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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> 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" <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> 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: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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" >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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" <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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" <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >
