Wireless data links for telemetry, south-eastern US?

[Joerg]

Hello Folks,

A future application would require the transmission of small amounts of
data from deployed units to several bases (civilian stuff), service
locations, and such. Very little data, maybe 1kB/day. Bi-directional
would be nice but not (yet) required. The challenge is that much of this
will be located in the boonies, mostly south-eastern US. Also Caribbean
and other countries but that might be a whole 'nother matter. Units will
be mounted outdoors, mains power is available. If we use cell networks
the units would not necessarily all need their own cell number if it's
possible to shave off some cost that way.

Since I don't live there, what is the network with the best coverage?
Anything else besides cell networks? Reaching even some remote areas
would be nice. Cost per month is paramount. Latencies are not so
important, if a message gets delayed by 15mins that's ok.

 

[Joerg]

What distance between the deployed unit and the base? I wonder if there
are any unlicensed bands that you could use (49MHz springs to mind, but
I'll bet that it's not for unattended data).

That can be hundreds of miles.

Of course, just using a cell phone is a heck of a lot easier...

Yeah, we will need some sort of established network and there should be
reasonably priced RF to RS232 thingamagics available. <$50 a pop in
hundreds. So far I had good results with Sprint but I haven't been to
the south-east that much

 

[Joerg]

Only sat phones work nearly everywhere.

That is certainly an option but I've heart that is prohibitively
expensive. Also, it must work with a rubber-ducky or similar antenna,
nothing that requires alignment (the units can get shoved around a bit).

 

[Joerg]

OMG a real SED post...

Let's see how long it takes for this thread to go into politics

 

[Nico Coesel]

Hello Folks,

A future application would require the transmission of small amounts of
data from deployed units to several bases (civilian stuff), service
locations, and such. Very little data, maybe 1kB/day. Bi-directional
would be nice but not (yet) required. The challenge is that much of this
will be located in the boonies, mostly south-eastern US. Also Caribbean
and other countries but that might be a whole 'nother matter. Units will
be mounted outdoors, mains power is available. If we use cell networks
the units would not necessarily all need their own cell number if it's
possible to shave off some cost that way.

Since I don't live there, what is the network with the best coverage?
Anything else besides cell networks? Reaching even some remote areas
would be nice. Cost per month is paramount. Latencies are not so
important, if a message gets delayed by 15mins that's ok.

Some operators offer data only service at a reduced price especially
for such applications. You might want to look into that (call their
busines sales department).

 

[Joerg]

Some operators offer data only service at a reduced price especially
for such applications. You might want to look into that (call their
busines sales department).

We will. Alarm companies use that service. However, there are a lot of
carriers. Often they promise you a rose garden when it comes to coverage
and the online maps are rather coarse. So I was hoping there'd be
someone who was involved in something like this in the south-eastern
part of the country. I live in the western part and out here I'd
probably approach Sprint or one of their resellers because my cell is on
their network and coverage is great.

 

[Martin Riddle]

Hello Folks,

A future application would require the transmission of small amounts
of data from deployed units to several bases (civilian stuff), service
locations, and such. Very little data, maybe 1kB/day. Bi-directional
would be nice but not (yet) required. The challenge is that much of
this will be located in the boonies, mostly south-eastern US. Also
Caribbean and other countries but that might be a whole 'nother
matter. Units will be mounted outdoors, mains power is available. If
we use cell networks the units would not necessarily all need their
own cell number if it's possible to shave off some cost that way.

Since I don't live there, what is the network with the best coverage?
Anything else besides cell networks? Reaching even some remote areas
would be nice. Cost per month is paramount. Latencies are not so
important, if a message gets delayed by 15mins that's ok.

--

Sat phone for remote stuff. Regular cell for urban. AT&T is the best
bet. (Cingular Network)
You'd need a nation wide plan, or set the phone up in the area you plan
to place it to avoid roaming charges.

Cheers

Cheers

 

[Joerg]

Sat phone for remote stuff. ...

But doesn't that require a directional antenna? That wouldn't be
feasible in this scenario. Probably very expensive as well. Most of it
is just broadband like this:

http://business.hughesnet.com/


Regular cell for urban. AT&T is the best

bet. (Cingular Network)

Thanks. So AT&T is the best bet down there? In this area that's not so
hot after they went GSM. A neighbor had to put a yagi antenna onto a
plastic pole so his cell phone wouldn't quit in the house. Now he has a
tethered cell phone ... until the plan runs out.

You'd need a nation wide plan, or set the phone up in the area you plan
to place it to avoid roaming charges.

Roaming charges are unacceptable and could be negotiated away. After
all, I don't pay any on my own cell. It's always 18c/minute no matter
what or where.

 

[Martin Riddle]

But doesn't that require a directional antenna? That wouldn't be
feasible in this scenario. Probably very expensive as well. Most of it
is just broadband like this:

http://business.hughesnet.com/


Regular cell for urban. AT&T is the best


Thanks. So AT&T is the best bet down there? In this area that's not so
hot after they went GSM. A neighbor had to put a yagi antenna onto a
plastic pole so his cell phone wouldn't quit in the house. Now he has
a tethered cell phone ... until the plan runs out.



Roaming charges are unacceptable and could be negotiated away. After
all, I don't pay any on my own cell. It's always 18c/minute no matter
what or where.

--

I was thinking of something such as this...
<http://www.globalcomsatphone.com/>

 

[Joerg]

I was thinking of something such as this...
<http://www.globalcomsatphone.com/>

88c/minute, 99c/minute, yikes. I don't think my client would like that

Unless they have a lower cost data option. Thanks for the hint, I'll
certainly give them a ring. The other question will be the cost of a
radio modem but I'll find that out as well. Operationally it would
certainly be a very smooth option because it can work overseas. The
GlobalStar satellites could be interesting.

 

[Joerg]

I have all (well, most of) the cell site & cell tower locations and
spectrum/technical data in the southeast US.
Most of data is proprietary, so it cannot be shared.

I understand. Just wish they'd have more meaningful and detailed
coverage maps with signal level lines and such.

However, I can tell you Verizon and AT&T would likely be your best
bets overall (as far as raw number of sites, coverage and network
capacity), but I'm not sure what kinds of data / telemetry plans each
offers.

Thanks. I believe Verizon uses CDMA and AT&T uses GSM so modem costs
would go up if we must use both. My preference would be CDMA networks if
there's a choice.

The devices would be uniquely identified on their respective networks
(federal law), but they may be willing to bundle a plan depending on
revenue, etc..
I know AT&T does have (or used to have) a division that dealt
exclusively with machine-to-machine telemetry using the cellular
network, but that was back in the days of CDPD, which has since gone
the way of analog...
.
I wouldn't waste my time with customer service. You'll need to find
someone higher up in the food chain.
I'll try to get you the right contact at AT&T.

Yes, we will try that.

That said, depending on your intended purpose, I'm wondering if you
may find the FCC has spectrum allocated for your needs?
It may indeed be cheaper to use a public network (like cellular/PCS),
but without knowing the application & budget, it's hard to say.

We can't really have out own receivers and antenna towers. Otherwise it
would indeed be cheaper and in some areas more reliable.

Satellite is expensive -- moreso than cellular / PCS, but it does have
better coverage. And (as previously mentioned), usually requires
antenna alignment.

Yesterday I have written to Globalcom, the company Martin suggested. No
response yet which is a wee bit disconcerting, but we'll see.

As for costs, there the initial upfront (for the hardware /
terminals), and the ongoing monthly expense for airtime billing, etc..
Plus, you'll have to consider power (solar?) for those sites in the
"boonies".
I mention this only because (by experience) you can't always rely on
carribean mains power...

Oh, we've got our experience there, too

I assume you have also considered Hurricane impacts to those public
networks.
After most storms, large chunks of the cellular / PCS networks go
offline.
Usually, these are related to widespread power outages (after gensets
run out of fuel and batteries fail).
But usually 90% or better restored within a few days (Katrina, Ivan,
Andrew, Wilma & Charley being notable exceptions)
Expect worse performance from Batelco / other carribean carriers.

That would be ok. Mostly it doesn't matter if the data is transmitted
during or after the storm. Even in the clean-up phase the equipment
won't likely be used anyhow, people have other things to worry about then.

Also, in the Bahamas, last I heard the best you could expect was EDGE
technology on the larger islands.
The smaller islands. GSM - maybe, but likely little if any reliable
coverage.
And a lot of those GSM systems were voice only. No data.
Of course, you won't have that problem stateside.

Voice only could be done as well, using plain old audio modem
technology. Even 1200bd over a crackly link would be plenty fast here.

 

[krw]

I understand. Just wish they'd have more meaningful and detailed
coverage maps with signal level lines and such.




Thanks. I believe Verizon uses CDMA and AT&T uses GSM so modem costs
would go up if we must use both. My preference would be CDMA networks if
there's a choice.

At least in this part of the SE, Verizon is the only game outside of
town. They all work in the cities but go outside a few miles and
nothing.

 

[Joerg]

At least in this part of the SE, Verizon is the only game outside of
town. They all work in the cities but go outside a few miles and
nothing.

That would be a serious problem for us. Got to avoid situations where
the installer realizes "Oh s..t, it doesn't work out here".

So you think Verizon might be the better deal? The nice thing is that
(IIRC) it would then be CDMA.

 

[krw]

That would be a serious problem for us. Got to avoid situations where
the installer realizes "Oh s..t, it doesn't work out here".

So you think Verizon might be the better deal? The nice thing is that
(IIRC) it would then be CDMA.

Better than nothing? I use Verizon, mostly because of the deal my
PPoE had with them. My contract is up but the phones, amazingly,
still work. I see no need to give them a chance to review my contract
terms so I'll hang with the old contract for a while.

 

[Paul Keinanen]

Also, in the Bahamas, last I heard the best you could expect was EDGE
technology on the larger islands.
The smaller islands. GSM - maybe, but likely little if any reliable
coverage.
And a lot of those GSM systems were voice only. No data.
Of course, you won't have that problem stateside.

The data transfer requirement (1 kB/day) is so low, that the SMS text
messages on GSM could be considered.

Paul

 

[Joerg]

The newer seismic sensors I run into in the boonies are using Wild
Blue internet. About $50 a month, but not a rubber ducky service.

The phone companies in the past have been notoriously nasty (more than
they usually are) for data services. San Jose had set up their
sprinklers using a cellular service. The service changed, wasn't
compatible, and the phone company said "Hey, sorry about that."

If you could get the data rate down, pagers would be a path to
investigate. There is an amazing amount of digital crap on pagers
these days, especially two way paging. Alarms of all sorts. Stuff I
probably shouldn't mention but critical to the infrastructure.

Thanks, pagers are certainly an idea. Although we'd have to send while
most pagers only receive. So it would need to be a bi-directional pager
service.

There is a GSM company that exists strictly for roaming. [Commnet.]
I've been in some real remote areas and found their towers.
http://www.commnetwireless.com/
Not everyone knows about these towers since their provider may not
have roaming agreements with them. There are tricks to sniff out these
towers, but they are cell phone dependent.

Their coverage maps for both CDMA and GSM look quite paltry though:

http://www.commnetwireless.com/coverageGeneral/CDMALarge.htm
http://www.commnetwireless.com/coverageGeneral/GSMLarge.htm

Nothing to write home about in the south-east at all.

 

[Joerg]

The data transfer requirement (1 kB/day) is so low, that the SMS text
messages on GSM could be considered.

Definitely. The issue is coverage though.

 

[Joerg]

[email protected] wrote: [snip]

If you could get the data rate down, pagers would be a path to
investigate. There is an amazing amount of digital crap on pagers
these days, especially two way paging. Alarms of all sorts. Stuff I
probably shouldn't mention but critical to the infrastructure.

Thanks, pagers are certainly an idea. Although we'd have to send while
most pagers only receive. So it would need to be a bi-directional pager
service.

Before there were cell phones I had a Motorola PageWriter which was
bi-directional. I don't know if anyone still offers such a service.
I'll ask my son... he was heavily involved in that industry at one
point in time.

Yes, that would be great. If still in existence maybe he has a gut
feeling about the longevity of such service, from a business POV.

We can't be the only ones needing such service.

 

[Joerg]

[email protected] wrote: [snip]
If you could get the data rate down, pagers would be a path to
investigate. There is an amazing amount of digital crap on pagers
these days, especially two way paging. Alarms of all sorts. Stuff I
probably shouldn't mention but critical to the infrastructure.

Thanks, pagers are certainly an idea. Although we'd have to send while
most pagers only receive. So it would need to be a bi-directional pager
service.

Before there were cell phones I had a Motorola PageWriter which was
bi-directional. I don't know if anyone still offers such a service.
I'll ask my son... he was heavily involved in that industry at one
point in time.

[snip]

Aaron: "Possibly, but phone messaging has taken over. Why would you
need it? ... There were two way devices that were used to send data
from devices such as vending machines. I am sure something is (still)
out there that can do it."

Thanks for asking Aaron, Jim. We need it because the stuff is installed
outdoors and requires regular refills, service upon certain incidences,
and all this isn't predictable because it depends on (widely varying)
usage intervals.

Vending machines often use a link into the custodian's phone, meaning
you must install a little doohickey there and plug it in. Ideally we
want to avoid the need for the setup techs to have to enter a building.
Nobody there despite having said so, keys not available, big Rottweiler
inside, the usual reasons. Also, the more stuff has to be installed the
higher the chance of people in that building screwing it up, for example
"I just plugged in my vacuum and then forgot ..." or "We went to
cordless phones so I threw away all this old stuff .. oh wait ... s..t!"

 

[Rich Grise]

[email protected] wrote: [snip]
If you could get the data rate down, pagers would be a path to
investigate. There is an amazing amount of digital crap on pagers
these days, especially two way paging. Alarms of all sorts. Stuff I
probably shouldn't mention but critical to the infrastructure.

Thanks, pagers are certainly an idea. Although we'd have to send while
most pagers only receive. So it would need to be a bi-directional pager
service.

Before there were cell phones I had a Motorola PageWriter which was
bi-directional. I don't know if anyone still offers such a service.
I'll ask my son... he was heavily involved in that industry at one point
in time.

Yes, that would be great. If still in existence maybe he has a gut feeling
about the longevity of such service, from a business POV.

We can't be the only ones needing such service.

Have you looked into frequency bands that would cover the territory by
means of enough power, but need an FCC license? How hard is it to get an
FCC license for one of the service bands?

Good Luck!
Rich