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:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Josh Reynolds > Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. Februar 2018 09:34 > An: [email protected] > 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 > <[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. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >
