iBurst better without aerial?

[r00igev@@r]

And pingtest for comparison please?

There isn't a pingtest at Neology (must ask them?)

However, the one test which transits the incumbent's network is not so ayoba

while the other one is better

 

[Jagtiger]

There isn't a pingtest at Neology (must ask them?)

However, the one test which transits the incumbent's network is not so ayoba

while the other one is better

Both of them are not so cool. According to previous tests, it must be 5ms or less with no jitter.

 

[r00igev@@r]

Both of them are not so cool. According to previous tests, it must be 5ms or less with no jitter.

The air interface has a latency of minimum 42ms. You can't break physics?

 

[Jagtiger]

The air interface has a latency of minimum 42ms. You can't break physics?

But you broke physics with above than 1Mbps speedtests in previous.

 

[r00igev@@r]

But you broke physics with above than 1Mbps speedtests in previous.

I wasn't use the air interface but the backhaul to show that the issue is also related to the hosted speedtest server itself. You were questioning the reason why there were high pings from some speedtest servers and the answer is that the speedtest server itself is subject to fluctuations including the third party path to that server. That is the nature of the Internet and broadband.

The most consistent server to use for testing is the one in Midrand.

 

[RVQ]

So do we have conclusive proof that the upgrading the Antenna from the omni to directional/higher gain improves the signal?
When iBurst deploys a new tower do they ensure it reaches the maximum range?
Will iBurst be willing to look at covering an internet starved community by at least investigating optimizing the signal to an area from an existing tower?

The reason I'm asking is a little suburb in the middle of nothingness, will never get ADSL, Cell-C is pretty far off and VC and MTN changes are insane. I have discovered though that the little suburb seems to be on the edge of iBurst coverage even though the map indicates there is a white hole in that area. If I stand on the roof with with a long pole and my head planted to the antenna I seem to get a decent signal. Although I don't have anything better to do, I do have to on occasion eat/work/live life and I'm still 50/50 on taking up r00igev@@r's offer on using his M-I-L. So just in case that option falls through I would like to try to improve the signal (60% on clear day, which is far and few thanks to the Jo'burg weather) by using a more powerful client antenna and possibly convincing iBurst to point their antenna this way. Get marketing out here put a few signs on light poles/entrance, I'm sure people will sign up knowing that the Blue Beast will never enable the exchange (Managed to get a hold of some higher ups thanks to a little stint around mid last year for a smallish event).

So?

 

[r00igev@@r]

So do we have conclusive proof that the upgrading the Antenna from the omni to directional/higher gain improves the signal?
When iBurst deploys a new tower do they ensure it reaches the maximum range?
Will iBurst be willing to look at covering an internet starved community by at least investigating optimizing the signal to an area from an existing tower?

The reason I'm asking is a little suburb in the middle of nothingness, will never get ADSL, Cell-C is pretty far off and VC and MTN changes are insane. I have discovered though that the little suburb seems to be on the edge of iBurst coverage even though the map indicates there is a white hole in that area. If I stand on the roof with with a long pole and my head planted to the antenna I seem to get a decent signal. Although I don't have anything better to do, I do have to on occasion eat/work/live life and I'm still 50/50 on taking up r00igev@@r's offer on using his M-I-L. So just in case that option falls through I would like to try to improve the signal (60% on clear day, which is far and few thanks to the Jo'burg weather) by using a more powerful client antenna and possibly convincing iBurst to point their antenna this way. Get marketing out here put a few signs on light poles/entrance, I'm sure people will sign up knowing that the Blue Beast will never enable the exchange (Managed to get a hold of some higher ups thanks to a little stint around mid last year for a smallish event).

So?

The first thing is to use a desktop and not USB and be prepared to test every metre (bounce does strange things).

If you can confirm 10+ subs then PM me.

 

[EasyUp Web Hosting]

For me, the antenna doesn't work, the only think I haven't tested, is mounting the high gain to an aerial pole which rises above my roof and test again, as I don't want to do all that and then just find the same results.
Seeing as I am about 5km from the tower and I am already getting 100% signal, I don't think I am the best person to test it. The only thing that can still improve, is my latencies and the way I see it, it will only improve if I use a flat panel antenna and the costs surrounding this, doesn't make it worth it.

 

[r00igev@@r]

Without:

With:

 

[eltherza]

Without:

With:

That's a cool way to show the signal strength. I must ask though, were the tests done with aerial in the same place as the modem, or mounted higher outside?

 

[r00igev@@r]

That's a cool way to show the signal strength. I must ask though, were the tests done with aerial in the same place as the modem, or mounted higher outside?

Is was mounted 3m off ground level outside and the modem at 1.5m inside.

 

[eltherza]

Is was mounted 3m off ground level outside and the modem at 1.5m inside.

Kinda obvious that you'd get better signal going out outside with an omni, alot of the questions (well, mine on this topic at least) considers when the modem and aerial are in the same place. In a way it makes sense that the aerial will have lower signal strength than the modem in the same place because of the copper wire that it needs to travel to the modem.