Community discussions

MUM Europe 2020
 
illiniwireless
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Topic Author
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 12:36 am
Location: USA

interference problem

Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:06 am

We just had a new service provider put a cyclone access point and backhaul that are both motorola and 2.4 ghz. We have a rb532 with senao 2511 and a poe 1 watt amp. The day that they fired there equipment up we had lower throughput then after they put 2 clients on none of my clients could communicate with our ap. Previous to them installing this equipment all 70 clients on the one ap was running great. I could get small pings to go through but even the clients within a half a mile and line of sight were running so slow they would timeout. Is there any options for this situation. Any help on this would be appreciated. Thanks
 
jcremin
Member
Member
Posts: 360
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:57 am

Re: interference problem

Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:17 am

Well, those are the downfalls with using the unlicenses frequencies. Your best bet is to try to work with them so you can coordinate frequencies and not interfere with each other. If they just don't care, there may be some regulations about not interfereing with commercial entities that are already established.. I'm sure they vary from location to location, though.
 
galaxynet
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: interference problem

Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:58 pm

illiniwireless -
You might have better luck if you remove the senao card and amp and just use an XR2 card. Amps - amplify EVERYTHING.... Also - they do make filters for the 2ghz band, if you can figure out what channel 'they' are on, then buy a filter for your site in a channel they aren't using...

Thom
Thom Lawless
General Manager
RapidWiFi, LLC
thom.lawless [at] rapidwifi.com
 
User avatar
Equis
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 888
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:48 am

Re: interference problem

Mon Dec 03, 2007 3:34 am

How far away is the Motorola Gear from you?

Can you somehow sheild it or change polirization?

I would try make the other company your freind.
 
0ldman
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 5:01 am

Re: interference problem

Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:42 am

Agreed. FCC looks on unlicensed as the wild west. Best of luck, your problem is not ours.

Of course, that works both ways as well.

v3 has Nstreme without CSMA, though I haven't tried it yet. Seems the opinion is it will help with Alvarion/Canopy problems.
 
User avatar
Equis
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 888
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:48 am

Re: interference problem

Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:55 am


v3 has Nstreme without CSMA, though I haven't tried it yet. Seems the opinion is it will help with Alvarion/Canopy problems.
I have found Nstream even with the new option is not good in High RF area's
Of course its worth a shot.

I love Nstreame, but not in high RF Places
 
User avatar
jp
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 600
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:06 am
Location: Maine
Contact:

Re: interference problem

Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:50 am

If you are running a 1w amp, you are probably in violation of FCC rules yourself. Don't expect any sympathy from other local spectrum users in that case.

Your amp amplifies the noise you hear from the canopy systems as well as legit traffic, causing more technical problems for you. Ditch the amp, sectorize with high quality antennas, 2.4 is pretty much a junk band in my area with all the consumer stuff and privately amped APs, perhaps you need to get into the other higher bands before the other companies do.

It is possible for them to run a cyclone AP at more than legal power, but you need to get your ducks in order before complaining about the legality of their operation for any hope of cooperation.
 
illiniwireless
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Topic Author
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 12:36 am
Location: USA

Re: interference problem

Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:33 am

Thanks for all your posts on this problem. I finally got the tower owner to shut the other guy down until he switched to another frequency for clients and bh. I will let you all know that his equipment was about 20 feet below my accesspoint. It did make a difference on what channel I was using but it wasn't affecting all clients the same. Some of the clients would show nothing for signal and you could reboot them but it would only show a signal for a short time. I have clients within .5 mile that would have this problem and others that were 5 miles out still working but very slow most of the time. If you tried running on a channel close to them I had zero throughput on the tower. Most of the problem was upload from clients to ap and it is very strange that it causes the client equipment to lockup and lose signal completely. This makes canopy very dangerous. I tried a testing throughput to one of the clients using a 500 byte ping with zero success while the canopy 2.4 backhaul was plugged in and just as soon as I would unplug it every ping would go through perfect at around 20 ms I would then plug it back in and about 30 to 40 seconds later all pings were lost. This backhaul unit was pointing the opposet direction of the client I was running this test on and was about 20 feet below my ap. Do to the card in the ap and the brand of client equipment I'm using I couldn't try using nstreme or 5 mhz channels to see how it worked. I will be changing over to sectors in a few weeks and getting rid of the amp. I've meant to do this for some time. I am also going to be deploying 900mhz at this location and that is what he is going to be using now. I will be using xr9 and they are using cyclone gear so I will test and post how other methods work once I have this up and running. Thanks again
 
hytanium
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:10 pm

Re: interference problem

Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:44 am

Thanks for all your posts on this problem. I finally got the tower owner to shut the other guy down until he switched to another frequency for clients and bh. I will let you all know that his equipment was about 20 feet below my accesspoint. It did make a difference on what channel I was using but it wasn't affecting all clients the same. Some of the clients would show nothing for signal and you could reboot them but it would only show a signal for a short time. I have clients within .5 mile that would have this problem and others that were 5 miles out still working but very slow most of the time. If you tried running on a channel close to them I had zero throughput on the tower. Most of the problem was upload from clients to ap and it is very strange that it causes the client equipment to lockup and lose signal completely. This makes canopy very dangerous. I tried a testing throughput to one of the clients using a 500 byte ping with zero success while the canopy 2.4 backhaul was plugged in and just as soon as I would unplug it every ping would go through perfect at around 20 ms I would then plug it back in and about 30 to 40 seconds later all pings were lost. This backhaul unit was pointing the opposet direction of the client I was running this test on and was about 20 feet below my ap. Do to the card in the ap and the brand of client equipment I'm using I couldn't try using nstreme or 5 mhz channels to see how it worked. I will be changing over to sectors in a few weeks and getting rid of the amp. I've meant to do this for some time. I am also going to be deploying 900mhz at this location and that is what he is going to be using now. I will be using xr9 and they are using cyclone gear so I will test and post how other methods work once I have this up and running. Thanks again
900 Cyclone gear on the same tower.... will not work. I run sectorized and a provider co-located on the same tower... the cyclone stuff is HPOL and I use HPOL. The Cyclone was 906 and I use 922, 917 and 912 / 120deg sectors. If they go full power, 912 is dead, 917 and 922 client upload is chit. We also used DCC filters at center channel 5.5Mhz wide. Without the filters 912,917 and 922 did not move traffic. I tried the XR9 with the same results. You are getting about 20ft. vertical seperation... which is about 10ft better than me.

Let me know what happens with you.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DanAtCommon and 21 guests