Tom Hayward <esarfl@...>
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:07 AM, siegfried jackstien
Yes, very similar. The significant difference I see (and maybe this is
just due to my inability to read German) is that HamWAN attempts to
research and provide specifications for similar networks.
Our network design includes PtP links between sites and an array of 3
PtMP sectors for links to end-users. All of the hardware used in the
system has gone through our test lab. A lot of hardware, specifically
120 sector antennas, was rejected for failing to meet the advertised
specifications. The antenna we selected measured 98 degree beamwidth
at -3dB. Others tested were significantly narrower or had horrible
front-to-back ratio. These results are published on the website so
that others building similar networks can benefit from the research.
In addition to the publication of specifications, we're building a
network in western Washington. Findings from operating this network
will feed back into the specifications. This network forms a great
backbone between our mountain-top radio sites, but I don't think we'll
ever have enough density for mobile 5.9 GHz coverage. For mobile, I
think a low-speed (100+ Kbps) TCP/IP radio in the UHF band will fill
the gaps in 5.9 GHz coverage. This is my interest in the UDR. I would
like to see many low-speed UHF cells around the area that connect to
the high-speed backbone, giving users with no 5.9 GHz coverage a way
to connect to the network.