[svlug] Wireless?

[Robert L. Harris]

Thus spake Ray Olszewski (ray at comarre.com):

> >On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Robert L. Harris wrote:
> >
> >> At any rate they need to network a number of buildings separated 
> >> by hard concrete.  The district is pushing for suspending fibre
> >> overland with the power/phone lines.  I'm thinking wireless.  I've got
> >> about 500" of clear line of sight to go.  Any good solutions?  Preferably
> >> as cheap as possible.  Backing it with a linux box is also a good
> >> thing if it helps.
> 
> The suggestions others have made are certainly interesting. I haven't myself
> looked at wireless solutions in several years ... but when I last did, I
> concluded they were cost effective only in situations where there were
> compelling reasons not to use a wired technology. The alternatives then were
> all a mix of slower than, less reliable than, or more expensive than
> conventional wire-based solutions.
> 
> In this case, you do specify "as cheap as possible", and I assume that would
> have to come in cheaper than "suspending fibre overland". So ... can you
> give us a hint as to what this means in terms of the cost target?

I have requested some hard numbers, but no-one has stepped up yet.  My 
contact at the school is looking around to find a magic number.

> How many point-to-point pairs are needed (the suggestions you're getting all
> seem to be assuming you need only 1 link, not several)? You do say "a number
> of buildings", making me think the "number" is not "2".

Right now, 3 buildings, possibly a fourth later.
> 
> What speed is acceptable (fibre will deliver 100 mB, even 1000 mB, with no
> problem; is 11 mB over 802.11, for example, acceptable if it achieves only a
> 10% cost reduction)?
> 

If it's 10% of $2000 fiber would be better, if it were 20% of $12,000,
it's be significatn. 

> Problems like yours are fundamentally about cost tradeoffs, and at this
> point, the wireless experts here are trying to make suggestions without
> knowing what they are "bidding against" as the wire-based option.
> 
> BTW, you do mean 500' (feet), right ... not 500" (inches) ?

Right, feet, 




:wq!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Harris                |  Micros~1 :  
Senior System Engineer          |    For when quality, reliability 
  at RnD Consulting             |      and security just aren't
                                \_       that important!
DISCLAIMER:
      These are MY OPINIONS ALONE.  I speak for no-one else.
FYI:
 perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);'