[MVMA] If 'all' the equipment at W-Xenia is to be replaced,

[Maurice Riggins]

> On Sep 19, 2018, at 11:01, tim-yvonne at juno.com wrote:
> Keep in mind that the AREDN group still suggests 2.4 MIMO omni @ 10mhz on -2 for neighborhood flooding applications; I heard this straight from Andre.…

It isn’t fast, but 2.4 can go places higher frequencies cannot (and as a result may be faster). MVMA and Reuben’s deployable nodes are 2.4. That’s why I’d like to see Xenia covered by 2.4 from North, South, West, and East (water tank). But 2.4 only access points are soon to be unobtainium.

>  2.4 in any config (SISO or MIMO) should not to be used to link communities together... either intentionally or accidentally.  It's too much traffic for one channel... especially with 10mhz bandwidth.

Our topology is linking by 2.4 omni overlap. To prevent that, we could replace the high gain/zero down-tilt L-Coms, lower the height, and perhaps reduce power… but not only can we not afford new equipment and climbing, but it makes no sense to put new antennas on old Bullets. A probably workable technique Chuck thought of was to give each omni its own SSID… assuming it links to others with DtD'd directional nodes.

> 3ghz with its abundant channels, would allow a small community  to  put up multiple "flooding omnis" for maximum bug-zapper coverage... with no fear that a nearby community would connect directly; accomplished with channel selection coordination.

> I foresee the future with  3ghz as being  the neighborhood flooding choice, with 5.8 directional as the link between communities... and 900mhz used to get coverage to single users that have terrain/tree issues.
>  

I’m not on board with 3.4 for flooding.

The equipment is at least 40-50% more expensive.

Newbies have to make sure to get the “export only” 3.4 vs 3.65

IMO, 2.4 properly deployed is still king.

.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/mvma/attachments/20180919/0d53cfee/attachment.html>