I have an aggregate capacity of 400 mbps+ on a single 450 Medusa sector using 40 mhz channelsŠ
On 2/13/18, 11:26 AM, "Af on behalf of Rory Conaway" <[email protected] Gino A. Villarini President Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 [cid:aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >You will be waiting several months or more for multi-user LTU, same as >other products still coming out. > >We always looks at ROI. Except for 1 rare case that we bought 900Mhz >450's for, and even then my ROI is well over 16 months or more, starting >from scratch makes the 450 a challenge for profitability. I'm also not >convinced that the 450 will keep up with the rest of the industry in >terms of capacity without much more investment whereas 802.11 products >are cheap to upgrade. > >As for capacity, not starting with 802.11ac is DOA. New 802.11ac >chipsets are already pushing on 1024QAM and some other amazing features >that will change how we deploy on towers. RF Elements horns have already >done that. > >For example, you can run 12 Ubiquiti Prisms with 12 horns, each covering >30-40 degrees (overlap and minimizing the dropoff) for less than $5K. >Even if you use 50/50 on GPS, you are still talking about at least >1.2Gbps of download capacity (40MHz channels, 200Mbps per customer >average). Need more, RF Elements is shipping an even more narrow horn to >double that. What's even more amazing is that the need for GPS goes down >significantly depending on how you deploy the horns meaning even more >capacity. > >We have found that deploying Mimosa with 2 antennas covering 60-120 >degrees or Ubiquiti covering 30 degrees per AP in the directions we >needed, meant we didn't have to cover 360 degrees. If we added users >that weren't in the pattern, we just added more APs or in the case of >Mimosa, swapped out the antenna with more narrow patterns and added more >APs to expand coverage . A single user pays for a Ubiquiti/Horn AP in >the first 8 months and 2 users Mimosa. I understand this doesn't work >well for tower deployments with outsourced climbers or with towers that >are billed by cable pulls, antenna square footage, number of APs, etc... >which is also why we rarely use towers. I'd rather find a few lower >locations that have easy access than a single tower but that's not always >realistic. > >Rory > >-----Original Message----- >From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stefan Englhardt >Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 1:59 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [AFMUG] mini wisp > >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 don¹t deploy any 450m¹s josh. Geeze dude >> >>>>>>> take a chill pill. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I¹m just stating what I have on my network in a real world >> >>>>>>> environment, earning me real world dollars and conserving much >> >>>>>>> needed spectrum. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> It¹s 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 it¹s one tool in the tool box and isn¹t 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> > >
