During our long-haul test, the Spectra managed full bandwidth in one direction, but only half bandwidth on the return trip.
With some tweaking to the configuration, however, we easily solved that. The only limitation we found with this feature is
that you need to give the waveform a chance to fully form, so don’t try to bend around buildings too close to you.
Our wish list for Orthogon’s products is only two items long. First, the company needs to change its aiming system. These
products shared a truly obnoxious aiming system that indicated signal strength by the pitch of the tone transmitted through
a set of earphones worn by the hapless technician. The more grating the sound (like a missing-keyboard-error beep extended
and then run through a shredder), the better the overall signal.
Second, we’d love to see a lower price. These products took the longest to configure, had the highest overall latency (though
still at acceptable levels even for VoIP applications), and they had the highest price.
These wishes aside, Orthogon shows that RF is still very much in the game. Optical may have the edge in speed, but Orthogon
keeps RF alive in speed tests and takes RF’s angle, range, and reliability options to a whole new level. For tight urban scenarios
or other challenging environments, Orthogon is definitely a solution to consider.
Crossing Bridges
We chose our competitors carefully, making sure to find representatives of all three major wireless-bridging media: RF, microwave
(a close RF relative), and optical. After using all three types in the real world of Honolulu last February, we have a far
more favorable impression of wireless bridging than we did prior to testing.
First, all these products can be configured by even general IT managers, with the RF products definitely the easiest of the
bunch. Second, their prices are well within the realm of mainstream wired infrastructure, and all of them are readily available
— easily competing with the average six-week lead time for installing leased WAN lines.
Third, although we were worried about security, the optical products turned out not to pose as high a security risk as we
had thought: Their beams are so tight, they’re practically impossible to tap. RF doesn’t share this advantage, but both our
RF contenders provide VPN compatibility or optional encryption protocols (typically AES [Advanced Encryption Standard] or
3DES).
Our last worry concerned, quite naturally, the elements. These include the impact of weather on the transmission media, the
hardware, and the mounting brackets. We also had two more esoteric considerations. Double-paned, tinted security glass that
graces many office buildings and the proximity of other wireless infrastructures can raise serious obstacles.
Thankfully, our fears were mostly allayed. All the vendors did significant work to improve their resistance to the elements.
RF is practically weather-immune, but optical is no slouch either. Lasers are affected only by truly huge raindrops or dense
fog, and the proximity of other laser links doesn’t affect them. Unfortunately, other RF transmitters in the same area does
hamper the effectiveness of RF.
Lasers have a much easier time reaching gigabit throughput speeds, and their latency numbers were well below the numbers of
their RF cousins. The only other downside to the optical products is that they’re a little less flexible when it comes to
extreme angles. If your point-to-point connection has both line of sight and a relatively straight shot, optical is for you.
But for urban situations where more extreme angles are required, RF is a more effective choice.
Taking all these considerations into account, we find that wireless bridging has come a long way from its consultant and black-magic
roots. These products proved not only stable and cost-effective, but also surprisingly easy to manage. For situations where
leased lines won’t cut it, wireless bridging is definitely a mainstream alternative.