In the Seattle/Vancouver area, five miles is nuts in 80 GHz, the most we do is about 4.0 to 5.0 km with +19 Tx power, 1000 MHz FDD channels, QPSK, and 60cm dishes. That's with a parallel 5 GHz path for OSPF failover.
I could see five miles in maybe... Saudi Arabia? Timbuktu, Mali? Somewhere that would be categorized as ITU rain zone A. On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Rory Conaway via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > If you can align a Bridgewave at 5 miles, you can align anything. That’s > not even a science, it’s a combination of luck, careful breathing, the > patience of Jobe, extensive use of Valium and alcohol, and throat lozenges > for the hours of communication it will take. > > > > Rory > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Eric Kuhnke via Af > *Sent:* Thursday, December 11, 2014 10:51 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] RM5AC-PMP Embargo lifted.. > > > > I guess what I meant is that the odds of success are much greater if the > alignment is done by personnel who are accustomed to aiming $20,000 > Bridgewave, Exalt and similar radios with voltmeters. > > > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Ben Moore via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > > While there is some truth to this, any way you look at it...it is tough to > align/ensure good performance. From a support perspective it would be very > tough... > > > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Eric Kuhnke via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > > I know Ben as an "official" ubnt person is too diplomatic to say this, but > the problem with alignment, separation and other site engineering problems > is because anyone with a credit card can buy a ubiquiti link... The super > user friendly documentation and GUI on the http interface make it easy for > people who barely know any networking tech or RF to attempting setting up a > PTP link. > > If you sold a connectorized AF5 and treated it like a part 101 product, > for sales only to real companies through a different channel, it would be > easier to guarantee success. > > > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Ben Moore via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > > We have looked at this, but alignment would be a real issue (and ensuring > proper separation, etc...)...We are still kicking around some different > options. Though we are getting a lot of good feedback already on long > links with AF5. > > > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Eric Kuhnke via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would like a pro grade AF5 connectorized, for use with a pair of the 3' > Jirous high performance antennas. Each link would need 4 dishes but you'd > be able to go a lot further than the current af5 antenna size. > > On Dec 10, 2014 10:05 PM, "Mathew Howard via Af" <[email protected]> wrote: > > PtMP based on the airfiber in 3.65ghz would seem like a good fit, with the > new rules that are (hopefully) coming... > > licensed also seems like an obvious place to go with airfiber. > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Af [[email protected]] on behalf of Josh Reynolds via Af [ > [email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:42 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] RM5AC-PMP Embargo lifted.. > > I'd be incredibly surprised if they didn't do a ptmp. > > Not sure a revamped 24GHz is in consideration when there's so many other > bands they could release equipment for. > > Maybe licensed? Hrmmmm... > > One can hope, right? > > josh reynolds :: chief information officer > > spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.com > > On 12/10/2014 08:19 PM, Colin Stanners via Af wrote: > > I'm sure they'll do a 24ghz AF 2/Duo/Super/Ultra with 1024QAM. In the > 100mhz channels both ways that'll allow around 1280mbit FD - so a 2.5gbit > backhaul... I'm assuming 3.65 will come as well. > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I'd guess there's going to be... a least 3 AirFiber products released in > the next 12-18 months. > > If not sooner. > > Now... what would those be? > > Hrmmmmmmmmm..... > > > josh reynolds :: chief information officer > > spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.com > > On 12/10/2014 08:07 PM, Rory Conaway via Af wrote: > > I don’t know what you are talking about. > > > > Rory > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Josh Reynolds via Af > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:05 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] RM5AC-PMP Embargo lifted.. > > > > I'm sure that AirFiber team (which they seem to keep expanding) is > silently sitting in their own little corner in Chicago doing nothing. > > :P > > josh reynolds :: chief information officer > > spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.com > > On 12/10/2014 07:48 PM, Rory Conaway via Af wrote: > > I think the ePMP is going to run into the same problem all the 802.11ac > vendors are seeing with the new OOBE rules. The 450 is able to provide a > better performance within the new environment so there will still be a > differentiator. The only question if it’s worth the difference. > > > > Rory > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Stefan Englhardt via Af > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:45 PM > *To:* Josh Luthman via Af > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] RM5AC-PMP Embargo lifted.. > > > > .AC is an upgrade to .N. Cambium has the choice to use it or not. Others > do. epmp competes with 450 right now but helps to keep customers and > applications where 450 does not meet the price point. > > > > *Von:* Josh Luthman via Af <[email protected]> > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 11. Dezember 2014 04:00 > *An:* Josh Luthman via Af <[email protected]> > > > > An .AC ePMP would be incredible - but the issue is whether Cambium would be > fearful of it competing too much with the 450. What does a company do when > it has 2 products that are too good, and the cheaper one starts to outshine > the more expensive one in the most often used benchmark? (mbps - even .AC > ePMP is unlikely to beat 450 in scalability / latency / etc). > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Stefan Englhardt via Af <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > The answer is to release an epmp1000-ac. > > > > > > *Von:* Josh Luthman via Af <[email protected]> > > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 11. Dezember 2014 01:39 > > *An:* Josh Luthman via Af <[email protected]> > > > > I hope Cambium is listing on this point. > > > > Get rid of speed license and make it as unlimited radios at 10 meg price > > point. > > > > They are about to have more competition from lot of other vendors too. > > > > Tushar > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Af [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] On Behalf > Of Peter Kranz via Af > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 3:10 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] RM5AC-PMP Embargo lifted.. > > > > > Yes no maybe. > > > > I think this is good news actually, as it is sure to light the > competitive > > fire under Cambium to get to feature parity and get rid of speed > licenses. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
