Choice of radio technology

The consensus in our meetings seems to be that we possess inadequate expertise to make an informed decision on which band or technology is best suited to our back-haul ambitions. Notes below summarize what we understand so far. If you have more expertise, please contribute on the mailing list.

1. Bands under consideration
   1. 5.8 GHz
      1. 23 non-overlapping channels (compared to 3 on 2.4 GHz)
      2. Low usage and noise floor.
      3. Regulations are more permissive of gain in point to point configurations such that the ERP can be almost two orders of magnitude higher than the equivalent 2.4 GHz system.
      4. Higher path loss
      5. We already have Nanostation 5 equipment. Tests are pending.
   2. 4.9 GHz Emergency Services Band
      1. Anybody know anything?
   3. 2 GHz
      1. Expected to be crowded (at least during non-emergency conditions.)
      2. Only 3 non-overlapping channels to work with.
      3. We plan to order Ubiquity Bullet 2's to experiment with.
   4. 900 MHz
      1. Bill Moffitt mentioned he had bad experiences using 900 MHz in the bay area.
      2. Should be more resilient to obstacles than >GHz technology.
   5. Licensed Bands
      1. 3.5 GHz
         1. "Essentially not available anywhere near here, thanks to rules about earth station protection."
   6. WiMax
      1. Designed for exactly what we are attempting
      2. Not yet available at consumer prices

1. Answers
   1. Ubiquity Forums has a short answer to the question of 5.8 GHz vs 2.4 GHz. Essentially, 5 GHz is a cleaner and wider band, but is super allergic to any obstructions like trees. The antennas also have trouble producing consistent radiation patterns because they are built for 5.4 GHz.

-- Main.randomandy - 02 May 2009