I agree, it makes sense if you already have a cambium network on 450.

For greenfield? Probably not.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:42 AM, George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com> wrote:
> 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