rec's for bullet resistant semi-outdoor unit?

We've got a cul-de-sac with a half dozen homes, and
are interested in getting a high speed connection
and sharing it. Our local cable provider (Charter)
provides 30 meg at a price that would work out.

(most of the folk here are part timers so the speed
should be adequate when shared)

Placing a Linksys model mumble mumble five y/o in the
windowsill almost gets enough connectivity, so we figure
that putting it up on the roof would work out.

What we're looking for is a unit that's reliable and
can handle the multiple connections - possibly up to 50...
without crashing.

Bonus points for something that's powered by POE, so we
can run low voltage up there.

Prefarbly something intrinsically designed for outdoor use
with a professional enclosure. Alternatively we can
build a weatherproof box...

We realize this won't be fifty dollars...

Suggestions? Thanks


--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

On 7/29/2012 8:21 PM, danny burstein wrote:
> We've got a cul-de-sac with a half dozen homes, and

What caliber are your neighbors packing?

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:21:03 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
<dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

>We've got a cul-de-sac with a half dozen homes, and
>are interested in getting a high speed connection
>and sharing it. Our local cable provider (Charter)
>provides 30 meg at a price that would work out.
>
>(most of the folk here are part timers so the speed
>should be adequate when shared)
>
>Placing a Linksys model mumble mumble five y/o in the
>windowsill almost gets enough connectivity, so we figure
>that putting it up on the roof would work out.
>
>What we're looking for is a unit that's reliable and
>can handle the multiple connections - possibly up to 50...
>without crashing.
>
>Bonus points for something that's powered by POE, so we
>can run low voltage up there.
>
>Prefarbly something intrinsically designed for outdoor use
>with a professional enclosure. Alternatively we can
>build a weatherproof box...
>
>We realize this won't be fifty dollars...
>
>Suggestions? Thanks

----
http://gall.mine.nu/comic
----------------
P2P by EMAIL --> http://tinyurl.com/824xvvl
USENET With SSL/Compression --> http://gall.mine.nu/stunnel.rar
R.B.O Humours --> http://gall.mine.nu:55555
Proxy --> http://gall.mine.nu
Forum --> http://gall.mine.nu/f
Java Chat -->http://gall.mine.nu/c
Any info Email: amie@gall.mine.nu

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:21:03 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
<dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

>We've got a cul-de-sac with a half dozen homes, and
>are interested in getting a high speed connection
>and sharing it. Our local cable provider (Charter)
>provides 30 meg at a price that would work out.

grumble...can o'worms...grumble

>(most of the folk here are part timers so the speed
>should be adequate when shared)
>
>Placing a Linksys model mumble mumble five y/o in the
>windowsill almost gets enough connectivity, so we figure
>that putting it up on the roof would work out.
>
>What we're looking for is a unit that's reliable and
>can handle the multiple connections - possibly up to 50...
>without crashing.
>
>Bonus points for something that's powered by POE, so we
>can run low voltage up there.
>
>Prefarbly something intrinsically designed for outdoor use
>with a professional enclosure. Alternatively we can
>build a weatherproof box...
>
>We realize this won't be fifty dollars...
>
>Suggestions? Thanks

To me, it sounds like you just described something from Ubiquity.
I'll leave the specific recommendations to someone else.
<www.ubnt.com>

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:21:03 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
<dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

>We've got a cul-de-sac with a half dozen homes, and
>are interested in getting a high speed connection
>and sharing it. Our local cable provider (Charter)
>provides 30 meg at a price that would work out.

We have both Charter and Comcast in the area. Charter sucks. Comcast
sucks less.

>(most of the folk here are part timers so the speed
>should be adequate when shared)

Famous last assumptions. I used to use this rule of thumb for number
of clients per access point.
100 home users doing email and web surfing
10 business users doing whatever business users like to do.
1 file sharing user
Divide by 2 for watching TV over the internet (Netflix etc).

However, that's not your real problem. It's going to be policing the
system to make sure it's usable. It only takes one user with a virus
to saturate your OUTGOING bandwidth. You'll need to monitor the
traffic, monitor the type of traffic, and be able to do something
about abusers, freeloaders, hackers, and over-users. Creating the
ultimate fair cost sharing model is also a challeng. Some users are
just going to use more than others.

However, all of that is minor compared to getting a phone call from
one of the users at 2AM in the morning asking "Is the Internet up"? If
you set yourself up as the keeper of the system, that's almost
guaranteed. Even if you charge for service calls, everyone assumes
that a 2AM phone call is free.

How to start a WISP:
<http://www.dslreports.com/faq/wisp/2_How_to_start>

Ubiquiti WISP guide:
<http://wiki.ubnt.com/Building_a_wisp>

Mikrotik WISP guides:
<http://mum.mikrotik.com/presentations/EG07/lutz_kleeman.pdf>
<http://mikrotikwisp.blogspot.com/>

>Placing a Linksys model mumble mumble five y/o in the
>windowsill almost gets enough connectivity, so we figure
>that putting it up on the roof would work out.

Maybe. Do a site survey and see how many other 2.4Ghz systems you're
going to hear. Higher isn't always better as you just end up hearing
more interference. If you can handle the cost, this is a good time to
seriously consider using 5.8GHz (802.11a) using stand alone wireless
clients with ethernet connections. If the users need more
connections, they can use their own home 2.4GHz wireless routers.

Ubiquiti makes (usually) good hardware.
<www.ubnt.com/airmax>
Try Nanostation 5 or Bullet 5 for the client radio. The bigger and
uglier the antenna, the better it works. Mikrotik also makes good
WISP systems:
<http://www.mikrotik.com>
<http://routerboard.com>
There are a tangle of blogs, forums, Yahoo groups, etc for these
companies. Dive in.

Your window sill link test isn't good enough. You have to be able to
move a few megabits/sec with a low error rate in order to declare it
working. That's not easy, especially if there's co-channel
interference.

>What we're looking for is a unit that's reliable and
>can handle the multiple connections - possibly up to 50...
>without crashing.

With 50 full time connections, you'll probably need to divide the
traffic between multiple access points. Two or three Bullet 5 series
radios, with 3 seperate (sector??) antennas, should work.

>Bonus points for something that's powered by POE, so we
>can run low voltage up there.

All the Ubiquiti radios are PoE. However, they're NOT 802.11af
compliant, so you'll need to buy the proprietary Ubiquiti PoE adapter.

>Prefarbly something intrinsically designed for outdoor use
>with a professional enclosure. Alternatively we can
>build a weatherproof box...

A weatherproof box might prove useful if you're going to do solar
power and put your batteries and router in the box. If Charter will
only give you a single IP address (highly likely), you'll need a
router between the Charter cable modem and access point radios. If
anything is likely to fail, hang, or screwup, it will be this router.
I like Sonicwall, but you probably will not like the price tags. They
also have expensive user licenses, which adds more cost. Something by
Cisco should also work, but I don't know much about their current
stuff.

<http://www.l-com.com/content/NEMAEnclosures.html>

>We realize this won't be fifty dollars...

I don't think you realize how expensive this can become. It's not the
hardware. It's the support hassle that costs time and money. If you
have 50 users, and Charter goes down in the middle of the big football
game, you'll get 50 phone calls. If it's raining, you'll be expected
to fix things immediately. Do you REALLY want to do that?

>Suggestions? Thanks

Hint: Do the math. If it doesn't work on paper, it's not going to
work when you build it.



--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

In <u3qb181nf9blc9l303oldstbab7igqtvrp@4ax.com> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:

>Maybe. Do a site survey and see how many other 2.4Ghz systems you're
>going to hear. Higher isn't always better as you just end up hearing
>more interference.

Low density area, with only two or three others barely in range
when testing from a ladder next to the roof... (another bunch from
our own small group, of course).

> If you can handle the cost, this is a good time to
>seriously consider using 5.8GHz (802.11a) using stand alone wireless
>clients with ethernet connections. If the users need more
>connections, they can use their own home 2.4GHz wireless routers.

Lots of the equipment, for example TiVos, are legacy 802.11b/g.
(and yes, I know about the TiVo bandwidth issue when people
pull down videos...)

>Your window sill link test isn't good enough. You have to be able to
>move a few megabits/sec with a low error rate in order to declare it
>working. That's not easy, especially if there's co-channel
>interference.

ALready tested... I set up the windowsill and visited the
neighbors using my laptop. Got decent coverage that was
just-about-almost ok. (not including a basement)

>>What we're looking for is a unit that's reliable and
>>can handle the multiple connections - possibly up to 50...
>>without crashing.

>With 50 full time connections, you'll probably need to divide the
>traffic between multiple access points. Two or three Bullet 5 series
>radios, with 3 seperate (sector??) antennas, should work.

The 50 is worst case. We figure that each household nowadys
can have up to ten WiFi devices... but it's unlikely most
of them will be active, or at least heavily active, at
the same time.

>>Bonus points for something that's powered by POE, so we
>>can run low voltage up there.

>All the Ubiquiti radios are PoE. However, they're NOT 802.11af
>compliant, so you'll need to buy the proprietary Ubiquiti PoE adapter.

Sounds good. PoE is much more civilized.

>A weatherproof box might prove useful if you're going to do solar
>power and put your batteries and router in the box. If Charter will
>only give you a single IP address (highly likely), you'll need a
>router between the Charter cable modem and access point radios.

They'll give us a second for another ?twenty? per month. More
or less. Something not too horrendous.

- If you want ugly pricing ask about a fixed IP...

>have 50 users, and Charter goes down in the middle of the big football
>game, you'll get 50 phone calls. If it's raining, you'll be expected
>to fix things immediately. Do you REALLY want to do that?

Understood if we're looking at a large base. But it's just
a half dozen, of which we're one. Yes, famous last words...

>Hint: Do the math. If it doesn't work on paper, it's not going to
>work when you build it.

Well, I'm from the generation that spent six hundred dollars
for a 2,400 baud modem... so I'm not going to scream at
commercial grade pricing.

Thanks again. UBNT looks good.

- oh, and Charter might actually have 50 megs donstream
in our area rather than 30. On cable, no less, not fiber.

--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 03:38:15 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
<dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

Incidentally, thanks for not mentioning a mesh network.

>Lots of the equipment, for example TiVos, are legacy 802.11b/g.
>(and yes, I know about the TiVo bandwidth issue when people
>pull down videos...)

I think you need a demonstration of how bad it can be. Setup two
access points and two client machines on the same RF channel. Setup
one to download some streaming video. Setup the second pair to do
some manner of speed test (using IPERF or JPREF). What you'll
probably find is that the speed test will be severely impacted by the
streaming video traffic. Try it again, this time using an adjacent RF
channel. You should see the same impairment until you get about 3-4
channels away.

>ALready tested... I set up the windowsill and visited the
>neighbors using my laptop. Got decent coverage that was
>just-about-almost ok. (not including a basement)

Like I said, just getting a strong signal isn't enough. Try a speed
test (IPERF or JPREF) and see what happens. If that's too much
trouble, just ping the router and see if the latency remains constant.
If it climbs, and then returns back to its original value, that's
packet loss, which suggests that you may have an interference problem.

>The 50 is worst case. We figure that each household nowadys
>can have up to ten WiFi devices... but it's unlikely most
>of them will be active, or at least heavily active, at
>the same time.

You missed my suggestion of using 5GHz. It's not that much more
expensive. That provide each hose with a single connection to the
central access point. Each house then has their own 2.4Ghz wireless
router, which is used to connect to the usual mess of 2.4Ghz devices.
If you use 2.4Ghz for everything, then you'll need connectivity to
your central access point from every part of the house. That's often
impossible. It also creates a bandwidth problem if there is any
client to client traffic, such as running a media server. It also
eliminates the use of wi-fi repeaters (range extenders) which I
detest. Think really hard about using 5GHz client bridges.

>They'll give us a second for another ?twenty? per month. More
>or less. Something not too horrendous.
>- If you want ugly pricing ask about a fixed IP...

These daze, there are very few applications that need a static IP
address in order to function. Some of the online games are allegedly
a holdout. No clue which ones. The only real requirement is if
you're hosting a mail server in order to have a working DNS MX record,
which your customers should not be doing anyway.

Incidentally, if Charter ever gets IPv6 going, it might be possible to
buy IPv6 blocks and not use NAT. Don't hold your breath.

>Understood if we're looking at a large base. But it's just
>a half dozen, of which we're one. Yes, famous last words...

You're probably also going to eat your words. A 5 user system can be
thrown together out of just about anything. A 50 user system has to
be properly engineered and planned.

>Well, I'm from the generation that spent six hundred dollars
>for a 2,400 baud modem... so I'm not going to scream at
>commercial grade pricing.

Not to worry. Anything you buy today, will probably be obsolete
tomorrow.

>- oh, and Charter might actually have 50 megs donstream
>in our area rather than 30. On cable, no less, not fiber.

Careful. Make sure that's a sustained 50Mbits/sec, not a peak.
DOCSIS 3.0 is nifty. How about 305/65Mbit/sec from Comcast:
<https://www.pcworld.com/article/259824/comcast_rolls_out_305_mbps_internet_service_fueled _by_verizon_fios.html>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

In <no0c18hb2aucn8k0sqoc76mc5njagjs5o0@4ax.com> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:

>I think you need a demonstration of how bad it can be. Setup two
>access points and two client machines on the same RF channel. Setup
>one to download some streaming video.

Well, I did the next best thing. I had two TiVos d/l video
from the same mumble mumble Linksys AP. The bandwidth
from the "cable modem" connection passing through
the Linksys was adequate.

>Like I said, just getting a strong signal isn't enough. Try a speed
>test (IPERF or JPREF) and see what happens. If that's too much
>trouble, just ping the router and see if the latency remains constant.
>If it climbs, and then returns back to its original value, that's
>packet loss, which suggests that you may have an interference problem.

I ran various speedtests that were linked to from dslreports.com.
Looked good excet for a few places.

- we're not talking long distance, and the houses are primarily
light wood frame. No (thank you, thank you thank you), none
of that plaster-over-metal-screening I've had to deal with
back in NYC...

>You missed my suggestion of using 5GHz. It's not that much more
>expensive. That provide each hose with a single connection to the
>central access point. Each house then has their own 2.4Ghz wireless
>router, which is used to connect to the usual mess of 2.4Ghz devices.
>If you use 2.4Ghz for everything, then you'll need connectivity to
>your central access point from every part of the house. That's often
>impossible.

I guess I wasn't clear in that I had, indeed, tested that out.

>It also creates a bandwidth problem if there is any
>client to client traffic, such as running a media server.

Umm, uggggggghhhhh. That would be a killer. And, natch, I
hadn't even thought of that one... ouch. Double Ouch.
Triple Ouch..

Thanks for that warning.

>Careful. Make sure that's a sustained 50Mbits/sec, not a peak.

well, I've measure steady 30 meg (well, more like 20-25) d/l
in the 30 meg areas. (not sure how much of that reduction
is avoidable). So it looks like they're not just using
the "burst" deal. (hmm, what's their marketing name
for that? something like powerboost?)

>DOCSIS 3.0 is nifty. How about 305/65Mbit/sec from Comcast:
><https://www.pcworld.com/article/259824/comcast_rolls_out_305_mbps_internet_service_fueled _by_verizon_fios.html>

Admit it. We're all tempted to move to Kansas City...

--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 04:14:38 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
<dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

>In <no0c18hb2aucn8k0sqoc76mc5njagjs5o0@4ax.com> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:
>
>>DOCSIS 3.0 is nifty. How about 305/65Mbit/sec from Comcast:
>><https://www.pcworld.com/article/259824/comcast_rolls_out_305_mbps_internet_service_fueled _by_verizon_fios.html>
>
>Admit it. We're all tempted to move to Kansas City...

Careful, it's Kansas City, Kansas, not Kansas City, Missouri.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 04:14:38 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
<dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

>Well, I did the next best thing. I had two TiVos d/l video
>from the same mumble mumble Linksys AP. The bandwidth
>from the "cable modem" connection passing through
>the Linksys was adequate.
(...)
>I ran various speedtests that were linked to from dslreports.com.
>Looked good excet for a few places.

You weren't measuring your local wireless speed impairment. You were
measuring the speed of the cable modem connection. Try setting up an
IPERF/JPERF server on your LAN and don't bother using the internet for
speed testing. I really don't know what you'll see, but there should
be some evidence of bandwidth sharing between devices.

Also, some streaming (i.e. Pandora audio) is not really streaming. It
comes in a burst just before the end of the previous tune with no
traffic in between. Try using YouTube or just stream HD video from a
local media server.

>- we're not talking long distance, and the houses are primarily
>light wood frame.

No dry wall? No stucco? Sounds ideal as dry wood is fairly
transparent to RF.

>>It also creates a bandwidth problem if there is any
>>client to client traffic, such as running a media server.
>
>Umm, uggggggghhhhh. That would be a killer. And, natch, I
>hadn't even thought of that one... ouch. Double Ouch.
>Triple Ouch..

That's what switches and bridges are all about. The wireless bridge
keeps the traffic with source and destination MAC addresses on one
side of the bridge. If you make everyone connect to the central
access point, the benefits of such bridging is lost.

Incidentally, make sure that your router can do "AP isolation" (which
is misnamed and should be "client isolation". That will prevent your
neighbors from getting into each others systems.

>Admit it. We're all tempted to move to Kansas City...

I'm in one of those rural areas which every connectivity proposal
before the FCC allegedly addresses. Too bad that they never seem to
arrive in my rural area. However, I shouldn't complain. We have
areas where there is no service. Comcast recently had to be arm
twisted into supplying service to some of these areas.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

In <3k4c18t3k139c87epnpaktc4oq1418m8ju@4ax.com> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:

>>- we're not talking long distance, and the houses are primarily
>>light wood frame.

>No dry wall? No stucco? Sounds ideal as dry wood is fairly
>transparent to RF.

No stucco (well, maybe a spot here and there). But yes, they
fo have drywall inside.

- no "foil" barrier on the insulation. Why yes, it's your
basic el cheapo contractor minimal construction...

>>Admit it. We're all tempted to move to Kansas City...

>I'm in one of those rural areas which every connectivity proposal
>before the FCC allegedly addresses. Too bad that they never seem to
>arrive in my rural area. However, I shouldn't complain. We have
>areas where there is no service. Comcast recently had to be arm
>twisted into supplying service to some of these areas.

We're actually lucky in that we have two separate wireline telcos
who both provide DSL... (yep, one of the few neighborhoods
with an actual "overbuild"). The cable speed is much better,
but having the DSL alternative comes in handy every year when
the cable co. tries raising our monthly charge when our
"intro rate" runs out.

It's been three times (iirc) now that this has happened, and
I told them we'd be switching to DSL... and they offer us
the intro rate for another year.

- we also have a mix and match of wireless options, both
from the various "cellular" companies and also a couple
of WISPS.

on the other hand... last week the telco central office
hiccupped, knocking out both their wire lines _and_ a
hefty chunk of wireless. (The CLEC and cable phone circuits
were ok).

- and.... it took out the 911 PSAP. The outage shouldn't
have killed 911 for more than 1 minute or so... but they
didn't have secondary circuits coming into the center.

- and in that case, it shouldn't have taken more than 15
minutes before all 911 calls (from those who had phone
serice) should have been rerouted one town over...

It took 15 hours to get service back to normal.

- oh, and there's MORE. The outage also killed
off the... the NWS All Hazards Radio. That station
is a _key_ portion of emergency communications, and
they're supposed to stay up and broadcasting for
anything up to a Russkie nuclear ground blast.
(well, ok, I'm exagerrating a bit. but those
stations have _lots_ of secondary alerts that
are slaved to them).


--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

I think the 5.8G point to point is a good idea. Think of the 5.8G links
as a backhaul. With the 5.8G between houses, you know exactly the number
of links/users. You could even set up the link so they talk to specific
MACs. That will reduce the number of wifi thieves.

The only problem is it makes work for the folks on the remote end.