So maybe Mediacom will buy me out? -----Original Message----- From: AF <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 7:39 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?
It’s sometimes hard to tell the cable companies from the WISP’s these days. There have been a number of big acquisitions of larger WISPs by cable companies - and so far the cable companies are not changing the names of the WISPs they purchase. Mark > On Oct 15, 2020, at 8:30 AM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: > > The fiber gods are slower than I expected, at least the last mile fiber gods. > Meanwhile, cable companies won a bunch of PALs in our semi-rural area, I > expect everywhere. What's that all about? > > -----Original Message----- > From: AF <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Dave > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 7:07 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? > > It doesnt matter about any of it because the fiber gods will soon take over. > > waiting on the light beams from space > > On 10/14/2020 1:34 PM, Bill Prince wrote: >> or it's OK to shoot 10,000 long guns in random directions. >> >> bp >> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >> >> On 10/14/2020 10:57 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >>> This rule seems based on the idea that radio interference doesn't >>> matter if it's not 100% of the time. Like I can shoot you with a >>> rifle as long as sometimes I point it at other people. I feel like >>> the FCC doesn't understand that broadband isn't a hobby or best >>> effort service, people expect it to work reliably not intermittently. >>> >>> I get the same feeling about other decisions. Like their love of >>> shared spectrum. Or allowing FHSS to hop all over the band randomly >>> clobbering other users but using high power spectral density, on the >>> assumption that it's equivalent to the lower psd that you would >>> calculate by spreading the same power over a much wider piece of >>> spectrum. Again, I'm allowed to shoot at you with a long gun, and >>> you shouldn't mind because most of the time I'm shooting at other >>> people, so you're only dead part of the time. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: AF <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Brian Webster >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 12:38 PM >>> To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? >>> >>> I think it made it to 5 GHz too because SkyPilot had radios that ran >>> under PTP rules. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Brian Webster >>> 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. >>> a >>> fmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=04%7C01%7C% >>> 7 >>> Cdc78411902c54763564b08d86fb8903d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa >>> % >>> 7C1%7C0%7C637382185761458359%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjA >>> w >>> MDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata= >>> z >>> bo9OIz4lCXUY9IyN4i8oxI14HEuhvlHVUrlhsJ2W7Y%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
