Wireless for RV campground

I need to install wireless internet access for an RV campground. The
area that needs to be covered is approximately 750'x350'.
This is an aerial view of the campground.
http://www.brigan.com/images/map.jpg
Not many trees, but like I said, lots of RVs.

I work in the IT field but have no experience putting in wireless
outdoors.
Coverage is part of the issue.... how many WAPs or outdoor antennas to
use, etc.

But as you can see from the photo, there is a paved road all through
the area that I need to cover. I don't want to have to get into a
situation that we have to run conduit/cabling under that road.

Internet access will originate from the clubhouse shown in the
pictures. I could run an underground cable down one side of the
campground, for a WAP or antenna. And then see what kind of coverage
I get in the other side of the campground.

But my question is; what do I have for options, in getting the signal
to the other side of the campground? Without tunneling under the
paved road.
I've heard of devices, for inside a house, that uses the electrical
wiring to extend a wired connection. Can that be used outdoors?
There's power all through the campground.

Is something like a WiFi extender a possibility for outdoor use?

Any help or input is appreciated.
Thanks

We (my wife and I) stay at a RV park in Silver City, NM where I do
most of the work on the WIFI system. It consists of a D-Link
DWL-2700AP access point mounted on a 20 foot metal pipe at the rear of
the Club House. The distance to the furthermost site is probably 700
or so feet. This box is fed via cat5 cable (POE) from a 2Wire DSL
modem in the club house.

The lot we were in last year is the greatest distance from the
antenna. Our Toshiba laptop connected we ease (as long as we didn't
have the metal window blinds closed) from inside the trailer.

We run the DWL-2700AP at about 70% power. You can just barely see the
antenna (below the "b" in the Club House label. Link to the web page.

http://www.manzanosrvpark.com/manzano7_002.htm


Bob


On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:13:02 -0800 (PST), JohnB <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I need to install wireless internet access for an RV campground. The
>area that needs to be covered is approximately 750'x350'.
>This is an aerial view of the campground.
>http://www.brigan.com/images/map.jpg
>Not many trees, but like I said, lots of RVs.
>
>I work in the IT field but have no experience putting in wireless
>outdoors.
>Coverage is part of the issue.... how many WAPs or outdoor antennas to
>use, etc.
>
>But as you can see from the photo, there is a paved road all through
>the area that I need to cover. I don't want to have to get into a
>situation that we have to run conduit/cabling under that road.
>
>Internet access will originate from the clubhouse shown in the
>pictures. I could run an underground cable down one side of the
>campground, for a WAP or antenna. And then see what kind of coverage
>I get in the other side of the campground.
>
>But my question is; what do I have for options, in getting the signal
>to the other side of the campground? Without tunneling under the
>paved road.
>I've heard of devices, for inside a house, that uses the electrical
>wiring to extend a wired connection. Can that be used outdoors?
>There's power all through the campground.
>
>Is something like a WiFi extender a possibility for outdoor use?
>
>Any help or input is appreciated.
>Thanks
>

<(E-Mail Removed) - delete -net> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> We (my wife and I) stay at a RV park in Silver City, NM where I do
> most of the work on the WIFI system. It consists of a D-Link
> DWL-2700AP access point mounted on a 20 foot metal pipe at the rear of
> the Club House. The distance to the furthermost site is probably 700
> or so feet. This box is fed via cat5 cable (POE) from a 2Wire DSL
> modem in the club house.
>
> The lot we were in last year is the greatest distance from the
> antenna. Our Toshiba laptop connected we ease (as long as we didn't
> have the metal window blinds closed) from inside the trailer.
>
> We run the DWL-2700AP at about 70% power. You can just barely see the
> antenna (below the "b" in the Club House label. Link to the web page.
>
> http://www.manzanosrvpark.com/manzano7_002.htm
>
>

is this the area ? - or just a mailing address ?

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...=18&iwloc=addr

In <4978eca0$0$17049$(E-Mail Removed) om> "JohnB" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

[snip]

>They got a quote from a "professional", and it was much more than they want
>to spend. But I really think the biggest possible problem is lightning, and
>what to do about it.

One serious possibility (don't laugh...) is to use standard,
mass market, consumer items, along with a regular "surge suppressor".

It'll cost you, perhaps, one hundred fifty or so dollars and
another hundred or so for enclosures.

Treat it as disposable... A nearby lightning hit might take
it out every other year - which is still cheaper than "doing
it right". Have a spare in the closet ready to plug in.

The commodity surge suppressor won't protect against a lightning
strike a hundred feet away, but it should guard against one
that hits a mile or two down the road. Remember that the latter
are both far more frequent, and also weaker... (inverse square
or other funky exponential stuff).




--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
(E-Mail Removed)
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

On Jan 23, 8:13*am, "JohnB" <jbri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Politics:
You have a fairly large undertaking and I think that it would be best
right off to define what success is and how you will deal with the
public end of things.

I'd come in and say "just like distance to the bathrooms or good shade
or views, some spots are going to be better than others for wifi and
guests will have to accept and sort that out by arrival and their own
priorities. Also, the biggest problem is that RVs are shields for
WIFI.

I'd specify any solution for the owners as aiming for 75-90% coverage
or somesuch and anyway that's still dependent on RV orientation and
individual client positions and solutions. People may expect to sit
outside behind their RV (in relation the antennas) and do their email
- it won't work. Place a laptop in a window facing the antenna and it
might work. More saavy travelers will have their own client
adapters already for mounting in a window or on the roof.

It might be a good idea to offer a sheltered hotspot with good
coverage for those who can't make it work in their space.
You might make up a brochure that shows the antenna locations and the
coverage and RV issues (metal shielding) as well as suggesting the
hotspot as an alternative.
Could also offer a cheap USB (with 15' extension) or alternative
client device (powerline?) that could be bought or rented while at
the RV park and placed according to general instructions.

Coverage:
Your existing gear sounds usable, but I'd be selective. One idea
might be to use the main router (pro quality or else consumer running
alternative firmware?) to feed that panel antenna on the (likely) LMR
400 cable you already have. Get the beam pattern for it and do some
tests with it mounted at the clubhouse. Point it differently, from
same and try different mounting locations all over by moving the
router around with it for testing. Of course you will have to get a
cable (possibly powerline adapter)to any other AP locations as you are
alredy well aware. That would limit my testing to certain areas.

After testing decide where the panel will do it's job well and you
have a start.

For additional antennas, probably go with the directional outdoor APs
that are already being suggested. The Ubiquiti Nanostation2 looks
like a good inexpensive candidate that would allow you to place
several while staying on budget.

http://www.titanwirelessonline.com/P...uctCode=CP-NS2

but I'm biased towards that product line lately (still haven't used
one- I'm waiting for some LoCos to ship).

Anyway, use those Outdoor APs perhaps in router mode for running
subnets. That way you can use your main router for perhaps 20-50
clients including one or more outdoor APs. The APs could then handle
20-50 clients each on subnets?

As always, I look forward to hearing what Jeff has to say about this,
especially handing possibly 75 clients at any given time and using
subnets...

Cheers,
Steve

On Jan 22, 5:05*pm, "JohnB" <jbri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well that's odd. *There was a good reply on here about lightning
> suppression, but it got deleted!!

View your posting in microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless
entitled "Wireless outdoors".

Dedicated ethernet connections means routers with ports for every
user AND (as defined by the app note in that other newsgroup) a
protector for every wire in each cable to each user. And each cable
must be exterior grade.

Wireless APs are your best solution. With additional wiring so that
more APs may be installed, if load demands, by scattering more APs
throughout the campground.

Don't waste money on the cheap from tigerdirect. Good reasons why
better equipment is cheaper by costing more money. Your AP should
also include 802.11N (not just B & G).

Increasing AP power will do little if the WiFi user's power is also
not increased. Wifi is a bidirectional conversation. Increasing
power on one side does not mean the other side can be heard.

If they really want internet provided, then a narrow (4 inch) trench
across the road to install multiple pipes (one for the internet –
others for future reasons – electric or other) is trivial and easily
patched.

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:24:31 -0800 (PST), (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>On Jan 22, 5:05*pm, "JohnB" <jbri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Well that's odd. *There was a good reply on here about lightning
>> suppression, but it got deleted!!
>
> View your posting in microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless
>entitled "Wireless outdoors".
>
> Dedicated ethernet connections means routers with ports for every
>user AND (as defined by the app note in that other newsgroup) a
>protector for every wire in each cable to each user. And each cable
>must be exterior grade.
>
> Wireless APs are your best solution. With additional wiring so that
>more APs may be installed, if load demands, by scattering more APs
>throughout the campground.
>
> Don't waste money on the cheap from tigerdirect. Good reasons why
>better equipment is cheaper by costing more money. Your AP should
>also include 802.11N (not just B & G).

Surely "N" only matters if the extra bandwidth is useable.

Unless there is a big internet pipe, then N is going to be irrelevant,
since the internet feed will be the bottleneck.

The speed mismatch only gets worse as more APs are added and the
aggregate wireless throughput for the site increases.

Finally - the "N" standard is due end 2009, so what you really mean
right now is "some manufacturers idea of what might be in the 802.11N
standard when we finally get it, and yhey burned into a chip set so
that it at least part of it is frozen and cannot be changed later".

And without a standard that cannot have been tested yet for
compatability with other "N" kit.....
>
> Increasing AP power will do little if the WiFi user's power is also
>not increased. Wifi is a bidirectional conversation. Increasing
>power on one side does not mean the other side can be heard.
>
> If they really want internet provided, then a narrow (4 inch) trench
>across the road to install multiple pipes (one for the internet –
>others for future reasons – electric or other) is trivial and easily
>patched.
--
Regards

(E-Mail Removed) - replace xyz with ntl

On Jan 24, 9:56*am, Stephen <stephen_h...@xyzworld.com> wrote:
> Surely "N" only matters if the extra bandwidth is useable.

If speed was important, than any 802.11 standard was more than fast
enough. 802.11 means access to additional frequencies. That means
more users operating longer distances and the laptop has more choices
to find a frequency that best works for that motorhome.

And finally, 802.11N type hardware has already been available for
one year. It that hardware does not comply with the 802.11N standard,
then a free software download upgrades that 'N' hardware.

The AP should do 802.11 B G & N for numerous reasons.

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:30:33 -0800 (PST), (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>On Jan 24, 9:56*am, Stephen <stephen_h...@xyzworld.com> wrote:
>> Surely "N" only matters if the extra bandwidth is useable.
>
> If speed was important, than any 802.11 standard was more than fast
>enough. 802.11 means access to additional frequencies.

Nope - 802.11 b / g use 2.4, a uses 5 GHz. "n" can use 2.4 and 5, but
that is not mandatory in the standard.

A lot of "draft" hardware seems to be 2.4 GHz only, so no real gain
unless you pick the ones with 5 GHz or hardware with dual band radios.

So saying "n" is not enough.

this link gives the 2007 spec for draft 2




If you have 5 GHz only "n" (or configure a dual band that way), then
any client with non 5 GHZ hardware of any standard doesnt get a link.

G uses better modulation and b to get more from the same amount of
frequency band, so you still get 3 mostly non overlapping "lumps".

But the go faster "n" modes eat up more of the available space, so
fewer non overlapping channels, or "n" degrades a lot to share
frequencies with the older standards.

That means
>more users operating longer distances and the laptop has more choices
>to find a frequency that best works for that motorhome.
>

You only get lowest common denominator, so unless the client is "n"
and actually interworks, then you get G or just "b" mode.

> And finally, 802.11N type hardware has already been available for
>one year. It that hardware does not comply with the 802.11N standard,
>then a free software download upgrades that 'N' hardware.

the track record of "draft" equipment being upgraded to full release
by a firmware upgrade is not good.

something in writing that says "commitment to upgrade mandatory", and
"subject to published standard successful test by appropriate
accredited 3rd party" "replacement with compliant hardware on test
failure" is what i would write into a spec at work - but with just a
couple of devices or consumer stuff it will be impractical to make
that stick.

>
> The AP should do 802.11 B G & N for numerous reasons.

i think backward compatibility is supposed to be part of the standard,
so fine.

Maybe the most important bit coming out of this is to actually test it
when installed with a range of clients (preferably more than several
at once, mixed on different standards) just to see what works in
practice.....
--
Regards

(E-Mail Removed) - replace xyz with ntl

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:52:12 +0000, Stephen
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:30:33 -0800 (PST), (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
>>On Jan 24, 9:56*am, Stephen <stephen_h...@xyzworld.com> wrote:
>>> Surely "N" only matters if the extra bandwidth is useable.
>>
>> If speed was important, than any 802.11 standard was more than fast
>>enough. 802.11 means access to additional frequencies.
>
>Nope - 802.11 b / g use 2.4, a uses 5 GHz. "n" can use 2.4 and 5, but
>that is not mandatory in the standard.
>
>A lot of "draft" hardware seems to be 2.4 GHz only, so no real gain
>unless you pick the ones with 5 GHz or hardware with dual band radios.
>
>So saying "n" is not enough.
>
>this link gives the 2007 spec for draft 2
http://www.wi-fi.org/files/kc/WFA_80...try_June07.pdf

see page 12 for the details of the modes, and the potential speeds,
and the comment about "draft devices implement most of the
standard"....

note devices can be 2.4 GHz only, 5 only or both.
>
>
>
>If you have 5 GHz only "n" (or configure a dual band that way), then
>any client with non 5 GHZ hardware of any standard doesnt get a link.
>
>G uses better modulation and b to get more from the same amount of
>frequency band, so you still get 3 mostly non overlapping "lumps".
>
>But the go faster "n" modes eat up more of the available space, so
>fewer non overlapping channels, or "n" degrades a lot to share
>frequencies with the older standards.
>
>That means
>>more users operating longer distances and the laptop has more choices
>>to find a frequency that best works for that motorhome.
>>
>
>You only get lowest common denominator, so unless the client is "n"
>and actually interworks, then you get G or just "b" mode.
>
>> And finally, 802.11N type hardware has already been available for
>>one year. It that hardware does not comply with the 802.11N standard,
>>then a free software download upgrades that 'N' hardware.
>
>the track record of "draft" equipment being upgraded to full release
>by a firmware upgrade is not good.
>
>something in writing that says "commitment to upgrade mandatory", and
>"subject to published standard successful test by appropriate
>accredited 3rd party" "replacement with compliant hardware on test
>failure" is what i would write into a spec at work - but with just a
>couple of devices or consumer stuff it will be impractical to make
>that stick.
>
>>
>> The AP should do 802.11 B G & N for numerous reasons.
>
>i think backward compatibility is supposed to be part of the standard,
>so fine.
>
>Maybe the most important bit coming out of this is to actually test it
>when installed with a range of clients (preferably more than several
>at once, mixed on different standards) just to see what works in
>practice.....
--
Regards

(E-Mail Removed) - replace xyz with ntl