I think SkyPilot argued that the CPE was a point to point and used the
higher Tx power only in the upload direction. I think that held up to
scrutiny, but not sure how helpful that was. It probably didn't hurt.
On 10/14/2020 1:55 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
On Oct 14, 2020, at 1:38 PM, Brian Webster <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I think it made it to 5 GHz too because SkyPilot had radios that ran
under PTP rules.
Yes and no…. this is an active petition from Radwin before the FCC
to allow higher power using beamforming antennas in U-NII-1 and U-NII-3:
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10618241749047/Radwin%20Petition%20for%20Rulemaking.pdf
<https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10618241749047/Radwin Petition for
Rulemaking.pdf>
"RADWIN seeks modification of Section 15.407 of the rules to allow
devices that emit multiple directional beams sequentially in the
U-NII-1 and U-NII-3 bands to operate at power limits that are allowed
for point-to-point systems in those bands."
WISPA, the WISPA Policy Committee, as well as Cambium have supported
this proposal but it has not see action from the FCC.
Details of the fine points are in above reference PDF including a
discussion of the current rules.
Mark
Thank you,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com <http://www.wirelessmapping.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: AF [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeremy Grip
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:33 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?
Well, it is more like a PtP to the client.
Anybody ever had hands on a GO AP?
-----Original Message-----
From: AF <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:22 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?
The infamous "Vivato Rule".
http://www.vivato.com/pdfs/Vivato_Technical_White_Paper.pdf
Some would say the FCC was asleep at the wheel when they allowed
this. It is apparently for 2.4 GHz only.
-----Original Message-----
From: AF <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:45 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?
There's a couple of things to break down here. One is that there are
2 major kinds of beamforming - analog and digital. The ones you
mention (and I'll add Go Networks to the list) were using analog
beamforming. These are antenna arrays that can be phased together to
make a stronger beam and is steerable. The chip-based beamforming in
the WiFi standard is a bit different and you don't get this sort of
powerful beam out of it. That kind of digital beamforming is more
useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would be useful in an indoor
wifi environment.
I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the
impression it is more of an array of fixed sectors that have
physically different coverage areas that are connected to different
radio chains. So that is yet another sort of variation.
One thing that made the analog beamforming systems achieve better
coverage was that the FCC allowed (maybe they still do?) higher EIRP
from this specific type of system. So it had physically more power
and punch to it.
I am personally not aware of any companies actively developing analog
beamforming systems like those older ones. It gets significantly
more difficult for those designs to support the sort of advanced macs
that came after 11n - 11ax supports MU-MIMO and OFDMA for example
which would be challenging to support with an analog beamformer.
On 10/13/20, 3:42 PM, "AF on behalf of Jeremy Grip"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
A few years ago, when the electrical utility trashed the 900
spectrum with “smart” meters, I did a forklift upgrade of a bunch of
900 PtMP with some old Wavion beamforming sectors talking to ubnt
clients in 2.4. I was surprised that I got just about the same
coverage that I had with 900 (Trango) and of course better
throughput. Those original Wavions were b/g; I’ve since found a
couple of .11n versions from the brief last gasp of Alvarion (R.I.P.)
that did even better. Anybody know if anybody’s currently producing a
beamforming 2.4 sector that will talk to standards compliant 11n radios?
I’m assuming that the beamforming saved this location—one tower
plus a couple of other little nodes in a little spread out village in
the middle of a dense National Forest of mixed tall evergreens and
hardwood. I just don’t see how 2.4 could match the old 900
penetration otherwise, but maybe somebody can enlighten me. It
wouldn’t be worth it to try and change out all the clients--more than
a few are 50’+ up in trees. If there was an ePMP medusa in 2.4 and
that sex-change from ubnt to ePMP worked it would be worth a try, but
as far as I know Cambium's just doing medusa in 5GHz.
With my other hand I'm working to see FTTH across the region and
it looks like it'll probably happen within the next five or six
years, so any serious wireless investment here doesn't make any sense.
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cdc78411902c54763564b08d86fb8903d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637382185761458359%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=zbo9OIz4lCXUY9IyN4i8oxI14HEuhvlHVUrlhsJ2W7Y%3D&reserved=0
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
