But all of that is in the second half of the radio. From the ethernet port to the modulation demodulation systems it should be the same as other radios. And if they use robust modultion, you could just transvert an old canopy FSK design... Of course with much higher throughput.
I am guessing ROI bashfulness. Who wants to invest in this band until we have real world users evangelizing for the band. I am a skeptic. But I have been proven wrong many times before. From: Eric Kuhnke Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 2:09 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It? The atmospheric characteristics of 60 GHz are radically different. Antenna design is very different due to frequency for anything resembling a "sector". Unless you want PtMP that's only good within 250 meters... More challenging than you might think. A lot of the work that has been done over the past ten years in 60 GHz is for high capacity PTP using very "loose" modulations, channel sizes of 500 MHz or larger at BPSK/OOK or QPSK. Very different than 802.11ac based radios. On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net> wrote: What am I missing here? Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz radio instead of 5Ghz? Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later protocols on 60GHz vs 5GHz?
