View Full Version : What about the M Power versions of Power- and NanoStations?
Hello,
Do you plan to introduce M versions of your -Station products anytime soon? I'm dying to replace the PS5 on my balcony but I'd prefer an eye-candy PSM5 to any grid or panel antenna with a Bullet attached to it.
Any info on when (if) they're coming?
Unless you have another "M" radio at the other end, there is no advantage to replacing your PS5. Even then, a Bullet 5 or M5 and a panel antenna won't look that much different to anyone twenty feet away, especially if its a panel antenna with the connector on the back, instead of the bottom.
Common sense would suggest there are more "M" family products in the near future. But the NDA restricts me from say what is in the offering.
UBNT-Mike.Ford
08-03-2009, 04:25 PM
Hello,
We have no plans for a PowerStation M series.
Thanks,
Mike
Whoaaaaaaaa, Trigger......
The Powerstations aren't going to be discontinued. You can still use them.
There is no need to retrofit any client radios with the "M" family radios, unless you plan to upgrade your entire network on the AP.
While you can mix and match the "M" family with other radios, you won't be able to use all of the features of the "M" family that makes it special.
The best fit for the "M" family is:
1) Install a new back haul
2) Upgrade an existing back haul
3) A new deployment of an "M" family network.
While you can do a forklift retrofit of an existing network, why bother? If its working, leave the existing network in place. An exception might be if you are so overloaded on your existing network, the "M" family would solve that problem.
Granted it takes a little bit longer to install a grid antennae, but it certainly doesn't double your on-site install time. Even if it does take longer, how many customers need it? I found some $37 19 dBI panels for 5.8 Gig and $30 for 2.4 gig (that includes the SMA to N adapter).
I tried a standard Bullet and Loco with a Bullet M5 and they did not play well together, but that was some very early firmware and I haven't tested it since. I'm currently running XM.v5.0-devel.2401.090722.1132.bin on everything and its stable.
If I run a M AP... NOBODY can run on M if there is one single non-M client on the AP correct?Mike posted more recent information that is more current than what I have.
You can get a 20 to 24 dbi panel antenna and screw the bullet to the back. It will be a lot like a PowerStation.
MaximumISP
08-04-2009, 03:15 PM
I understand the opposition to a using a grid KK
why dont you do what I have been doing for quite sometime now
use Nanos or Locos with a reflector
(exceeds a PS yet still allows for dual polarity on the fly)
basically I only need three items in inventory for clients
nanos, locos and reflectors easy peasy
I'd love to do that Max, but I suspect the competition will follow my lead against them and call out the FCC if I did anything like that.
Got my first response on a complaint I submitted to the FCC six weeks ago about a WISP running a six mile Ch. 36 backhaul.
drwho17
08-04-2009, 06:51 PM
That's some of my considerations.
Like I said before I'm in the process of rolling out a set of 20 mountain top POPs. So it's beyond a massive overhaul. It's basically a brand-spanking new network that's going to dwarf our existing one probably by 5-10X.
After looking into the M stuff some more, it's obvious I want it all around. But the kicker is what about CPEs? Nanos are great (And that's now assuming Ubnt is going to make a Nano M) but PS are basically just as needed as Nano's clearly can't do it all.
The PS has been a godsend because of all the above problems when using grids and such. It'll double our install times now. Not to mention the fact that we now need to carry more inventory.
From my understanding, and please correct me on this...
If I run a M AP... NOBODY can run on M if there is one single non-M client on the AP correct? I wouldn't care if I could run it all on M and any PS client could just operate in legacy... But that would then destroy the M capabilities for any other clients who had the ability anyway.
Check out the reflector dishes for the Nanostations. The maxdish for nanostations isn't out yet, but you get the idea. We are thinking of replacing the PS's with these anyway, so we only have to stock nano's, and I suspect they are pretty easy to aim.
http://www.microcom.us/rfsd45n.html
http://www.microcom.us/maxdish.html
drwho17
08-04-2009, 06:53 PM
You can get a 20 to 24 dbi panel antenna and screw the bullet to the back. It will be a lot like a PowerStation.
Well, I've seen 19, but nothing bigger (for 2.4).
MaximumISP
08-04-2009, 07:41 PM
I'd love to do that Max, but I suspect the competition will follow my lead against them and call out the FCC if I did anything like that.
Got my first response on a complaint I submitted to the FCC six weeks ago about a WISP running a six mile Ch. 36 backhaul.
Would you not still be in PTMP compliance with a loco 2 and
the power turned down to 17 WHT
should put you in just under 3.98wt I believe
Would you not still be in PTMP compliance with a loco 2 and the power turned down to 17 WHT should put you in just under 3.98wt I believeThat's a good question I've been pondering for the past three years.
The FCC rule would say you can't use an antenna with a gain greater than what it was certified for. So...does a reflector constitute an antenna component? What if I mount a Nano or Loco in the corner of a steel building and let the building walls act as a corner reflector? Would that still be legal, as long as I didn't' exceed my EIRP?
I would most likely use them, but not in the current environment where I'm going after competing WISPs that run illegal AP configurations.
rodneal
08-04-2009, 08:17 PM
I'd love to do that Max, but I suspect the competition will follow my lead against them and call out the FCC if I did anything like that.
Got my first response on a complaint I submitted to the FCC six weeks ago about a WISP running a six mile Ch. 36 backhaul.
WHT,
I've been reading your input now for quite some time but I have to tell you that I am deeply offended that you would turn in a competitor to the government. I have had that done to me and it took 2+ years of legal crap before I cleared our company of the erroneous report. I wasn't in the wrong but my competitor was and did I turn and turn him in? No way 'cause it only hurts us all. When you go there it cuts everybody in the area. You can get holy-then-thou if you want but it is wrong.
Rod
anthony24x
08-04-2009, 08:50 PM
I think your looking at this the wrong way.
Turning the other cheek at someone that is using the spectrum illegally and hurting your business and perhaps everyones ability to use the spectrum is not helping anybody.
rodneal
08-04-2009, 09:13 PM
Use it as a learning tool - that spectrum is not gonna hurt you. Be aware of your environment and plan accordingly.
There are always gonna be issues in RF and if your only response is to go after your neighbors then you loose. On the other hand if you learn to strengthen your game by working in that environment then you are better for it.
What you do do is lower yourself to their level and never learn to build you system stronger, smarter.
No one can hurt you - only you can hurt you!
This is a big game with lots of room. You demean yourself when you become a government rat!!!!!!!!!!!
People who go around pointing fingers are weak!
Rod
I'm deeply offended that you suggest I should ignore their illegal operation that affects my operation. There are laws in place that specifically do not permit certain types of emissions for a specific reason.
If I have a UNII-2 system that is limited to 6 dBm EIRP for the AP and clients, should I sit back while another WISP moves in with 52 dBm EIRP on his clients?
You can't plan anything according when there are some people play outside the rules.
You demean yourself when you become a government rat!!!!!!!!!!!
People who go around pointing fingers are weak! You fail to observe the other WISP is illegally operating.
rodneal
08-04-2009, 09:54 PM
So turning in your fellow WISP for using Channel 36-5180 or indoor RF is effecting your ability to operate in the appropriate channels not even related to 5.8 where you belong.
I noticed that you use Bullets attached to grids that the FCC specifically says that you may NOT attach them to for any reason.
http://ubnt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13379
Kinda makes you a hypocrite doesn't it.
Rod
You misunderstood me. I am not operating anything on Ch. 36, or in the UNII-1 for that matter.
Kinda makes you a hypocrite doesn't it. Not at all. My grids are on UNII-3 which allows for 52 dBm EIRP.
rodneal
08-04-2009, 10:08 PM
First - they are not rated with those grids or that omni
Second - please explain this:
In the 5GHz band the FCC stipulates for PtMP:
- UNII-1: Maximum IR power may not exceed 40mW (16dBm)
- UNII-1: EIRP may not exceed 160mW (22dBm)
- UNII-2: Maximum IR power may not exceed 200mW (23dBm)
- UNII-2: EIRP may not exceed 800mW (29dBm)
- UNII-3: Maximum IR power may not exceed 800mW (29dBm)
- UNII-3: EIRP may not exceed 3.2W (35dBm)
- All three bands utilize the 1:1 rule
For PtP:
- UNII-1 Follows the same rules as the PtMP links
- UNII-2 Follows the same rules as the PtMP links
- UNII-3 May use an antenna with up to 23dBi of gain before the 1:1 rule
becomes effective. (Giving a maximum EIRP of 200W!!)
rodneal
08-04-2009, 10:22 PM
OK - I'm replying to my own statement.
"For PtP:
- UNII-1 Follows the same rules as the PtMP links
- UNII-2 Follows the same rules as the PtMP links
- UNII-3 May use an antenna with up to 23dBi of gain before the 1:1 rule
becomes effective. (Giving a maximum EIRP of 200W!!)"
I never noticed the "before" in that statement. Also , I never really looked at the parenthesis - "200W" not a typo of 200mW.
Ok - WHT - I sit corrected on that. Your right.
rodneal
08-04-2009, 10:28 PM
Linux central regulatory domain agent
-------------------------------------
The central reg agent consists of two main parts:
* ISO3166-1 module (iso3166-1.ko)
* Regulatory module (regdomains.ko)
Integration with the kernel wireless subsystem is done by extending cfg80211
to support a central regulatory domain to which all devices should adhere to.
Then, mac80211 is expanded to allow devices to indicate their device is
configured to a specific regulatory domain domain, set set either in its EEPROM
or firmware. Helper routines are also provided for mac80211 to build the
ieee80211_channel array of hardware supported channels.
After a regulatory domain is set all cfg80211 devices are scanned for and
their channels are iterated over, only channels which the regulatory domain
indicates are valid for its current regulatory domain are enabled. Power
restriction for PtP and PtMP type of connections are also considered
and set.
Each country can be mapped to one regulatory domain. Each regulatory domain
has two maps for channels, one on the 2.4GHz band and another on the 5GHz band.
Power restrictions are a little more complicated -- we break both the 2GHz band
and the 5GHz band into 7 logical subbands as follows:
Subband name Min (MHz) Max (MHz) IEEE-802.11 Channel range
ISM-2.4 2412 2732 1-26
Telec 5005 5145 1-29
UNII-1 5150 5245 30-49
UNII-2 5250 5350 50-70
ETSI 5355 5720 71-144
UNII-3 5725 5825 145-165
AAD 5830 6100 166-220
Note that ETSI also operates on UNII-2, we split this into logical names just
to be pragmatic. Then for each subband we define specific power restrictions.
The current regulatory map is found in regulatory_map.h A userspace daemon can
later be provided to update the regulatory map. At the very least the kernel
should have the world regulatory domain but note that due to large amount of
varied restrictions this means only enabling 3 channels on the 2GHz band
(5, 6 and 7) and no channels on the 5GHz band with minimal PtMP power
restrictions.
For further implementation details please refer kerneldoc of iso3166-1,
regdomains, cfg80211, and mac80211.
---
Wireles regulatory primer:
PtMP - Point to Multipoint
PtP - Point to Point
EIRP - Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power
IR - Intentional Radiator, transmitter
dBm - dB milliwatt (mW), the base says that 1mW = 0 dBm
dBi - dB relative to isotropic, used to measure antenna gain compared to an
isotropic antenna on which radiation is distributed uniformly on the
surface of a sphere
EIRP = IR - loss in transmission line + passive gain of the antenna
---
Below is an example for FCC.
In the 2.4Ghz ISM band the FCC stipulates that the creation of PtMP
links be subject to the following restrictions:
- EIRP must not exceed 36 dBm (4W)
- IR must not exceed 30 dBm (1W)
- For every 3 dBi of antenna gain after the first 6 “free” dBi the IR must
be decreased by 3 dBi (the 1:1 rule)
Example (without considering loss) of possible settings if Max EIRP is
defined as 36 dBm and we are using the 1:1 rule:
TX power (dBm) Antenna Gain (dBi) Max EIRP (dBm)
30-------------------6----------------------36
29-------------------7----------------------36
28-------------------8----------------------36
27-------------------9----------------------36
For PtP links that rule is augmented:
- No Maximum EIRP
- IR is limited to 30 dBm (1W)
- For every 3 dBi after the first 6 of antenna gain the IR must be
decreased by 1 dBi (the 3:1 rule)
Example, where IR limit is 30, and has the 3:1 rule above for gain:
TX power (dBm) Antenna Gain (dBi) Effective EIRP (dBm)
29-------------------6-----------------------35
30-------------------6-----------------------36
29-------------------9-----------------------38
28-------------------12----------------------40
27-------------------15----------------------42
26-------------------18----------------------44
25-------------------21----------------------46
In the 5GHz band the FCC stipulates for PtMP:
- UNII-1: Maximum IR power may not exceed 40mW (16dBm)
- UNII-1: EIRP may not exceed 160mW (22dBm)
- UNII-2: Maximum IR power may not exceed 200mW (23dBm)
- UNII-2: EIRP may not exceed 800mW (29dBm)
- UNII-3: Maximum IR power may not exceed 800mW (29dBm)
- UNII-3: EIRP may not exceed 3.2W (35dBm)
- All three bands utilize the 1:1 rule
For PtP:
- UNII-1 Follows the same rules as the PtMP links
- UNII-2 Follows the same rules as the PtMP links
- UNII-3 May use an antenna with up to 23dBi of gain before the 1:1 rule
becomes effective. (Giving a maximum EIRP of 200W!!)
In the 5GHz band the FCC stipulates for PtMP: My 22 mile link is PtP so that doesn't apply. Nevertheless my PtM links are 36 dBm for UNII-3 and 30 dBm for UNII-2 AP/CPE radios.
UNII-3 May use an antenna with up to 23dBi of gain before the 1:1 rule becomes effective.
Section 15.247 Operation within the bands 902 - 928 MHz, 2400 - 2483.5 MHz, and 5725 - 5850 MHz.
(c) Operation with directional antenna gains greater than 6 dBi.
(1) Fixed point-to-point operation:
(ii) Systems operating in the 5725-5850 MHz band that are used exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ transmitting antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi without any corresponding reduction in transmitter conducted output power. [I've yet to figure out the intent of that anomaly of the rules.]
Section 15.407 General technical requirements.
(a) Power limits:
(3) For the band 5.725-5.825 GHz, the maximum conducted output power over the frequency band of operation shall not exceed 1 W.
For fixed, point-to-point U-NII transmitters that employ a directional antenna gain greater than 23 dBi, a 1 dB reduction in peak transmitter power and peak power spectral density for each 1 dB of antenna gain in excess of 23 dBi would be required.
Point 1 - The Bullet 5M is certified for a 30 dBi antenna. My 28 dBi grids meet that restriction.
Point 2 - My 28 dBi grids are 5 dB over the 23 dBi limit, therefore if I had a 1 watt (30 dBm) transmitter output [Section 15.407 (a) (1)], I would have to reduce it to 25 dBm.
Point 3 - The max TPO of the bullet is 26 dBm, but I always run gear at least 1 dB under the max, therefore I meet the 25 dBm restriction.
Linux central regulatory domain agent
-------------------------------------
The central reg agent consists of two main parts:
* ISO3166-1 module (iso3166-1.ko)
* Regulatory module (regdomains.ko)
I go by what the FCC publishes, The above is someone's redaction of the FCC (or some agency's) rules, so I didn't bother to examine the accuracy of what they wrote.
MaximumISP
08-05-2009, 06:22 AM
Would you not still be in PTMP compliance with a loco 2 and the power turned down to 17 WHT should put you in just under 3.98wt I believeThat's a good question I've been pondering for the past three years.
The FCC rule would say you can't use an antenna with a gain greater than what it was certified for. So...does a reflector constitute an antenna component? What if I mount a Nano or Loco in the corner of a steel building and let the building walls act as a corner reflector? Would that still be legal, as long as I didn't' exceed my EIRP?
I would say thats open to interpretation some what and really requires further clarification from the fcc but I suspect the metal building bit wouldn count
it would be impossible to prove that was a deliberate planned act of exceeding eirp and not just an accidental envoirmental circumstance
to me a metal building does not really meet the definition of an antenna
As for the reflector since there are other designs out their for equipment like trango, moto ect. and I have seen some by wireless beehive that claim fcc certification and others in their product line that dont so they must be considered as an antenna by the fcc
its passive gain to me and so I don't really consider it the same as deliberately amping the crap outta an omni for example
Here's the way the matrix works out with with the Bullet-HP 5 that can TPO all the way up to the max of 1 watt or 30 dBm (at the 6 to 24 Mbps data speeds). I'm using 29 dBm as the max TPO as I derate the TPO.
http://whtonline.com/portal/UNII-3_matrix.png
Max...
Especially with the Loco, it would impossible for the FCC to claim you added an external antenna because there isn't even an external antenna port.
So I guess the only limitation they could hold you to would be the max EIRP for the band, 30 dBm for UNII-2 and 52 dBm for UNII-3.
rconaway
08-05-2009, 09:54 PM
My head hurts.
rconaway
08-05-2009, 10:08 PM
Just my 2 cents on the question of ethics.
If your friend robbed a store, would you turn them in?
If your neighbor who you didn't even like robbed a store, would you turn them in?
If it was your store, would you turn either one of them in?
Major League Baseball recognized that using steroids has hurt the game and the penalty is pretty stiff.
Violating FCC regs hurts everyone. Turning them in shouldn't even be second guessed. If you are sure they are illegal, they need to be shut down.
When I sit 500 hundred from the tower with a directional antenna and see Ch 36 in use and the nearest building a quarter mile away with an SSID that has the street name of their main business the antenna points towards...and see Ch. 36 again 500 feet from their business...
masked
08-05-2009, 10:12 PM
Maybe you shoulda been on top of your game and reported them first. Seems like WHT is.
masked
08-05-2009, 10:14 PM
When I sit 500 hundred from the tower with a directional antenna and see Ch 36 in use and the nearest building a quarter mile away with an SSID that has the street name of their main business the antenna points towards...and see Ch. 36 again 500 feet from their business...
sounds like they have a crappy configuration
raytaylor
08-07-2009, 05:57 AM
I'd love to do that Max, but I suspect the competition will follow my lead against them and call out the FCC if I did anything like that.
Got my first response on a complaint I submitted to the FCC six weeks ago about a WISP running a six mile Ch. 36 backhaul.
WHT,
I've been reading your input now for quite some time but I have to tell you that I am deeply offended that you would turn in a competitor to the government. I have had that done to me and it took 2+ years of legal crap before I cleared our company of the erroneous report. I wasn't in the wrong but my competitor was and did I turn and turn him in? No way 'cause it only hurts us all. When you go there it cuts everybody in the area. You can get holy-then-thou if you want but it is wrong.
Rod
There are reasons for laws involving transmission restrictions. If someone else is breaking these laws and hurting your ability to use the airwaves within the rules then why should they be allowed to? Report em I say
sounds like they have a crappy configurationMight be a default channel for the radios. The Bullet defaults to ch 36 as an AP. Or they just wanted to find a clear channel. Who knows.
