On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 15:48:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> put together
some random words that came up with:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 13:26:55, Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 10:22:44, mike <this@address.is.invalid> wrote (my >>>> responses usually FOLLOW):

For distance, is it true that 2.5GHz travels farther (assuming >>>>>obstructions) than does 5GHz? Noise shouldn't be a problem in a >>>>>campground but distancei is.

As Dan has said, in theory, 2.5 is less obscured by obstructions than 5; >>>> conversely, in built-up areas, it's far more likely to be noisy -
microwave oven leakage, security cameras, and many other things. In what >>>> I would imagine to be the rural location of most campsites, that might >>>> be less the case though. On the whole the 5 GHz band is more recently
developed, so connections on it are likely to be faster/higher capacity >>>> than the older band - if they work at all.

Don't forget that "campgrounds" can also be densely populated
(especially on weekends) with people looking to get away. A
modest-sized campground may have 100 sites (or even more)...

True! Though probably won't have the security cameras, etc., and other
"noise sources", you'd get in a more built-up area, and presumably most
people who "get away" to them will be out walking, or similar. But I
suppose if there's sudden bad weather or something, there might be lots
sitting in their RVs trying to use the net - possibly enough to swamp
the 11 or 13 channels on the 2.4 MHz band. Though again, whether enough
of them would have the ability to use any such facility based at the
site office, rather than using data on the cellular/mobile network
directly ...

Sort of. There are a few key points that can become problematic:

1. If someone's connected to the AP in the office (whatever), it'll >constantly try connecting if it's "in range". This can tie up the AP for >other people.

2. If it's just an AP for the office (e.g. there's a game-room or
laundry or other reason to specifically put wifi there), trying to
connect through exterior walls can be very hit-or-miss (metal-foil in
the insulation, efficient windows, etc all tend to block RF - I mean,
it's exactly the same reason you get fuzzy TV or radio if all you have
is the rabbit-ears...).

3. If it's just some generic "consumer" kit, it's really only going to
be able to handle ~2 dozen devices anyway (limited hardware resources)

4. People utilizing their phones as wifi hotspots that happen to collide
with the office AP, by virtue of being far enough away that they think >whichever channel is available; and creating local contention issues.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE3asj+xn6fYUcweBnbWVw5UznKGAFAmJMZNwACgkQbWVw5Uzn >KGCdJg//UmNDQKgePfEpcvSICMQarrc8l+VsFRhb5TFmpZpacOj92UAnv18wfPRY >GZeXM0OhS4WUkJ0EqDoZIXZ23sbH+07Zj9Z3KAxg9CDFKrmMTc1+MYo4IzY4Naj/ >H333B8fqb81w5xWgL5qAeOtluDl5sW4Ds8KQ1IpPw3kpXKtVt7+S/LamXFiDN3/w >sAlaJqzKvWeCR/XqTWm1I3CUtgvacRS17d7wx4lnKAQTZd+gZJB+wRQTGUIv5oQy >UTjngDlmiMHHSHtGmXCrzcqyuRRBKf7maU9QmusnM/sv64S6WgVTPF63prN1GQ8S >2psg3itg1vlBNxcyEmyW5tfkmBrR32Gtf5F9Jxb/LognELLI/mzo4XoHR3gQkGm6 >DPQMPqrTihwIWw2bxK2/X8OTn0+Z7VBP2ktTUraRG0TYssjurUQEanCKpAbBbbKg >daQ4cPh7e7kOYh1Sy+KwDlxP4TkH7U/eK72xEDMNoZVugJirNHvwUChgQrL8OESl >/q6BdlTLEB2mTGoNRsPD0d/K08PoaLio2CWLLBl4s7/AzsYcDSJy0ITqvRbsStJI >tqNbQABmjkJ+Y+brFHO7lTdIHNYTahRVPnnFUgLqGd2qkktGQIGAMW/bevpvFnEe >LGxyjxg7F3i04yTD3VB5LVOJDw8+FeJsP9mWolGYBdojNn5O+h4=
=GZIG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

RE: WIFI Stick one of these https://www.engeniustech.com/engenius-products/managed-outdoor-wireless-ews860ap/

On a pole when you park in a campground, and run your Cat6 cable inside the RV (with a POE supply) and have the RV run wired Ethernet inside the RV. This one (they have others, which may be better suited for your needs) should work fine. Just orient it towards the campground's WIFI access point.

Set it up as a receiver.

I have an older version (and ENH500) and use it as a long-range WIFI receiver.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 05 Apr 2022 19:50:56 -0400, Steve <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote:

RE: WIFI Stick one of these >https://www.engeniustech.com/engenius-products/managed-outdoor-wireless-ews860ap/

On a pole when you park in a campground, and run your Cat6 cable inside the RV >(with a POE supply) and have the RV run wired Ethernet inside the RV. This one
(they have others, which may be better suited for your needs) should work fine.
Just orient it towards the campground's WIFI access point.

Set it up as a receiver.

I have an older version (and ENH500) and use it as a long-range WIFI receiver.

<https://www.engeniustech.com/online-store/product/ews860ap/>
Only $900, a veritable bargain.

Be the first to dominate the RV park Wi-Fi system. With 800mw
(+29dBm) and +1dB antenna gain, you too can have the strongest maximum
legal transmitter in the RV park, where all the other RV owners can
hear your transmitter, but your receiver can barely hear anyone else.
Adaptive transmit power management? Nope[1], full power all the time.
This is what's called an "alligator" which is an animal with a big
(transmit) mouth and tiny (receive) ears. A high gain directional
antenna (and much less transmit power) would be better, where you can
get roughly equal transmit and receive ranges.

Usually, the problem is not between the user and the RV park Wi-Fi
system. It's the park backhaul to their ISP that causes bottlenecks
during peak hours. It doesn't take too many RV's streaming Netflix in
1080p HD video at 5Mbits/sec, to bring the Wi-Fi system to a grinding
halt. In desperation, RV park owners often set the QoS (quality of
service) bandwidth limit to 3Mbits/sec which forces 720p video and
allows more users. Streaming video is usually UDP/RTP, instead of
TCP, taking the load off the upstream backhaul bandwidth, which might
be 10% of the downstream bandwidth.

A few RV parks have installed wired ethernet or coax cable TV ports on
the pole for RV's.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=rv+park+wired+ethernet>
I don't know how well this works as I've never played with such a
system. However, I assume that the RV park would not install wired
ethernet if Wi-Fi worked as their customers expect.


[1] It might have adaptive power management, but I didn't see any
mention of it in the specifications.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 06-04-2022 04:55 Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

A high gain directional
antenna (and much less transmit power) would be better, where you can
get roughly equal transmit and receive ranges.

Instead of that $900 dual-band wifi setup with unequal transmit/receive
ranges, do the Engenius, Mikrotik, or Ubiquiti people make a <$200 dual 2.4GHz/5GHz wifi radio of sufficient transmit power (maybe 20dBm?) and
(maybe 30dBi?) directional antenna to be able in the end to transmit at
legal or near legal power and pick up enough signal with enough sensitivity
to get roughly equal transmit & receive range?

I'm guessing the EIRP has to be at or near the legal wifi max of somewhere around -30dBm and the sensitivity probably needs to be in the -90dBm to
-100dBm range for the frequency & speeds found at the campsites in a site survey run on his phone.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

mike wrote:

On 06-04-2022 04:55 Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

A high gain directional
antenna (and much less transmit power) would be better, where you can
get roughly equal transmit and receive ranges.

Instead of that $900 dual-band wifi setup with unequal transmit/receive ranges, do the Engenius, Mikrotik, or Ubiquiti people make a <$200 dual 2.4GHz/5GHz wifi radio of sufficient transmit power (maybe 20dBm?) and
(maybe 30dBi?) directional antenna to be able in the end to transmit at
legal or near legal power and pick up enough signal with enough
sensitivity to get roughly equal transmit & receive range?

Dual-band? no - at least not that I'm aware.

Remember that their products are primarily geared toward ISP operators
who aren't needing dual-band (tower is 5 GHz, pointless to add cost to
the CPE for a never-used 2.4 band)

The 'tik products I mentioned were something like $60 apiece or so, 13
or 16 dBi antennas, in decently small packages.

I'm guessing the EIRP has to be at or near the legal wifi max of somewhere around -30dBm and the sensitivity probably needs to be in the -90dBm to -100dBm range for the frequency & speeds found at the campsites in a site survey run on his phone.

WiFi max EIRP is 36 dBm (4 watts), at least in the US.

Long as you're hearing at -50 to -60, you're in the ideal range. Lower
will certainly work (but at reduced rates). Assuming, of course, that
the AP in question isn't overloaded, or simply incapable of handling a
link through the building's exterior walls.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE3asj+xn6fYUcweBnbWVw5UznKGAFAmJOtMAACgkQbWVw5Uzn KGCVNQ//bUF2QJwVfxaqyXbrYJn0JUHUWw0X0UksBitWffZa+q03hPeGVmDaLnyY ZNr3i6tIOc8TyVS6aX0za9gSITbXvBkPYXA8JFqjPhw0rIRN8oBJfNymRLILGTNc znq1VEKjw/HLK2YuwykCTGj9uQWbD6HR99ljcxFv+7BxQXAZM4GWc2RE4zzsIBa5 xVOSRH2Az6hT2Cq5fRzSqfN5ZEZ63Bp/aoEOsp8Cfd1Ax/b5wQZTU3MKoMhArV0t KI4oKb83+nLiEAHUNeuXD55OAeZsFQVUoiAfQcrBfvMBRv2cdOkd9gFdiDMFDBWM w/OdL+HvDLYMMV2OdGQbRXr+w+Csv/0Q3i3L7vkbkn9z4wa2IepYQ0Ut/YIfCLKW v6tSGgszQmzelVEnv4rqiC8mHT04TVLQpd4Nf0iZC1/3gKgQ2UUH7LmIl23LTWRn wrsiFGc/B1YKQbMF9LR3E8lTqvh1fyCv7iJPXz1XVzKzQaa1yk8n1giRuHJVbkg4 eclR/cZwF3F0Jmr1imT0i6w0Yf5hLJzABZrIo1v/OYd+uewReGYcuhA+RniE3XhN ENsOVNOFteG1UL5b4e4kJvafw+oMAmiZ6WRcglz8VFT2fgqE++ukCrTHb9RUY6Hr EiA4z0yTR/KQHiMuDRU2Ig/fktveEbQpszwVa8F3Ncgz2CK/AMc=
=SkyF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|_|_|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860
|O|O|O| Former PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07-04-2022 09:54 Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:

Dual-band? no - at least not that I'm aware.

Then I guess it has to be two different radios & their antennas.

Remember that their products are primarily geared toward ISP operators
who aren't needing dual-band (tower is 5 GHz, pointless to add cost to
the CPE for a never-used 2.4 band)

That makes sense which means that two radios and antennas will be needed.
These are what I'm looking at for Ubiquiti CPE outdoor radios & antennas.

25 dBi dish antenna
$79 5GHz Ubiquiti PowerBeam M5 transmit 23dBm & sensitivity -75dBm @54MBit/s https://www.streakwave.com/ubiquiti-networks-pbe-m5-300-us-5ghz-powerbeam-m5-22dbi-300mm-us

18 dBI dish antenna
$79 2.4GHz Ubiquiti PowerBeam M2 transmit 24dBm & sensitivity -75dBm @54MBit/s https://www.streakwave.com/ubiquiti-networks-pbe-m2-400-us-2-4ghz-powerbeam-m2-18dbi-400mm-us

The 'tik products I mentioned were something like $60 apiece or so, 13
or 16 dBi antennas, in decently small packages.

These are what I'm looking at for Mikrotik CPE outdoor radios & antennas.

16 dBi planar antenna
$46 5GHz Mikrotik SXTsq Lite5 transmit 20dBm & sensitivity -80dBm @54MBit/s https://mikrotik.com/product/RBSXTsq5nD

10 dBi planar antenna
$46 2.4GHz Mikrotik SXTsq Lite 2 transmit 26dBm & sensitivity -80dBm @54MBit/s https://mikrotik.com/product/sxtsq_lite2

I'm guessing the EIRP has to be at or near the legal wifi max of somewhere >> around -30dBm and the sensitivity probably needs to be in the -90dBm to
-100dBm range for the frequency & speeds found at the campsites in a site
survey run on his phone.

WiFi max EIRP is 36 dBm (4 watts), at least in the US.

Given the specs above bounce back & forth, which is the MOST IMPORTANT specification for this situation of whatever campgrounds use for Wi-Fi APs?

Antenna gain dBi?
Transmit power dBm?
Receiver sensitivity dBm?

Long as you're hearing at -50 to -60, you're in the ideal range.

I very much doubt it's anywhere near that good.
Otherwise it wouldn't have been a problem.
It's likely worse than -85 dBm, which is why good equipment is needed.

Lower will certainly work (but at reduced rates).

I picked 54Mbps for the specs above which seems like a reasonable goal.

Assuming, of course, that
the AP in question isn't overloaded, or simply incapable of handling a
link through the building's exterior walls.

Given the common campground wifi AP situation described, which is best?
Antenna gain of Ubiquiti 25 & 18 or Mikrotik 16 & 10 dBi
Transmit power Ubiquiti 23 & 24 or Mikrotik 20 & 36 dBm
EIRP Ubiquiti 48 & 42 or Mikrotik 36 & 46 dBm
Receiver sensitivity Ubiquiti 75 & 75 or Mikrotik 80 & 80 dBm

Notice the $158 Ubiquiti set wins on power alone but the $96 Mikrotik set
wins big on the sensitivity which can help pull out the weak signals.

Anyone here have the heuristics for making the required performance trade
off weighting of which of the three main specs is most important given
we can presume the signal is very weak and the campground AP also weak.

Antenna gain?
Transmit power?
Receiver sensitivity?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

mike wrote:

On 07-04-2022 09:54 Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:

[...]

Remember that their products are primarily geared toward ISP operators
who aren't needing dual-band (tower is 5 GHz, pointless to add cost to
the CPE for a never-used 2.4 band)

That makes sense which means that two radios and antennas will be needed. These are what I'm looking at for Ubiquiti CPE outdoor radios & antennas.

25 dBi dish antenna
$79 5GHz Ubiquiti PowerBeam M5 transmit 23dBm & sensitivity -75dBm
@54MBit/s

18 dBI dish antenna
$79 2.4GHz Ubiquiti PowerBeam M2 transmit 24dBm & sensitivity -75dBm @54MBit/s

Those are quite difficult to align well - they've only got something
like a 4 or 5 degree beam. Gain doesn't matter if it's not aligned to
the AP ;).

If you want to stick with UBNT, then an asier time of it would be the
nanobeam / nanostation lineup. 16 or 19 dBi gain, but with a wider
beam.

Likewise, the listed 'tik products are alright.

WiFi max EIRP is 36 dBm (4 watts), at least in the US.

Given the specs above bounce back & forth, which is the MOST IMPORTANT specification for this situation of whatever campgrounds use for Wi-Fi
APs?

That you're not trying to connect to something "indoors" while you're
"outoors" ;) . From your list, the only one you have much control over
is the gain -- the products listed all use pretty standard Broadcom or
Atheros chipsets.

Long as you're hearing at -50 to -60, you're in the ideal range.

I very much doubt it's anywhere near that good.
Otherwise it wouldn't have been a problem.
It's likely worse than -85 dBm, which is why good equipment is needed.

Well, if you're at -85 now, getting it to -70 or so won't be too bad,
most things will do 802.11n in that range.

Lower will certainly work (but at reduced rates).

I picked 54Mbps for the specs above which seems like a reasonable goal.

Sounds like 802.11g.

I was talking about reduced 802.11n MCS rates (e.g. MCS5 or 13;
depending on whether the device is 1x1 or 2x2).

Assuming, of course, that
the AP in question isn't overloaded, or simply incapable of handling a
link through the building's exterior walls.

Given the common campground wifi AP situation described, which is best? Antenna gain of Ubiquiti 25 & 18 or Mikrotik 16 & 10 dBi
Transmit power Ubiquiti 23 & 24 or Mikrotik 20 & 36 dBm
EIRP Ubiquiti 48 & 42 or Mikrotik 36 & 46 dBm
Receiver sensitivity Ubiquiti 75 & 75 or Mikrotik 80 & 80 dBm

Not wasting your money trying to connect to a WiFi AP that's behind a structure's exterior wall. In that scenario, they're all equally bad.

Of the four things there, gain is the thing that's going to impact you
the most. BUT, you have to understand that the gain values are obtained
by narrowing the beam. If you were to think of the antennas as the
reflectors in a flashlight, the mikrotik models you're looking at are essentially a LED flashlight; whereas the powerbeams are ... well, a
laser pointer.

Bear in mind that with the UBNT EIRP, they're giving the maximum for
when setup in fixed point-to-point mode. You will have to look at your national communications coordinator (e.g. the US FCC) for legal limits.

Where are you pulling this "sensitivity" from? Do you mean the tables
where they're indicating the relative limits of a given modulation
scheme? If so, that's ONLY to be read as a general threshold value
(perhaps a cautious one at that), and with the understanding that it's
in otherwise perfect conditions.

i.e. the SXTsq Lite can theoretically demodulate an MCS7 encoded 802.11n
signal from the other end if it's receiving at -75 dBm (or better).
However, noise or other interference will skew that value.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE3asj+xn6fYUcweBnbWVw5UznKGAFAmJQD18ACgkQbWVw5Uzn KGCxSBAAqyEfDjMQGHSh0fHGnaNDPjePQXGOBuXVPCA96I0B8+Nbm4ZfYtkkqJ61 MFPtPeZm2OoFzCRvTY7zTHlbk2tSolxmL6Xa5V3WG6bKZ/Wuf4y1qnfFBw36CmAO bxpVaId0Oq58fvLeGui5U5WIvxWaD9QWZJaXXf0yJ3vwuTtBS3joQ4IxBnktxPyG XwJu0YJdqIHhGHZ1qO3jX7TRYT4MDu/OErDLi7DQtEnWj6xis344u5/+sjUHPlUE dcVIu8+wk/HdMtdK53/u0+bprrOBbwq9Fntc9eTuWRfiMJKtBZJpBeUbgUSz4TEN UKsl/WSUvjbeI/7pl99s9PkmPXHhjF9INntXD+k+i42Qu4ybPuesTMLAbX931u97 KzUhQQL+CrZJ7ybBeW7U5glHoxpg1Z8EaZfg6FnH3XCkVncH+BPSWBuYz+StsV2k cfGRIt7JUIoNjLpCAZcYQ7ACKjaV3M4FUT4B2DSdJfBsftxChFKbvWG4Ck8DI44r nEzzZwiSvkFz1WQcncfA+4K1b/oluxcko6rUVkxemuVNKUT1NdV6JG1CspQui/Gl rSo6uAmf9TBdgof3dHy/7z8SyAqfOps2FFuBIu61363mJpRsoDdd8oFMBEM/dgYD 86VVsndvpDIQ6jnhErUGMOsvEnpedQ0S5Jhz5mRv+PUcn/+O3SU=
=zh0X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|_|_|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860
|O|O|O| Former PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)