Keyboard Shortcuts
ctrl + shift + ? :
Show all keyboard shortcuts
ctrl + g :
Navigate to a group
ctrl + shift + f :
Find
ctrl + / :
Quick actions
esc to dismiss
Likes
Search
Backhaul on Motorola Canopy 5.8 GHz
|
I am looking for information from users that my have attempted to utilize the Motorola Canopy equipment as a back-haul to provide WAN access at a remote site. We are preparing to install our second D*STAR Cluster including DD on a 2000' tower that is some 30 miles away from our current tower.
Paths calculate out to be within acceptable range, we are also utilizing the largest parabolic dishes commercially available for Canopy equipment. Frequencies will be on the 5.8 GHz since regional partners would not approve our request to utilize 4.9 GHz licensed service. What I am curious about is if anyone has attempted to test this type of setup for your location. We are utilizing grant funds for the purchase of equipment so we have backing from our Emergency Management Agencies. The system was designed by several members but, path information was calculated using Radio Mobile Deluxe and confirmed with calculations by a retired AT&T Microwave Systems Technician. Thanks for your assistance. |
|
Eric -
?
I haven't used the Motrola Canopy equipment, but I've heard good things about it.
?
There are members on the group who have used unlicensed 900 MHz /?5.8 GHz IP data linking
solutions from AvaLAN Wireless. I believe their data rates are around 1 Megabit/sec.
You can find more information at:
?
Looking at AvaLAN's?web site it appears you could put up a link with two 5.8 GHz data radios & antennas for around $2,000.
?
73, Mark, WB9QZB
From: hamkd7cao To: D-STAR_23cm@... Sent: Mon, October 26, 2009 2:43:01 PM Subject: [D-STAR_23cm] Backhaul on Motorola Canopy 5.8 GHz ? I am looking for information from users that my have attempted to utilize the Motorola Canopy equipment as a back-haul to provide WAN access at a remote site. We are preparing to install our second D*STAR Cluster including DD on a 2000' tower that is some 30 miles away from our current tower. |
|
Lor
开云体育Hi Eric,
?
I would look at some of the newer Ubiquiti and similar WISP
equipment for high-bandwidth backhaul. Although Motorola Canopy equipment is
excellent, you may not be getting your best bang for the
buck.
?
We have used AvaLAN 900 MHz links for up to 23 miles, and I
would have another choice today because of the need to pair the AvaLAN radios
before installation. When mounted on a commercial or government tower, the
largest cost is the tower climb and installation. When something goes wrong with
one AvaLAN radio, it requires two tower climbs to create a new pair and install
them at two sites. Not so with Ubiquiti and other equipment. We have experienced
this at least three times: a lightning strike repair, and two times to re-aim
antennas and insert a new node in a chain of links.
?
Check out the new Ubiquiti Rocket and Bullet radios on 5.8
GHz. They can be configured from the ground and reset in any number of
configurations. A high-quality?antenna+radio can be purchased for less than
$300. $500 for a pair to make a link is extraordinary, and you may find you can
afford some spares or additional links with your budget.
?
73,
Lor W3QA
Chester County ARES/RACES
Winlink Development Team
|
|
Cough! Splutter! Spits coffee all over the shack!
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
$2000 for a 1mbit link! Get real. We just put up a 2.4GHz wifi link on our tower for a 2.5 mile link to our Internet donor for change of $200 and that included a new box of Cat5 from Home Depot. I'm not saying that one can do quite as good as that all the time but you can certainly do it for change of $500. OK, so it's in the 2.4GHz mess but we have yet to see that be a real problem. None of it was cludged. It was all proper masthead routers with POE etc. We just took our time shopping on ebay and were able to collect both ends for a reasonable price. We have a an alleged 54mbps link but I think the throughput is more like 20mbps. Hard to tell really. Both ends report a signal of "65" on a scale of 1-100 where 100 is the best. Not exactly scientific but good enough for us to peak the signals/beam angles. Mark NI2O/NJ2MC On 10/26/2009 05:16 PM, Mark Thompson wrote:
|
|
This is the hardware we used but we didn't pay this much for it;
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
The RJ45 socket sticking out the bottom can be placed inside the device. We had our apart to take a look and the are just a no-name wifi router with some useful software in it. We were even able to "upgrade" them to use dd-wrt but we needn't have bothered. Mark On 10/26/2009 05:16 PM, Mark Thompson wrote:
|
|
Tim Deater
We use 5ghz canopy backhauls at the ISP I work for.? We started with off the shelf wi-fi stuff, and figured out pretty quickly that you get what you pay for.? We have upgraded all of our backhauls that are not on fiber to canopy and an very happy with it.? We still have some 2.4 for backups, but never need them.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
We use the canopy 900 stuff for the end users.? Works great too! Tim KC8MSE On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Mark Phillips <g7ltt@...> wrote:
|
|
Steve
I did a 5.8 Ghz backhaul using Alvaion equipment for many years. Worked just fine...until the noise floor went up. I was doing video over it. If your in an urban area..like Seattle, the noise is getting worse and worse as time goes by for long hauls. My longest path was 5.6 miles over the City.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I switched to 4.9Ghz... Think about 3.4Ghz...using Ubiquity 3.4Ghz radios. I'm going to try that. Then again..if you can get the 5.8Ghz cheap..go for it! Are you going to do multipoint or point to point? Steve N0FPF On 10/26/2009 12:43 PM, hamkd7cao wrote:
|
|
erwestgard
--- In D-STAR_23cm@..., Steve <s.monsey@...> wrote:
We are also pondering this issue. We have Linux thin clients behind each D-Star machine so can use the TCP/IP stuff. The noise floor in many areas is very high on 2.4 and 900 (Part 15). Long (10 mile) links on 802.11a/b/g are hard also without marginally legal add on amplifiers. We have been playing with surplus Ricochet poletops (free but not frankly going well so far) and think Canopy or some off brand modular dish radio units as described earlier might be OK. |
? We have been playing with surplus Ricochet poletops (free but not frankly going well so far) Is there any info available about how to do anything at all with the poletop units? They were on every third light pole out here. Some are still sucking power and others are showing up at hamfests... Thanks, Bill - WA7NWP |
|
mm0fmf
Moderator's Note: Great suggestion. Please post on the group anything you find about these linking tehcnologies.
It's 10 years back now but the German technology group ADACOM had designs for 23cms and 6cms data radios.These were used a lot throughout Europe for packet links at the time. Kits were available back then. Also S53MV produced a number of 23/13cms data radio designs for home construction. (1.288Mbps) I know that if you have a commercial pair of link units you can get up and running faster but some people might like to dig out the info on these designs with a view to using them for links. And of course, using amateur gear is always nicer than commercial gear. Use Google (or your favourite engine) and seach for ADACOM, LinkTRX, and S53MV. Andy MM0FMF |
|
I remember these!
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
We toyed with the idea of building some back in the days of TVIPUG. We were amazed that they could find the time to design such a device seeing as how they were at war with each other. That might also get around the LOS issue. 23cms will tolerate some obscurement so perhaps this is the answer? Mark On 10/27/2009 05:11 PM, mm0fmf wrote:
Moderator's Note: Great suggestion. Please post on the group anything you find about these linking tehcnologies. |
|
Steve
OK...a write in campaign to Ubiquiti to get their 3 Ghz Nanostation going. It overlaps our 3 Ghz ham band.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Suggested price is $87 Replace the software in it with OpenWRT.. Use it for back-hauls or mesh or what every your ham mind can come up with... Just a suggestion! Steve N0FPF On 10/27/2009 2:11 PM, mm0fmf wrote:
|
|
It is going from what I understand. The NanoStation 3 will likely never be certified for use in the US as it is mainly an overseas OEM product. The XR3, MiniPCI card can be bought in the US.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
--- In D-STAR_23cm@..., Steve <s.monsey@...> wrote:
|
|
erwestgard
--- In D-STAR_23cm@..., Bill V WA7NWP <wa7nwp@...> wrote:
Max, KB0RSQ and Dennis Boone KB8ZQZ (who wrote Trivnetdb 1.0 the magic Linux database software for us) has been working with these for several years. The poletop units are very undocumented and can be sometimes coaxed into a 100kb point to point mode on 900M. They also transmit on 2.4G at the same time and are mysterious. We had this idea to use these and the low buck USB PC adapters as a "poor ham's DD Mode" - we have poletops at some of our repeater sites as well as for site-site linking.? We have been playing with surplus Ricochet poletops (free but not frankly going well so far) |
|
jo3slk
For what it's worth....
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
--- In D-STAR_23cm@..., "erwestgard" <ewestgard@...> wrote:
|
|
Correct...you buy it from Europe or Latin America...nothing wrong with that. They just haven't started mass producing it...if they ever will...
?
Hams use other radios not certified all the time.
?
It would be great to use another band.
?
Steve
?
-------------- Original message from "kb9mwr" : -------------- |
开云体育Might want to check your FCC requirements. All Ham Radios that are for commercial sale in the US MUST be certified. We can use home-built radios on our frequencies as long as we meet the spectral and frequency requirements. ? We can’t legally use a non-certified radio on other frequencies. ? A common reason why a foreign produced radio is not offered for sale is that it operates on frequencies that are not allocated for the service in the US. Wi-Fi frequencies are a good example. The US frequencies aren’t the same as those in other parts of the world. That’s why manufacturers have different models for different countries. ? Ed WA4YIH ? From: D-STAR_23cm@... [mailto:D-STAR_23cm@...] On Behalf Of s.monsey@...
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:03 AM To: D-STAR_23cm@...; D-STAR_23cm@... Subject: Re: [D-STAR_23cm] Re: Backhaul on Motorola Canopy 5.8 GHz ? Correct...you buy it from Europe or Latin America...nothing wrong with that. They just haven't started mass producing it...if they ever will... ? Hams use other radios not certified all the time. ? It would be great to use another band. ? Steve ? |
|
Steve
This has been battered around for years...so I'm not going to drag it out. But how many
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Motorola commercial gear that is not part 97 and is modified for ham use? I bet there is probably a Motorola commercial repeater in every city in the US on the ham bands...mostly because most hams experiment, modify and control the radios so they do not go outside the ham bands or disrupt other hams. Thats the beauty of the hobby. But getting back to the Backhaul and what you said...then doing backhaul on a none ham radio certified radio would not be a good idea...which also would mean not backhauling over the internet? Interesting questions. Steve N0FPF On 10/29/2009 7:37 AM, Woodrick, Ed wrote:
|
Eric KD7CAO
to navigate to use esc to dismiss