At the moment I would wait to see what this LTU is all about. Should soon 
arrive at US Beta store. An airfiber class radio mounted to horns may give a 
real boost. There would be a lot capacity even using them at smaller Channels. 
They will use power below 10W and will be much cheaper than 450m so you could 
install a 360 degree cluster which you might densify at the direction where 
most customers live. Using an EP-S16 you could aggregate them to 10GE and feed 
them with a Licensed gear right up there. You only need to bring 48V DC up to 
the tower.


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von Josh Reynolds
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. Februar 2018 09:34
> An: af@afmug.com
> Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] mini wisp
> 
> 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