Some of us in the Northern Virginia area have pretty much resigned ourselves to the fact that there is just too much Part 15 usage of Channel 1 to be able to stand up a viable Ham Mesh.  So some have been looking at the possibility of moving down the band to the 2397-2407 range, so-called Channels 0, -1, -2.  Apparently there is a way of doing this using DD-WRT, but we were wondering if this idea has been looked at/tested for BBHN mesh?  Our issues about moving up in freq to 3.4 or 5 GHz are related to too many trees, too much terrain and too much distance between stations, so right now moving down in the 2.4 band seems a viable option?  Thoughts?  Comments?

Often discussed:

Google: "channel 0 site:www.broadband-hamnet.org" (w/on the quotes)

Most recent talk: http://www.broadband-hamnet.org/hsmm-mesh-forums/view-postlist/forum-1-general/topic-1113-default-channel-1-why-not-use-channel-0-or-channel-1.html

Given your tree and hill situation have you considered 900 MHz?

The 3.0.0 Beta will load on Ubiquiti NanoStation LocoM900 and NanoBridge M9.  These devices are in the early phases of testing and are definitely not fully supported at this time.  A warning banner will come up on the web interface indicating that they are not fully supported.

Version 3.0.0 added a feature to set a 5 MHz, 10Mhz or 20MHz channel width to the setup screen.  Since the entire 900 ham band is only 25 MHz, I recommend using a 5 MHz channel width.  The 900 Mhz channels should be in the channel pull down.

The 3.0.0 Beta is on the BBHN website under downloads, Linksys or Ubiquiti, experimental downloads.  For the NSL M900 or the NBM9 use the Bullet Factory .bin file the same as you would for a NanoStaton Loco M2.

A few more people trying out the 900 MHz gear could really help in getting it fully supported.

You can connect a M9 or a M5 to a M2 by using device –to-device linking.  Basically just connect the Lan Ports together or you can use a switch that supports VLANS to also add a WAN port and additional Lan ports to the UBNT nodes. This way M2, M5 and M9 devices can all exist on the same mesh.

I have M2, M5 and M9 devices on my network running 3.0.0 today and they are working well.

Clint, AE5CA

Already answered by:

I have been using non-standard channels for some time.  It makes a big difference when you don't have to compete with your neighbor, the guy outside on his Iphone, etc.

You mention access to DD-WRT code, when I think you mean their firmware.  There is a big difference.  I wish we had access to the code to see how they implement the extended channels.

If you have access or the defunct Ubiquiti SDK, I'd appreciate an email.

As noted please read  the following to understand what it would take: http://www.broadband-hamnet.org/hsmm-mesh-forums/view-postlist/forum-1-general/topic-1113-default-channel-1-why-not-use-channel-0-or-channel-1.html

I'm not sure what other additional information I can give you on the subject for where development stands on the subject.  As noted if someone provides a working patch we can look at adding it in sooner but from a core dev standpoint we are currently focusing on making the hardware work within bands and adding additional hardware (900mhz looks like it is coming up next  depending on beta results)

For those who don't know DD-WRT uses a closed source driver we can not get and even if we did get we can not use. In addition we have no clue if they are actually working with calibration data or just forcing it if they do allow lower frequencies. If they are not making cal data some how than the devices may work close but not at distance.