On Mar 29, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux wrote: >> Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace). >> Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're >> drowning in a high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all. Like >> what's happened to 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz in a lot of places. There's few urban >> or semi-urban places where you still can use those frequencies for backhaul. >> The reason why people pay the big bucks for licenses and gear for licensed >> frequencies is you're buying insurance it's going to work in the future. >> >> Greg > > I was at Ubiquiti's conference. I don't disagree with what you're > saying. Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely > never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is. They are seeing 24 Ghz > as only for backhaul - no connections to end users. I guess > point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24 > Ghz. AirFiber appears to be fairly highly directional. It needs to > be though, as each link uses 100 Mhz, and there's only 250 Mhz > available @ 24 Ghz. > > It also sounded like there was a decent possibility of supporting > licensed 21 / 25 Ghz spectrum with AirFiber in the future. > > Oliver
I don't think it's an FCC issue so much as 24Ghz has so much fade tendency with atmospheric moisture that an omnidirectional antenna is about as effective as a resistor coupled to ground (i.e. dummy load). The only way you can get a signal to go any real distance at that frequency is to use a highly directional high-gain antenna at both ends. Owen
