RV campground wi-fi & cellular antenna/repeater...

[mike]

Friend uses an RV where campgrounds have varying degrees of wi-fi and
cellular signal depending on the campsite chosen.

He asked me for advice where I would like to ask GENERAL questions of you.

The first is for cellular which is whether they sell a cellular repeater for
use not at a home but in an RV that moves to different places?

I suspect not, so then the rest of the questions are related to wi-fi.
For distance, is it true that 2.5GHz travels farther (assuming obstructions)
than does 5GHz? Noise shouldn\'t be a problem in a campground but distance
is.

The power supply can be the batteries of the RV or 120VAC at the campground.
The laptop has an ethernet port on the side. And he has an old router too.

But his main problem is amplifying weak signal which most of the time he
says exists at the check-in desk but it\'s too low to be useful (phone calls
or wifi) at the camping spot.

When I looked for radio/antenna setups the first I found was these.
https://www.radiolabs.com/wireless/rv-marine-wifi-antennas/wifi-rv-marine-antenna-captifi-ultra/

But then I found this at streakwave which is more cost effective.
https://www.streakwave.com/ubiquiti-networks-pbe-m5-300-us-5ghz-powerbeam-m5-22dbi-300mm-us
https://www.streakwave.com/ubiquiti-networks-pbe-m2-400-us-2-4ghz-powerbeam-m2-18dbi-400mm-us

The questions I have about those $80 setups is what\'s the difference to him
of a 400 mm horn versus a 300 mm long horn (100 mm does what?).

And given he doesn\'t know whether they\'ll have 2.4 or 5GHz, do they make a
powerbeam or bullet or rocket that is both 2.5GHz and 5GHz at the same time?

In the end, for around a hundred bucks, what would you recommend for an RV?

 

[Dan Purgert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

mike wrote:

Friend uses an RV where campgrounds have varying degrees of wi-fi and
cellular signal depending on the campsite chosen.

He asked me for advice where I would like to ask GENERAL questions of you.

The first is for cellular which is whether they sell a cellular
repeater for use not at a home but in an RV that moves to different
places?

Best people to check with is the cell carrier you use. AIUI, the
microcells they offer tend to use your internet connection (so if it\'s
bad, the microcell will also be bad).

For distance, is it true that 2.5GHz travels farther (assuming
obstructions) than does 5GHz? Noise shouldn\'t be a problem in a
campground but distance is.

Technically, 2.4 GHz is attenuated less than 5 GHz over the same
distance. That said, 2.4 GHz is a lot noisier, so it might be that even
though it attenuates; the 5 GHz signal will be more usable.

But his main problem is amplifying weak signal which most of the time he
says exists at the check-in desk but it\'s too low to be useful (phone
calls or wifi) at the camping spot.

Yep - you\'ll need something with a pretty good directional antenna that
can do 802.11a/b/g/n (the 802.11ac stuff I\'m aware of doesn\'t fallback
to 802.11n; which can be problematic at campgrounds). Best bet would be
CPE radios from Mikrotik, such as their SXTsq lineup.

When I looked for radio/antenna setups the first I found was these.
https://www.radiolabs.com/wireless/rv-marine-wifi-antennas/wifi-rv-marine-antenna-captifi-ultra/

But then I found this at streakwave which is more cost effective.
https://www.streakwave.com/ubiquiti-networks-pbe-m5-300-us-5ghz-powerbeam-m5-22dbi-300mm-us
https://www.streakwave.com/ubiquiti-networks-pbe-m2-400-us-2-4ghz-powerbeam-m2-18dbi-400mm-us

UBNT has gone pants-on-head stupid in the last few years. It\'s kind of
a shame -- they\'d have been top recommendation 5 years ago. Also, the
powerbeams are not easy to align at all.

The questions I have about those $80 setups is what\'s the difference
to him of a 400 mm horn versus a 300 mm long horn (100 mm does
what?).

It\'s the diameter of the dish, not the length of the horn.

And given he doesn\'t know whether they\'ll have 2.4 or 5GHz, do they make a
powerbeam or bullet or rocket that is both 2.5GHz and 5GHz at the same
time?

No.

In the end, for around a hundred bucks, what would you recommend for
an RV?

A Mikrotik SXTsq Lite2 & 5. Should run you just under $100

A Groove52 might also do it -- but you\'ll need to purchase the antennas
separately (which\'ll drive up the cost a bit).


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=ESRc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|_|_|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860
|O|O|O| Former PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

 

[meff]

On 2022-04-04, Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:

UBNT has gone pants-on-head stupid in the last few years. It\'s kind of
a shame -- they\'d have been top recommendation 5 years ago. Also, the
powerbeams are not easy to align at all.

I\'m curious what makes you say that. Is this related to the Krebs
kerfuffle? We don\'t need to litigate that but I\'m curious if there\'s
technical reasoning here beyond the hack and the Krebs incident.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 10:22:44, mike <this@address.is.invalid> wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):

Friend uses an RV where campgrounds have varying degrees of wi-fi and
cellular signal depending on the campsite chosen.

Answering from UK, where things may be different.

He asked me for advice where I would like to ask GENERAL questions of you.

The first is for cellular which is whether they sell a cellular repeater for
use not at a home but in an RV that moves to different places?

I presume that means for the mobile (UK)/cellular (US) network, i. e.
\'phone coverage. I\'ve never heard of such a repeater, though I can see
it might be plausible, in places where (say) a good mobile/cellular
signal might only be available at the peak of the chimney/roof or
something. Would presumably be nothing to do with the campsite owner
though (unless s/he has some arrangement with the network provider to
actually provide a base station/tower/whatever).

>I suspect not

Being somewhat at a disadvantage never having seen one, but trying to
think about how such a thing would work, I can\'t see why it would be
different for a home one versus an RV one, other than possibly what
power it runs on. Do such repeaters themselves connect to the
mobile/cellular network, and then act as a \"base station\" for any mobile
below them? Do they contain a SIM (or hardwired identity - I gather
SIMless \'phones are commoner in US [they\'re almost unknown here]), or
would they just relay any and all signals? Either way, I can\'t see
they\'d be different for home and RV.

>, so then the rest of the questions are related to wi-fi.

By which I take it you mean a facility provided by the campsite owner
for the convenience of campers.

For distance, is it true that 2.5GHz travels farther (assuming obstructions)
than does 5GHz? Noise shouldn\'t be a problem in a campground but distance
is.

As Dan has said, in theory, 2.5 is less obscured by obstructions than 5;
conversely, in built-up areas, it\'s far more likely to be noisy -
microwave oven leakage, security cameras, and many other things. In what
I would imagine to be the rural location of most campsites, that might
be less the case though. On the whole the 5 GHz band is more recently
developed, so connections on it are likely to be faster/higher capacity
than the older band - if they work at all.

The power supply can be the batteries of the RV or 120VAC at the campground.
The laptop has an ethernet port on the side. And he has an old router too.

But his main problem is amplifying weak signal which most of the time he
says exists at the check-in desk but it\'s too low to be useful (phone calls
or wifi) at the camping spot.

[]
I\'ve no experience of active devices (actual amplifiers), or horns. I
have seen multi-element Yagi aerials (like a rooftop/pole-mounted TV
aerial, but with more elements - which is practical as the dimensions
are shorter; they\'re about a foot or two long) for the 2.4 GHz band;
they might exist for the 5, I\'ve not looked. Not very expensive (I think
$5-$30); I think one of the main makers is Swan, who I think are
Australian (though their products are widely available online, certainly
in UK and I would guess in US). I would think it worth trying these out
before spending hundreds of dollars. The main practical difficulty is
how you connect them to the computer; they generally have a lead ending
with a little gold connector (F type I think it\'s called); laptops with
built-in wifi (\'phones ditto) tend not to have an external socket. USB
wifi dongles that have a \"rubber duck\" aerial, it\'s often removable
leaving a suitable socket: such dongles are very cheap (few bucks,
especially if not dual-band).

Personally, I\'d experiment with such a yagi aerial (buying such a dongle
if necessary - you\'d need to disable the laptop\'s built-in wifi, or it
might be OK to leave it on, as it almost certainly won\'t receive
anything a long way from the site office).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

so that the vendors can \"serve you better\". As if you were a tennis ball, I
guess. - Wolf K, in alt.windows7.general, 2014-7-21

 

[Dan Purgert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

meff wrote:

On 2022-04-04, Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
UBNT has gone pants-on-head stupid in the last few years. It\'s kind of
a shame -- they\'d have been top recommendation 5 years ago. Also, the
powerbeams are not easy to align at all.

I\'m curious what makes you say that. Is this related to the Krebs
kerfuffle? We don\'t need to litigate that but I\'m curious if there\'s
technical reasoning here beyond the hack and the Krebs incident.

Those incidents, as well as the general decline of things. Maybe I\'m
just bitter, since when I started using their stuff, they were in a
pretty solid upswing. Seems they skipped right past \"leveling off\" into
\"downswing\".

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=bEP3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|_|_|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860
|O|O|O| Former PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

 

[Dan Purgert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 10:22:44, mike <this@address.is.invalid> wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):
For distance, is it true that 2.5GHz travels farther (assuming
obstructions) than does 5GHz? Noise shouldn\'t be a problem in a
campground but distancei is.

As Dan has said, in theory, 2.5 is less obscured by obstructions than 5;
conversely, in built-up areas, it\'s far more likely to be noisy -
microwave oven leakage, security cameras, and many other things. In what
I would imagine to be the rural location of most campsites, that might
be less the case though. On the whole the 5 GHz band is more recently
developed, so connections on it are likely to be faster/higher capacity
than the older band - if they work at all.

Don\'t forget that \"campgrounds\" can also be densely populated
(especially on weekends) with people looking to get away. A
modest-sized campground may have 100 sites (or even more)...


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=xZgC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|_|_|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860
|O|O|O| Former PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 13:26:55, Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 10:22:44, mike <this@address.is.invalid> wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):
For distance, is it true that 2.5GHz travels farther (assuming
obstructions) than does 5GHz? Noise shouldn\'t be a problem in a
campground but distancei is.

As Dan has said, in theory, 2.5 is less obscured by obstructions than 5;
conversely, in built-up areas, it\'s far more likely to be noisy -
microwave oven leakage, security cameras, and many other things. In what
I would imagine to be the rural location of most campsites, that might
be less the case though. On the whole the 5 GHz band is more recently
developed, so connections on it are likely to be faster/higher capacity
than the older band - if they work at all.

Don\'t forget that \"campgrounds\" can also be densely populated
(especially on weekends) with people looking to get away. A
modest-sized campground may have 100 sites (or even more)...

True! Though probably won\'t have the security cameras, etc., and other
\"noise sources\", you\'d get in a more built-up area, and presumably most
people who \"get away\" to them will be out walking, or similar. But I
suppose if there\'s sudden bad weather or something, there might be lots
sitting in their RVs trying to use the net - possibly enough to swamp
the 11 or 13 channels on the 2.4 MHz band. Though again, whether enough
of them would have the ability to use any such facility based at the
site office, rather than using data on the cellular/mobile network
directly ...
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

\"Gentlemen, you can\'t fight in here: this is the war room!\" (Dr. Strangelove)

 

[Dan Purgert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 13:26:55, Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 10:22:44, mike <this@address.is.invalid> wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):
For distance, is it true that 2.5GHz travels farther (assuming
obstructions) than does 5GHz? Noise shouldn\'t be a problem in a
campground but distancei is.

As Dan has said, in theory, 2.5 is less obscured by obstructions than 5;
conversely, in built-up areas, it\'s far more likely to be noisy -
microwave oven leakage, security cameras, and many other things. In what
I would imagine to be the rural location of most campsites, that might
be less the case though. On the whole the 5 GHz band is more recently
developed, so connections on it are likely to be faster/higher capacity
than the older band - if they work at all.

Don\'t forget that \"campgrounds\" can also be densely populated
(especially on weekends) with people looking to get away. A
modest-sized campground may have 100 sites (or even more)...



True! Though probably won\'t have the security cameras, etc., and other
\"noise sources\", you\'d get in a more built-up area, and presumably most
people who \"get away\" to them will be out walking, or similar. But I
suppose if there\'s sudden bad weather or something, there might be lots
sitting in their RVs trying to use the net - possibly enough to swamp
the 11 or 13 channels on the 2.4 MHz band. Though again, whether enough
of them would have the ability to use any such facility based at the
site office, rather than using data on the cellular/mobile network
directly ...

Sort of. There are a few key points that can become problematic:

1. If someone\'s connected to the AP in the office (whatever), it\'ll
constantly try connecting if it\'s \"in range\". This can tie up the AP for
other people.

2. If it\'s just an AP for the office (e.g. there\'s a game-room or
laundry or other reason to specifically put wifi there), trying to
connect through exterior walls can be very hit-or-miss (metal-foil in
the insulation, efficient windows, etc all tend to block RF - I mean,
it\'s exactly the same reason you get fuzzy TV or radio if all you have
is the rabbit-ears...).

3. If it\'s just some generic \"consumer\" kit, it\'s really only going to
be able to handle ~2 dozen devices anyway (limited hardware resources)

4. People utilizing their phones as wifi hotspots that happen to collide
with the office AP, by virtue of being far enough away that they think
whichever channel is available; and creating local contention issues.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=GZIG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|_|_|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860
|O|O|O| Former PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

 

[meff]

On 2022-04-05, Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:

Those incidents, as well as the general decline of things. Maybe I\'m
just bitter, since when I started using their stuff, they were in a
pretty solid upswing. Seems they skipped right past \"leveling off\" into
\"downswing\".

Fair enough. Just wanted to make sure that they haven\'t found a
technical deficiency with their equipment yet.

 

[Steve]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 15:48:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> put together
some random words that came up with:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 13:26:55, Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 10:22:44, mike <this@address.is.invalid> wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):
For distance, is it true that 2.5GHz travels farther (assuming
obstructions) than does 5GHz? Noise shouldn\'t be a problem in a
campground but distancei is.

As Dan has said, in theory, 2.5 is less obscured by obstructions than 5;
conversely, in built-up areas, it\'s far more likely to be noisy -
microwave oven leakage, security cameras, and many other things. In what
I would imagine to be the rural location of most campsites, that might
be less the case though. On the whole the 5 GHz band is more recently
developed, so connections on it are likely to be faster/higher capacity
than the older band - if they work at all.

Don\'t forget that \"campgrounds\" can also be densely populated
(especially on weekends) with people looking to get away. A
modest-sized campground may have 100 sites (or even more)...



True! Though probably won\'t have the security cameras, etc., and other
\"noise sources\", you\'d get in a more built-up area, and presumably most
people who \"get away\" to them will be out walking, or similar. But I
suppose if there\'s sudden bad weather or something, there might be lots
sitting in their RVs trying to use the net - possibly enough to swamp
the 11 or 13 channels on the 2.4 MHz band. Though again, whether enough
of them would have the ability to use any such facility based at the
site office, rather than using data on the cellular/mobile network
directly ...

Sort of. There are a few key points that can become problematic:

1. If someone\'s connected to the AP in the office (whatever), it\'ll
constantly try connecting if it\'s \"in range\". This can tie up the AP for
other people.

2. If it\'s just an AP for the office (e.g. there\'s a game-room or
laundry or other reason to specifically put wifi there), trying to
connect through exterior walls can be very hit-or-miss (metal-foil in
the insulation, efficient windows, etc all tend to block RF - I mean,
it\'s exactly the same reason you get fuzzy TV or radio if all you have
is the rabbit-ears...).

3. If it\'s just some generic \"consumer\" kit, it\'s really only going to
be able to handle ~2 dozen devices anyway (limited hardware resources)

4. People utilizing their phones as wifi hotspots that happen to collide
with the office AP, by virtue of being far enough away that they think
whichever channel is available; and creating local contention issues.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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>=GZIG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

RE: WIFI Stick one of these
https://www.engeniustech.com/engenius-products/managed-outdoor-wireless-ews860ap/

On a pole when you park in a campground, and run your Cat6 cable inside the RV
(with a POE supply) and have the RV run wired Ethernet inside the RV. This one
(they have others, which may be better suited for your needs) should work fine.
Just orient it towards the campground\'s WIFI access point.

Set it up as a receiver.

I have an older version (and ENH500) and use it as a long-range WIFI receiver.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 05 Apr 2022 19:50:56 -0400, Steve <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote:

RE: WIFI Stick one of these
https://www.engeniustech.com/engenius-products/managed-outdoor-wireless-ews860ap/

On a pole when you park in a campground, and run your Cat6 cable inside the RV
(with a POE supply) and have the RV run wired Ethernet inside the RV. This one
(they have others, which may be better suited for your needs) should work fine.
Just orient it towards the campground\'s WIFI access point.

Set it up as a receiver.

I have an older version (and ENH500) and use it as a long-range WIFI receiver.

<https://www.engeniustech.com/online-store/product/ews860ap/>
Only $900, a veritable bargain.

Be the first to dominate the RV park Wi-Fi system. With 800mw
(+29dBm) and +1dB antenna gain, you too can have the strongest maximum
legal transmitter in the RV park, where all the other RV owners can
hear your transmitter, but your receiver can barely hear anyone else.
Adaptive transmit power management? Nope[1], full power all the time.
This is what\'s called an \"alligator\" which is an animal with a big
(transmit) mouth and tiny (receive) ears. A high gain directional
antenna (and much less transmit power) would be better, where you can
get roughly equal transmit and receive ranges.

Usually, the problem is not between the user and the RV park Wi-Fi
system. It\'s the park backhaul to their ISP that causes bottlenecks
during peak hours. It doesn\'t take too many RV\'s streaming Netflix in
1080p HD video at 5Mbits/sec, to bring the Wi-Fi system to a grinding
halt. In desperation, RV park owners often set the QoS (quality of
service) bandwidth limit to 3Mbits/sec which forces 720p video and
allows more users. Streaming video is usually UDP/RTP, instead of
TCP, taking the load off the upstream backhaul bandwidth, which might
be 10% of the downstream bandwidth.

A few RV parks have installed wired ethernet or coax cable TV ports on
the pole for RV\'s.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=rv+park+wired+ethernet>
I don\'t know how well this works as I\'ve never played with such a
system. However, I assume that the RV park would not install wired
ethernet if Wi-Fi worked as their customers expect.


[1] It might have adaptive power management, but I didn\'t see any
mention of it in the specifications.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[mike]

On 06-04-2022 04:55 Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

A high gain directional
antenna (and much less transmit power) would be better, where you can
get roughly equal transmit and receive ranges.

Instead of that $900 dual-band wifi setup with unequal transmit/receive
ranges, do the Engenius, Mikrotik, or Ubiquiti people make a <$200 dual
2.4GHz/5GHz wifi radio of sufficient transmit power (maybe 20dBm?) and
(maybe 30dBi?) directional antenna to be able in the end to transmit at
legal or near legal power and pick up enough signal with enough sensitivity
to get roughly equal transmit & receive range?

I\'m guessing the EIRP has to be at or near the legal wifi max of somewhere
around -30dBm and the sensitivity probably needs to be in the -90dBm to
-100dBm range for the frequency & speeds found at the campsites in a site
survey run on his phone.

 

[mike]

On 05-04-2022 15:48 Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:

4. People utilizing their phones as wifi hotspots that happen to collide
with the office AP, by virtue of being far enough away that they think
whichever channel is available; and creating local contention issues.

Do they make a cellular repeater that can be purchased for <$200 and then it
can be used in multiple places which can pick up low (maybe -110dBm?)
cellular signal which can be amplified by the repeater\'s second unit to
allow the cellphone to be used as a personal hotspot inside the RV?

I suspect it\'s illegal (FCC rules?) to move a cellular repeater, so that
might not be an option but maybe someone knows more about that option?

 

[mike]

On 05-04-2022 21:58 meff <email@example.com> wrote:

Those incidents, as well as the general decline of things. Maybe I\'m
just bitter, since when I started using their stuff, they were in a
pretty solid upswing. Seems they skipped right past \"leveling off\" into
\"downswing\".

Fair enough. Just wanted to make sure that they haven\'t found a
technical deficiency with their equipment yet.

He won\'t know ahead of time if it\'s 5GHz or 2.4GHz with the best signal.

But I don\'t think he cares if it\'s Engenius or Mikrotik or Ubiquiti
equipment as long as it\'s around less than about $200 and if it can get him
enough signal strength on send/receive to connect to the \"free\" wifi at a
typical campground.

To do that it will probably need a high gain dual band radio & antenna (if
they make them in dual bands that is). Do they?

He\'ll probably need a high sensitivity receiver and a high transmit power
(although I\'m not sure which is more important but I think the antenna gain
and the receiver sensitivity are more important than the transmit power
because in the end he\'s limited to whatever the legal EIRP happens to be).

Do Engenius, Mikrotik or Ubiquiti make a dual band radio and antenna with
legal EIRP and decent receiver sensitivity in the approx <$200 range?

 

[Dan Purgert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

mike wrote:

On 06-04-2022 04:55 Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

A high gain directional
antenna (and much less transmit power) would be better, where you can
get roughly equal transmit and receive ranges.

Instead of that $900 dual-band wifi setup with unequal transmit/receive
ranges, do the Engenius, Mikrotik, or Ubiquiti people make a <$200 dual
2.4GHz/5GHz wifi radio of sufficient transmit power (maybe 20dBm?) and
(maybe 30dBi?) directional antenna to be able in the end to transmit at
legal or near legal power and pick up enough signal with enough
sensitivity to get roughly equal transmit & receive range?

Dual-band? no - at least not that I\'m aware.

Remember that their products are primarily geared toward ISP operators
who aren\'t needing dual-band (tower is 5 GHz, pointless to add cost to
the CPE for a never-used 2.4 band)

The \'tik products I mentioned were something like $60 apiece or so, 13
or 16 dBi antennas, in decently small packages.

I\'m guessing the EIRP has to be at or near the legal wifi max of somewhere
around -30dBm and the sensitivity probably needs to be in the -90dBm to
-100dBm range for the frequency & speeds found at the campsites in a site
survey run on his phone.

WiFi max EIRP is 36 dBm (4 watts), at least in the US.

Long as you\'re hearing at -50 to -60, you\'re in the ideal range. Lower
will certainly work (but at reduced rates). Assuming, of course, that
the AP in question isn\'t overloaded, or simply incapable of handling a
link through the building\'s exterior walls.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE3asj+xn6fYUcweBnbWVw5UznKGAFAmJOtMAACgkQbWVw5Uzn
KGCVNQ//bUF2QJwVfxaqyXbrYJn0JUHUWw0X0UksBitWffZa+q03hPeGVmDaLnyY
ZNr3i6tIOc8TyVS6aX0za9gSITbXvBkPYXA8JFqjPhw0rIRN8oBJfNymRLILGTNc
znq1VEKjw/HLK2YuwykCTGj9uQWbD6HR99ljcxFv+7BxQXAZM4GWc2RE4zzsIBa5
xVOSRH2Az6hT2Cq5fRzSqfN5ZEZ63Bp/aoEOsp8Cfd1Ax/b5wQZTU3MKoMhArV0t
KI4oKb83+nLiEAHUNeuXD55OAeZsFQVUoiAfQcrBfvMBRv2cdOkd9gFdiDMFDBWM
w/OdL+HvDLYMMV2OdGQbRXr+w+Csv/0Q3i3L7vkbkn9z4wa2IepYQ0Ut/YIfCLKW
v6tSGgszQmzelVEnv4rqiC8mHT04TVLQpd4Nf0iZC1/3gKgQ2UUH7LmIl23LTWRn
wrsiFGc/B1YKQbMF9LR3E8lTqvh1fyCv7iJPXz1XVzKzQaa1yk8n1giRuHJVbkg4
eclR/cZwF3F0Jmr1imT0i6w0Yf5hLJzABZrIo1v/OYd+uewReGYcuhA+RniE3XhN
ENsOVNOFteG1UL5b4e4kJvafw+oMAmiZ6WRcglz8VFT2fgqE++ukCrTHb9RUY6Hr
EiA4z0yTR/KQHiMuDRU2Ig/fktveEbQpszwVa8F3Ncgz2CK/AMc=
=SkyF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|_|_|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860
|O|O|O| Former PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

 

[Dan Purgert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

mike wrote:

On 05-04-2022 15:48 Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:

4. People utilizing their phones as wifi hotspots that happen to collide
with the office AP, by virtue of being far enough away that they think
whichever channel is available; and creating local contention issues.

Do they make a cellular repeater that can be purchased for <$200 and
then it can be used in multiple places which can pick up low (maybe
-110dBm?) cellular signal which can be amplified by the repeater\'s
second unit to allow the cellphone to be used as a personal hotspot
inside the RV?

The microcells that I am aware of require an internet connection as
their backhaul. They\'re not \"repeaters\" that listen for / re-transmit
LTE signals. Offhand, I\'m not actually aware of any \"cellular
repeaters\" in general.

Not 100% sure what their internals do, but most likely is they utilize a
VPN or otherwise link back to the cellCo\'s internal VoIP routing
network.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=SZqg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|_|_|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860
|O|O|O| Former PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

 

[Gronk]

Dan Purgert wrote:

The microcells that I am aware of require an internet connection as
their backhaul.

The microcell (or femtocell) is connected to the home router.
It won\'t work if you don\'t already have internet.

You plug one end into the wall socket and the other into the router.
https://www.wilsonamplifiers.com/blog/guide-to-small-cells-femtocell-picocell-and-microcells/

They\'re not \"repeaters\" that listen for / re-transmit
LTE signals. Offhand, I\'m not actually aware of any \"cellular
repeaters\" in general.

The repeater is usually called a cell signal booster.
It is NOT connected to the home router.
It works without internet.

You plug one unit into the wall socket and place it in a high window.
You plug the other unit into the wall socket and put it deeper down.
https://www.waveform.com/pages/att-signal-boosters

Not 100% sure what their internals do, but most likely is they utilize a
VPN or otherwise link back to the cellCo\'s internal VoIP routing
network.

Cell Phone Signal Booster vs Femtocell
https://www.ubersignal.com/blog/guide-cell-phone-extenders-range-extenders-network-extenders/
https://www.signalbooster.com/blogs/news/femtocell-vs-cell-phone-signal-booster
https://www.weboost.com/blog/cell-phone-signal-booster-or-femtocell
https://blog.router-switch.com/2020/12/wifi-booster-vs-wifi-extender-any-differences-between-them/
https://www.signalbooster.com/pages/att-microcell-tmobile-cellspot-versus-cell-signal-booster
https://cellphoneboosterstore.com/tech-news-and-blog/cell-phone-booster-vs-microcell-or-femtocell-signal-boosters/
https://cellboosteronline.com/mobile-network-booster/
https://www.wilsonamplifiers.com/blog/guide-to-small-cells-femtocell-picocell-and-microcells/

They go by different names like cellular hotspot, network extenders, signal
boosters, range extenders, signal repeaters, femtocells and microcells but
the difference is one is cellular on both ends while the other is cellular
on one end and Internet on the other.

Despite what it says in some of the articles above, neither is hardwired and
neither requires an external coax or antenna. They\'re self contained boxes.

Plug and play. No consumer setup. They\'re the size of a home router.

All main US carriers used to give out boosters (which boost their signal)
but they now prefer femtocells (which use your internet for the connection).

 

[mike]

On 07-04-2022 09:54 Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:

> Dual-band? no - at least not that I\'m aware.

Then I guess it has to be two different radios & their antennas.

Remember that their products are primarily geared toward ISP operators
who aren\'t needing dual-band (tower is 5 GHz, pointless to add cost to
the CPE for a never-used 2.4 band)

That makes sense which means that two radios and antennas will be needed.
These are what I\'m looking at for Ubiquiti CPE outdoor radios & antennas.

25 dBi dish antenna
$79 5GHz Ubiquiti PowerBeam M5 transmit 23dBm & sensitivity -75dBm @54MBit/s
https://www.streakwave.com/ubiquiti-networks-pbe-m5-300-us-5ghz-powerbeam-m5-22dbi-300mm-us

18 dBI dish antenna
$79 2.4GHz Ubiquiti PowerBeam M2 transmit 24dBm & sensitivity -75dBm @54MBit/s
https://www.streakwave.com/ubiquiti-networks-pbe-m2-400-us-2-4ghz-powerbeam-m2-18dbi-400mm-us

The \'tik products I mentioned were something like $60 apiece or so, 13
or 16 dBi antennas, in decently small packages.

These are what I\'m looking at for Mikrotik CPE outdoor radios & antennas.

16 dBi planar antenna
$46 5GHz Mikrotik SXTsq Lite5 transmit 20dBm & sensitivity -80dBm @54MBit/s
https://mikrotik.com/product/RBSXTsq5nD

10 dBi planar antenna
$46 2.4GHz Mikrotik SXTsq Lite 2 transmit 26dBm & sensitivity -80dBm @54MBit/s
https://mikrotik.com/product/sxtsq_lite2

I\'m guessing the EIRP has to be at or near the legal wifi max of somewhere
around -30dBm and the sensitivity probably needs to be in the -90dBm to
-100dBm range for the frequency & speeds found at the campsites in a site
survey run on his phone.

WiFi max EIRP is 36 dBm (4 watts), at least in the US.

Given the specs above bounce back & forth, which is the MOST IMPORTANT
specification for this situation of whatever campgrounds use for Wi-Fi APs?

Antenna gain dBi?
Transmit power dBm?
Receiver sensitivity dBm?

> Long as you\'re hearing at -50 to -60, you\'re in the ideal range.

I very much doubt it\'s anywhere near that good.
Otherwise it wouldn\'t have been a problem.
It\'s likely worse than -85 dBm, which is why good equipment is needed.

> Lower will certainly work (but at reduced rates).

I picked 54Mbps for the specs above which seems like a reasonable goal.

Assuming, of course, that
the AP in question isn\'t overloaded, or simply incapable of handling a
link through the building\'s exterior walls.

Given the common campground wifi AP situation described, which is best?
Antenna gain of Ubiquiti 25 & 18 or Mikrotik 16 & 10 dBi
Transmit power Ubiquiti 23 & 24 or Mikrotik 20 & 36 dBm
EIRP Ubiquiti 48 & 42 or Mikrotik 36 & 46 dBm
Receiver sensitivity Ubiquiti 75 & 75 or Mikrotik 80 & 80 dBm

Notice the $158 Ubiquiti set wins on power alone but the $96 Mikrotik set
wins big on the sensitivity which can help pull out the weak signals.

Anyone here have the heuristics for making the required performance trade
off weighting of which of the three main specs is most important given
we can presume the signal is very weak and the campground AP also weak.

Antenna gain?
Transmit power?
Receiver sensitivity?

 

[JAB]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 10:22:44 +0530, mike <this@address.is.invalid> wrote:

Friend uses an RV where campgrounds have varying degrees of wi-fi and
cellular signal depending on the campsite chosen.

He asked me for advice where I would like to ask GENERAL questions of you.

The first is for cellular which is whether they sell a cellular repeater for
use not at a home but in an RV that moves to different places?

Bad thing is RV campgrounds are notorious with having horrible wifi.

Most of the time it is due to wifi\'s hidden node problem:
<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_node_problem>

So even if he has a high-gain antenna and good rx sensitivity,
the other campers with shit equipment will step all over him.

He may have better luck getting a directional cellular antenna.

Maybe this $100 Doorking 1514-014?
<https://www.pssstore.net/products/doorking-1514-014-cellular-directional-antenna-kit>

Or this 4dB to 5dB cellular omni?
<https://www.wilsonamplifiers.com/wilson-electronics-omnidirectional-cellular-antennas/>

This $40 cell antenna is seems to cover the cellular 3G 4G 5G LTEWi-F bands.
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/313916354184>

 

[Dan Purgert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

mike wrote:

On 07-04-2022 09:54 Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
[...]
Remember that their products are primarily geared toward ISP operators
who aren\'t needing dual-band (tower is 5 GHz, pointless to add cost to
the CPE for a never-used 2.4 band)

That makes sense which means that two radios and antennas will be needed.
These are what I\'m looking at for Ubiquiti CPE outdoor radios & antennas.

25 dBi dish antenna
$79 5GHz Ubiquiti PowerBeam M5 transmit 23dBm & sensitivity -75dBm
@54MBit/s

18 dBI dish antenna
$79 2.4GHz Ubiquiti PowerBeam M2 transmit 24dBm & sensitivity -75dBm
@54MBit/s

Those are quite difficult to align well - they\'ve only got something
like a 4 or 5 degree beam. Gain doesn\'t matter if it\'s not aligned to
the AP .

If you want to stick with UBNT, then an asier time of it would be the
nanobeam / nanostation lineup. 16 or 19 dBi gain, but with a wider
beam.

Likewise, the listed \'tik products are alright.

WiFi max EIRP is 36 dBm (4 watts), at least in the US.

Given the specs above bounce back & forth, which is the MOST IMPORTANT
specification for this situation of whatever campgrounds use for Wi-Fi
APs?

That you\'re not trying to connect to something \"indoors\" while you\'re
\"outoors\" . From your list, the only one you have much control over
is the gain -- the products listed all use pretty standard Broadcom or
Atheros chipsets.

Long as you\'re hearing at -50 to -60, you\'re in the ideal range.

I very much doubt it\'s anywhere near that good.
Otherwise it wouldn\'t have been a problem.
It\'s likely worse than -85 dBm, which is why good equipment is needed.

Well, if you\'re at -85 now, getting it to -70 or so won\'t be too bad,
most things will do 802.11n in that range.

Lower will certainly work (but at reduced rates).

I picked 54Mbps for the specs above which seems like a reasonable goal.

Sounds like 802.11g.

I was talking about reduced 802.11n MCS rates (e.g. MCS5 or 13;
depending on whether the device is 1x1 or 2x2).

Assuming, of course, that
the AP in question isn\'t overloaded, or simply incapable of handling a
link through the building\'s exterior walls.

Given the common campground wifi AP situation described, which is best?
Antenna gain of Ubiquiti 25 & 18 or Mikrotik 16 & 10 dBi
Transmit power Ubiquiti 23 & 24 or Mikrotik 20 & 36 dBm
EIRP Ubiquiti 48 & 42 or Mikrotik 36 & 46 dBm
Receiver sensitivity Ubiquiti 75 & 75 or Mikrotik 80 & 80 dBm

Not wasting your money trying to connect to a WiFi AP that\'s behind a
structure\'s exterior wall. In that scenario, they\'re all equally bad.

Of the four things there, gain is the thing that\'s going to impact you
the most. BUT, you have to understand that the gain values are obtained
by narrowing the beam. If you were to think of the antennas as the
reflectors in a flashlight, the mikrotik models you\'re looking at are
essentially a LED flashlight; whereas the powerbeams are ... well, a
laser pointer.

Bear in mind that with the UBNT EIRP, they\'re giving the maximum for
when setup in fixed point-to-point mode. You will have to look at your
national communications coordinator (e.g. the US FCC) for legal limits.

Where are you pulling this \"sensitivity\" from? Do you mean the tables
where they\'re indicating the relative limits of a given modulation
scheme? If so, that\'s ONLY to be read as a general threshold value
(perhaps a cautious one at that), and with the understanding that it\'s
in otherwise perfect conditions.

i.e. the SXTsq Lite can theoretically demodulate an MCS7 encoded 802.11n
signal from the other end if it\'s receiving at -75 dBm (or better).
However, noise or other interference will skew that value.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=zh0X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|_|_|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860
|O|O|O| Former PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281