Re: Help needed re: Outdoor (WiMax? WiFi?) Internet

[Guest guest]

*BUMP*

Sorry to bump this, guys, but I need to figure this out. I contacted Bell,

and of course their phone-help employees are basically useless. One guy

told me a bit, said that it " depends on the channel " used on their cellular

network, and seemed to think it started at 200 MHz, but otherwise couldn't

tell me anything - and the lady he put me through to knew even less, as in,

nothing.

So, again, would one assume that the frequencies I pick up with my RF meter

(between 800 and 2500 MHz) at the receiving antennas are the same as those

being used to transmit the wireless internet signal?

Your help is appreciated!

Best Regards,

R.

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Article One <article.one.mail@...>wrote:

> Hello all,

>

> I'm back from spending a week on a rural property in my trailer.

>

> As far as RF radiation at that place is concerned, I'm in a quandary about

> what to do.

>

> The property is rural, but not extremely far away from the nearest city,

> perhaps some 10 kilometers (6.21 miles).

>

> I don't see any cell phone antennas anywhere near the property; there is

> one visible tower of some sort, with red blinking lights, but everyone says

> it's only to warn aircraft, and I don't see antennas on it, nor do my meters

> register anything when I point them at it. People have to drive way up the

> hill on the property (it's a large bit of land, over 100 acres) to get

> cellphone reception. I don't pick up cell phone noise on my meters anywhere

> that I've checked.

>

> *However* - the people on this property get their internet through Bell (I

> believe). They have two small, white, vertically oriented antennas (like

> mini cell tower antennas) on their property, one on the roof of their house,

> and on on the outer wall near the roof of the other main building that

> functions as an office and meeting space. The antennas are pointed South,

> though the main city nearby is more like South-West. Each antenna has a

> blue Ethernet cable running from it, into conduit, which goes into the

> building to which the antenna is attached. It's through that Ethernet cable

> that they get their internet.

>

> Unfortunately, the antennas, though they are receivers, also act as

> transmitters; my RF meter picks up noise from them 100+ feet away, in the

> range of 800 to 2500 MHz and gets louder as I walk closer to the antennas.

> They seem to only transmit (or " spill " ) this RF out of the " business end "

> (the flat side facing South) and out of the edge of their rectangular body.

> Behind them, even close, there is *relatively* little noise.

>

> Now, we found a place to park my trailer where noise from these antennas

> doesn't register, and that's great. But I'm concerned, and here's where I

> could use your advice. Since these people are getting their internet

> service wirelessly, does that mean that the wireless internet signal (WiFi?

> WiMax?) is all around the property? Or is it coming in a more-or-less

> " straight line " from somewhere South of the property (which is the direction

> in which these two antennas are oriented)?

>

> Remember: Once I'm out of range of those antennas, I don't measure noise on

> my RF meters. (I can measure down from 27 MHz up to 6000 MHz (6 Gigahertz).

> The noise from the antennas is in the range of 800 to 2500 MHz. Can I

> infer from this fact that the *transmitted* signal which this antennas are

> *receiving* is the same frequency, and perhaps the antennas just act as

> high powered amplifiers with only a local effect?

>

> Or do such internet services transmit at frequencies other than which I

> would pick up from the antennas at close range?

>

> When I walk around the property with my *really* sensitive RF meter that

> goes down to 27 MHz, I do get a number on the display, but there is no

> noise, only the sound of static. This meter is so sensitive that I haven't

> seen anywhere that it doesn't pick something up the other ones register as

> " zero " .

>

> When I do a search on Industry Canada's Spectrum Management site (which

> lists all transmitters and their frequencies within a set distance from any

> defined location), I unfortunately see that there are some transmitters in

> the nearby city that are owned by telecoms like Bell, and Telus that

> are listed as being *above* 6000 MHz (which is the upper limit of what my

> meters can measure).

>

> I don't know if *these *are reaching the property, or if only the

> frequencies I'm picking up between 800 MHz and 2.5 GHz at the antennas are

> reaching the property and are so weak that they're amplified by the antennas

> and nowhere else.

>

> I you could all help out I'd really appreciate it.

>

> Thanks!

>

> R.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi R.

> The property is rural, but not extremely far away from the nearest city,

> perhaps some 10 kilometers (6.21 miles).

>

> I don't pick up cell phone noise on my meters anywhere

> that I've checked.

>

Sounds good. I would still be wary about the one tower, and seek to know

what it's purpose is.

> The antennas are pointed South,

>

Toward a service provider

> It's through that Ethernet cable

> that they get their internet.

>

Well you should be able to pick up those emissions when they are online.

> Behind them, even close, there is *relatively* little noise.

>

Right, they are directional antennas.

> Now, we found a place to park my trailer where noise from these antennas

> doesn't register, and that's great. But I'm concerned, and here's where I

> could use your advice. Since these people are getting their internet

> service wirelessly, does that mean that the wireless internet signal (WiFi?

> WiMax?) is all around the property?

In small amounts, Yes. If you were to theoretically put up your own

antenna, and point it south, you could receive internet transmissions

too. The question is whether or not signals of tiny amplitude are strong

enough to cause harm.

In my experience, then answer can be yes, for the most sensitive people.

I feel better where my meters show " background levels " as in a very very

rural area.

And I feel WiFi out where the signals are weak, so it looks more and

more like the quantum, or call it scalar-waves or longitudinal-waves are

more of a factor in how " information-carrying radio waves " can trigger a

response in people.

> Or is it coming in a more-or-less

> " straight line " from somewhere South of the property (which is the direction

> in which these two antennas are oriented)?

>

The source is straight line, but there will be uncountable reflections

to account for, thus resulting in the signal being all around as well,

but in lesser amplitudes.

> Remember: Once I'm out of range of those antennas, I don't measure noise on

> my RF meters.

That is a good sign, although not completely exclusive.

> (I can measure down from 27 MHz up to 6000 MHz (6 Gigahertz).

>

May I ask which meter?

> The noise from the antennas is in the range of 800 to 2500 MHz.

That is good to know.

> Can I

> infer from this fact that the *transmitted* signal which this antennas are *

> receiving* is the same frequency, and perhaps the antennas just act as high

> powered amplifiers with only a local effect?

>

No, not the exact same frequency, but I would say they Respond on the

same frequency band, at a uplink frequency, whereas the signal from the

South is a downlink frequency, usually only 10 or 20 Mhz apart.

The antennas should not amplify the incoming signal anywhere but onto

that blue cable.

> Or do such internet services transmit at frequencies other than which I

> would pick up from the antennas at close range?

>

>

If the meter is good enough, I would say not for the ground based antennas.

There are of course back-haul frequencies up in the multi Gigahertz

range, tower to tower, and satellite to ground to satellite to think about.

> When I walk around the property with my *really* sensitive RF meter that

> goes down to 27 MHz, I do get a number on the display, but there is no

> noise, only the sound of static. This meter is so sensitive that I haven't

> seen anywhere that it doesn't pick something up the other ones register as

> " zero " .

>

Bathed in EMR everywhere nowadays.

> When I do a search on Industry Canada's Spectrum Management site (which

> lists all transmitters and their frequencies within a set distance from any

> defined location), I unfortunately see that there are some transmitters in

> the nearby city that are owned by telecoms like Bell, and Telus that

> are listed as being *above* 6000 MHz (which is the upper limit of what my

> meters can measure).

>

Those would be the point-to-point microwave back-haul mentioned above.

Oh, don't forget everybody's backyard satellite dish are not in the

database.

> I don't know if *these *are reaching the property, or if only the

> frequencies I'm picking up between 800 MHz and 2.5 GHz at the antennas are

> reaching the property and are so weak that they're amplified by the antennas

> and nowhere else.

>

Maybe they really are transmitting.

> I you could all help out I'd really appreciate it.

>

>

http://seahorseCorral.org/ehs1.html

[Guest guest]

Hi there ,

Thanks for responding!

In the meantime, I finally got someone from Bell from the right department;

after being on hold for a few minutes, he said that they're transmitting the

signal at 3.5 GHz. Now, I don't know if he knows the whole story, but at

least that's an answer and a number.

If that is the case, then it must be relatively line-of-sight and straight

line, because out of proximity of the " business-end " and edge of that

outdoor antenna (they call it a " modem " ), I don't pick up " ambient " RF

between 2.4 and 6.0 GHz. The company rep said he was " pretty sure " that it

works in a line-of-sight, straight-line fashion.

As for that one tower, I've found nothing yet. Driving by it in bright

daylight, I don't see anything on it, though my eyesight's not the best.

Even when I do a search using the official spectrum website I don't see any

listings for the small township this property is on, only ones miles away.

The meters I use are all by Gigahertz Solutions:

HF 35C (800 - 2500 MHz)

HFW 35C (2.4 - 6 GHz)

HFE 35C (27 MHz - 2500 MHz) - with the green antenna it's between 800 and

2500 MHz, with the ultra broadband isotropic antenna it goes down to 27 MHz

As for the linking frequencies for tower to tower, etc., I know, some of

them go into the GHz range that most meters can't measure, and I am in no

position to drop over a thousand bucks on an antenna alone, plus a meter

that goes that high (plus I'd probably scare the pants off myself).

However, when I do a spectrum search for the area in which I live now

(suburban), there are as many or more back-haul high GHz frequencies you

mentioned listed. I mean, the stuff is everywhere (relatively speaking).

Fortunately, there don't seem to be any normal towers visible to the naked

eye in the area of this property, save for the one which appears to have no

antennas, and another one *waaaay* off in the distance somewhere.

Another question, if you don't mind responding to it: The property owner

seemed (I hope he still is) amenable to me creating a partial metal shield

to mount around the outdoor modem which receives the signal which would have

an opening for the modem's business-end to receive the signal, but could

prevent all that RF from spilling out the sides.

What do you think of that idea? Sounds like it could be worth trying, to me.

Thanks again!

R.

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 11:08 AM, S son <sandreas41@...> wrote:

> **

>

>

> Hi R.

>

>

> > The property is rural, but not extremely far away from the nearest city,

> > perhaps some 10 kilometers (6.21 miles).

> >

>

> > I don't pick up cell phone noise on my meters anywhere

> > that I've checked.

> >

>

> Sounds good. I would still be wary about the one tower, and seek to know

> what it's purpose is.

>

>

> > The antennas are pointed South,

> >

> Toward a service provider

>

>

> > It's through that Ethernet cable

> > that they get their internet.

> >

> Well you should be able to pick up those emissions when they are online.

>

>

> > Behind them, even close, there is *relatively* little noise.

> >

> Right, they are directional antennas.

>

>

> > Now, we found a place to park my trailer where noise from these antennas

> > doesn't register, and that's great. But I'm concerned, and here's where I

> > could use your advice. Since these people are getting their internet

> > service wirelessly, does that mean that the wireless internet signal

> (WiFi?

> > WiMax?) is all around the property?

>

> In small amounts, Yes. If you were to theoretically put up your own

> antenna, and point it south, you could receive internet transmissions

> too. The question is whether or not signals of tiny amplitude are strong

> enough to cause harm.

> In my experience, then answer can be yes, for the most sensitive people.

> I feel better where my meters show " background levels " as in a very very

> rural area.

> And I feel WiFi out where the signals are weak, so it looks more and

> more like the quantum, or call it scalar-waves or longitudinal-waves are

> more of a factor in how " information-carrying radio waves " can trigger a

> response in people.

>

>

> > Or is it coming in a more-or-less

> > " straight line " from somewhere South of the property (which is the

> direction

> > in which these two antennas are oriented)?

> >

> The source is straight line, but there will be uncountable reflections

> to account for, thus resulting in the signal being all around as well,

> but in lesser amplitudes.

>

>

> > Remember: Once I'm out of range of those antennas, I don't measure noise

> on

> > my RF meters.

> That is a good sign, although not completely exclusive.

>

>

> > (I can measure down from 27 MHz up to 6000 MHz (6 Gigahertz).

> >

> May I ask which meter?

>

>

> > The noise from the antennas is in the range of 800 to 2500 MHz.

> That is good to know.

>

>

> > Can I

> > infer from this fact that the *transmitted* signal which this antennas

> are *

> > receiving* is the same frequency, and perhaps the antennas just act as

> high

> > powered amplifiers with only a local effect?

> >

> No, not the exact same frequency, but I would say they Respond on the

> same frequency band, at a uplink frequency, whereas the signal from the

> South is a downlink frequency, usually only 10 or 20 Mhz apart.

>

> The antennas should not amplify the incoming signal anywhere but onto

> that blue cable.

>

>

> > Or do such internet services transmit at frequencies other than which I

> > would pick up from the antennas at close range?

> >

> >

> If the meter is good enough, I would say not for the ground based antennas.

> There are of course back-haul frequencies up in the multi Gigahertz

> range, tower to tower, and satellite to ground to satellite to think about.

>

>

> > When I walk around the property with my *really* sensitive RF meter that

> > goes down to 27 MHz, I do get a number on the display, but there is no

> > noise, only the sound of static. This meter is so sensitive that I

> haven't

> > seen anywhere that it doesn't pick something up the other ones register

> as

> > " zero " .

> >

> Bathed in EMR everywhere nowadays.

>

>

> > When I do a search on Industry Canada's Spectrum Management site (which

> > lists all transmitters and their frequencies within a set distance from

> any

> > defined location), I unfortunately see that there are some transmitters

> in

> > the nearby city that are owned by telecoms like Bell, and Telus

> that

> > are listed as being *above* 6000 MHz (which is the upper limit of what my

> > meters can measure).

> >

> Those would be the point-to-point microwave back-haul mentioned above.

> Oh, don't forget everybody's backyard satellite dish are not in the

> database.

>

>

> > I don't know if *these *are reaching the property, or if only the

> > frequencies I'm picking up between 800 MHz and 2.5 GHz at the antennas

> are

> > reaching the property and are so weak that they're amplified by the

> antennas

> > and nowhere else.

> >

> Maybe they really are transmitting.

>

>

> > I you could all help out I'd really appreciate it.

> >

> >

>

>

> http://seahorseCorral.org/ehs1.html

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Article One wrote:

> Thanks for responding!

>

Sorry I was a bit late, as I didn't feel like going online.

> transmitting the signal at 3.5 GHz.

I have seen transmissions at that frequency on the Spectran.

> they call it a " modem "

I agree.

> it works in a line-of-sight, straight-line fashion.

>

Yes, but they are not concerned with any spill-over.

It is not a laser beam.

> with the ultra broadband isotropic antenna it goes down to 27 MHz

>

Ah, ok, nice.

> that goes that high (plus I'd probably scare the pants off myself).

>

Gotta wonder.

> Fortunately, there don't seem to be any normal towers visible to the naked

> eye in the area of this property, save for the one which appears to have no

> antennas, and another one *waaaay* off in the distance somewhere.

>

>

That is good, or at least better than other places.

> Another question, if you don't mind responding to it: The property owner

> seemed (I hope he still is) amenable to me creating a partial metal shield

> to mount around the outdoor modem which receives the signal which would have

> an opening for the modem's business-end to receive the signal, but could

> prevent all that RF from spilling out the sides.

>

>

Sounds like an idea. I would need to see a picture of what you've got

before really commenting.

Is this up in the air, or on the side of a building?

[Guest guest]

Overhere,

at 3.5 GHz is Wimax.

In the Netherlands, the ministry of defense prohibited the use of Wimax in the

upper half of the country, because they have a military radiostation (in a chain

in Europa), that may be have interferences.

That people may experience troubles is of no concern!.

If you use the Spectran HF together with the free LCS software, you can see if

it is the lower of upperband.

(Bandwith 3,5 or 7 MHz)

Greetings,

Claessens

member Verband Baubiologie

www.milieuziektes.nl

www.milieuziektes.be

www.hetbitje.nl

checked by Norton

Re: Help needed re: Outdoor (WiMax? WiFi?) Internet

Article One wrote:

> Thanks for responding!

>

Sorry I was a bit late, as I didn't feel like going online.

> transmitting the signal at 3.5 GHz.

I have seen transmissions at that frequency on the Spectran.

> they call it a " modem "

I agree.

> it works in a line-of-sight, straight-line fashion.

>

Yes, but they are not concerned with any spill-over.

It is not a laser beam.

> with the ultra broadband isotropic antenna it goes down to 27 MHz

>

Ah, ok, nice.

> that goes that high (plus I'd probably scare the pants off myself).

>

Gotta wonder.

> Fortunately, there don't seem to be any normal towers visible to the naked

> eye in the area of this property, save for the one which appears to have no

> antennas, and another one *waaaay* off in the distance somewhere.

>

>

That is good, or at least better than other places.

> Another question, if you don't mind responding to it: The property owner

> seemed (I hope he still is) amenable to me creating a partial metal shield

> to mount around the outdoor modem which receives the signal which would have

> an opening for the modem's business-end to receive the signal, but could

> prevent all that RF from spilling out the sides.

>

>

Sounds like an idea. I would need to see a picture of what you've got

before really commenting.

Is this up in the air, or on the side of a building?

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

True, I know they don't likely think about/care about spillover, but if it

truly is broadcasting at 3.5 GHz and I don't measure that signal where I am,

then I suspect that it is fairly line-of-sight, which would be a good thing.

(Too bad it's *not* a laser beam!) Still doesn't explain to me why the

modem itself seems to emit between 800 and 2500 MHz, but maybe it does that

to connect to the higher frequency, or something.

I don't have a picture of the proposed shield, but it would, according to my

dad, be like this:

- Picture a piece of metal duct pipe (with a wide opening, like this:

http://www.indoorcomfortsupply.com/PDGImages/Snap_Lock_Pipe.jpg)

- Picture this pipe cut in half, so it's like a half-tube, and the cut

edges being somewhat spread apart.

- This half-tube would encircle the outdoor modem (which is a vertically

oriented rectangular antenna) from behind, shielding the rear and the sides,

which presumably are not used for receiving the generally line-of-sight

transmission, thus allowing the front, business-side of the modem to still

pick up the signal, while blocking spillover RF generated by the modem from

spreading out over the nearby parts of the property.

That's the plan.

This outdoor modem is mounted high up near the roof-line of a building, on

the wall; I'd guess it's at least 12 feet off of the ground.

Thanks again!

Take care,

R.

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:08 AM, S son <sandreas41@...> wrote:

> **

>

>

> Article One wrote:

> > Thanks for responding!

> >

> Sorry I was a bit late, as I didn't feel like going online.

>

>

> > transmitting the signal at 3.5 GHz.

>

> I have seen transmissions at that frequency on the Spectran.

>

>

> > they call it a " modem "

>

> I agree.

>

>

> > it works in a line-of-sight, straight-line fashion.

> >

> Yes, but they are not concerned with any spill-over.

> It is not a laser beam.

>

>

> > with the ultra broadband isotropic antenna it goes down to 27 MHz

> >

> Ah, ok, nice.

>

>

> > that goes that high (plus I'd probably scare the pants off myself).

> >

>

> Gotta wonder.

>

>

> > Fortunately, there don't seem to be any normal towers visible to the

> naked

> > eye in the area of this property, save for the one which appears to have

> no

> > antennas, and another one *waaaay* off in the distance somewhere.

> >

> >

> That is good, or at least better than other places.

>

>

> > Another question, if you don't mind responding to it: The property owner

> > seemed (I hope he still is) amenable to me creating a partial metal

> shield

> > to mount around the outdoor modem which receives the signal which would

> have

> > an opening for the modem's business-end to receive the signal, but could

> > prevent all that RF from spilling out the sides.

> >

> >

> Sounds like an idea. I would need to see a picture of what you've got

> before really commenting.

>

> Is this up in the air, or on the side of a building?

>

>

>

>

>