Some various install photos over the years. Mainly wireless Internet but some ham radio and two-way stuff in here. Some of the quality isn’t so great due to the age of the photos.
Magnet mount for a wireless antenna. This particular mount has a Ubiquiti dish on it.
The following is an extensive list of distributors who sell products related to the Wireless Internet Service Provider (WISP) space. This not a total list, but an extensive list. If you are not on this list or want to add your own description then donations are always welcome. It takes time to make these lists and there is nothing more motivating than some Paypal donations (https://paypal.me/j2sw).
- ISP Supplies
Texas-based distributor carrying a big number of product lines such as Cambium, Mikrotik, Airspan, and many others
- Baltic Networks
- Double Radius
- Last Mile Gear
- Roc Noc
- Surplus Wireless Gear
- Wav Wireless
Last Updated: 10 January 2020
I have a few nitpicky things and the video seems a little contrived, but it’s decent nonetheless. WISPs are not really mentioned, but others are not as well.
Broadcom Inc. (NASDAQ: AVGO) today announced the availability of a portfolio of Wi-Fi 6E devices. Wi-Fi 6E is a new standard that builds on the rich feature set of Wi-Fi 6, including OFDMA and other multi-user operations that improve performance in crowded environments, advanced roaming capabilities and increased security. Wi-Fi 6E extends the Wi-Fi 6 standard to support the soon-to-be-operational 6 GHz band. This new band enables up to 1,200 MHz of spectrum for Wi-Fi use, which WLAN access point (AP) manufacturers can leverage to deliver faster speeds, higher capacity and lower latency with no congestion from legacy devices.
Recently, there have been some discussions on Facebook about waining support for 2.4GHZ . KP Performance recently published a Future of 5GHZ and beyond blog post. So why all this focus on 5GHZ and why are people forgetting about 2.4?
To answer this question, we need to update our thinking on the trends in networks, not just wireless networks. Customers are demanding more and more speed. Network backbones and delivery nodes have to be updated to keep up with this demand. For anything but 802.11 wifi,2.4GHZ can’t keep up with the bandwidth needs.
One of the significant limitations of many 2.4 radios is they use frequency-hopping spread spectrum (FHSS) and/or direct-sequence spread spectrum (DSSS) modulation. Due to 2.4GHZ being older, the chipsets have evolved around these modulation methods because of age. When you compare 2.4GHZ to 5GHZ radios running OFDM, you start to see a significant difference. In a nutshell, OFDM allows for higher throughput. If you want to read all about the differences in the protocols here ya go: http://www.answers.com/Q/Difference_between_ofdm_dsss_fhss
Secondly, is the amount of spectrum available. More spectrum means more channels to use, which translates into a high chance of mitigating interference. This interference can be self-induced or from external sources. To use an analogy, the more rooms a building has, the more simultaneous conversations can happen without noise in 2.4GHZ we only have 3 non-overlapping channels at 20mhz. Remember the part about more and more customers wanting more bandwidth? In the wireless world, one of the ways to increase capacity on your APs is to increase the channel width. Once you increase 2.4 to 30 or 40 MHz, you do not have much room to deal with noise because your available channels have shrunk.
One of the biggest arguments in support of using 2.4GHZ for a WISP environment is the physics. Lower frequencies penetrate trees and foliage better. As with anything, there is a tradeoff. As the signal is absorbed, so is the available “air time” for transmission of data. As the signal travels through stuff, the radios on both sides have to reduce their modulation rates to deal with the loss of signal. Lower modulation rates mean lower throughput for customers. This might be fine for customers who have no other choice. This thinking is not a long term play.
With LTE especially, the traditional thinking is being uprooted. Multiple streams to the customer as well as various paths for the signal due to antenna stacking are allowing radios to penetrate this same foliage just as well as a 2.4 signal, but delivering more bandwidth. These systems are becoming more and more carrier class. As the internet evolves and becomes more and more critical, ISPs are having to step up their services. The FCC says the definition of broadband is at least 25 meg download. A 2.4 radio just can’t keep up in a WISP environment. I am seeing 10 meg becoming the minimum customers want. Can you get by with smaller packages? Yes, but how long can you maintain that as the customer demand grows?
So what is the answer? Cell sizes are shrinking. This is helping 2.4 hold on. The less expensive radios can be deployed to less dense areas and still provide decent speeds to customers. This same trend allows 5GHZ cells to be deployed as well. With less things to go through, 5GHZ can perform in modern networks at higher modulation rates. Antenna manufacturers are also spending R&D to get the most out of their 5GHZ antennas. More money in the pipeline means stronger products. My clients are typically deploying 3.65 and 5GHZ on their towers. LTE is changing RF WISP design and taking the place of 2.4 and 900.
One of the problems installers run into on a few networks we manage is having the right tools to properly test a new install. Sure, an installer can run a test to speedtest.net to verify customers are getting their speed. Anyone who has done this long enough knows speedtest.net can be unreliable and produce inconsistent results. So, what then? Or what happens if you need to by-pass customer equipment easily? Most installers break out their laptop, spend a few minutes messing with settings and then authenticating themselves onto the network. Sometimes this can be easy, other times it can be challenging.
In steps the Mikrotik mAP.
What you are about to read is based on a MUM presentation by Lorenzo Busatti from http://routing.wireless.academy/ with my own spin on it. You can read his entire presentation on the mAP in PDF at : https://mum.mikrotik.com//presentations/US16/presentation_3371_1462179397.pdf . The meat of what we are talking about in this article starts on Page 50. If you want to watch the video you can do so at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeZetH9uX_Y . The focus of this article starts around 21:00.
I have taken Lorenzo’s idea and have several different versions based upon the network. In most of our scenarios, the ethernet ports are what plug into the CPE or the customer’s equipment, and the technician connects to the mAP over wifi. This post covers using the mAP as an installer tool, not a traveling router. Lorenzo covers the travel option quite well in his presentation.
In this post, we focus on networks which use PPPoE. PPPoE networks usually are the ones who take much time to set up to diagnose. What we have done is set up an uncapped user profile that is available on every tower. Authentication can be done with local secrets or via radius. Depending on your IP design the user can get the same IP across the network, or have an IP that assigned to this user on each tower/routed segment. We could do an entire article on IP design.
On our Mikrotik, we setup ether1 to have a PPPoE client running on it. When the installer plugs this into the customers CPE the mAP will automatically “dial-out” and authenticate using the technician user we talked about earlier. Once this connection has is established, the mAP is set to turn on the red “PoE out” light on the mAP using the following code.
/system leds add interface=pppoe-out1 leds=user-led type=interface-status
Note. Our PPPoE interface is the default “pppoe-out1″ name. If you modify this, you will need to modify the led setup as well to match.
The red light gives the technician a visual indicator they have authenticated and should have internet. At the very least their mAP has authenticated with PPPoE. There are netwatch scripts mentioned in the above presentation which can kick on another LED indicating true internet reachability or other functions. In our case, we can assume if the unit authenticates with the tower, then internet to the tower is up. While this isn’t always the case if the Internet is down to the tower you quickly know or the NOC quickly knows. At least you hope so. We chose the PoE out led because we are not using POE on this setup and a red light is noticeable.
Once the technician has a connection they can connect to an SSID set aside for testing. In our case, we have set aside a “COMPANY_TECH” SSID. The tech connects to this on their laptop, and they are online. Since this is a static profile, you can set it up just like a typical customer, or you can give the tech user access to routers, APs or other devices. Our philosophy is you set up this SSID to mimic what a customer account experiences as closely as possible. It goes through the same firewall rules and ques just like a typical customer.
To further enhance our tool we can set up a VPN. This VPN can is accessible from the laptop with a second SSID named “COMPANY_VPN”. Once the technician switches over to this SSID they have access, over a preconfigured VPN on the mAP, to the network, from where they can access things customers can not, or at least should not be able to access. Many modern networks put APs, and infrastructure on separate VLANs not reachable from customer subnets. The VPN comes in handy here. You can access these things without changing security. If you plan on using this router internally, the type of VPN you choose is not as important as if you plan to modify the config so you can travel as is the case with the above MUM presentation. If you plan to travel an SSTP VPN is the most compatible. If it’s just inside your network, I would suggest an l2tp connection with IPsec.
Our third configuration on this is to set up the second ethernet port to be a DHCP client. This setup is handy for plugging into the customer router for testing or for places where DHCP is the method of access, for example, behind a Baicells UE. If your network does not use PPPoE, you could have one ethernet be a DHCP client, and the other be a DHCP server. We have found having the technicians connect wirelessly makes their lives easier. They can plug the unit in and not have to worry about cables being too short, or getting behind a desk several times to plug and unplug things.
So why go through all this trouble?
One of the first things you learn in troubleshooting is to eliminate as many variables as you can. By plugging this into your CPE, you have a known baseline to do testing. You eliminate things such as customer routers, customer PCs, and premise wiring. The mAP is plugged directly in CPE, whether it be wired or wireless. Experience has shown us many of the troubles customers experience are traced back to their router. Even if you provide the router, this can eliminate or point to that router as being a source of the problem if a technician needs to visit the customer.
Secondly, the mAP allows us to see and do more than your typical router. From the mAP we can run the Mikrotik bandwidth test tool from it to the closest router, to the next router inlines, all the way out to the internet. A while back I did an article titled “The Problem with Speedteststs“. This article explains many of the issues testing just using speedtest.net or other sites. Being able to do these kinds of tests is invaluable. If there are four Mikrotik routers between the customer and the edge of your network all four of them can be tested independently. If you have a known good host outside your network, such as the one we provide to our clients, then you can also test against that.
Having a Mikrotik test tool like this also allows you access to better logging and diagnostics. You can easily see if the ethernet is negotiating at 100 meg or a Gig. You can do wireless scans to see how noisy or busy 2.4GHZ is. You have easy to understand ping and traceroute tools. You also have a remote diagnostic tool which engineers can remote into easily to perform tests and capture readings.
Thirdly, the mAP allows the installer to establish a good known baseline at the time of install. You are not reliant on just a CPE to AP test, or a speedtest.net test.
How do we make this portable?
You may have noticed in my above pictures I have an external battery pack hooked up to my mAP. I am a fan of the Anker battery packs
Distributors such as ISP Supplies and CTIconnect have the mAP.
Finally, you will need a USB to MicroUSB cable
If you want you can add some double sided tape to hold the mAP to the battery pack for a neat package. I like the shorter cable referenced above in order to have a neat and manageable setup.
No matter what gear you use for delivering Internet to your customers, the mAP can be an invaluable troubleshooting tool for your field staff. I will be posting configs for Patreon and subscribers to download and configure their mAPs for this type of setup, as well as a road warrior setup. In the meantime, we do offer a setup service for $200, which includes the mAP, battery, USB cable and customized configuration for you.
If you are looking for a U.S. stocking distributor of ALG products check out ISP Supplies
The following are results from a series of tests of AGLcom’s parabolic dish antennas on an existing link that is 5.7 miles long. The link typically passes 80-90Mbs with a TX capacity of 140 Mbs and radios used are Ubiquiti AF5X operating at 5218 Mhz. A full PDF with better Readability can be downloaded here..
The tests were taken in stages:
- 1) The normal performance of the link was recorded.
- 2) The 2′ dish at one end, B, was replaced with the AGLcom, C, dish and the link reestablished.The link performance was recorded.
- 3) The 2′ dish at the other end, A, was replaced with the AGLcom, D, dish and the link reestablished. The link performance was recorded.
- 4) The setting on the AF5xs were adjusted to optimize the link performance with data recorded.
- 5) The 2′ dish, B was put back in the link and the performance was recorded.
- 6) The ACLcom C was put back into place.
The tables below do not follow the test order as the third line of data was actually the last test performed.
A-Jirous JRC-29EX MIMO
B-Jirous JRC-29EX MIMO C-AGLcom – PS-6100-30-06-DP D-AGLcom – PS-6100-29-06-DP-UHP
Table 1 is the signal strength results of the various dishes on the link. The first line, A-B, is the original Jirous to Jirous. A is the first two columns of the link and are the A side and the last two columns are the B side on the link. What is of interest is that exchanging B to C in the second line brought the signal deviation between the channels to only 1db and 0 db as seen in Table 2. The third line was a result of replacing the horn on the A dish and optimizing the setting on the AF5X radios. This changed the signal by around 7db and improved the link capacity, Table 3. Clearly, the A dish had a problem with the original horn.
In the fourth line, D-B, the signal strength improved as well at the signal deviation on the two channels, Table 2 first two columns. This link was not optimized. The fifth line, D-C is both AGLcom dishes which improved the bandwidth, Table 3, and the signal deviations, Table 2. The final line, D-C, was the previous line optimized. The signal strengths moved closer together and the bandwidth improved.
Link Ch0 Ch1 Ch0 Ch1
- A-B -73 -76
- A-C -73 -74
A*-C -64 -66
- D-B -63 -62
- D-C -62 -62
D*-C -60 -60
-70 -74 -71 -71 -65 -66 -59 -59 -58 -58 -61 -61
Signal Strength (* optimized data) Table 1
Table 2 has four data columns, the first two being the measured results and the latter two being the measured difference from theory. The Jirous and AF5X calculators were used for the theory signals. Clearly the signal approached the theoritical limit with the optimization and with the change of dishes. The optimization improved the signal by ~9db for the link that we replaced the horn on the Jirous and by ~2db for the AGLcom link.
Link dSig dSig A-B 3 4 A-C 1 0 A*-C 2 1 D-B -1 0 D-C 0 0 D*-C 0 0
dSig dSig -16.5 -17.4 -17.0 -15.0 -8.0 -9.0 -13.3 -5.3 -7.0 -4.3 -5.0 -6.0
Signal strength variation from theory Table 2
The band width improvement was more obvious, Table 3, from 22 Mbs to 39 Mbs for the RX and 144 Mbs to 141 Mbs TX for the link with the horn replacement. The bandwidth improvement for the optimization of the AGLcom link was from 61Mbs to 66Mbs RX and from 211Mbs to 267Mbs for TX.
The bandwidth improvement from the original, optimized link to the AGLcom link is from 61Mbs RX to 67Mbs and from 210Mbs TX to 267Mbs. There is a clear improvement for the AGLcom link over the Jirous link.
- A-B 22.5
- A-C 39.0
- D-B 61.4
- D-C 60.6
BW-TX 144.6 141.4 210.0 211.0 215.0 267.6
The data supports a measurable improvement in both signal strength and bandwidth with the use of the AGLcom dishes. However, it is difficult to quantify the improvement. The Jirous dishes were identical whereas the AGLcom dishes were not. One of the jirous dishes was under performing initially but was repaired for the last tests. Additional testing is needed to provide accurate data analysis and performance comparison. The best performance tests would involve identical AGLcom dishes, ideally two links, one each of both types of dishes.
Cambium Networks talks about MU-MIMO on their platforms. Multi-user MIMO (MU-MIMO) is a set of multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) technologies for wireless communication, in which a set of users or wireless terminals, each with one or more antennas, communicate with each other.