<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>>"naturally wooded" does not bode well for WiFi
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>True, and it's even worse for the 5.6 GHz stuff
that most of DECT is using these days! The marketing departments have
everyone convinced that bigger frequency numbers are better. For most
real-world environments the exact opposite is true. The only advantage I
know of for higher frequency is more available bandwidth and less
congestion.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>>If the road is fairly
straight
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>More like a boomerang going around the highest part
of the hill.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>>You may be better off with
something that uses lower frequencies
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>True. I have an Engenius high power 900 MHz
unit that covered the property fairly well and about half of the road, and that
with the base station in the walk out basement at about the lowest point on the
property. Unfortunately it went up in smoke one day. Also in a POTS
environment it could only work with one line.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>We'll see what this setup does with appropriate
location of the base.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Wilton</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>