Remote Feed: 72-Mile 802.11b Link

An anonymous reader writes "A 72-mile link was installed last month from San Diego to San Clemente Island, using standard 802.11b WLAN gear and high-gain, 2-foot parabolic antennas. More in this Computerworld article."

Re:Before you ask, the horizon is still a problem.

[Beatbyte]

Trust me, shooting over the water isn't the easiest thing in the world. If the water is relatively calm, the signal maybe bounce and give problems.

This situation would be OK because I doubt the ocean is going to become calm enough to cause problems but the seismic activity would throw a huge wrench in the operation. It would be wise to have a motorized mount that automatically calculates the best shot to the other tower recalibrating when signal is lost.

Re:bahh

[nosphalot]

Not to mention you still have to deal with any additional encryption they use. Just because WEP is crap, doesn't mean they can't use IPsec over the link.

Re:Isn't this in violation of FCC Part 15.247?

[afidel]

probably. I am only guessing but when they say "runs with the maximum 1-watt power output allowed by the Federal Communications Commission for 2.4-GHz equipment" I assume they don't mean 1W power out of the bridge, but rather 1W effective. So assuming 24Dbi antenna's (the highest gain parabolics I have seen for 2.4Ghz) the should be ok with 100mW bridge units which is probably what they are using. I did not see them mention amp's anywhere in the article.

Re:Isn't this in violation of FCC Part 15.247?

[LWATCDR]

Is there anyway to use seperate transmitting and recving antennas? You could use a big honking dish for the recving and a much smaller one for transmitting?

Re:Aluminum Vs. Silicon

[mosch]

or perhaps they already had access to a tall building, or some cliffs, thus obviating the need for a large tower.