Dan,
o For one, I avoid idle worthless useless chitchat threads
o For the other, I author threads that literally pry fact out (if possible)

To that end, Dan, in terms of valuable adult facts...
o You can _always_ ream me with facts - and I will THANK YOU when you do.

Here's a reference, for example, on the Apple newsgroups, about facts:
o wrong, by badgolferman

Has anyone here ever admitted they were wrong publicly in the
newsgroup even when proven so? How can everyone always be right?
Maybe some consider it a sign of weakness if they concede a point,
but it's actually a sign of humility and maturity.

Notice that "adults" have no problem adjusting their belief systems:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/BjiM9DsVXj8/d0X_fHUkCAAJ>
It's the common trolls (listed prior) who, IMHO, have a problem with facts.

When confronted with mere facts, in general, they respond with hatred.
o Why? I don't know why.

I think perhaps it that their belief systems aren't based on facts
o Facts scare them (like facts about Santa Claus might scare a child)
o Facts instantly DESTROY their belief systems.

This is, IMHO, far more common on Apple newsgroups simply because Apple
MARKETING is so far and above Linux & Windows marketing that the difference
in the user base (IMHO), is night and day - but we leave that for a
separate discussion on what type of people are more swayed by (admittedly
clever) Marketing, whereas I suspect the Linux folks are least affected:
o What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU/s6gu-hj2BwAJ>

For me, facts _bolster_ my belief system
o More correctly, an adult logical assessment of those facts does

The people whose belief systems aren't based on actual facts
o But more so on (admittedly brilliant) marketing
Are the ones who, IMHO, are the ones most spouting their bullshit on Usenet
(e.g., people like "Snit", and "nospam", and "Chris", and "Lewis", etc.)

But even the Windows newsgroups has these types of people whose belief
systems are (apparently) backed up by exactly zero facts, where, they too
fail the most obvious of the simplest test of imaginary belief systems:
o Name just one

BTW, as a glaringly example of those who prove they can't possibly ever add
even one iota of adult value, you may note that Char Jackson just moments
ago made some of the most ridiculous claims humanly possible in this post
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.os.linux/n7VGUrGdXiA/Kg9McsGtBwAJ>
1. I could get attempt to reason with Char Jackson
(which would take a month, and he'd still never accept any facts)
2. I could just ignore his always utterly worthless posts
(at the risk that _others_ would believe what he wrote)
(Pick one.)

Hence, I repeat I will ignore the aforementioned trolls in this thread.

Getting back to your on-topic calculations, I will agree that my quick
assessment of Paul's data in that sentence of the maximum for point to
point must be wrong - where I don't do "point to point" fixed setup design
all that often (actually, almost never).

What I do mostly is point to multipoint
o For example, I paint the pool or barn or distant driveway gate
o Or, I vastly increase the range of a standalone laptop or desktop

Where, all I need to do those tasks, reliably, & legally, are facts.

Hence, what I love is that you reamed me with facts.
o You can _always_ ream me with facts - as I love facts.

My belief system is based on facts!
o The one fact I'd love to know more about is the typical router power

If we compare these $100 "tranceivers" such as the ones Paul and I refer to
as the simple-to-use "Ubiquiti PowerBeam" transceivers ... they clearly can
transmit at least up to the legal limit in EIRP (isn't that correct, Dan?)
<https://www.ui.com/airmax/powerbeam/>

Luckily the math is easier for these PowerBeam radios since they're
essentially a one-part unit, where the radio, physically, is literally the
"horn" of the antenna itself, as they snap together into place such that
there is no "pigtail" accessible to the user; there is only Ethernet.
<https://www.ui.com/airmax/powerbeam-ac/>

So while there _will_ be losses we didn't account for, they should be as
minimal as Ubiquiti could have made them for these units, don't you think?

Given the PowerBeams are cheap, light, small, and, most to the point, still
vastly more powerful than a typical similarly priced SOHO router, I'm glad
Paul picked up on this PowerBeam, as I would like to start by making it the
canonical suggestion for people on this newsgroup to start with, who want
to increase their range.

I based that mostly on the fact that the price (about $100 give or take)
for the entire unit is "about what they pay" for a typical SOHO router,
and, more importantly, because the installation is about as simple as it
gets (i.e., I assess setup to be about the same as for a typical router).

Just like a router, you sit it on a shelf (or bolt it to a pole), and you
plug in the cat5 cable to your computer - and you log in (ubnt/ubnt) to
192.168.1.20 (as I recall), and you set it up:

Voila!
o You just vastly increased your Wi-Fi range for your laptop/desktop/phone!
a. You either plug it into your laptop to get from the pool to the house
b. Or you paint the pool from the house so your laptop/phone works far away
All with the same router setup ease as what you have with a common router.

Either way (access point for your computer or network card for your
computer), for about what people here pay for their puny routers, they get
actual power (up to the legal power limit for your country).

BTW, let me ask you, Dan (or others), what's a "good name" to refer to what
I said above was a "network card"?

Here's what you're doing at the pool:
o You have the PowerBeam plugged into your laptop Ethernet port.
o That gives you the maximum point-to-multipoint power available
o For about the same price you pay today for a typical SOHO router

What would you 'call' that setup in a colloquial conversation?
(Pretty much, that's what most of the people were arguing about.)

Just like we say "aiming an antenna" or "balancing tires", everyone knows
what we're talking about, what would you call this setup in a colloquial
conversation (i.e., you only get a couple of words to play with)?

As per FCC 15.247("Operation within the bands 909-928 MHz,

2400-2483.5 MHz, and 5725-5850 MHz")... <snip
(i) Systems operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band that are used
exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ
transmitting antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi
provided the maximum conducted output power of the intentional
radiator is reduced by 1 dB for every 3 dB that the directional
gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.

This is nice to know about fixed point-to-point operation, where our WISP
who works with us need to know and deal with all of that.

While people on this ng 'can' set up a fixed point-to-point arrangement,
wouldn't you say, Dan, that the most common obvious usage of this
technology, for these computer newsgroups, would be point to multipoint,
where, as shown above, they can plop their laptop at the pool, which can be
hundreds of feet from the house, and still get good signal strength.

That is, if you have a fixed point-to-point link (such as from a WISP
tower to a customer's premises), you can increase the antenna gain by 3
dB for every dB you reduce your conducted power.

This is very nice to know, Dan, as we "set up" point-to-point radios for
our WISP provider all the time - but where we simply use the settings they
give us to use. We also maintain the radios (e.g., we update the firmware,
and tweak settings, as per the WISP team; but we don't design the setup
itself anymore (we did in the past, but, as you can tell from all the spare
radios in the grandkids' playroom, we screwed up a lot before we finally
ended up with what we're using now on our rooftops.

For this group, I think we should mostly speak about point to multipoint,
since I can easily see everyone here possibly having a need to either
extend the range of the access points surrounding the house or to extend
the range of a single piece of computer equipment such as an Ethernet
enabled laptop or desktop.

At this point, we've generally nowhere else to go. Some radios may be
able to conduct at a few dBm below zero

Thank you Dan, for pointing out a statement I made that I based on an
incorrect interpretation of the rules that Paul kindly provided.

I'm always eager to be reamed with actual facts that are materially
important.

Adults form belief systems which should be based on facts.
o All my belief systems, are therefore, bolstered by facts.

So it's not just a single number.
o But it's my understanding that the radio won't "let" you exceed limits
(That understanding is literally from conversing with Ubiquiti support.)

The "lockouts" are based on what you give the radio as inputs. Wrong
inputs = wrong lockouts. This is, of course, not possible to change on
the all-in-one units (Nanobeam, Nanostation), but any of the models with
removable radomes (Powerbeam, Litebeam) or antennas (Rocket) can be told
the wrong information.

Thank you Dan for pointing that out, which, in the aforementioned reference
threads, I saw that Jeff Liebermann also pointed out.

In the case of the Powerbeams though, Dan, it seemed, at first, like it's
impossible to exceed the legal limits, since the transceiver is literally
part of the antenna (there is no pigtail, for example, accessible to the
user).

However, in another post, Johann Beretta found an error in my assessment of
the facts, which I agree with, where he provided accurate information which
explained the following "can" happen if you wish to "lie" during the setup
(where I didn't consider such a bold-faced lie to even be possible).

For the device that Paul mentioned, which is described in this spec sheet:
<https://dl.ubnt.com/qsg/PBE-M5-400/PBE-M5-400_EN.html>

The router "wireless" setup tab shows two options for the antenna:
a. Feed Only (2x2) 3 dBi
b. 400 (2x2) 25 dBi

When you select the first option, you can separately set the transmit power
to the maximum of 26 dBm, where you can't exceed the legal limits by doing
so.

When you set the second option, which is just the feedhorn itself (which,
interestingly, will work just fine - but who would bother?) you can
increase the transmit power setting only to 12 dBM.

As Johann Beretta noted:

Both options are legal as long as you select the TRUTHFUL option.
It's perfectly legal to run a Powerbeam feedhorn in a standalone situation.
However, why the fuck anyone would ever do that is beyond me.
Nevertheless that doesn't change the fact that it is legal (if odd)
to do so.
However, where you can get into trouble is when Johann noted:
It is absolutely illegal to LIE in the configuration and choose the Feed
Only option when it's snapped into the dish.

So, I stand corrected on my assessment that you can't set up the PowerBeam
to an illegal power settings - simply because it didn't occur to me that
people could/would lie on the router setup options.

So when people ask "are you buying licensed or unlicensed equipment", I'm
kind of wondering "why" they ask that, where, to me, it's sort of like them
asking "are you robbing banks" every time you purchase a ski mask.

Sure, you can purchase a ski mask and use it to rob banks, but, let's be
adults in this thread with purposefully helpful intent and let's stop
wasting our time accusing people of attempting to exceed legal limits.

What Dan Purgert & Johann Beretta proved with facts is that you "could" lie
in the router setup, which will enable you to exceed limits - but there's
no reason to do so (as far as I can tell), nor is there any desire to do
so. (Hence, wasting our time with accusations of robbing banks is something
people like "Good Guy" & "Diesel" & most of the apologists do - but adults
can generally add on topic value without playing their silly games).

However, this useful corrective discussion points out something useful to
share with the groups on this Usenet potluck - which is that this PowerBeam
is, perhaps, one of the best suggestions for people on this newsgroup who
want to try their hand at increasing their range, for about the same cost
they paying today for what I consider to be anemic box store consumer
stuff.

Hence...

For the remainder of _this_ discussion, I think we should concentrate on
those PowerBeams that Paul happened to astutely pick out of the bunch!
<https://i.postimg.cc/XJChDCPr/spare-access-points.jpg>
In that picture, the nanobeams and powerbeams are on the shelf since
they're pretty small (about the size of a large salad bowl, while the
rockets are on the floor (they're sturdy as all hell - where you'd be happy
to know those are all stainless steel bolts, for example, and there is
other wind & weatherproofing that you'll love to see when you see it).

The Bullets are even smaller in and of themselves (also at about $100)
<https://www.ebay.com/i/264481061466> ($18 used)
But the Ubiquiti bullets need to be screwed directly to an antenna, so I
would only recommend, for this group, the bullets if they want to put an
omni (whip) antenna onto the bullet, which makes it really nice for the
middle of the house, for example, or if you want to walk around with a
bullet in your hands:
<https://www.ui.com/airmax/bulletm/>

There they discuss my radio, which turns out to be, for Paul an...
o Ubiquiti PowerBeam M2 400, which is only 26 decibels of transmit
o into an 18dBi antenna, which is legal for point-to-multipoint

No, it is not. The maximum EIRP of a point-to-multipoint intentional
radiator is 36 dBm (30 dBm conducted power + 6 dBi antenna; or a 1:1
correction thereto).

Hmmm... Dan ... I'm ok with deferring to your knowledge, I really am.
But that means I must have read Paul's page 12 wrong then.
<https://www.engeniustech.com/resources/how-to-install-long-range-point-to-point-wireless-networking-links.pdf>

Can you help clarify why my take on this one line in Paul's reference,
is different from yours with respect to this exact situation:
o PowerBeam M2 400, max 26dBm, antenna 18dBi

Paul's page 12 is titled "Maximum EIRP in 2.4 GHz", where the chart is for
"directional signals", and where line 5 of that chart (in dark blue) shows:
o Max Power = 26 dBm, Max Antenna Gain is 18dBi, EIRP is 44 dBm (25 Watts)

The PowerBeam M2 400 on my shelf fits that line perfectly.
o Is it that this chart is NOT showing what the legal limits are?

Another point where we seem to differ, although not by a lot, is what the
commonly available EIRP is of most home routers that are in this same $100
price range.

My research shows, for example, that the venerable (yet old) WRT54G is a
puny 14dBm or 15 dBm (as I recall from a prior post) plus about 2dBi or
3dBi from the omni antennas, which provides paltry range compared to, oh,
say, a 600mW bullet and 8 dBi omni attached, which is actually the same
size (or even smaller) than the WRT54G would be (although they're different
"things" since one has a switch attached while the other does only DHCP
over the one RJ45).

Note, for about the same price, the difference in range is huge, which,
after all, is what we're talking about extending in this thread.

By the way, since this thread is all about adding value as our contribution
to share with this Usenet potluck, I thank those below for their answers:

Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com>
o Johann Beretta can 'see' visitor center access points 60 miles away

pjp <pjpoirierislocated@hotmail.com>
o pjp connects to his Internet over WiFi about 1 kilometer away LOS

Gary <g.majors@att.net>
o Gary connects to a neighborhood WiFi about 1/2 block away

gfretwell@aol.com
o He experienced a dozen home in a valley connected to a single DSL
o <http://gfretwell.com/ftp/montana/Paradise%20Valley/Slow%20internet.jpg>

Gavin <gavin.newsom@kalifornia.guv>
o Gavin uses only Ethernet

Frank <frank@frank.net>
o Frank uses Ethernet because the speed is 3X for him

Terry Coombs <snag_one@msn.com>
o Desktop isn't WiFi; but other computers are "right next" to the DSL modem

Cindy Hamilton <angelicapaganelli@yahoo.com>
o Her desktop has no wifi while her WiFi router feeds the house fine

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
o "about 2 metre but sometimes as little as about 5 cm"

Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca>
o "exactly 51 inches"

Note: This thread is perfect for two types of people above:
a. Those whose desktops do NOT have WiFi (they only need an RJ45 port)
b. Anyone who needs far greater WiFi range than what they already have

--
The goal of this thread is to (a) inform and (b) learn more about how
anyone with Ethernet-enabled computers can vastly extend their range.

 

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 07:47:16 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

The transmit power is not
turned down exactly at the same rate as the antenna
gain goes up, so slapping a dish on it is still a "win"
of some sort.

Paul

Well, it improves the receiving gain, too.

Since, in this Usenet potluck, we bring our suggestions to share so that
a. Those whose desktops do NOT have WiFi (they only need an RJ45 port)
b. Anyone who needs far greater WiFi range than what they already have

I agree with both Paul & J.P. Gilliver (John) that:
o It's likely more bang for the buck to put a dollar into the antenna dB
o Than to put that same dollar into the radio transmit dB
Although complexities arise when you get to sensitivity & noise immunity.

What would be nice, by way of shared comparisons, if people would note what
the power output is of the current Wi-Fi enabled SOHO router they're using.

As far as I can tell, so far anyway, typical consumer router EIRPs are
orders of magnitude lower than the PowerBeam we've latched onto as our
suggested unit to increase WiFi range for Ethernet-enabled computers.

Can others share what EIRP we can typically attain with $100 home routers?

 

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 16:45:58 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote:

In open air, with a "standard" +3 dBi antenna (as used in nearly all
802.11a/b/g/n/ac general-purpose access points), you'll get about 120
meters or so in open air before the connection starts becoming
unreliable.

Hi Dan,

Thanks for sharing that useful information about 3dBi omnis on most
general-purpose "access points", where I assume you mean routers mostly.

120 meters in open air seems kind of far for a typical $100 home router,
but let's accept that as the "typical" open-air distance since we are
discussing increasing the range in two fundamental common instances:
1. The computer has only an RJ45 network interface, or,
2. The computer's current Wi-Fi range is insufficient.

Now, if you live way out in the middle of nowhere, you might be able to
push it a bit farther, due to less EM noise; but nowhere near "hundreds
of yards" or "a small number of miles".

Understood. I live in the "middle of nowhere" so to speak, but even I have
unidentified noise as the free AirView Spectrum Analyzer software shows:
<https://wlan-profi-shop.de/bilder/airVIEW.jpg>

I'm sure you're aware of this, Dan, but the others may not be aware that
this type of analysis is yours for the taking with this equipment, where,
to buy a standalone hardware spectrum analyzer tool would be costly:
<https://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/airmax/UBNT_DS_airView.pdf>

Note too, that in order to do this, both ends will need to be up at
about their maximum conducted transmit power, and as such, the overall
MCS rate will suffer somewhat.

Agreed that both ends matter.
o BTW, there's nothing stopping you from buying _two_ radios for this task

We haven't covered "setup" yet, where the reader will be happy to note that
I assess the setup to be about the same simplicity (or complexity) as is
the typical setup for any home router (as a repeater, for example).

Luckily, setup is, in the end, not a big deal since you generally have two
main options, where there are plenty of setup tutorials on the net:
o Configure a Point-to-Multipoint (PtMP) ISP-Style Access Point
<https://help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/articles/205197610-airMAX-Configure-a-Point-to-Multipoint-PtMP-ISP-style-Access-Point>

o How to Configure an Indirect Point-to-Point (PtP) Link (Bridge, Repeater)
<https://help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/articles/204952284-airMAX-How-to-Configure-an-Indirect-Point-to-Point-PtP-Link-Bridge-Repeater->

If one end or the other has a higher gain antenna (such as the 16 dBi
one on the UBNT Nanobeam M5 -- which is considered a legacy product by
the manufacturer), then you may be able to eke out some additional
range; although at that point it's entirely up to the capabilities of
the mobile device.

Agreed that there are so many options, that it is confusing...

Given that the whole point of this discussion is:
a. Figure out what range people get today
b. Learn how to extend that range (appreciably) if needed...

This document by Uquibiti helps people decide what "stuff" they need:
o Which product should I use
<https://help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/articles/205197750-airMAX-Which-product-should-I-use->

One thing to note is that many manufacturers of these long-range radios
have moved on to ASICs, and as such, the devices are no longer able to
modulate the carrier in an 802.11-compliant manner. So, no "WiFi".

Let's stick to "WiFi" for the purpose of "this" discussion, since our goal
o Is to determine what range most people need

And, if they need more (perhaps even vastly more) range, then...
o We can show them how to extend the range of their home access points
o And we can show them how to extend the range of their standalone computer
(Even if that standalone computer has only an Ethernet and no "WiFi" card.)

BTW, Dan, what should we colloquially refer to the setup like this as?
<https://i.postimg.cc/6QJqK6Cj/desktop02.jpg>

--
The goal of this Usenet potluck is to (vastly) increase range at low cost.

 

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 00:28:50 -0700, Johann Beretta wrote:

> I've also been using computers since 1979. I'm not a newbie.

<OT>
Like you, and like most here, I'm no noob to Usenet either.

I started with, oh, I guess Masscomp or SunOS, maybe VAXVMS, where we used
'rn' and 'tin', where, even today, I use "vi" & telnet as my "client".

The point to keep in mind is that trolls have always existed
o Trolls always prove one thing each time they post

All I have to do is point to what they trolls themselves wrote to prove it
o The trolls swarm like gnats at any Usenet potluck to ruin it if they can

Who are the trolls who posted _zero_ value in this thread?
o Fox's Mercantile <jdangus@att.net> (more than a half dozen times)
o trader_4 <trader4@optonline.net> (more than 14 posts in this thread)
o dpb <none@none.net> (two utterly worthless posts in this thread)
o Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> (two completely off topic worthless posts)

An example of pointing to what these trolls post, look at this:
o From: % <persent@gmail.com>
"i thought he looked like a fake tit"

Clearly these people did not bring adult value to the Usenet potluck
o Hence, the question, always, is "can" they (is it actually "in" them?)

Think about these facts when we realize how trolls ruin Usenet
o People like Fox's Mercantile can't post a _single_ item of on-topic value
o Even after having posted more than a half dozen times (all worthless)

Even as I haven't responded once to trolls from Fox's Mercantile or djb
o Yet, like cowardly bullies, they insist on their god-given right to troll

What is an adult supposed to do about this infestation of trolls?
o There is always the option to not feed them (which I clearly tried here)
o Yet, that doesn't stop them (Fox's Mercantile _still_ repeatedly trolled)

Over the years, I've realized, all these trolls _can_ do .... is troll.
o They have no adult value to add whatsoever; to any technical topic.

There are, as I see it, two fundamental use models on Usenet:
a. The model I use, which is FAQ style - ask a question & work the answer
b. There's the model the trolls use - post nothing of value - for amusement

Since the trolls like Fox's Mercantile & Ed Pawloski & djb are here for
amusement, there's really nothing an adult can do - since they trolled this
thread, multiple times, even though they were completely ignored.

Nothing can stop the gnats from infesting the Usenet potluck.
o I tried to swat them away (e.g., trader_4); but they keep coming.

There are only two kinds of people who posted to this thread:
o Those who posted technical value with purposefully helpful intent
o And those trolls who prove, by what they post, this is amusement for them

We're having a serious technical conversation, Johann Beretta
o And the trolls are consistently posting their child-like drivel.

The problem, with Usenet, as I see it...
o Is that the trolls insist on proving they have a God-given right to troll

The good part about Usenet, as I see it...
o Is that adults can still share nuggets of useful on-topic tech advice

I appreciate that YOU clearly have adult on-topic technical value to add
o As do others like Jeff Liebermann who contributes greatly to Usenet

--
This thread ascertained what range people are getting today, and then we
discussed ways to help obtain vastly greater range (if needed).

 

[Fox's Mercantile]

On 10/16/19 6:23 PM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:

OT
Like you, and like most here, I'm no noob to Usenet either.

But unlike the rest of us here, you're like a leaky toilet
that just keeps going on and on.


--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com

 

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 02:42:25 -0700, Johann Beretta wrote:

Brand is easy. I prefer Ubiquiti as they deliver the whole package.
Equipment, accessories, monitoring, etc. But, that's not to imply they
are the best. I'd say they are the best for my budget and/or situation.

Hi Johann,

I appreciate that you are trying to share value on this Usenet potluck.

Thank you for letting us know the brand you prefer most.
o We also prefer Ubiquiti ... mostly for price & packaging reasons.

Of course, as you're aware, there's some "magic" in using the same
equipment on both sides, and of course, there's the fact that we get used
to how any one company does things.

Keeping in mind this is a USenet potluck where we're bringing "food" of
value to share with others, I would recommend Ubiquiti to a "homeowner",
over, say, Mikrotik. Would you concur?

Assuming a common consumer needed additional range
o And assuming they wanted to get this kind of power we speak of
o At prices about around the same price they pay today for home routers...

What others would you recommend a common consumer explore?
o Ubiquiti
<https://help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/articles/204950584-airMAX-Using-airView-to-Find-the-Best-Channel>
o Engenius
<https://www.engeniustech.com/resources/how-to-install-long-range-point-to-point-wireless-networking-links.pdf>
o Mikrotik
<http://www.mikrotik-routeros.net/install.aspx>
o Mimosa
<https://mimosa.co>
o Eero
<https://support.eero.com/hc/en-us/articles/207602596-How-is-eero-different-than-a-range-extender->
etc.

Lately I've been unhappy with the direction that UBNT is headed so I've
been experimenting with Cambium.

They are completely NEW to me so thank you for bringing them up!
o Cambium
<https://www.triadwireless.net/ubiquiti-vs-cambium-vs-mimosa-the-final-chapter/>

It's great when folks bring useful items to share on the Usenet potluck.

The UI is not nearly as polished, but
that's not necessarily a negative. I've had serious concerns of late
that Ubiquiti is more worried about eye candy and less about firmware
stability and have voiced such concerns to them.

I have noticed that Mikrotik GUI is more of an endless assemblage of tools,
whereas the Ubiquiti GUI is, as you noted, quite a bit more "polished".

As you implied, polish itself doesn't rule over the vast assortment of
tools the Microtik equipment offers (however, I do so very much love the
spectrum analyzer in Ubiquiti ... do you ever use it to seek out noise?)

I'm not a large
operation, but I reckon I have somewhere in the general vicinity of
$60,000 of their gear in current deployment. The only reason I mention
that is to qualify my experience with them.

I thank you for bringing up Cambium, which is useful to share in this
Usenet potluck, where the goal is for laypeople like me to be able to
vastly increase the range of our home devices, at "about the cost" of a
common router (give or take).

I really LOVE, for example, the fact I can instantly turn a desktop that
only has Ethernet, into a desktop that has POWERFUL WiFi (not puny WiFi).

Likewise, I love that a laptop with puny 30mW dBm (and, oh, maybe a 0.5dBi
antenna?) can INSTANTLY havfe the legal limit for point to multipoint
connections, simply by plugging this equipment into its Ethernet port.

BTW, a _lot_ of the discussion on this thread revolved around what to "call
it" when we use the Ethernet port to connect to an AP over Wi-Fi.

What would you call it?

There is no real way to specify models. I suppose I purchase more
Litebeam M5s than any other type as I have found them to be a fairly
good ROI. But I also have dozens of Rocket M5s, Rocket ACs (PRISM) and a
metric ton of Powerbeams (M and AC) deployed.

Thank you for that summary of the models of Ubiquiti equipment you use.

I have no experience with the Litebeams, but I have experience with
bullets, nanos, powerbeams, and various rockets, where, well, you know,
they're all "different" in different ways.

For _this_ newsgroup, I think I'd lean toward recommending the PowerBeams.

Why?
o They are one-piece light units (they just plug it into Cat5 & Voila!)
o They are powerful (i.e., they can transmit to the legal limit, if nec.)
o They are inexpensive (roughtly around what a $100 router costs)
o They're fairly new so they are supported well (AFAIK)

For example, here is a non-Ubiquiti tutorial on setting up the PowerBeam:
<https://www.jagoancopas.net/2019/02/configuring-powerbeam-m5-ubiquiti.html>

Where those of us who have set these things up can offer advice to the
casual reader of this newsgroup that setup is, about, sort of almost the
same, as setting up a home router in terms of simplicity or complexity.

Would you agree with that assessment Johann?

I choose the radio based
on the scenario and when at all possible I match links model to model
(tower to tower).

Yup. We all know the golden rule, which is...
o Always pair your equipment in every way possible to be twins

I've used just about every model of equipment they
make (not counting their consumer crap (UniFi and such) in the
intervening years and have pretty much standardized on Litebeams, Nanos,
Rockets, and PowerBeams.

That's interesting!

I haven't used what you term the "consumer crap", but one of my neighbors
was trying to help some of his Apple-based neighbors extend their range.

To help those Apple based neighbors, they all chipped in on a pile of these
$80 Unifi "dots" (which is what we call them, colloquially) in bulk:
<https://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-Unifi-Ap-AC-Long-Range/dp/B015PRCBBI>

Since it's a standing joke with us that the moment we find out that
somneone uses Apple equipment, we have to treat them with kid gloves, we
used these "dots" all over the place for them - but they're _still_ having
problems left and right.

Do you find those UniFi "dots" (colloquial term) to be useful in practice?

I have one pair of AirFiber 5x than I never
got around to deploying as the piece of shit has no Site Survey function
and thus is mostly useless. Waste of $1K....

Wow. No site survey?

I love a few "tools" in the Ubiquiti suite, these being those I love most:
1. I love their spectrum analyzer "waterfall" graph (colloquial term)
2. I generally run the built-in "Site Survey" & "Device Discovery" tools
3. And, after setting the LEDs, I run a quick "Antenna Alignment"

The main problem I have with the free AirView spectrum analysis tool is
that, on Windows, the Java Runtime Environment 1.6 or later is required.
<https://i.postimg.cc/GpCG1H3G/airviewneedsjava.jpg>

Here, near where Jeff Liebermann lives (other side of the hill), we all
started with the bullets, and then we trashed them for the nano's, which we
trashed for the 2.4 GHz rockets, and then, finally, we're kind of happy on
the 5GHz rockets.

I suspect many WISPS followed that exact same path. My own experience
mirrors it. I'm also quite familiar with Jeff's postings. He's got a
pretty solid amount of experience from what I can tell.

Yup. I tried to get Jeff to join us at our weekly "inventor's lunch" over
on Sand Hill Road, but he is too busy servicing customers....

What I love about Jeff is how beautifully detailed he is, where he wouldn't
fall for marketing bullshit since he keeps open a very skeptical mind.

In fact, he's the guy who clued me in that the SOHO routers suck, in
general, in terms of puny transmit power, where the omni is to be expected,
but the transmit power is what you can't easily just "replace".

I still find a use for routers and switches at home, but with all this
spare CPE lying around, I get hooked on the phenominal range these devices
have when set up in point to multipoint configurations, for about the same
price that people commonly pay for their typical home router.

The value added, I think, that we can provide to the newsgroups here, is
that the next time they're attempting to extend range (e.g., let's say they
want their laptop at the pool to connect to the wifi at the house), they
can simply plug one of these PowerBeams into the Ethernet port, and voila!

Instant range.

Less noise for sure.

Those days are over. The next big thing is going to be 24/60 GHz.
Almost all consumer routers now sold are dual frequency and they're
eating up the DFS bands which were the last "clean" spectrum we had.
Pile that on top of the fact that Ubiquiti can't seem to beat the false
DFS detections and...

You're right, of course,

Which is why we _started_ (as you seem to have done also), with the 2.4 GHz
CPE devices, growing ever increasingly in antenna gain over time, where
then we switched to 5 GHz devices, where, at least, we started with
decently high antenna gain.

Since I have so much spare CPE stuff lying around, I can plug them into
each of the computer Ethernet ports, where the range increase is great
(although I have one difficult problem of getting through a wall-to-wall
bathroom mirror - which I can only do by bouncing signal about). Sigh.

Also, by zoning rules, all our windows have some kind of coating that kills
signal, 15 decibels or so, when all we do is point a radio at a distance
access point about five miles away, where we simply measure signal:
1. On the deck without anything in front
2. Through the sliding glass doors or windows (screens removed)
3. Or through the wall.

Would you guess that the WORST signal, by about 15dB in fact, as I recall,
is the one through the windows and doors. Sheesh. What is inside those
things?

The cunts over at Hughes and ViaSat need to be beaten to death with
their own severed limbs as their routers default to broadcasting an
80MHz signal. I can push 1.2GBps through an 80 MHz link. Why those
assholes are using 80 MHz to move a couple dozen mbps is beyond me. I
suspect it's deliberately to fuck over WISPs as the only people who'd
have satellite are in the exact territories that WISPs like to cover.

This is interesting, where, as you noted, we've had Hughes up here for
quite a long time (they were first, I think), and then ViSat came in with
their new satellites on the Ka band (as I recall).

We had a few people try them - but all - to a person - dropped them over
time. Bandwidth caps were killing them, as I recall.

It's intersting the issues you're having with them, which I'm unaware of,
simply becuase I didnt' touch the stuff - I was on Etheric at the time
which has been good to me in different ways.

Thanks for sharing the ornery detail on the frequency they chose, where,
you're quite correct - where WISP exists, they will exist too.

A
single home, on a mountain top, with Hughes effectively poisons 1/4 of
the available spectrum in a given area. There is no fucking way that
was accidental and there's no way that the engineers at ViaSat/Hughes
don't have ulterior motives attached to that decision. I am unaware of
ANY consumer satellite system that delivers enough mbps to saturate a 20
Mhz wide transmission. So one must wonder why they decided to use 300%
more spectrum than they need.

This is very interesting, which I was unaware of, but where even on WISP,
we've had one company switch frequencies without telling the others (they
all know each other - but some - like Surnet - are downright ornery - as
Jeff Liebermann might concur as I'm sure he knows them well - particluarly
their on-call support guy housed in Arizona, Brett - who is just about as
customer unfriendly as a human can get).

Most of the WISPs share the spectrum nicely, but that one outfit drives the
rest nuts, based on my conversations with them. Sigh.

It's not as bad as the Huges/ViaSat situation though, because at least you
can talk to the owners personally in the case of WISP collisions.

Since we remove the "old stuff", we end up with a lot of Mikrotik
equipment, but we're mostly Ubiquiti.

How about you?
o What brand/model equipment do you prefer to erect on rooftops, and why?


I never bothered with MikroTik transmitters, beyond an isolated case or
two. I do use them exclusively for customer routers and I use a CCR on
the head end. Except for the very first transmitter I purchased (I can't
recall the manufacturer but it sucked) and a couple of abortive attempts
with using consumer grade routers when I first started experimenting, I
have been 100% Ubiquiti for RF generation.

Thanks for that vote of confidence for Ubiquiti, which is useful on this
kind of thread because we want to share your experiences with the community
at large - where - by doing so - (thousands?) benefit from every post we
share.

One thing I do like about Mikrotik router software is that there do seem to
be a lot of tools, but they seem to license many of them, which Ubiquiti
doesn't seem to do as much (or at all).

Those days are over now. I'll be deploying my first Mimosa B24s, before
the end of the year, as tower-to-tower links. The high absorption rate
of the signals via atmospheric oxygen pretty much guarantees there will
not be any more RF interference. Rain may/may not be an issue but I
plan to keep 5GHz links on hot-standby until we go through a few heavy
rains (not common in So Cal of course). A few towers I have are just
outside the 2 mile limit, so I may have to keep some 5Ghz links in
operation, but I'll be working like hell to get towers in between.

I also plan on deploying a few MikroTik 60Ghz links for towers that are
only a few hundred yards apart as I know the rain will fuck with them,
but hopefully they'll be able to muscle through it on short links. I
already have one set on the bench and am experimenting with it. As
normal, MikroTik's UI sucks fat balls, but......

Yes. Weather. We know it well. You seem to have it pretty much under
control, where, here, for example, PG&E shut us off last week simply
because of rains and fire danger (it's pretty bad out here for fire or
earthquake, that's for sure).

Rains? As you're aware ... here in the mountains surrounding the Silicon
Valley, when it rains, it pours, and when it pours, it pours for weeks,
but, in general, the sky is blue and the weather is sunny and calm.

You must go through the same issues we have with solar powered UPS and
portable propane-powered generators, which we sprinkle about (every house
on the mountain has its own power generation unit - but I'm talking about
the access points also need power and backup power - to last for days).

--
Thank you for sharing value, particularly brands, for the Usenet potluck.

 

[Johann Beretta]

On 10/16/19 2:42 AM, Johann Beretta wrote:

<snip>

Those days are over. The next big thing is going to be 24/60 GHz.
Almost all consumer routers now sold are dual frequency and they're
eating up the DFS bands which were the last "clean" spectrum we had.
Pile that on top of the fact that Ubiquiti can't seem to beat the false
DFS detections and...

<snip>
Follow-up to my own post.. But I think I nailed that one.. Was speaking
to and employee of my competition today (the employee and I go way back
and we both worked for Pacific Bell) and he mentioned his boss is at
Wispalooza right now and apparently Ubiquiti is demoing their first
60Ghz transmitter... Which is... awesome. I love Mikrotik routers but
have never been happy with their radios. So was a bit unhappy that I was
going to have to use them for 60Ghz. Their alignment function (for
example) is utter crap. Ubiquiti wins that hands-down. Easy to read,
easy to figure out.. etc.

 

[Johann Beretta]

On 10/16/19 5:44 PM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:

<snip>

Keeping in mind this is a USenet potluck where we're bringing "food" of
value to share with others, I would recommend Ubiquiti to a "homeowner",
over, say, Mikrotik. Would you concur?

Assuming a common consumer needed additional range
o And assuming they wanted to get this kind of power we speak of
o At prices about around the same price they pay today for home routers...

snip

Yeah I'd probably recommend UBNT. They tend to work out of the box. But
this word "common" is.. misleading. The average user needs to fill his
house.. Not acres of property. Most folks like in Condos / Apartments /
Track Homes. Here in the rural areas there is a need for additional
range to be sure. In fact I just installed a Rocket M2 with a couple of
8dbi omnis for a customer today.

To be totally fair, the average/common user takes a router out of the
box, plugs it in, and that's the end of it. Most folks don't even know
that their router has a UI.
<snip>

I have noticed that Mikrotik GUI is more of an endless assemblage of tools,
whereas the Ubiquiti GUI is, as you noted, quite a bit more "polished".

I'd say MikroTik takes the UNIX approach. Separate tools, that each do
one thing, packaged together. This, at least partially, explains the
stability of a MikroTik router. The fact it's powered by a custom Linux
kernel certainly doesn't hurt either.

As you implied, polish itself doesn't rule over the vast assortment of
tools the Microtik equipment offers (however, I do so very much love the
spectrum analyzer in Ubiquiti ... do you ever use it to seek out noise?)

The spectrum analyzer? Airview is, in my experience, absolutely
worthless and I've been gently pushing for UBNT to fix it or discard it.
It doesn't work AT ALL. The spectrum analyzer waterfall may/may not
work, but the implementation in the AC line of radios is absolutely
useless. I've can look at it, see I have a "noise floor" of -106 (on a
given frequency), run a site survey and pick up a foreign transmitter at
-60dbm on that exact frequency.

I'll concede that maybe it's only used for "non wifi" transmissions. But
they don't tell you that and it's counter-intuitive. To me, any
transmission that's not my own is "noise". It's a potential source of
interference. So no, I don't rely on it and don't use it as a general rule.

<snip>

I thank you for bringing up Cambium, which is useful to share in this
Usenet potluck, where the goal is for laypeople like me to be able to
vastly increase the range of our home devices, at "about the cost" of a
common router (give or take).

If you're in a rural area, that's fine. But please do remember that
every foot you push your signal out is another foot where it's potential
noise/interference to someone else. 2.4GHz has exactly 3 non-overlapping
frequencies at 20 MHz. That's not a lot. 1, 6, 11. Anything else
overlaps another channel. If you're blasting a signal out that goes
10,000 ft beyond what you need that's not good.

My own opinion is that none of this gear is for "lay people". It's far
too easy to violate transmission limits and there's always the potential
of interfering with an operational WISP (unlikely in the 2.4 band, but
still possible) and then maybe you're fucking over dozens of people.

Honestly I'd almost like to see most of this gear require at least a
technician's FCC license to install.

I really LOVE, for example, the fact I can instantly turn a desktop that
only has Ethernet, into a desktop that has POWERFUL WiFi (not puny WiFi).

Likewise, I love that a laptop with puny 30mW dBm (and, oh, maybe a 0.5dBi
antenna?) can INSTANTLY havfe the legal limit for point to multipoint
connections, simply by plugging this equipment into its Ethernet port.

Well, as I pointed out in an earlier message, that power is only going
to be legal if you're judicious about being totally honest in the
configuration.

BTW, a _lot_ of the discussion on this thread revolved around what to "call
it" when we use the Ethernet port to connect to an AP over Wi-Fi.

What would you call it?

The term is "wireless bridge" or "wifi bridge". Both are accepted
definitions in the WISP business.

https://kb.netgear.com/227/What-is-a-wireless-bridge

<snip>

Why?
o They are one-piece light units (they just plug it into Cat5 & Voila!)
o They are powerful (i.e., they can transmit to the legal limit, if nec.)

And far beyond if one lies in the configuration. But here I'm beating a
dead horse.

<snip>
> Do you find those UniFi "dots" (colloquial term) to be useful in practice?

No. I refuse to use them. I have... philosophical differences with UBNT
delving into the consumer side of things. Ubiquiti became a
multi-billion dollar company by making WISP gear. Now I feel as if that
side of the business is being shoved into the background as they try
expand into the home markets. Same reason I won't buy anything named
CISCO any more. Linksys buys Cisco, who were well known for having some
of the best routers and switches that money could buy, and then slaps
the name CISCO on every cheap piece of shit they could think of. CISCO,
in the span of a few years, became a joke. I had purchased a couple of
small CISCO switches and what do I find? Yeah.. Linksys internals...

I have one pair of AirFiber 5x than I never
got around to deploying as the piece of shit has no Site Survey function
and thus is mostly useless. Waste of $1K....

Wow. No site survey?

Nope. Maybe later firmware has it, but I tried for over a year and no
luck..

<snip>

Here, near where Jeff Liebermann lives (other side of the hill), we all
started with the bullets, and then we trashed them for the nano's, which we
trashed for the 2.4 GHz rockets, and then, finally, we're kind of happy on
the 5GHz rockets.

Well, Bullets are single chain, so... The Rockets are vastly superior.

<snip>

The value added, I think, that we can provide to the newsgroups here, is
that the next time they're attempting to extend range (e.g., let's say they
want their laptop at the pool to connect to the wifi at the house), they
can simply plug one of these PowerBeams into the Ethernet port, and voila!

How far away is the pool? C'mon, you'd be far better served by slapping
a nano on the outside of the house and aiming it at the pool. Lets not
forget that an over-saturated link (too much power) is worse than a
signal that's too weak. The latter affects only you, the former affects
anyone within several thousand feet or more.

It's this kind of mentality that drives me up the wall. And it's not
just you. It's a lot of people. Unlicensed spectrum is a common
resources. It doesn't take too many "average joes" with knowledge but no
experience to screw up that shared spectrum for miles in any direction.
It's not a surprise though. "Tragedy of the Commons" is a phrase that
has been around for centuries because it's something that happens time
after time after time. I'm sure I was guilty of it when I first started,
but experience has taught me.

<snip>

This is very interesting, which I was unaware of, but where even on WISP,
we've had one company switch frequencies without telling the others (they
all know each other - but some - like Surnet - are downright ornery - as
Jeff Liebermann might concur as I'm sure he knows them well - particluarly
their on-call support guy housed in Arizona, Brett - who is just about as
customer unfriendly as a human can get).

This is one of the few things my competition and I actually discuss..
Frequencies. It's just as bad for me to interfere with him as vice
versa. If I put a transmitter on a frequency he's using it's going to
screw up my transmissions and it will screw up his transmission.
Everyone loses. Thus, we communicate as best we can.

My rule of thumb is to avoid his frequencies as best as possible (and he
does the same). I'll stomp all over a home router before I'll fuck up
his transmissions. If I can't find a free frequency then we'll talk and
see if we can jiggle shit around a little bit. Maybe he moves 5 Mhz up
and I move 5 Mhz down (as an example). There is a vested interest in
cooperating because if he (or I) do not, then I will stomp on his
frequencies if I have to and he'll do the same.

<snip>

One thing I do like about Mikrotik router software is that there do seem to
be a lot of tools, but they seem to license many of them, which Ubiquiti
doesn't seem to do as much (or at all).

Many/Most? of those tools are open source. Mikrotik has a few custom
tools and has made modifications to existing tools. My one complaint
with MikroTik is that they are mostly leeches when it comes to the
software. They'll happily take an open source tool, tweak it to be a bit
better and then refuse to share those changes with the community (which
is required for GPL and LGPL but not BSD licenses). There's been talk
over the years of FSF (Free Software Foundation) suing them over it, but
it's never progressed much past talk. They may have corrected their
practices over the last years, but a decade ago they were downright
assholes about it.

<snip>

Yes. Weather. We know it well. You seem to have it pretty much under
control, where, here, for example, PG&E shut us off last week simply
because of rains and fire danger (it's pretty bad out here for fire or
earthquake, that's for sure).

Yep. It was all over the news. Our own electrical monopoly did a
similar, albeit much smaller scale, shutdown as well. Luckily I was not
in an affected zone.

You must go through the same issues we have with solar powered UPS and
portable propane-powered generators, which we sprinkle about (every house
on the mountain has its own power generation unit - but I'm talking about
the access points also need power and backup power - to last for days).

I decided at the outset to go solar when at all possible. I have only
two sites on mains power. The rest are on solar and have battery banks
that will power them for up to a week in total darkness. Needless to
say, we don't have total darkness for that long in So Cal. Even on a
pretty cloudy day the sites will still be generating power as I have
oversized the solar panels as well. My goal was to be able to charge
the batteries, from near empty, to full in a single day of sunlight.
Right now it takes me about 3 or 4 hours to recover after 3 or 4 days of
heavy cloud cover. My recovery times for night usage is on the order of
an hour or so, maybe 30 mins in the full brilliance of the Summer sun.

 

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 18:26:28 -0700, Johann Beretta wrote:

Their alignment function (for
example) is utter crap. Ubiquiti wins that hands-down. Easy to read,
easy to figure out.. etc.

You have far more experience than I to share on the tools inside the router
web GUI software, where I'm glad then that I have mostly Ubiquiti stuff.
o Spectrum Analyzer tool
<https://help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/article_attachments/202812440/spectrum_analyzer_1.png>
o Site Survey tool
<https://help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/article_attachments/205851848/step2.png>
o Discovery Tool
<https://help.ubnt.com/hc/article_attachments/360000171147/discovery.png>

I agree with you on the alignment tool being easy and intuitive to use, but
I don't have experience with anyone else's alignment tool (I can't find it
in the Mikrotik menu).

So it's great you share your experience on this public Usenet potluck.

Since we're here to share additional technical on-topic value on this
public Usenet potluck, here, for others to get a better idea of, is what
Johann Beretta is talking about on the Ubuiquiti alignment GUI on my own
radio, just now, where I annotated the results to make it easier for you:
<https://i.postimg.cc/sfkHW6WG/align.jpg>

Notice the antenna alignment steps are intuitive and simple:
0. You head to the "Advanced" tab on the router web configuration GUI.
1. You set the threshhold for each of the four external LEDs to light
LED1=65dBm LED2=63dBm LED3=61dBm LED4=60dBM
(Notice they dispense with the minus signs in the GUI.)
2. You pull down the tools menu for "align antenna".
3. If you want to align by sound, you check the "alignment beep" box
(We generally do NOT align by sound as we use a helper instead.)
4. You set the max signal (if desired), where this is set to -65dBM
5. You twist the antenna ever so slightly to get the maximum signal level.
(In this case, that's -55dBm for a WiFi AP five or six miles away.)

Another useful tool is the "Discovery Tool"
<https://www.ui.com/videos/#>

And, another useful tool is the "Site Survey".
<https://help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/article_attachments/205851848/step2.png>

(They list so much information, I didn't want to have to redact it all.)

The "spectrum analyzer" tool is also quite nice for noise levels.
<https://help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/articles/204950584-airMAX-Using-airView-to-Find-the-Best-Channel>
<https://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/airmax/UBNT_DS_airView.pdf>

--
Note: This is the stuff Char Jackson proved totally ignorant about.

 

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 10/16/2019 11:02 PM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
> Note: This is the stuff Char Jackson proved totally ignorant about

You just can't make a post without knocking or denigrating someone. Your
superiority complex has to show.

 

[Johann Beretta]

On 10/14/19 7:05 PM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:

<snip>

I am fairly curious as to why you have not addressed the point that I
have made a couple of times where it's trivial to put a PowerBeam (for
example) into a configuration that violates FCC transmit limits.

I apologize if I simply missed it. But in the event I did not, why have
you not addressed this?

In the event you did not see it, are you aware that using a PowerBeam M5
400 (as an example) with "Feed Only" on the wireless tab but, in
reality, having the feedhorn inside the 400mm dish, and the transmit
power set to maximum, will violate FCC transmit limits for the 5 GHz band?


Do you concede that Ubiquiti has made it trivial to violate transmit
limits by allowing a user to uncheck the "calculate EIRP limits" box in
the configuration?

Mind you, I'm not advocating these options go away as I can think of a
few situations where they could be handy (and legal) to have?
Specifically it is possible to build a custom dish for the transmitter
that would fall somewhere in between the two options (Feedhorn only &
400mm dish) that would be, at worst, a gray area.

Furthermore, not only can one violate limits, but one can do so well
inside the DFS bands. Do you concede that this presents a real public
safety problem if such a configuration is done near an airport using
TDWR radar? (yes I know the word radar is redundant here, but I use it
for clarification for lay persons)

 

[Johann Beretta]

On 10/16/19 8:02 PM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
<snip>

I agree with you on the alignment tool being easy and intuitive to use, but
I don't have experience with anyone else's alignment tool (I can't find it
in the Mikrotik menu).

No surprise there as it's in a rather dumb location. Interfaces / WLAN1
/ Near the top (10th button from the left in my router)

 

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 01:55:29 -0300, pjp wrote:

Most of this thread is way over my head and interest. That said it
suggests there's some straight forward way I could provide internet to
my RV parked back in woods about 1Km from house.

That correct? If so what would I need to purchase (not make) to have it
work?

Hi pjp,

Most of this thread covered silly semantics, and then the post you
responded to covered legal limits, where I apologize for those two:

On semantics, the precise words don't matter when you're trying to get
something done - like you just asked how and if you can do it.

On legality, it's like wasting time cautioning everyoine who buys a ski
mask not to rob a bank using it ... it's just not the time and place to
worry about breaking the law, since you have to TRY to break the law.

Dan showed you "could" break the law, which I appreciate, but that's like
saying you could break the law by using a ski mask to rob a bank, which is
to say there are a few other things involved after you buy the equipment.

So now to your question ... there are others who can advise you BETTER than
I can, so I'll let them trump me ... but to help you where I can... let's
clarify the questions, first.

From what you said we know...
1. You're a km a way from the RV
2. You want WiFi at that RV
3. Presumably that WiFi will be "beamed" from your house (or vice versa)

The first and most important question, is whether you can visually "see"
the RV. Where I live, we can see for scores of miles, so that's not such a
silly question. But if you're in dense woods, you won't be able to visually
see the RV.

If you can SEE the RV, then certainly all the stuff we're talking about
will work. Even if you can't see the RV, we can "make" it work, but,
really, "most" of this thread was about Line Of Sight (LOS) transmissions
(mostly, although you can go shorter distances through structures since
radio waves are really just fluctuations in electical & magnetic fields).

If you can "see" the RV, the kilometer isn't going to be a problem
(although we have to look at the "gain", mostly from the antenna, on both
ends).

First key question:
o From your roof or from a window or from a pole on the ground or from a
treetop within a few hundred feet of the house ... can you "see" the RV?

 

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 21:55:36 -0700, Johann Beretta wrote:

I agree with you on the alignment tool being easy and intuitive to use, but
I don't have experience with anyone else's alignment tool (I can't find it
in the Mikrotik menu).

No surprise there as it's in a rather dumb location. Interfaces / WLAN1
/ Near the top (10th button from the left in my router)

Hi Johann,

Wow. Thanks for that suggestion as, you're more aware than anyone where,
that the MicroTik RouterOS must have at least a hundred or more different
"menus", many deeply nested, where there could be hundreds overall.

I think with your help, I may have gotten close, although it's NOT
intuitive what the steps are to get it to actually work.

By way of comparison, here's the Ubuqiti AirOS align sequence result:
<https://i.postimg.cc/sfkHW6WG/align.jpg>

Here's a screenshot I just snapped for you of the RouterOS align result:
<https://i.postimg.cc/tCxLW2ZN/align01.jpg>

Where that was obtained on Windows 10 Pro by running these steps:
o Doubleclick on "winbox.exe" & up pops "MikroTik WinBox Loader v2.2.18"
o Log in to the RouterOS "WinBox v6.28 on RB411" IP address as 'admin'
o Left click on the left panel of menus item named "Interfaces"
o That brings up a new window titled "Interface List" with 9 tabs
o Those 9 tabs are: Interface, Ethernet, EoIP Tunnel, IP Tunnel, GRE Tunnel, VLAN, VRRP, Bonding, & LTE
o In that "Interface List" are 3 items: bridge1, ether1, & wlan1
o Doubleclick on "wlan1" & up pops an "Interface <wlan1>" window with 15 tabs
o Those 15 tabs are: General, Wireless, Data Rates, Advanced, HT, HT MCS, WDS, Nstreme, NV2, Tx Power, Current Tx Power, Advanced Status, Status, & Traffic
o At the right of that same "Interface <wlan1>" window are 13 "buttons"
o Those 13 buttons are: OK, Cancel, Apply, Disable, Comment, Torch, Scan, Freq Usage, Align, Sniff, Snooper, Reset Configuration, & Simple Mode
o I click on the "Align" button and an "Alignment (Running)" window pops up.
o That window has a pulldown set to "wlan1" & 5 buttons to the right
o Those 5 buttons are: Start, Stop, Close, Wireless Alignment Settings, & New Window
o In the middle of that window are 8 tabs
o Those 8 tabs are: Address, SSID, Rx Quality, Avg. Rx Quality, Last Rx, Tx Quality, Last Tx, & Correct (%)

I must be close, but when I press "Start" or "Stop" the window header
definitely changes from "Alignment (Running)" to "Alignment", so, I must be
close ... but I don't see where I'm supposed to see the signal strength
graphical values (and I don't hear any beeping sounds either).

The radio is "working" because when I press "Snooper", I get a long
dynamically changing listing of all the radios it can 'see'.

Likewise, when I press "Sniff", it shows sniffed packets.
Same with "Freq. Usage", I see the frequency & noise levels.
Also, when I press "Scan" I see a list of access points & information.
Even "Torch" does something, although I don't know what I just torched.

Am I close?
<https://i.postimg.cc/tCxLW2ZN/align01.jpg>

I don't know where to look to see the signal strength numbers or graph.

--
The Mikrotik router menu is like Linux where AirOS is like Windows.

 

[Johann Beretta]

On 10/16/19 11:43 PM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
<snip>

Even "Torch" does something, although I don't know what I just torched.

Am I close?
https://i.postimg.cc/tCxLW2ZN/align01.jpg

I don't know where to look to see the signal strength numbers or graph.

I should have added, in my previous post, that I have not used WinBox
for alignment, so I cannot help there. The few times I've done an
alignment (2 or 3 times max) I used the web interface.

 

[Johann Beretta]

On 10/16/19 11:43 PM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:

<snip>

Am I close?
https://i.postimg.cc/tCxLW2ZN/align01.jpg

I don't know where to look to see the signal strength numbers or graph.

No graph. You just get a single row of numbers

https://mega.nz/#!kQh0nAgb!kUeDNj1LyAjBueiih3bLCMIPif4oRmCnX-u__qxNTlQ

As you'll recall, I don't generally use MikroTik radios. This screenshot
is from the single operational 'Tik CPE device I have.

Supposedly you can get audio feedback if you input the target MAC into
the alignment settings, but I haven't been successful.

This video is crappy but does a decent job of explaining how it works

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_D91n9iWO8

I think to get audio feedback requires linking to another MikroTik
device, but I'm not positive. MK wireless is where my knowledge breaks
down.