You never know… you might push one of the many manufacturers on here to develop such a product. Million dollar PO’s can push smaller manufacturers to do a lot of things.
Also remember besides profit, we all have limited resources to focus on so many things. SAF was first or second to market on many things… usually it pays off being third to market or something similar. SAF has more R&D projects in the works than we can focus on. With 4x the number of engineers, we would have tons more products… but there is a vicious cycle of being able to sell everything and keep the lights on. Rory’s example of 24GHz is a good example. Snaplink was probably first to market in many ways (remember them?), DragonWave built a version of the Horizon Compact that I think almost no one bought (I sold one back when I was at 3-dB Networks in 2008 I think), and SAF had success with Lumina and Freemile in 24GHz well before Ubiquiti announced (forget about shipped) their first airFiber link. But being later to market also allowed them to go another route that turned out to be very disruptive. Nothing discussed here hasn’t been discussed or even heavily researched by at least one manufacturer, if not many. Probably all I can say without someone, somewhere shooting me :-D Saying 240GHz is interesting is like saying 95GHz is interesting. Why mess around there though when you have 80GHz. The FCC isn’t always the bad guy. The FCC was the first regulator to give the world use of 60GHz for instance. Daniel White (303) 746-3590 From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 7:31 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTMP backhaul solution Wow, out of all of that, you focused on the profit part. So please share with us what type of product you would build and in what spectrum. Rory From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Brett A Mansfield Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 5:58 PM To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTMP backhaul solution I'm not saying that the products that have come out aren'tg great, they are great! I know the FCC is the reason we haven't had even better. You did hit the nail on the head though, profit! All of these companies are so focused on profit that it gets in the way of even better innovations. If I went into things thinking only about profit then I'd have nothing. I'm more concerned with true innovation. Something really new that nobody has ever done before. And things that will help the smaller guys that will break even and not be as profitable. And like I said before, I'm only toying with the idea of manufacturing my own products, I'm not even in the idea phase of anything really. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield On May 29, 2015, at 6:46 PM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net <mailto:r...@triadwireless.net> > wrote: Brett, I really don’t think you are giving the manufacturers the respect that they are due in analyzing the options. I’ve sat in on meetings where we did nothing but analyze FCC rules to see what is possible before even considering the idea of making a product, let alone one that has to be profitable. These manufacturers are all on here and believe me, if there was a profit to be made, they have already analyzed it. In the last few years, you have seen some of that out of the box thinking like Bitlomat with split frequencies, Ubiquiti with 24GHz (and full-duplex), Cambridge with 28GHz, Cambium with GPS on 802.11 (sort of), Kumu (same frequency full-duplex), and Mimosa auto-everything. All of these ideas either came out of the box or were just the result of good engineering. After having been inside most of the companies at different times and knowing that there are still some great ideas coming out that are based on the foundation of experience, innovation, and again realistic engineering, I kind of think you are not being realistic. Rory From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Brett A Mansfield Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 5:22 PM To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTMP backhaul solution I really believe that there is more that can be done than we currently know. You may call that faith of a mustard seed, but it's been proven time and again in history. We may think we know the laws of physics, but who's to say that we are correct? Eventually, we will have wireless devices that can communicate from one side of the globe to the other at extremely high speeds we've never though possible...and without a satellite to relay the signal. It will go through the earth. We just haven't figured out how yet. It's not a question of if, it's a question of when. I just hope I get to see that in my lifetime. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield On May 29, 2015, at 6:16 PM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com> > wrote: Yeah, but it will require the faith of a mustard seed. Physics is notoriously difficult to to bend to your will. From: Brett A Mansfield <mailto:li...@silverlakeinternet.com> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 5:58 PM To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTMP backhaul solution I've heard this argument before. I respond the same way every time. Where there is a will, there is a way. We just haven't found it yet. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield On May 29, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Colin Stanners <cstann...@gmail.com <mailto:cstann...@gmail.com> > wrote: 60 or 240ghz multipoint, with the massive signal loss due to not using directional antennas, would have a reliable range of say 300ft? May be more reasonable to string fiber, heck cat6 in most cases. On May 29, 2015 5:49 PM, "Brett A Mansfield" <li...@silverlakeinternet.com <mailto:li...@silverlakeinternet.com> > wrote: 60 and 240GHz can make wireless in urban areas actually be able to compete with cable and maybe even fiber. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield On May 29, 2015, at 4:44 PM, Brett A Mansfield <li...@silverlakeinternet.com <mailto:li...@silverlakeinternet.com> > wrote: Id stay ahead of the curve. There is a LOT of spectrum out there going unused. For example, 60GHz and 240GHz. Yes they cannot go very far, but it seems none of the other high frequency stuff can either. And these are very high capacity. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield On May 29, 2015, at 4:39 PM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net <mailto:r...@triadwireless.net> > wrote: Maybe you can explain what you would do different than all the other manufacturers that would solve the problem. Rory From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Brett A Mansfield Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:33 PM To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTMP backhaul solution You don't need a lot of money to start manufacturing. You just need to know the right people. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield On May 29, 2015, at 4:28 PM, Jason McKemie <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com <mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> > wrote: I hope you have a lot more money than most people here... On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Brett A Mansfield <li...@silverlakeinternet.com <mailto:li...@silverlakeinternet.com> > wrote: Yep, it sure does seem that way. I'm trying to think outside of the box, but every time I do I get back to the same place. Nothing I can do this with is on the market yet or never will be. I'm getting more and more tempted every day to start manufacturing my own stuff. I've already started looking into that. Anything you guys would like to see come to market? If I go into manufacturing I'm going to be all in. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield On May 29, 2015, at 4:19 PM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net <mailto:r...@triadwireless.net> > wrote: You need a different strategy. Rory From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Brett A Mansfield Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:18 PM To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTMP backhaul solution You're very right about the 24GHz. I know several companies are working on something in 60GHz which would be ideal because it's not a very large area and can be daisy chained into a ring. 80GHz would be fine, but like you said nothing seems to exist. These CCS devices look great and might be exactly what I'm looking for. I just hope the price is right. They are 26 and 28GHz. But I think Vivint has a bit of a monopoly in my area with all of their 28GHz radios all over the place. I'm afraid the noise would be too much, even with the narrow beams. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield On May 29, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com> > wrote: I'm pretty sure the FCC doesn't allow PtMP in 24ghz. I don't know if anything exists for PtMP in 80ghz... or maybe 60ghz? It seems like the only real option here is 28ghz. On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net <mailto:r...@triadwireless.net> > wrote: You can buy spectrum in 28GHz and use Cambridge like Vivato does or depending on how many clients and range you are talking about, maybe something in 24 or 80GHz. Rory From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com> ] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 2:58 PM To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTMP backhaul solution You know that's why they sync, right? You can have a whole lot of sync'ed APs/masters at the one site and as long as they're transmitting at the same time and the client/slave sites aren't nearing the different master's you'll be fine. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 <tel:937-552-2340> Direct: 937-552-2343 <tel:937-552-2343> 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Brett A Mansfield <li...@silverlakeinternet.com <mailto:li...@silverlakeinternet.com> > wrote: That is exactly what I'm looking for. I need something inexpensive comparatively and it needs to be PtMP. I could use airfibers if I could do PTP, but that would be FAR too many radios in one location competing for airtime. Josh, I currently use 3.65, but I need high capacity. 80Mb at best is not near enough. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield On May 29, 2015, at 3:44 PM, Daniel White <afmu...@gmail.com <mailto:afmu...@gmail.com> > wrote: You’re looking for licensed PtMP backhaul? If that is the case, then CCS has a 28GHz offering with StraightPath. But not sure what you’re looking at price wise. You may just investigate multiple 23GHz shots or something similar depending on distance. Just want to make sure the request is clear. *************************************************************************** Daniel White - Managing Director SAF North America LLC Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590 <tel:%2B1%20%28303%29%20746-3590> daniel.wh...@saftehnika.com <mailto:daniel.wh...@saftehnika.com> Skype: danieldwhite Social: LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/danielwhite84> *************************************************************************** From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Brett A Mansfield Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:42 PM To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTMP backhaul solution I'm looking for backhaul. Anything in 2.4 or 5GHz won't work. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield On May 29, 2015, at 3:35 PM, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com <mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> > wrote: EPMP and maybe Ubnt AC Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 <tel:937-552-2340> Direct: 937-552-2343 <tel:937-552-2343> 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On May 29, 2015 5:32 PM, "Brett A Mansfield" <li...@silverlakeinternet.com <mailto:li...@silverlakeinternet.com> > wrote: I'm looking for the best high capacity and low cost PTMP solution. This is for my backhauls to distribute to smaller cells in a large area. Anyone know of something that fits this description? Thank you, Brett A Mansfield _____ <http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/> --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
