This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Is there any rationale for what is essentially an advertisement in the external links? 65.75.73.66 ( talk) 01:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Preparing table below before I put it in the article. Cstanners ( talk) 06:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Name (Original) | Introduced | Protocol, Scheduling | Frequency | Bandwidth | Ethernet rate (Air rate) | PPS | Latency | Max distance | PoE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Multipoint | |||||||||
Canopy P7, P8 | 2001 | Canopy FSK, software | 2.4, 5.7Ghz? | 20Mhz | 6mbit (10mbit) | 2000? | 20ms | 32 miles? | Canopy 24v |
Canopy P9 | 2004 | Canopy FSK, SW/[HW] | 2.4, 5.2, 5.4, 5.7 | 20Mhz | 6mbit (10mbit) /[14mbit (20mbit)] | 3000? | 20ms/[5ms] | 64 miles? | Canopy 24v |
Canopy P9 900mhz | 2004 | Canopy FSK, SW/[HW] | 900Mhz | 8Mhz | 2.4mbit (3.3mbit) /[4.4mbit (6.6mbit)] | 3000? | 20ms/[15ms] | 120 miles? | Canopy 24v |
Canopy P10 | 2008 | Canopy FSK, HW | 2.4, 5.2, 5.4, 5.7 | 20Mhz | 14mbit (20mbit) | 6200? | 5ms | 64 miles? | Canopy 24v |
Canopy P10 900Mhz | 2008 | Canopy FSK, HW | 900Mhz | 8Mhz | 4.4mbit (6.6mbit) | 6200? | 15ms | 120 miles? | Canopy 24v |
Canopy 400 OFDM | 2008 | Canopy ODFM, HW | 5.4Ghz | 10Mhz | 21mbit (35mbit) | 6200 | 5ms | 5 miles | Canopy 30v |
Canopy 430 OFDM | 2009? | Canopy ODFM, HW | 5.4Ghz | 20Mhz | 42mbit? (70mbit?) | 6200? | 5ms | 5 miles? | Canopy 30v |
Point-to-Point | |||||||||
PTP100 - P7,P8 | 2001 | Canopy FSK, SW | 2.4, 5.7 | 20Mhz | 6mbit (10mbit) | 2000? | 20ms | 32 miles? | Canopy 24v |
PTP100 - P9 | 2004 | Canopy FSK, SW /[HW] | 2.4, 5.2, 5.4, 5.7 | 20Mhz | 6mbit (10mbit), [14mbit (20mbit)] | 3000? | 2ms | 64 miles? | Canopy 24v |
PTP100 - P10 | 2008 | Canopy FSK, HW | 2.4, 5.2, 5.4, 5.7 | 20Mhz | 14mbit (20mbit) | 6200? | 2ms | 64 miles? | Canopy 24v |
PTP200 | 2008 | Canopy OFDM, HW | 5.4Ghz | 10Mhz | 21mbit (~35mbit) | 6200? | 2ms | 64 miles? | Canopy 30v |
PTP300 | 2008 | Orthogon 15Mhz | 2.5, 4.9, 5.4, 5.8 | 15Mhz | 25Mbit | Full | 5ms | 155 miles | Ortho new |
PTP400 (Gemini) | 2002 | Orthogon 12Mhz | 2.5, 4.9, 5.4, 5.8 | 12Mhz | 21Mbit (lite, 30mbit) / 43Mbit (60mbit) | 60K | 10ms | 125 miles | Ortho old |
PTP500 | 2008 | Orthogon 15Mhz | 2.5, 4.9, 5.4, 5.8 | 15Mhz | 52Mbit (lite) / 105Mbit | Full | 5ms | 155 miles | Ortho new |
PTP600 (Spectra) | 2004 | Orthogon 30Mhz | 2.5, 4.9, 5.4, 5.8 | 30Mhz | 150Mbit (lite) / 300Mbit | Full | 5ms | 125 miles | Ortho new |
We need to get this cleaned up, possibly give a small background on what point-multipoint wireless systems are, and how canopy plays into that.
I added more information; There's still some cleanups to do, esp. differentiate the original Motorola products from the Orthogon ones, as the series have different design, protocols, speeds and uses. Maybe a table would help?
Cstanners 18:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I rolled back the edit by Happypc that added a line about canopy being affected by adverse weather due to it being outdoors. Canopy is designed to operate out of doors and adverse weather does not have any effect on a properly installed Canopy network. Also, I'm not sure how true it is that 5.7 is the most popular band, but that could just be my regional environment. 2.4, 900, and 5.2 tends to be the most popular with 5.7 reserved for point-to-point backhaul links. Again, that could be a choice by the operators in my state and not indicate general reality. Has Motorola released sales figures for Canopy broken down by frequency? Jonathan Auer ( talk) 18:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The first bullet point under Comparison with other wireless networking systems includes a whimsical line referencing gremlins which I am unsure is appropriate. Suggesting a rewording if it would indeed be appropriate but unwilling to do so myself with concern of omitting a possibly (if somewhat unlikely) pertinent technical term.
Comparison with other wireless networking systems[edit]
These products are fixed wireless technology. Canopy protocol products have many advantages over Wi-Fi and other wireless local area network protocols: Transmission timing is explicitly controlled, so that all access points (AP) on all towers can be synchronized by gremlins to prevent interference. APs of the same band can be placed right next to each other, and back-to-back units can use exactly the same frequency. Xiaou ( talk) 10:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Image:Motorola-Canopy-logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 14:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Motorola Canopy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The article states that among the disadvantages is wireless round trip time when compared to wired technologies, but in testing on older canopy gear, ping (round trip times) were as low as 30ms (comparable to most Cable Internet implementations of the time, and even exceeding some poorly setup or maintained DOCSIS Cable systems). Newer Cambium Medusa gear improves this even further. I have no source for this (yet... I am searching), but in my own testing, I have seen the new medusa gear achieve ping times as low as 7ms, which is comparable to many Fiber systems. Yes, Medusa uses multiple frequencies, and wide band channels (80Mhz wide) to improve speeds, and reduce ping, but it is misleading to cite this as a disadvantage when the difference is so nominal that it is not perceivable in real-world use. In addition, as long as there are no obstructions or trees, some WISPS have achieved the same, or even higher reliability levels vs their local wired provider.
While I think it right to list legitimate disadvantages, due to these things, which should be verifiable using third party sources, it is misleading to list some of what is in the article as disadvantages, and seems like something a wired provider would list as a tactic to discourage people from using a WISP. Yes, Wireless systems CAN go down, or experience increased air-delay during *SOME* storms. However, even this is rare with more modern gear from Cambium and others, and when it does happen, it tends to be storms that also cause issues with some wired providers (which, contrary to popular belief are NOT immune to decreased speeds and reliability with severe storms). Cr@$h3d@t@ t@1k t0 m3 03:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Requesting here a name correction / move page from Motorola Canopy to Cambium Networks at wiki/Cambium_Networks -- covering the publicly traded company formerly known as Motorola Canopy (NASDAQ: CMBM). 172.84.212.158 ( talk) 23:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 18:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Motorola Canopy →
Cambium Networks – Name changed in 2014 after spin out from Motorola Company. Current name is Cambium Networks, now publicly traded. e.g. coverage
https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2019/06/26/cambium-networks-raises-70m-in-ipo-but-shares-slip.html
172.84.212.158 (
talk) 23:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Originally, Canopy was part of Broadband over Power line (BPL) which use power lines for backhaul to the system and internet. I came wondering if/how it has evolved and see nothing about the backhaul except a reference to Ethernet. Can someone add something? I worked for Motorola back then, but didn't have and now have nothing to do with any related business. -- Steve -- ( talk) 17:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)