I live in the boondocks, so no cable. Neighbor has Satellite internet
and is willing to share. I am about 1/4 mile line of site. If I walk
1/2 way with laptop I get a connection. Was hoping to establich a
connection house to house using a cantenna. With that connection
established I need to then provide wireless coverage in my home for
multiple client PC's.
What does the cantenna connect to? A WAP or a router? Then how is the
wireless network re-created on my end?
I don't have much wireless experience but I'm an EE and software guy,
so a basic explaination of what hardware is required and best brands
would help a lot.
On 30 Apr 2007 11:05:10 -0700, irobot98@att.net wrote in
<1177956310.144684.155760@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups .com>:
>I live in the boondocks, so no cable. Neighbor has Satellite internet
>and is willing to share. I am about 1/4 mile line of site. If I walk
>1/2 way with laptop I get a connection. Was hoping to establich a
>connection house to house using a cantenna. With that connection
>established I need to then provide wireless coverage in my home for
>multiple client PC's.
>
>What does the cantenna connect to? A WAP or a router? Then how is the
>wireless network re-created on my end?
>
>I don't have much wireless experience but I'm an EE and software guy,
>so a basic explaination of what hardware is required and best brands
>would help a lot.
You need:
1. Wireless Ethernet client bridge with high-gain directional antenna to
connect to your neighbor; connected by Ethernet cable to:
2. Wireless access point (or wireless router configured as an access
point as described in the How To wiki below) on a different primary
channel (1, 6, 11) with a different and unique SSID.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
First question is if your neighbor's AP/router can have an external
directional antenna. Is he using it for wireless there or just as a
router? If he's not using wireless in his house, then connect a
cantenna or a panel antenna or a yagi via a short as possible low-loss
cable to that router. Point it towards you.
Next, whether you can get that directional antenna or have to stick
with the omni that came with his, you definitely want a directional
antenna on your end to connect with him using a wireless client
bridge
The Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 would be a good consumer level router that can
also function as a client. BestBuy or NewEgg will have them. They
are popular. The HP is preferred, for it's "high-power".
Again, be carefull about cable loss. It's critical. If possible, put
the client bridge close to or directly connected to the antenna. I
generally avoid antennas with their own cables unless they are short
and LMR200 or better. This calculator helps you decide the cable
part: http://www.timesmicrowave.com/cgi-bin/calculate.pl
>From there, run an ethernet cable to:
1) your pc and be done but not wireless in your house.
2) another router set up as an AP
Another option if wired is ok is to buy a USB adapter with external
antenna jack and put that same directional antenna on it. In this
case, it will only serve for one pc. http://pnt.zoovy.com/product/SUB-362EXT
To determine what gain you need for your antenna(s), read the wireless
wiki in John's signature and check out the link calculations for
standard operating margin, SOM. You should aim for 20db minimum of
signal to noise ratio. u
An aside: Once you get hooked up, make sure you understand the FAP
policy with the Satellite connection. It is restrictive and can be
punishing if you are not careful with downloading.
The great thing is that with two of you, you can upgrade to a higher
service level without too much pain.
>I live in the boondocks, so no cable. Neighbor has Satellite internet
>and is willing to share.
See comments by John and Seaweed for what you need. However, be
prepared for a problem. My guess is that the satellite is either
HughesNet (Direcway) or Wild Blue service. Both have severe
limitations on use called FAP (fair access policy). I know of several
small groups that are sharing a satellite connection. It takes
considerable communal effort and some yelling to make it usable. There
are also some service limitations. VoIP is half duplex with about a 2
second delay. It works but takes practice learning to say "over" at
the end of each "transmission". Uploads are incredibly slow. VPN's
are a lost cause. I suggest you try the neighbors satellite system
before you spend much time and money.
Also, there are often better ways to do this than wireless. If you
can run cable across the 1/4 mile between houses, methinks it's better
to run fiber, coax, and twisted pair, than to rely on wireless.
Wireless is fine, but is subject to interference problems. If you
have a bunch of nearby Wi-Fi networks, this may be a problem. Details
of various methods on request.
Thanks for all the tips folks. I may actually get my own dish, but I
have several other projects brewing that require the same type of
setup including a robo mower to cut the 6 acres that I currently mow.
I'd like to be able to use winsock for control and monitoring as well
as a DGPS setup. In addition I have city rental properties that are
subject to frequent vandalism. If I can get a sat or cable connection
at one site and beam wifi around to the other sites using directional
antennas I can use it for monitored alarm systems and surveilance
cameras. This one is probably going to be more challenging than it is
worth, due to obstructed line of site issues. But maybe not completely
as I have a few properties that are near each other. Just the same I'm
considering alternatives such as trac phones or cell family plans.
These systems will only have to send a heartbeat (I'm still here) for
monitoring and then data in the infrequent (hopefully) alarm event.
I'll be reading the FAQ's and may have more questions.
On 1 May 2007 08:09:00 -0700, seaweedsteve <seaweedsteve@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Another option if wired is ok is to buy a USB adapter with external
>antenna jack and put that same directional antenna on it. In this
>case, it will only serve for one pc. http://pnt.zoovy.com/product/SUB-362EXT
>
>To determine what gain you need for your antenna(s), read the wireless
>wiki in John's signature and check out the link calculations for
>standard operating margin, SOM. You should aim for 20db minimum of
>signal to noise ratio. u
>
>Cantennas may be great, but you can find hi gain antennas online for
>just a little more. http://pnt.zoovy.com/c=vuiCGe6ygfLUy...gory/antennas/
Good advice and good products. I use them on my boat with good
results, sometimes over 3 miles.
On May 1, 11:32 am, Jeff Liebermann <j...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us>
wrote:
>..... be prepared for a problem. My guess is that the satellite is either
> HughesNet (Direcway) or Wild Blue service. Both have severe
> limitations on use called FAP (fair access policy). I know of several
> small groups that are sharing a satellite connection. It takes
> considerable communal effort and some yelling to make it usable.
The trick here, if it's Hughes is to combine your resources to get a
business-level plan. This actually makes it better to share a
dish. For example, 1 person on the Hughes Home plan gets, supposedly
200 MB a...um, let's say day, at "up to" 700 Kbps and 50 kbps recovery
for $70 a month. Upgrading to the Small-Business plan, for $100 a
month you can have more than double all those numbers for $50 each.
And it's better than that, because to the degree that you don't
overlap in usage, each of you can enjoy the full bandwidth to
yourselves at times. Especially if you coordinate/cooperate. We have
8 people (obviously not power users at all) sharing that $100
account. We may add two more and move to the $200 account, but that's
still cheap !
>From my experience, the secret to making Sat internet work is to gang
up and share a bigger account/fatter pipe. It's like the difference
between running one 2" water pipe to your neighborhood to service 20
houses vs running 20 1/2" pipes. Which is more efficient? Which
gives better pressure/flow?
Still won't help for VoIP or VPN no matter what account you have.
Note: FAP for Hughes net is extremely complex and had just changed
this month. Also, they are not disclosing any real numbers. Look to
the sat forum for more info. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...s?lnk=li&hl=en
Still Hughes is probably the best of the consumer level systems.
On May 2, 12:29 pm, Jeff Liebermann <j...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us>
wrote:
> If you include wall drag (Bernoulli's equation), then the plumbing
> system with the smallest wall area gives less pressure loss:
> <http://www.efunda.com/formulae/fluids/calc_pipe_friction.cfm>
> This assumes incompressible fluid flow, which isn't a very good
> analogy for typical web data traffic.
OK. You got me there. You're not supposed to take it too
literally !
I was trying for an analogy to express the fact that by ganging up
users you get a combining effect. For example, if one user needs a
"700 kbps" connection for a "high-speed" feel, 6 users don't need 4200
kbps, but will have a good experience with 1500. Of course, I'm
talking about the touted "up-to" speeds. The delivered speeds are
often 1/2-3/4 that.
>
> I sorta help with 3 different systems that share a satellite link. All
> are HughesNet (DirecWay). The planned Wild Blue system fell through.
> The problem is that all 3 of these have DSL or cable available within
> wire or wireless range. However, they all have also successfully
> precipitated a war with the neighbors making a wired or wireless link
> somewhat problematic. I've been elected official diplomat and am
> trying to negotiate a peacful compromise that will allow them to
> obtain a terrestial alternative. However, no sooner do I obtain some
> sort of verbal agreement, someone always manages to restart the
> battle. I'm scheduled for yet another non-billable endless debate
> this weekend. Sigh.
>
Um, political problems. Another can of worms. As we all know,
satellite is only for those who can't get broadband. Or even medium
band. But it's better than dial-up still. Unless/until you hit FAP,
that is!
> I've suggested getting wider bandwidth connections. One of these has
> just done that. I haven't seen the results. The others are still
> waiting for me to "somehow" provide them with a terrestial solution
> and therefore don't want to invest in a 1 year HughesNet commitment.
I think that they will like it better. And with the new FAP, it may
make the critical difference on being able to watch youtube,
whatever. Of course, if it's a bad installation or small-dish, then
it may not help the speed. My experience is that the real difference
is going to the 2-watt transmitter and big dish acounts. I think you
get priority as a biz class user.
>
> >Still won't help for VoIP or VPN no matter what account you have.
>
> Yep. Physics can only be overcome by politics.
Huh?
> >Note: FAP for Hughes net is extremely complex and had just changed
> >this month. Also, they are not disclosing any real numbers. Look to
> >the sat forum for more info. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...s?lnk=li&hl=en
>
> Ouch. I hadn't noticed. Kinda reminds me of trying to come up with
> the ultimate fair equitable and manageable ISP billing system. Little
> wonder the industry has almost universally gone to flat rate. It's
> really difficult to be fair and equitable.
I'm wondering when they will start selling bandwidth like
electricity. Especially on Satellites where it's so expensive for the
providers to acquire. Put a meter on the sucker and charge by the
gigabyte. Then they will need no FAP. Problem is, I think that most
users consume very little bandwidth and are subsidizing people like
me. And the bigger bandwidth users would drop way back if they had to
pay what it really costs on Sat.
I suppose that just like electricity and water, you simply charge a
minimum fee for the connection and then charge usage for anything over
that.
On 4 May 2007 07:14:14 -0700, seaweedsteve <seaweedsteve@gmail.com>
wrote in <1178288054.722979.315150@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups. com>:
>I was trying for an analogy to express the fact that by ganging up
>users you get a combining effect. For example, if one user needs a
>"700 kbps" connection for a "high-speed" feel, 6 users don't need 4200
>kbps, but will have a good experience with 1500. Of course, I'm
>talking about the touted "up-to" speeds. The delivered speeds are
>often 1/2-3/4 that.
The rule of thumb used to be 10:1 (overselling bandwidth by 10x), but
all it takes is one bandwidth hog (e.g., file sharer) to invalidate
that.
>I'm wondering when they will start selling bandwidth like
>electricity. Especially on Satellites where it's so expensive for the
>providers to acquire. Put a meter on the sucker and charge by the
>gigabyte. Then they will need no FAP. Problem is, I think that most
>users consume very little bandwidth and are subsidizing people like
>me. And the bigger bandwidth users would drop way back if they had to
>pay what it really costs on Sat.
>
>I suppose that just like electricity and water, you simply charge a
>minimum fee for the connection and then charge usage for anything over
>that.
They've tried that, but the market hasn't accepted it, particularly when
the competition (DSL, cable) are selling "unlimited". So they lie
instead.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
>OK. You got me there. You're not supposed to take it too
>literally !
Sorry. I was just trying to secure my pedantic hair-splitting
nit-picker certificate. Much as I really like analogies, I also enjoy
shooting them full of holes. In the end, all analogies fail.
>I was trying for an analogy to express the fact that by ganging up
>users you get a combining effect. For example, if one user needs a
>"700 kbps" connection for a "high-speed" feel, 6 users don't need 4200
>kbps, but will have a good experience with 1500. Of course, I'm
>talking about the touted "up-to" speeds. The delivered speeds are
>often 1/2-3/4 that.
I wish it were that simple. I have a few customers with multiple DSL
connections. They use various load balancing routers with mixed
results:
<http://www.edimax.us/html/english/products/list-PRIrouter.htm>
Some things work really well. Others (large single-threaded uploads)
aren't worth the effort. Incidentally, a plumbing analogy of one of
these load balancing routers fails almost immediately.
>I think that they will like it better. And with the new FAP, it may
>make the critical difference on being able to watch youtube,
>whatever. Of course, if it's a bad installation or small-dish, then
>it may not help the speed. My experience is that the real difference
>is going to the 2-watt transmitter and big dish acounts. I think you
>get priority as a biz class user.
Well, it might be nice if they went for the business class service,
but the new equipment, higher bill, and large number of shared users,
makes it a dubious proposition. They currently have a small 0.74m
dish, and low power xmitter. At least they have a decent
DW-7000S(???) router. I'm pushing for a terrestrial solution, but
have to make peace with the neighbors first. Incidentally, my
visitation is postponed thanks to me catching a cold or flu.
>> >Still won't help for VoIP or VPN no matter what account you have.
>> Yep. Physics can only be overcome by politics.
>Huh?
I have to deal with the FCC and a few politicians all too frequently.
Politicians are the only ones that will consistently ignore technical
advice, industry expertise, and basic physics. They will barge ahead
on some pork barrel project knowing full well that it won't work.
>I'm wondering when they will start selling bandwidth like
>electricity. Especially on Satellites where it's so expensive for the
>providers to acquire. Put a meter on the sucker and charge by the
>gigabyte. Then they will need no FAP. Problem is, I think that most
>users consume very little bandwidth and are subsidizing people like
>me. And the bigger bandwidth users would drop way back if they had to
>pay what it really costs on Sat.
Metered service has been tried many times and always failed as long as
some other provider is offering flat rate. As your abusive bandwidth
consumption testifies, there are benefits to having flat rate service.
There are also benefits for the ISP, where there's no need to explain,
or calculate bandwidth use or consumption. I still remember the bad
old daze of Compuserve, where I paid by the minute. Surfing with a
stopwatch was common.
Anyway, you currently have the best compromise. Tiered service with
abuse management. The bandwidth hogs get to pay more, but not so fine
grained that it creates billing debates. When the frequency bands
fill up, and the ISP's are forced to provide "priority" service to
those that are willing to pay, then we'll have tiered service.
>I suppose that just like electricity and water, you simply charge a
>minimum fee for the connection and then charge usage for anything over
>that.
I don't want to go into detail, but I've thrown together several
ultimate fair and equitable billing systems that failed miserably.
It's far more complicated than you can ever imagine.
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>The rule of thumb used to be 10:1 (overselling bandwidth by 10x), but
>all it takes is one bandwidth hog (e.g., file sharer) to invalidate
>that.
Chuckle. I think you'll find that the satellite uplink path is far
more oversubscribed than just 10:1. If you want, I'll dig out the
number of transponders, their aggregate bandwidth, and divide it into
the number of satellite users (all of which have essentially full time
connections). Actually, I'm not familiar enough with the modulation
methods to make an accurate guess, but a ballpark guess might be
possible. DW has 260,000 subs
<http://www.isp-planet.com/research/rankings/usa.html>
scattered over who knows how many birds and transponders. Upload
bandwidth is 50Kbits/sec on a 6MHz wide transponder.
The number of transponders is a bit messy. See:
<http://www.dslreports.com/faq/2058>
I went to the PDF list of transponders and simply added up all the
bandwidth available on all "broadcast (downlink)" transponders. I get
1,784Gbits/sec download available on 11 birds.
If every customer started downloading simultaneously, each would get:
1.8Gbits/sec / 260,000 customers = 7Kbits/sec
which isn't going to work very well.
If every customer were guaranteed 500Kbits/sec, then the system could
theoretically handle:
1.8Gbits/sec / 0.5Mbits/sec = 3600 customers
which is also not very good.
The oversubscription rate would therefore be:
260,000 customers / 3600 customers = 72:1 oversubscription
I'm too lazy to do the upload numbers, but I suspect they're in the
same ballpark (or worse).
On May 4, 5:07 pm, Jeff Liebermann <j...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us>
wrote:
>
> Chuckle. I think you'll find that the satellite uplink path is far
> more oversubscribed than just 10:1.
>........ If every customer started downloading simultaneously, each would get:
> 1.8Gbits/sec / 260,000 customers = 7Kbits/sec
> which isn't going to work very well.
I forget exactly, but some of the sat experts have thrown around
similiar numbers. 5Kbits/sec per user is what stuck in my head.
Thankfully, most of the connections are idle most of the time.
> The oversubscription rate would therefore be:
> 260,000 customers / 3600 customers = 72:1 oversubscription
>
Yep. Or more.
As they improve the ways that they can cram more data into the same
bandwidth they are certainly increasing how many they can get on each
transponder, although perhaps the effective contention ratio is
maintained or lowered. That's why they encourage subscribers to go to
the new HN7000S (previous was the DW7000). It doesn't actually
improve the subsciber's experience, but when pointed at the right
satellite running the new...protocol(?), it allows more to be packed
in. I forget the terms, something about slicing each rotation of
something into four parts instead of two or one. This is good for the
user simply because if Hughes can cram more on each transponder then
they can turn a decent profit and won't have to clamp down on
bandwidth instead.
One can imagine that it was easy five years ago to offer x amount of
thruput, knowing few would use it. But with P2P, youtube and itunes
type uses on the increase, they have to clamp down just to maintain
the same numbers of accounts.
> I'm too lazy to do the upload numbers, but I suspect they're in the
> same ballpark (or worse).
I've heard that upload is worse. Don't understand why. Probably just
because it's bandwidth that doesn't get noticed, therefore doesn't pay
off.
On May 4, 4:31 pm, Jeff Liebermann <j...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us>
wrote:
>
> Sorry. I was just trying to secure my pedantic hair-splitting
> nit-picker certificate. Much as I really like analogies, I also enjoy
> shooting them full of holes. In the end, all analogies fail.
>
Of course, but to the degree that they cover the main points and help
us understand, they are valuable. Sort of like the analogies they use
to explain electricity like water. Doesn't go far, but it gets us
beginners over the first hurdle of understanding the basic behaviour.
> >I was trying for an analogy to express the fact that by ganging up
> >users you get a combining effect. For example, if one user needs a
> >"700 kbps" connection for a "high-speed" feel, 6 users don't need 4200
> >kbps, but will have a good experience with 1500. Of course, I'm
> >talking about the touted "up-to" speeds. The delivered speeds are
> >often 1/2-3/4 that.
>
> I wish it were that simple. I have a few customers with multiple DSL
> connections. They use various load balancing routers with mixed
> results:
> <http://www.edimax.us/html/english/products/list-PRIrouter.htm>
> Some things work really well. Others (large single-threaded uploads)
> aren't worth the effort. Incidentally, a plumbing analogy of one of
> these load balancing routers fails almost immediately.
Wow, that is a much more complex kind of sharing. I'm just talking
about putting 8-10 people on a home router off of a hughesnet modem.
No balancing needed and it's working ! Most of the internet shops
around here do exactly the same thing. Not complicated.
......
> >> Yep. Physics can only be overcome by politics.
> >Huh?
>
> I have to deal with the FCC and a few politicians all too frequently.
> Politicians are the only ones that will consistently ignore technical
> advice, industry expertise, and basic physics. They will barge ahead
> on some pork barrel project knowing full well that it won't work.
Ah, now I understand. I have a family member who is an AI expert. He
goes/went to Washington periodically to sit down with other experts
and generals and politicians and assess computerized systems for
managing big government things, like say weapons or I don't know what,
he doesn't say. All he says is that when they ask if this new system
will work, if it is safe, and everyone says, "oh, yes" and he says
"well, these systems have been known to fail, and maybe it's not a
good idea... and ... " Well, they don't want to hear it. Better to
find a different scientist. Maybe he's been replaced by now...
> Metered service has been tried many times and always failed as long as
> some other provider is offering flat rate. As your abusive bandwidth
> consumption testifies, there are benefits to having flat rate service.
> There are also benefits for the ISP, where there's no need to explain,
> or calculate bandwidth use or consumption. I still remember the bad
> old daze of Compuserve, where I paid by the minute. Surfing with a
> stopwatch was common.
>
> Anyway, you currently have the best compromise. Tiered service with
> abuse management. The bandwidth hogs get to pay more, but not so fine
> grained that it creates billing debates. When the frequency bands
> fill up, and the ISP's are forced to provide "priority" service to
> those that are willing to pay, then we'll have tiered service.
>
> >I suppose that just like electricity and water, you simply charge a
> >minimum fee for the connection and then charge usage for anything over
> >that.
>
> I don't want to go into detail, but I've thrown together several
> ultimate fair and equitable billing systems that failed miserably.
> It's far more complicated than you can ever imagine.
As I think about it, I can already see where it gets problematic.
Bandwidth is much more burst-able and also more subject to "prime-time
effects. Just selling by quantity does not help with the problem of
everybody wanting to use it at the same time.
And working in a billing system that dynamically charges for the
contention ratio at the moment would be difficult to defend to the
customer. They may work it out so that the more you use, the slower
it comes, but that's starting to sound a lot like what they are doing
already. I think that you are right, it's already perhaps the right
approach, though it needs tweaking. That's for sure.
>On May 4, 5:07 pm, Jeff Liebermann <j...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> Chuckle. I think you'll find that the satellite uplink path is far
>> more oversubscribed than just 10:1.
>
>>........ If every customer started downloading simultaneously, each would get:
>> 1.8Gbits/sec / 260,000 customers = 7Kbits/sec
>> which isn't going to work very well.
>I forget exactly, but some of the sat experts have thrown around
>similiar numbers. 5Kbits/sec per user is what stuck in my head.
>Thankfully, most of the connections are idle most of the time.
Your 5KBits/sec per sub would probably be more accurate. The list I
used included birds that are not available everywhere. Some
transponders will be more crowded than others. It also assumes no
compression, which might increase the numbers slightly. However, as
packet size gets smaller, compression is often self defeating.
As for most connections being idle, that's a good assumption for
normal use. However, HughesNet is advertising heavily in the
emergency services sector. I expect to see rather heavy priority
traffic from those systems during disasters and drills.
>> The oversubscription rate would therefore be:
>> 260,000 customers / 3600 customers = 72:1 oversubscription
>Yep. Or more.
My guess(tm) is that they've done just about all that's possible with
protocol efficiency, compression, and adaptive bandwidth control.
Currently, everyone seems to be working on predictive encoding
(similar to what's done on hard disks) and router in the sky
switching. However, that won't get you less latency or better
thruput. It will just cram more customers into the same transponder
bandwidth.
Incidentally, wholesale satellite transponder bandwidth sells for
about $4,000 to $7,000 per MHz per month:
<http://www.satsig.net/ivsatcos.htm>
in case you want to go into competition with HughesNet.
>As they improve the ways that they can cram more data into the same
>bandwidth they are certainly increasing how many they can get on each
>transponder, although perhaps the effective contention ratio is
>maintained or lowered.
Commercial satellite bandwidth is often sold on the basis of
contention ratio (channel loading). My 72:1 guess is called the
"contention ratio".
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contention_ratio>
It also applies to any shared medium such as cable modems and DSL.
>That's why they encourage subscribers to go to
>the new HN7000S (previous was the DW7000). It doesn't actually
>improve the subsciber's experience, but when pointed at the right
>satellite running the new...protocol(?), it allows more to be packed
>in. I forget the terms, something about slicing each rotation of
>something into four parts instead of two or one. This is good for the
>user simply because if Hughes can cram more on each transponder then
>they can turn a decent profit and won't have to clamp down on
>bandwidth instead.
I'll plead partial ignorance, but will do some reading on the subject.
Kinda sounds like what the WISP vendors found out 10 years ago.
<http://www.seattlewireless.net/TurboCell>
CSMA/CA (carrier sense multiple access / collision avoidance) system
fall apart at high channel loading. That's where rotary or dynamic
polling works much better. My guess(tm) is that Hughesnet is going to
polling. I wouldn't be suprised if they implimented some kind of QoS
system in the router to delay packets that are not time critical.
Dunno, and just guessing.
>I've heard that upload is worse. Don't understand why. Probably just
>because it's bandwidth that doesn't get noticed, therefore doesn't pay
>off.
Well, I was going to grind the numbers, but don't have enough info.
The chart has the transponder ID's, but does not indicate the upload
bandwidth. I can probably guess, but it's easier to ask. Later,
maybe.
On Sun, 06 May 2007 15:29:43 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<csjs33tshd7tgc0qk3esb5m65v12cvsre1@4ax.com>:
>seaweedsteve <seaweedsteve@gmail.com> hath wroth:
>
>>On May 4, 5:07 pm, Jeff Liebermann <j...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Chuckle. I think you'll find that the satellite uplink path is far
>>> more oversubscribed than just 10:1.
That's not what I meant. My oversubscription rate applied only to the
"last mile" as in the case of a multiplexor. As you go upstream on
service tiers (e.g., neighborhood service, backhaul), the
oversubscription rate increases, and 100:1 isn't uncommon (or
unworkable). Satellite is a special case because of the lack of service
tiers.
>Commercial satellite bandwidth is often sold on the basis of
>contention ratio (channel loading). My 72:1 guess is called the
>"contention ratio".
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contention_ratio>
>It also applies to any shared medium such as cable modems and DSL.
Those are different animals. Cable is a shared medium, but DSL isn't,
except in the sense that _most_ fat Internet pipes are shared; e.g.,
dedicated business T-1 aggregated onto shared Internet backhaul.
>I'll plead partial ignorance, but will do some reading on the subject.
>Kinda sounds like what the WISP vendors found out 10 years ago.
><http://www.seattlewireless.net/TurboCell>
>CSMA/CA (carrier sense multiple access / collision avoidance) system
>fall apart at high channel loading. That's where rotary or dynamic
>polling works much better. My guess(tm) is that Hughesnet is going to
>polling.
Polling would almost certainly be a killer with satellite latency. What
makes much more sense is time slot pre-assignment.
>I wouldn't be suprised if they implimented some kind of QoS
>system in the router to delay packets that are not time critical.
That could be, probably based on FAP and traffic level.
>Dunno, and just guessing.
Guessing in my case because I haven't looked hard at what is being some
in a number of years.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Fri, 04 May 2007 14:31:35 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<288n33lrntd75mv8eailgsrgknc8s1fjle@4ax.com>:
>When the frequency bands
>fill up, and the ISP's are forced to provide "priority" service to
>those that are willing to pay, then we'll have tiered service.
Maybe, but I doubt it. Capacity appears to be increasing more rapidly
than demand.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Tue, 08 May 2007 01:51:33 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 May 2007 14:31:35 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
><jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
><288n33lrntd75mv8eailgsrgknc8s1fjle@4ax.com>:
>
>>When the frequency bands
>>fill up, and the ISP's are forced to provide "priority" service to
>>those that are willing to pay, then we'll have tiered service.
>Maybe, but I doubt it. Capacity appears to be increasing more rapidly
>than demand.
Did you see my calculations of capacity and user count for HughesNet?
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/msg/14a787207840b505>
HughesNet has announced plans to increase capacity by adding birds and
juggling protocols,
<http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=173840>
<http://www.copperhead.cc/press.htm>
However at 72:1 oversubscription or worse, it's going to take quite a
bit of added capacity to get the oversubscription down to the
terrestrial standard of 10:1. From my position on the ground,
subscriber count seems to be increasing, without the any corresponding
increase in available capacity (bandwidth).
However, I goofed. I was about a year behind in my numbers. HughesNet
now has 325,000 subscribers.
<http://www.hughes.com/HUGHES/Doc/0/INL8IJG4TR4K392D96HG94K0C4/01-08-07_Hughes_announces_CES_results.htm>
Using the previous assumption of 500Kbits/sec per subscriber, I would
guess:
325,000 / 3600 = 90:1 oversubscription
Now, where is this increasing satellite capacity you've seen rapidly
increasing or are you referring to terrestrial fiber capacity?
On Tue, 08 May 2007 02:21:29 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<gkmv33152fobsp6c1o23n05tqg1l1uh4ka@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 08 May 2007 01:51:33 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 04 May 2007 14:31:35 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
>><jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
>><288n33lrntd75mv8eailgsrgknc8s1fjle@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>When the frequency bands
>>>fill up, and the ISP's are forced to provide "priority" service to
>>>those that are willing to pay, then we'll have tiered service.
>
>>Maybe, but I doubt it. Capacity appears to be increasing more rapidly
>>than demand.
>
>Did you see my calculations of capacity and user count for HughesNet?
><http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/msg/14a787207840b505>
>HughesNet has announced plans to increase capacity by adding birds and
>juggling protocols,
><http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=173840>
><http://www.copperhead.cc/press.htm>
That's just relatively short term. More fundamental improvements are
possible in the longer term _if_ there is sufficient demand. The dark
cloud on the horizon is WiMAX.
>However at 72:1 oversubscription or worse, it's going to take quite a
>bit of added capacity to get the oversubscription down to the
>terrestrial standard of 10:1.
Did you see my comments on oversubscription?
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/msg/44ae934bea9da4c9>
I think 100:1 is probably a more relevant terrestrial comparison.
>From my position on the ground,
>subscriber count seems to be increasing, without the any corresponding
>increase in available capacity (bandwidth).
I'm seeing less performance complaints now than I've seen the past.
>However, I goofed. I was about a year behind in my numbers. HughesNet
>now has 325,000 subscribers.
><http://www.hughes.com/HUGHES/Doc/0/INL8IJG4TR4K392D96HG94K0C4/01-08-07_Hughes_announces_CES_results.htm>
>Using the previous assumption of 500Kbits/sec per subscriber, I would
>guess:
> 325,000 / 3600 = 90:1 oversubscription
>
>Now, where is this increasing satellite capacity you've seen rapidly
>increasing or are you referring to terrestrial fiber capacity?
Technological advance in all forms of wireless broadband.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>That's just relatively short term. More fundamental improvements are
>possible in the longer term _if_ there is sufficient demand. The dark
>cloud on the horizon is WiMAX.
I don't think satellite WiMAX is being proposed. WiMax is also not an
answer to satellite capacity problems. Incidentally, the lower layers
of the WiMax protocol are almost identical to DOCSIS as used on the
CATV networks. So are some of the higher level management protocols.
That was intentional to allow easy conversion of cable settop
technology to wireless. I'll supply a suitable conspiracy theory when
I think of one.
>Did you see my comments on oversubscription?
><http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/msg/44ae934bea9da4c9>
Nope, not yet. Don't worry, I'll tear it apart eventually.
>I think 100:1 is probably a more relevant terrestrial comparison.
Possibly. I really don't know because I haven't run the calculations.
Which terrestrial service has 100:1 oversubscription of advertised
bandwidth and I'll do the numbers? I don't have time to research all
of them. Just pick one. If you pick cable, please pick a vendor
because different cable vendors use different topologies and traffic
mixes, which have a huge effect on available bandwidth.
>>From my position on the ground,
>>subscriber count seems to be increasing, without the any corresponding
>>increase in available capacity (bandwidth).
>
>I'm seeing less performance complaints now than I've seen the past.
That's odd. I'm seeing about the same number for my few satellite
customers. Perhaps it's because the early adopters and complainers
have all dropped out and are being replaced with more tolerant
customer base. Kinda like cell phone service, where the customers
have simply learned to tolerate garbled audio, lack of coverage,
creative billing, and dropped calls. Also like compressed video,
where the general deterioration of NTSC picture quality due to
compression has only recently been alleviated by HD (high dollar) TV.
>>Now, where is this increasing satellite capacity you've seen rapidly
>>increasing or are you referring to terrestrial fiber capacity?
>Technological advance in all forms of wireless broadband.
Compression and protocol technology is not going to do much for a
100:1 overload. However, for once you're correct. Hughes is doing
what Hughes does best, which is politics. Hot off the web page from
the FCC shows that on Friday, the FCC finally (yawn) approved using
the reverse 17/24GHz DBS bands for broadcasting. Instant frequency
spectrum at little price (or revenue from FCC spectrum auctions):
FCC Adopts Licensing and Service Rules for the 17/24 GHz
Broadcasting-Satellite Service.
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-76A1.pdf>
Sorry about the gibberish but it's so new that I can't find an
intelligible press release. Notice that this is an NPR (notice of
proposed rule making) and might be mutilated before being enacted.
Going foot in mouth along with this action is this little step
backwards:
FCC Terminates Proceeding on Receiver Interference Immunity
Performance Specifications.
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-79A1.pdf>
which means that receiver quality will deteriorate to the lowest level
of acceptability and that the FCC won't need to do anything about
interference problems if your flashy new receiver works like crap.
Nothing on the Hughes press release site yet, but this announcement
seems a bit premature:
Broadband Within Reach: Hughes' New Low Price Makes Broadband Dream
a Reality for Underserved Communities
<http://www.hughes.com/HUGHES/Doc/0/AUHJLGKNCBV4B5LMB4BSHUJL46/050707.htm>
There you have it. For every advance in technology and politics, the
benefits go to new customers, not existing.
"Effective May 7, new subscribers to HughesNet™ high-speed Internet
satellite service will enjoy a significant reduction in price on
Hughes equipment and standard installation."
Note the words "new subscribers".
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>>>> Chuckle. I think you'll find that the satellite uplink path is far
>>>> more oversubscribed than just 10:1.
>That's not what I meant. My oversubscription rate applied only to the
>"last mile" as in the case of a multiplexor. As you go upstream on
>service tiers (e.g., neighborhood service, backhaul), the
>oversubscription rate increases, and 100:1 isn't uncommon (or
>unworkable).
As I mumbled in another message, give me a specific terrestrial
service provider, and I'll calculate the numbers.
>Satellite is a special case because of the lack of service
>tiers.
Satellite does have service tiers. DirecWay and others all sell
different bandwidth the FAB based service tiers. Hughesnet has
several home and business tiers. See the web pages.
>>Commercial satellite bandwidth is often sold on the basis of
>>contention ratio (channel loading). My 72:1 guess is called the
>>"contention ratio".
>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contention_ratio>
>>It also applies to any shared medium such as cable modems and DSL.
>Those are different animals. Cable is a shared medium, but DSL isn't,
The DSL backhaul is most certainly shared. At some point *ALL*
internet services are shared. From the point of view of the user, it
doesn't matter *WHERE* the bottleneck is located. For example,
Comcast/at&t has a huge amount of fiber bandwidth in the SF Bay area,
but a relatively small pipe to the internet. The fiber ring could be
running at a very low percentage of capacity, while the gateway to the
various connection exchanges are totally constipated. To the user, it
looks like oversubscription. The math is simple enough. Available
bandwidth at the various connection exchanges divided by the number of
Comcast/at&t customers trying to shove their traffic through those
pipes.
>except in the sense that _most_ fat Internet pipes are shared; e.g.,
>dedicated business T-1 aggregated onto shared Internet backhaul.
Yep.
Quiz: What's the contention ratio (oversubscription) for a T1(DS1)
within a given ILEC?
Answer: 1:1 It's called committed bandwidth.
>Polling would almost certainly be a killer with satellite latency. What
>makes much more sense is time slot pre-assignment.
The compromise in between is usually more efficient. Adaptive polling
is the way to go. Ground stations without any traffic get polled far
less often than ground stations with traffic. That's also the way
that ground stations are throttled (by polling them less often).
There's also a hybrid which uses fixed time slots, but where the time
slots are juggled depending on traffic. It's not very good and I
think was invented solely to avoid a patent issue. The important
thing is to reduce the amount of back and forth negotiations before
sending data. Time slots do that but get into trouble when there are
a huge number of ground stations. I'm not familiar with the new and
improved polling protocol and therefore can't even guess how it works.
Incidentally, the same polling strategy also applies to WISP systems
(using WiMax and Wi-Fi) for internet access.
>>I wouldn't be suprised if they implimented some kind of QoS
>>system in the router to delay packets that are not time critical.
>
>That could be, probably based on FAP and traffic level.
At this time, the FAP is not based on traffic content. The FAP does
not distinguish between time criticial VoIP and non-critical file
transfers. It only cares about "fair share". That may change to a
QoS based FAP where one pays extra for time critical traffic.
>>Dunno, and just guessing.
>Guessing in my case because I haven't looked hard at what is being some
>in a number of years.
Would it help if I posted satellite specific press releases in
alt.internet.wireless? (Sorry, I just couldn't resist).
>>Satellite is a special case because of the lack of service
>>tiers.
>
>Satellite does have service tiers. DirecWay and others all sell
>different bandwidth the FAB based service tiers. Hughesnet has
>several home and business tiers. See the web pages.
You're misinterpreting what I wrote. My use of "tier" was in the
context of pipe aggregation, which I think was pretty clear, not service
levels.
>>Those are different animals. Cable is a shared medium, but DSL isn't,
>
>The DSL backhaul is most certainly shared.
Again, you're misinterpreting what I wrote. As I'm sure you know, local
cable is shared, whereas local DSL isn't.
>At some point *ALL*
>internet services are shared.
Of course. Your point?
>From the point of view of the user, it
>doesn't matter *WHERE* the bottleneck is located.
What matters is *IF* there is a bottleneck, which is more likely with
cable (due to fundamental architecture) than DSL.
>Quiz: What's the contention ratio (oversubscription) for a T1(DS1)
>within a given ILEC?
>Answer: 1:1 It's called committed bandwidth.
Likewise for DSL to the DSLAM. Your point?
>>Polling would almost certainly be a killer with satellite latency. What
>>makes much more sense is time slot pre-assignment.
>
>The compromise in between is usually more efficient. Adaptive polling
>is the way to go. ...
I respectfully disagree, but don't care to waste more of my life
debating it -- been there, done that, long ago.
>>That could be, probably based on FAP and traffic level.
>
>At this time, the FAP is not based on traffic content. ...
Again, you're misinterpreting what I wrote. Read what I wrote more
carefully.
>>Guessing in my case because I haven't looked hard at what is being some
>>in a number of years.
>
>Would it help if I posted satellite specific press releases in
>alt.internet.wireless? (Sorry, I just couldn't resist).
Whatever.
Having a bad day?
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Tue, 08 May 2007 09:00:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<316143l30bs1sdevrcjol32bvfelsfm796@4ax.com>:
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>
>>That's just relatively short term. More fundamental improvements are
>>possible in the longer term _if_ there is sufficient demand. The dark
>>cloud on the horizon is WiMAX.
>
>I don't think satellite WiMAX is being proposed. ...
Again, you're misinterpreting what I wrote.
>>Did you see my comments on oversubscription?
>><http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/msg/44ae934bea9da4c9>
>
>Nope, not yet. Don't worry, I'll tear it apart eventually.
Or misconstrue it entirely
>>[BIG SNIP]
>I think 100:1 is permanent.
I don't think so, but I'm not going to waste time debating it.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Connecting 2 Wifi Networks Via Cantenna 
Linear Mode
