NATO

[koaungkyawmoe]

Dear ,

I am from Myanmar and we have everything of technology on the paper and the same for electricity, that is why I call NATO ( No Action Talk Only ) Of Our Myanmar Office and news Paper. I want to learn about WI-FI but there are many in the news paper but .................

 

So Please tell me 96 Km of distance can I use Wi-Fi ......

If so what router is the best and How can I make access point to Digital camera:)

[powdarrmonkey]

Nope, WiFi is only good for about 30m in ideal conditions. You'll need your own leased line or two connections to the Internet.

[ahuxham]

Nope, WiFi is only good for about 30m in ideal conditions. You'll need your own leased line or two connections to the Internet.

 

You're forgetting Bridging and Repeating of access points.

 

Look at 4ipnets range of Repeating access points.

[localzuk]

You're forgetting Bridging and Repeating of access points.

 

Look at 4ipnets range of Repeating access points.

 

To go over 96km?! How many repeaters would you need for that?!?

[powdarrmonkey]

3,200 by my calculations.

[ahuxham]

Industrial grade AP's can do extreme ranges. 4ipnet do supply industrial access points that can reach 10miles. I've also been privvy to a few projects using wireless at range, and this can be done quite easily.

 

For example: http://www.4ipnet.com/owl800_spec.htm with a point-to-point backhaul, get a decent antenna for this and mesh them all together.

Edited September 1, 2009 by ahuxham

[ahuxham]

3,200 by my calculations.

 

So, by your calculations, a single AP can only transmit at a range of 0.02875KM?

[powdarrmonkey]

As that's 30m, like I originally estimated, yes.

[localzuk]

Industrial grade AP's can do extreme ranges. 4ipnet do supply industrial access points that can reach 10miles. I've also been privvy to a few projects using wireless at range, and this can be done quite easily.

 

For example: http://www.4ipnet.com/owl800_spec.htm with a point-to-point backhaul, get a decent antenna for this and mesh them all together.

 

Any wireless transmitter that can work at that range would be in breach of EU radio licensing laws - the maximum you can transmit at is 20dbm in any direction. That theoretically can give you a range of about 6km with one of those linked AP's hooked up with a 5db antenna and the same set up at the other end. Even if you tweak that, say reduce transmit power to 7db and increase antenna gain to 13db at each end, you only get about 12 - 13km per hop. So you'd still need 7 hops.

 

I'll put it this way - imagine the latency! Not to mention having to organise a bunch of places to mount those APs and associated antennae.

 

If you're going to use wireless over such long ranges, you should be looking at microwave wireless - but again, latency sucks.

 

The best options are to use a leased line, connect to an existing MAN owned by someone else in the area, or maybe to use ADSL2+ connections and a secure tunnel across them. Latency is not good on a WAN.

[ahuxham]

Any wireless transmitter that can work at that range would be in breach of EU radio licensing laws - the maximum you can transmit at is 20dbm in any direction. That theoretically can give you a range of about 6km with one of those linked AP's hooked up with a 5db antenna and the same set up at the other end. Even if you tweak that, say reduce transmit power to 7db and increase antenna gain to 13db at each end, you only get about 12 - 13km per hop. So you'd still need 7 hops.

 

I'll put it this way - imagine the latency! Not to mention having to organise a bunch of places to mount those APs and associated antennae.

 

If you're going to use wireless over such long ranges, you should be looking at microwave wireless - but again, latency sucks.

 

The best options are to use a leased line, connect to an existing MAN owned by someone else in the area, or maybe to use ADSL2+ connections and a secure tunnel across them. Latency is not good on a WAN.

 

No one said it was the perfect solution did they? I was merely saying it can be done wirelessly, and lets not forget this isn't in the EU either.

[ahuxham]

As that's 30m, like I originally estimated, yes.

 

Not sure what access points you're using, but many access points reach 100m quite easily without massive signal loss

[localzuk]

No one said it was the perfect solution did they? I was merely saying it can be done wirelessly, and lets not forget this isn't in the EU either.

 

Why suggest a solution that isn't only not perfect, but plainly silly?

 

Not sure what access points you're using, but many access points reach 100m quite easily without massive signal loss

 

As demonstrated above - it isn't the AP that is the issue, it is the transmission strength and antenna gain that deal with the distance it will go. So, sure an AP can get 100m, but only if they fiddle with the various parts to do so.

[Guest Guest]

Why suggest a solution that isn't only not perfect, but plainly silly?

 

I was going to suggest printing out the computer code and sending it by camel, the latency would probably be on a par with the WAP suggestion, but i just thought that was silly

 

Mind it does save on the maintainance, security and powering of said WAPs in what it persumably the middle of the desert.

[ahuxham]

Why suggest a solution that isn't only not perfect, but plainly silly?

 

I don't think you read the OP's original post clearly. I'm pretty sure he states Wireless connectivity. Although it is silly, its actually on topic and the information he wanted.

 

And lets not say it's a solution, I never pointed that fact out, I was merely showing it can be done, and has been done elsewhere, if the OP decides it as an appropriate solution than the latency, infrastructure hurdles are his and not ours.

[localzuk]

I don't think you read the OP's original post clearly. I'm pretty sure he states Wireless connectivity. Although it is silly, its actually on topic and the information he wanted.

 

And lets not say it's a solution, I never pointed that fact out, I was merely showing it can be done, and has been done elsewhere, if the OP decides it as an appropriate solution than the latency, infrastructure hurdles are his and not ours.

 

This is why we do the job we do - we see a question, see that they are actually asking the wrong thing and give them advice on the answer to the question they should have asked.

 

Otherwise, the answer for his question would be 'no, not unless you want ridiculous network problems, high maintenance cost, high installation cost and a whole host of other issues'. That is not helpful is it?

[ahuxham]

This is why we do the job we do - we see a question, see that they are actually asking the wrong thing and give them advice on the answer to the question they should have asked.

 

Otherwise, the answer for his question would be 'no, not unless you want ridiculous network problems, high maintenance cost, high installation cost and a whole host of other issues'. That is not helpful is it?

 

That would be your opinion on the "role/job we are here to provide" would it not? And its not the wrong thing, in your opinion its the wrong thing, the OP clearly asked for wireless, so wireless he gets, however you can suggest other things, better ideas, ideas that cost less and are easier to implement, not just sit there and blatantly say "no"

[cookie_monster]

I think you should move the debate to another thread then keep to posting the actual answer/solution here otherwise it will polute the thread.