I don't have a problem with their range or capacity. What I do have an issue with current specs is that it is one AP to 8 clients.
I need this to be more in the 'normal' range of an AP to 15-30 clients or more. Given the higher bandwidth, it would be a lot easier to spread a 1000Mbps connection around to 30-100 clients than the 5GHz 100Mbps to the same client number. Law of averages. Again, though, I can see that being a CPU/processor limited thing in current radio designs for lower frequencies. -----Original Message----- From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill Prince Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 2:21 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It? The top reasons that come to mind right away are: (1) Range. How close can you tolerate? It's not going to go very far in a PMP environment. Maybe a few hundred yards. If there are trees, forget about it. (2) Modulation. Don't expect something in that frequency to be doing higher level modulations. Because you can run ginormous channels, maybe not a big deal, but I wouldn't count on it. (3) Costs. Getting things to run at that frequency would probably require higher end components. bp <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> On 5/8/2017 1:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson 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?
