One 450m = two 450i in cost (roughly), but delivers 3-4x the throughput based on real-world results. Yes, it *can* talk to 7 SMs in the same frame. But even Cambium said 3-4 is realistic. Maybe 5 in the right conditions. And you don't have to visit a single customer site. And instead of pointing 3x 20MHz channels the same direction, you need only one. Plus there's 30 and 40MHz support. Like Sean said, just another tool in the toolbox.

On 2/13/2018 1:26 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote:
I was saying one direction IS 90 degrees in the "standard tower plan" :)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:17 AM, Sean Heskett <af...@zirkel.us> wrote:
how else would you suggest building a tower?!?!

friends don't let friends use omni's ;-)



On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:15 AM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com>
wrote:
If you do the standard 4xAP so you can do 2 channels and back to back
frequency reuse, 90 degrees is one direction...

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:12 AM, Sean Heskett <af...@zirkel.us> wrote:
actually you don't want them all in one direction, you want the clients
evenly spread in a 90* swath so that you can take advantage of the
MU-MIMO.

we have clients connected out to 8 miles running in 6x (which is 64qam).

it actually saves on tower rent because to do the same thing with
regular
450 APs (which we were prior to deploying the 450m's) you would need 3
APs
each using 20Mhz so 60Mhz total of spectrum used.

win, win, win.

but i also wouldn't install them at every tower.

2 cents

-sean

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:58 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com>
wrote:
I'm just saying it doesn't make sense, unless all your clients are
short range, in all one direction, and tower rent is costly.

It's a niche of a niche.

(I'm not saying it is a bad product, I'm not saying that at all, I'm
just saying it's not the second coming like people make it out to be.)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:55 AM, Sean Heskett <af...@zirkel.us> wrote:
Then by all means don’t deploy any 450m’s josh.  Geeze dude take a
chill
pill.

I’m just stating what I have on my network in a real world
environment,
earning me real world dollars and conserving much needed spectrum.

It’s not the right tool for every situation, BUT under the right
conditions
the 450m delivers.

Cheers bud

-sean



On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:46 PM Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com>
wrote:
Further note: You can see I did those calcs at 1024QAM, so reduce
that
down the 256QAM for closer to real numbers :)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Josh Reynolds
<j...@kyneticwifi.com>
wrote:
Let's break this down a bit.

Firstly, what outdoor PTMP platform is really using WiFi anymore?
*shakes head*

Mu-MIMO only works if the clients are sufficiently spread apart
(physically), and their tx/rx windows can fit into almost the same
timeframe. Any degradation in signal of one client that ends up in
the
same window as other clients reduces the overall capacity of the
AP
(like in many other situations). It can, in some situations, lead
to
cumulative transfer windows where overall throughput ends up
getting
reduced as the rx/tx hold time for the other clients end up taking
a
hit in efficiency. This is one of the few failings of MU-MIMO, not
even taking into account "massive" systems like 14x14 that end up
costing quite a bit in overall power budget due to the number of
elements, further meaning that your range is severely limited in a
system like this... so only decent in very dense situations.
That's a
unique niche.

So, 80 clients. That's a pretty average number for a modern system
(450, Mimosa, AC Prism Gen2).

30Mbps per client... okay, but most customers are actually
streaming.
Let's throw another margin on top of that and say a few Mbps for
gaming. 10Mbps is a nice round number. Now, that data gets sent in
most services in bursts and buffered, so it's not continuous.
Let's
take that average number down to about 8 Mbps. Now let's assume
that
maybe 70% of those 80 customers is doing something like that, and
that's probably a generous number. 56 customers. So 56 customers x
8Mbps = 448Mbps. On a 20Mhz channel? Wait, this doesn't seem to
work
out!

Soo.... 1024 QAM on a 20MHz channel gives you 250Mbps, very
roughly.
If you're optimistic about modern patterns, you're between an
80/20
and a 60/40 Download/Upload ratio on a split GPS synced system.

80/20 = 200Mbps Down, 50Mbps Up
60/40 = 150 Down, 100Mbps Up

Let's say for the sake of argument that you're in the 80/20 camp,
giving you 200Mbps to work with in above perfect conditions, gives
you
3.57 Mbps per subscriber. Roughly 4M/sub, good for 480p streaming.

That's a very expensive platform for that kind of throughput and
subscriber count with such limitations in range and needed a
"perfect
storm" of client distribution and data patterns to really take
advantage of. With working GPS in all modern platforms, I would be
hard pressed to not use an additional 20mhz channel if available,
or
just cut the channel width in half to 10MHz each, and put up 4
Mimosas
or 4 Gen2 Prism radios and have far more than 4x the possible
subscriber account, improved tx/rx efficiency, improved range
(increasing distance and SNR in many situations), and greatly
reduced
cost.

Again, I'm far more excited about the 4x increase in spectral
efficiency via OFDMA that doesn't cause you to cut down on tx/rx
chains for multi-client transmission (costing your range, per
client
snr, and per-client throughput in the process). MU-MIMO is and
will
always be a niche hack that never lived up to what was promised.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:12 AM, Sean Heskett <af...@zirkel.us>
wrote:
Being able to load a 450m AP with 80 subs and deliver 30mbps
service
to
all
of them at peak Netflix time in a 20mhz channel without breaking
a
sweat is
worth every penny.

But it’s one tool in the tool box and isn’t the best solution for
every
deployment.

2 cents

-sean



On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:32 PM Josh Reynolds
<j...@kyneticwifi.com>
wrote:
The more I dig into MU-MIMO, the more I realize it's not all
that
great.

I am far more excited by the 9 client simultaneous transmissions
in
802.11ax via OFDMA.

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:00 PM, Adam Moffett
<dmmoff...@gmail.com>
wrote:
450 still does a few things that ePMP doesn't.
Plus there's that 14 chain MU-MIMO thing......ePMP will
probably
never
have
something like that.
UI is still sluggish on ePMP.

On the other hand ePMP has gotten so many feature improvements
over
these
past few years that it's gotten really hard to argue with the
value
it
provides.


------ Original Message ------
From: "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 2/12/2018 8:27:56 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] mini wisp

The UI server was probably the worst I have ever seen.

So, less than 25 subs per site, what speed packages do you
sell
to
those
25?

Packetflux GPS sync.

From: Joe Novak
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 5:20 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] mini wisp

What didn't you like about it? The interface came a long way
since
the
early
days of EPMP. We've got quite a bit deployed. A lot of people
are
having
weird GPS situations come up with the on-board GPS, we have
this
problem
once in a while too. Our packetflux sites are rock solid
though.
That is
assuming density isn't more then 25 per AP, because then I
don't
exactly
have enough experience with it. Most of our APs are sitting
right
around
25
customers, and according to airtime we still have quite a bit
of
room.

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Jaime Solorza
<losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I separated frequencies to three I found cleanest on
AFx5s...On
Rockets
and Powerbeams I choose one frequency and shut off the rest
on
APs
and
on
PowerBeams I only use two...this method has worked well since
August of
2017
when I replaced all the radios on this network and have had
to
change
them
since.  Two of the WISPs live in Fabens and work with us on
issues.
The
other one from El Paso uses my services once in a while and
works
with
us as
well.  Texas Gas put up allot of 5GHz units around Fabens but
still
no
issues. I used larger dishes at Wells and lift stations as
well.

Jaime Solorza

On Feb 12, 2018 4:50 PM, "Jaime Solorza"
<losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Two AF5x on same tower, One AP on second tower 20 ft
away...all
other
radios within 4 mile radius...

Jaime Solorza

On Feb 12, 2018 4:43 PM, "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com>
wrote:
All on the same tower, right?

From: Jaime Solorza
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 4:41 PM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] mini wisp

Yes..I have two AF5X links as PTP and 25 radios all in 5
GHz
off
4
APs
in Fabens, Texas sharing spectrum with 3 WISPs...no
issues...

Jaime Solorza

On Feb 12, 2018 4:32 PM, "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com>
wrote:
Talking to a friend that wants to build a small wisp.  He
is
about
5.5
miles from a backbone connection.  I would suggest AF5X to
him
but
he is
gonna want to use 5 GHz for his wisp I presume.

Can an AF5X and some 5 GHz cambium (or others) access
points
peacefully
coexist on a tower?
Very rural area.  Not expecting much interference other
than
home
routers.




Reply via email to