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" <af-boun...@afmug.com



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 r...@triadwireless.net> 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:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Englhardt
>Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 1:59 AM
>To: af@afmug.com
>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: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 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
>> >>>>>>> <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 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
>> >>>>>>>>>> <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