networking my company together using wireless

Hi there guys,

ok, my company wants to buy in satellite internet access that will allow
both up and download speeds of 512KB/sec. Great idea bi-directional
satellite broadband. The problem is my company doesnt want to pay that
per building (they have three, but we are only concerned about two of
them)

At £100UK a month they are affordable, but we dont want more than one,
what I want to do is network the two buildings together, they are around
400-500metres apart and there are other big buildings in the way, with
heavy duty manufacturing equipment. Basically I've been told you CANNOT
use wireless networking to link the two buildings in the way, the signal
would just get lost and that is the end of it. Of course I am here to ask
whether that is true, I want a second opinion basically.

Is it possible to connect our buildings using wireless? even with the
interference? Or is like this company suggests, radio networking the only
way to go here?

thanks for your help

kosh

--
Interested in an alternative to Lightnet?
You need SolarCell!
http://solarcell.sourceforge.net

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 13:12:34 +0100, kosh <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> Is it possible to connect our buildings using wireless? even with the
> interference? Or is like this company suggests, radio networking the only
> way to go here?

Wireless IS radio networking. In any event if you want to use consumer
wireless equipment you'll either have to get your antennas up over the
obsticals or use some other point as a repeater. Have you talked to your
telco about leased lines between the buildings? Maybe such a thing is
allready in place?

--
Ray

Five seconds for a response? Where's your satellite? At 240,000 miles one
way and 186,000 miles per second, you can do an earth-moon-earth-moon-earth
round trip in 5.2 seconds. A bird at 22,236 miles is in geosynchronous orbit
so an earth-bird-earth-bird-earth round trip is less than an half second.
Not satisfactory for online gaming, I'll posit, (a characteristic that is to
its credit,) but fine for most worthwhile uses of bandwidth.

"Succorso" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bgj457$5pp$1$(E-Mail Removed)...
> kosh wrote:
> > Hi there guys,
> >
> > ok, my company wants to buy in satellite internet access that will allow
> > both up and download speeds of 512KB/sec. Great idea bi-directional
> > satellite broadband. The problem is my company doesnt want to pay that
> > per building (they have three, but we are only concerned about two of
> > them)
> >
> >....
>
> You need to be aware that 2-way satellite has *awful* latency; this may
> not be a problem if most of your business work is downloading - but it
> makes for a frustrating surfing experience (click a link, wait at least
> 5 seconds for a response) and is useless for realtime activities such as
> online gaming.
>
> Granted, the latter point is probably not an issue with business use.
>
> --
> Succorso
>

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 08:33:40 -0800, Dana wrote:

>
> "kosh" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> Hi there guys,
>>
>> ok, my company wants to buy in satellite internet access that will allow
>> both up and download speeds of 512KB/sec. Great idea bi-directional
>> satellite broadband. The problem is my company doesnt want to pay that
>> per building (they have three, but we are only concerned about two of
>> them)
>>
>> At £100UK a month they are affordable, but we dont want more than one,
>> what I want to do is network the two buildings together, they are around
>> 400-500metres apart and there are other big buildings in the way, with
>> heavy duty manufacturing equipment. Basically I've been told you CANNOT
>> use wireless networking to link the two buildings in the way, the signal
>> would just get lost and that is the end of it. Of course I am here to ask
>> whether that is true, I want a second opinion basically.
>>
>> Is it possible to connect our buildings using wireless? even with the
>> interference? Or is like this company suggests, radio networking the only
>> way to go here?
>>
>> thanks for your help
>
> Like the other poster mentioned latency can be a problem for certain
> applications like VOIP when using a satellite connection. But if it is
> strictly data, than no problem at all. Wireless and radio networking are so
> close together there is hardly any difference. Now for your needs, are both
> the buildings completely obstructed from each other? There is not a place on
> your campus where you can mount say a third antenna/radio basically used as
> a repeater, where this 3rd antenna can see both buildings. You can get
> unlicensened microwave radios pretty cheap that would cover the distances
> you would require. The 3rd antenna/radio could act as the tip and pass the
> traffic between both buildings.

well, like you said, if data is the only traffic, it doesnt matter and
well, this is the case, we havent talked about VOIP or any other internet
based real time communication much more than email and instant messaging,
which fit quite nicely into the data category.

As for whether the buildings are totally obstructed, the answer is yes,
there are around three quite large buildings in the line of sight and
you'd have to route around them. But like I said in a previous post, it's
getting the permission to mount and install power to our equipment on
someone else's property which is the problem, also if it's on a telegraph
pole owned by BT (british telecom) and it's in public space, whats to stop
someone from running up the pole and nicking the equipment?

Hopefully someone has been in this situation before and knows how this all
works. Perhaps you dont worry about the equipment being nicked, it's just
something that came to mind. Along with the power cable required to run
the hub

Chris

>>
>> kosh
>>
>> --
>> Interested in an alternative to Lightnet?
>> You need SolarCell!
>> http://solarcell.sourceforge.net

--
Interested in an alternative to Lightnet?
You need SolarCell!
http://solarcell.sourceforge.net

"kosh" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed).. .
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 08:33:40 -0800, Dana wrote:
>
> >
> > "kosh" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news(E-Mail Removed).. .
> >> Hi there guys,
> >>
> >> ok, my company wants to buy in satellite internet access that will
allow
> >> both up and download speeds of 512KB/sec. Great idea bi-directional
> >> satellite broadband. The problem is my company doesnt want to pay that
> >> per building (they have three, but we are only concerned about two of
> >> them)
> >>
> >> At £100UK a month they are affordable, but we dont want more than one,
> >> what I want to do is network the two buildings together, they are
around
> >> 400-500metres apart and there are other big buildings in the way, with
> >> heavy duty manufacturing equipment. Basically I've been told you
CANNOT
> >> use wireless networking to link the two buildings in the way, the
signal
> >> would just get lost and that is the end of it. Of course I am here to
ask
> >> whether that is true, I want a second opinion basically.
> >>
> >> Is it possible to connect our buildings using wireless? even with the
> >> interference? Or is like this company suggests, radio networking the
only
> >> way to go here?
> >>
> >> thanks for your help
> >
> > Like the other poster mentioned latency can be a problem for certain
> > applications like VOIP when using a satellite connection. But if it is
> > strictly data, than no problem at all. Wireless and radio networking are
so
> > close together there is hardly any difference. Now for your needs, are
both
> > the buildings completely obstructed from each other? There is not a
place on
> > your campus where you can mount say a third antenna/radio basically used
as
> > a repeater, where this 3rd antenna can see both buildings. You can get
> > unlicensened microwave radios pretty cheap that would cover the
distances
> > you would require. The 3rd antenna/radio could act as the tip and pass
the
> > traffic between both buildings.
>
> well, like you said, if data is the only traffic, it doesnt matter and
> well, this is the case, we havent talked about VOIP or any other internet
> based real time communication much more than email and instant messaging,
> which fit quite nicely into the data category.
>
> As for whether the buildings are totally obstructed, the answer is yes,
> there are around three quite large buildings in the line of sight and
> you'd have to route around them. But like I said in a previous post, it's
> getting the permission to mount and install power to our equipment on
> someone else's property which is the problem, also if it's on a telegraph
> pole owned by BT (british telecom) and it's in public space, whats to stop
> someone from running up the pole and nicking the equipment?


Well over here we do not have that problem of people running up the
telephone poles and vandalizing the equipment there. And If I am not
mistaken there are laws about interfering with the communications
infrastructure. In this situation I think you would have more problems from
the Telco itself, as the telco is quite protective of it's poles and
equipment.
As for buildings, again over here leasing space on roof tops is not really
that difficult. Most buildings have some form of management company, or in
house office that deals with those kind of issues. And the building is more
than happy to lease out some space. In regards to powering the equipment,
most electrical plugs are located close to the equipment, and on a dedicated
power circuit so the electrical company can bill the correct party. Or some
place even include electrical charges in the monthly lease.
>
> Hopefully someone has been in this situation before and knows how this all
> works. Perhaps you dont worry about the equipment being nicked, it's just
> something that came to mind. Along with the power cable required to run
> the hub

Since you mentioned that you have people/offices in two buildings, how are
they networked together now.
If they are not networked together now, maybe a fractional T1( E1 for you
people over the pond) is all you would need for bandwidth purposes to link
your two buildings together using BT facilities. Do not know the cost of a
fractional E1, or if it would be more cost effective to lease space on a
building that could see both of your buildings.
>
> Chris
>
> >>
> >> kosh
> >>
> >> --
> >> Interested in an alternative to Lightnet?
> >> You need SolarCell!
> >> http://solarcell.sourceforge.net
>
> --
> Interested in an alternative to Lightnet?
> You need SolarCell!
> http://solarcell.sourceforge.net

"kosh" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed).. .
>
> I guess the only issue there is whether we could get permission to mount
> equipment on someone else's property to allow that. As well as then
> patching it in with a power supply provided by someone else. I guess it'd
> take an agreement with BT for example, who own most of the telegraph poles
> around the area, but it's not something I've done a lot with.

There is the possibility of using a 3rd building as a reflector to "bounce"
the signal around the buildings that are blocking your direct path. 2.4 GHz
signals are prone to bounce off of solid objects. One person on each roof,
with cell phones should be able to spot a likely candidate.

> I'm fairly sure there are no leased lines between the buildings.

Maybe not =as such=, but it's almost guaranted that, if your buildings are
fairly close together, they're fed from the same main cable. This means it
might be possible for the telco to connect the two with just a few splices.


Bob

> ok, my company wants to buy in satellite internet access that will allow
> both up and download speeds of 512KB/sec. Great idea bi-directional
> satellite broadband. The problem is my company doesnt want to pay that

Point 1, satellite is crap in my opinion. Been there once and will do
all I can to avoid it again.

> heavy duty manufacturing equipment. Basically I've been told you CANNOT
> use wireless networking to link the two buildings in the way, the signal
> would just get lost and that is the end of it. Of course I am here to ask
> whether that is true, I want a second opinion basically.

Ok, if line of sight is out then there are 3 other quick options...

1. Build up a wireless network that goes around the obstacles. Means
having to find locations in the middle that you can use as a relay.
Cost goes up a bit but only by a couple more AP's, bits of cable and
antennas.

2. Ask your friendly BT (LOL) to install a Lan Extension Service. I've
just had one costed up (for a laugh) to connect two buildings together
100m apart. The BT chap was telling me that it'd be a 10Mbps link, just
like my ethernet LAN. Here's the best bit, his price was £9000 to
install and £1400 per annum to rent the circuit. Then again, I'll
continue with the wireless plan and get change from £300.

3. I think this is probably your best bet and that's to get BT to
install some EPS9 lines. These are baseband lines, effectively copper
pair between sites and then you just stick on some DSL modems at each
end. I can't get the link right now as I'm offline but if you Google
and search for "EPS9 DSL" you'll get a link up pretty quick to a UK
company that does the kit for this.

David.

> Maybe not =as such=, but it's almost guaranted that, if your buildings are
> fairly close together, they're fed from the same main cable. This means it
> might be possible for the telco to connect the two with just a few splices.

Unfortunately, OFTEL, the UK regulator, prevents them from doing certain
things like this as it's anti-competitive.

I've had just the same conversation with my buildings 100m apart.
Cables have to go back to the exchange and back again. Frustrating to
say the least.

David.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Bob <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>"kosh" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>
>> I guess the only issue there is whether we could get permission to mount
>> equipment on someone else's property to allow that. As well as then
>> patching it in with a power supply provided by someone else. I guess it'd
>> take an agreement with BT for example, who own most of the telegraph poles
>> around the area, but it's not something I've done a lot with.
>
>There is the possibility of using a 3rd building as a reflector to "bounce"
>the signal around the buildings that are blocking your direct path. 2.4 GHz
>signals are prone to bounce off of solid objects. One person on each roof,
>with cell phones should be able to spot a likely candidate.
>
>> I'm fairly sure there are no leased lines between the buildings.
>

>Maybe not =as such=, but it's almost guaranted that, if your buildings are
>fairly close together, they're fed from the same main cable. This means it
>might be possible for the telco to connect the two with just a few splices.
>

Both buildings probably have phone service out of the same central
office. This means that telco just has to cross-connect in the CO to
give you a circuit. Get a quote from them. Get some advise on the
equipmnt you'll need at both ends and a quote from telco. If the cost
is acceptable take it, or be prepared to if the radio link doesn't
work out. At least you'll have a basline cost to compare the cost of
wireless gear to.

Something that nobody's mentioned is getting a broadband connection
installed on each building and setting up a pair of routers configured
to send all your bytes over the public internet. You want
to get a symetric (SDSL) circuit, which means busines-grade service.
Read the TOS to make sure the service you are getting allows
multi-user use, and you want routers that will do a VPN encryption tunnel
for security.

If you are going to try to bounce something you might try 802.11a
(5GHZ) equipment. the shorter wavelenght can make for more dramatic
effects and t you might get a decent speed even if it's only running
at 10% of the higher theoretical speed (54 mb/sec ?) A will not be
subject to the interference from cordless phones and microwave ovens
that might show up at any time in the future. There is lots of "a"
gear on ebay. Check the specs for tha AP model before you buy. Some
have significantly higher wattage than others.

very high gain yagi or parabolic antennas are much smaller
in the 5GHZ band, and if you have the bucks for the equipment
th FCC allows for higher power in part of the band.

there is a "knife edge" radio wave propagation effect that is well
known in the ham radio world. You can be in the shadow of a mountain
ridge and get decent reception from a station on the other side of the
mountain because the a portion of the waves are defracted down when
they the pass over the top of the mountain. The most dramatic example
I've seen of this was in the swiss alps where a house at the base of a
cliff had a standard TV antenna pointing straight up. I don't know off
hand if this effect is limited to VHF. I'm going to ask someone.

In the end, wire is always better than radio for serious
point-to-point connections.




--
Al Dykes
-----------
(E-Mail Removed)

In article <bglq5c$lge$(E-Mail Removed)>, Al Dykes <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>Bob <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>"kosh" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>
>>> I guess the only issue there is whether we could get permission to mount
>>> equipment on someone else's property to allow that. As well as then
>>> patching it in with a power supply provided by someone else. I guess it'd
>>> take an agreement with BT for example, who own most of the telegraph poles
>>> around the area, but it's not something I've done a lot with.
>>
>>There is the possibility of using a 3rd building as a reflector to "bounce"
>>the signal around the buildings that are blocking your direct path. 2.4 GHz
>>signals are prone to bounce off of solid objects. One person on each roof,
>>with cell phones should be able to spot a likely candidate.
>>
>>> I'm fairly sure there are no leased lines between the buildings.
>>
>
>>Maybe not =as such=, but it's almost guaranted that, if your buildings are
>>fairly close together, they're fed from the same main cable. This means it
>>might be possible for the telco to connect the two with just a few splices.
>>
>
>Both buildings probably have phone service out of the same central
>office. This means that telco just has to cross-connect in the CO to
>give you a circuit. Get a quote from them. Get some advise on the
>equipmnt you'll need at both ends and a quote from telco. If the cost
>is acceptable take it, or be prepared to if the radio link doesn't
>work out. At least you'll have a basline cost to compare the cost of
>wireless gear to.
>
>Something that nobody's mentioned is getting a broadband connection
>installed on each building and setting up a pair of routers configured
>to send all your bytes over the public internet. You want
>to get a symetric (SDSL) circuit, which means busines-grade service.
>Read the TOS to make sure the service you are getting allows
>multi-user use, and you want routers that will do a VPN encryption tunnel
>for security.
>
>If you are going to try to bounce something you might try 802.11a
>(5GHZ) equipment. the shorter wavelenght can make for more dramatic
>effects and t you might get a decent speed even if it's only running
>at 10% of the higher theoretical speed (54 mb/sec ?) A will not be
>subject to the interference from cordless phones and microwave ovens
>that might show up at any time in the future. There is lots of "a"
>gear on ebay. Check the specs for tha AP model before you buy. Some
>have significantly higher wattage than others.
>
>very high gain yagi or parabolic antennas are much smaller
>in the 5GHZ band, and if you have the bucks for the equipment
>th FCC allows for higher power in part of the band.
>
>there is a "knife edge" radio wave propagation effect that is well
>known in the ham radio world. You can be in the shadow of a mountain
>ridge and get decent reception from a station on the other side of the
>mountain because the a portion of the waves are defracted down when
>they the pass over the top of the mountain. The most dramatic example
>I've seen of this was in the swiss alps where a house at the base of a
>cliff had a standard TV antenna pointing straight up. I don't know off
>hand if this effect is limited to VHF. I'm going to ask someone.
>
>In the end, wire is always better than radio for serious
>point-to-point connections.
>
>

(Followup to my own post)

- I assumed that you are in the USA. I'm not sure what the status
of 5GHZ is outside the USA.

--
Al Dykes
-----------
(E-Mail Removed)