Charter cable got alot of the 3.65ghz licenses in my area. If I was betting I would say that it is not for internet service it is for there mobile phone service. Right now they are an MVNO and I bet they could save a ton of money doing there own cell service in there footprint.
On Thu, 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%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAw > >> 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 > -- Zach Underwood (RHCE,RHCSA,RHCT,UACA) My website <http://zachunderwood.me> advance-networking.com
-- AF mailing list [email protected] http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
