Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

[Dennis Burgess]

Brett,

If you are interested in them, give us a call, there will be no more than two 
kits to each customer in first batch, we need your order to get those.  BTW, 
they are $199 list.  :)   once you get your kits, you can try them out and as 
long as they work and everything is good, then when they become generally 
available you can order more :)  

Give us a CALL on them!  


Dennis Burgess – Network Solution Engineer – Consultant 
MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant – MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE

For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net
Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com 
Office: 314-735-0270
E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net 


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Brett A Mansfield
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 5:24 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] 60GHz

Anyone know anything about the Mikrotik 60GHz stuff yet? I’m looking for some 
good gear and I use some Ignitenet. Ignitenet is great but so cost prohibitive. 
I’m hoping Mikrotik will have theirs released very soon as I need a couple 
hundred radios. 

Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield

Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

[Brett A Mansfield]

Eventually, yes. 

Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 8:13 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Also, they are supposed to eventually support up to 32 clients. 
> 
>> On Sep 11, 2017 8:49 PM, "Mike Hammett" <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
>> I don't think anyone has a higher CPE limit in 60 GHz.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: "Brett A Mansfield" <li...@silverlakeinternet.com>
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 7:31:25 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz
>> 
>> True, until you realize you can only put 8 or 16 customers on an AP. Their 
>> pricing isn’t terrible, and I’m going to be buying at least some Ignitenet 
>> for this project. I was just hoping for some less expensive stuff I can use 
>> for customers on the lower plans.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Brett A Mansfield
>> 
>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 5:35 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> It's certainly more expensive than most of us are used to with PTMP, but 
>> it's not really that bad... if you consider the cost of the APs, compared to 
>> something like PMP450 or LTE, it doesn't start to look so bad.
>> 
>>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Brett A Mansfield 
>>> <li...@silverlakeinternet.com> wrote:
>>> Yeah, that makes sense. I think Ignitenet is excellent price and quality 
>>> wise when talking PTP. It’s PTMP that it is cost prohibitive I think.
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> Brett A Mansfield
>>> 
>>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Because IgniteNet is way cheaper than Siklu, which is way cheaper than 
>>> everything else. There's links going for over $10k and IgniteNet is 1/10th 
>>> of that.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: "Brett A Mansfield" <li...@silverlakeinternet.com>
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 5:55:42 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz
>>> 
>>> I’m not sure why that is funny. The average CPE cost is much less than the 
>>> Ignitenet radios. I’m not running fiber, which is also cost prohibitive 
>>> without deep pockets.  A good ROI for a WISP is 6-12 months. For fiber it’s 
>>> 5-6 years. The reason being you’ll get many more service calls with 
>>> wireless, as well as less consistent speeds. Fiber is solid and you don’t 
>>> have to replace as many electronics as often. So I’m not sure why you laugh 
>>> when I say Ignitenet is cost prohibitive. 
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> Brett A Mansfield
>>> 
>>> > On Sep 11, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Chris Wright <ch...@velociter.net> wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > Ignitenet is cost prohibitive? LOL
>>> > 
>>> > Chris Wright
>>> > Network Administrator
>>> > 
>>> > -Original Message-
>>> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Brett A Mansfield
>>> > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 3:24 PM
>>> > To: af@afmug.com
>>> > Subject: [AFMUG] 60GHz
>>> > 
>>> > Anyone know anything about the Mikrotik 60GHz stuff yet? I’m looking for 
>>> > some good gear and I use some Ignitenet. Ignitenet is great but so cost 
>>> > prohibitive. I’m hoping Mikrotik will have theirs released very soon as I 
>>> > need a couple hundred radios. 
>>> > 
>>> > Thank you,
>>> > Brett A Mansfield
>>> > 
>>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

[Mathew Howard]

Also, they are supposed to eventually support up to 32 clients.

On Sep 11, 2017 8:49 PM, "Mike Hammett" <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:

> I don't think anyone has a higher CPE limit in 60 GHz.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> ----------
> *From: *"Brett A Mansfield" <li...@silverlakeinternet.com>
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Monday, September 11, 2017 7:31:25 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz
>
> True, until you realize you can only put 8 or 16 customers on an AP. Their
> pricing isn’t terrible, and I’m going to be buying at least some Ignitenet
> for this project. I was just hoping for some less expensive stuff I can use
> for customers on the lower plans.
>
> Thank you,
> Brett A Mansfield
>
> On Sep 11, 2017, at 5:35 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's certainly more expensive than most of us are used to with PTMP, but
> it's not really that bad... if you consider the cost of the APs, compared
> to something like PMP450 or LTE, it doesn't start to look so bad.
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Brett A Mansfield <
> li...@silverlakeinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, that makes sense. I think Ignitenet is excellent price and quality
>> wise when talking PTP. It’s PTMP that it is cost prohibitive I think.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Brett A Mansfield
>>
>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
>>
>> Because IgniteNet is way cheaper than Siklu, which is way cheaper than
>> everything else. There's links going for over $10k and IgniteNet is 1/10th
>> of that.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>>
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
>> --
>> *From: *"Brett A Mansfield" <li...@silverlakeinternet.com>
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Monday, September 11, 2017 5:55:42 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz
>>
>> I’m not sure why that is funny. The average CPE cost is much less than
>> the Ignitenet radios. I’m not running fiber, which is also cost prohibitive
>> without deep pockets.  A good ROI for a WISP is 6-12 months. For fiber it’s
>> 5-6 years. The reason being you’ll get many more service calls with
>> wireless, as well as less consistent speeds. Fiber is solid and you don’t
>> have to replace as many electronics as often. So I’m not sure why you laugh
>> when I say Ignitenet is cost prohibitive.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Brett A Mansfield
>>
>> > On Sep 11, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Chris Wright <ch...@velociter.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Ignitenet is cost prohibitive? LOL
>> >
>> > Chris Wright
>> > Network Administrator
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] On
>> Behalf Of Brett A Mansfield
>> > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 3:24 PM
>> > To: af@afmug.com
>> > Subject: [AFMUG] 60GHz
>> >
>> > Anyone know anything about the Mikrotik 60GHz stuff yet? I’m looking
>> for some good gear and I use some Ignitenet. Ignitenet is great but so cost
>> prohibitive. I’m hoping Mikrotik will have theirs released very soon as I
>> need a couple hundred radios.
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> > Brett A Mansfield
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

[Mike Hammett]

I don't think anyone has a higher CPE limit in 60 GHz. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Brett A Mansfield" <li...@silverlakeinternet.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 7:31:25 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz 

True, until you realize you can only put 8 or 16 customers on an AP. Their 
pricing isn’t terrible, and I’m going to be buying at least some Ignitenet for 
this project. I was just hoping for some less expensive stuff I can use for 
customers on the lower plans. 


Thank you, 
Brett A Mansfield 

On Sep 11, 2017, at 5:35 PM, Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 





It's certainly more expensive than most of us are used to with PTMP, but it's 
not really that bad... if you consider the cost of the APs, compared to 
something like PMP450 or LTE, it doesn't start to look so bad. 



On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Brett A Mansfield < 
li...@silverlakeinternet.com > wrote: 



Yeah, that makes sense. I think Ignitenet is excellent price and quality wise 
when talking PTP. It’s PTMP that it is cost prohibitive I think. 


Thank you, 
Brett A Mansfield 



On Sep 11, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 





Because IgniteNet is way cheaper than Siklu, which is way cheaper than 
everything else. There's links going for over $10k and IgniteNet is 1/10th of 
that. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Brett A Mansfield" < li...@silverlakeinternet.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 5:55:42 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz 

I’m not sure why that is funny. The average CPE cost is much less than the 
Ignitenet radios. I’m not running fiber, which is also cost prohibitive without 
deep pockets. A good ROI for a WISP is 6-12 months. For fiber it’s 5-6 years. 
The reason being you’ll get many more service calls with wireless, as well as 
less consistent speeds. Fiber is solid and you don’t have to replace as many 
electronics as often. So I’m not sure why you laugh when I say Ignitenet is 
cost prohibitive. 

Thank you, 
Brett A Mansfield 

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Chris Wright < ch...@velociter.net > wrote: 
> 
> Ignitenet is cost prohibitive? LOL 
> 
> Chris Wright 
> Network Administrator 
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Brett A Mansfield 
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 3:24 PM 
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: [AFMUG] 60GHz 
> 
> Anyone know anything about the Mikrotik 60GHz stuff yet? I’m looking for some 
> good gear and I use some Ignitenet. Ignitenet is great but so cost 
> prohibitive. I’m hoping Mikrotik will have theirs released very soon as I 
> need a couple hundred radios. 
> 
> Thank you, 
> Brett A Mansfield 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

[Brett A Mansfield]

True, until you realize you can only put 8 or 16 customers on an AP. Their 
pricing isn’t terrible, and I’m going to be buying at least some Ignitenet for 
this project. I was just hoping for some less expensive stuff I can use for 
customers on the lower plans.

Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 5:35 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> It's certainly more expensive than most of us are used to with PTMP, but it's 
> not really that bad... if you consider the cost of the APs, compared to 
> something like PMP450 or LTE, it doesn't start to look so bad.
> 
>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Brett A Mansfield 
>> <li...@silverlakeinternet.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, that makes sense. I think Ignitenet is excellent price and quality 
>> wise when talking PTP. It’s PTMP that it is cost prohibitive I think.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Brett A Mansfield
>> 
>>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Because IgniteNet is way cheaper than Siklu, which is way cheaper than 
>>> everything else. There's links going for over $10k and IgniteNet is 1/10th 
>>> of that.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: "Brett A Mansfield" <li...@silverlakeinternet.com>
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 5:55:42 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz
>>> 
>>> I’m not sure why that is funny. The average CPE cost is much less than the 
>>> Ignitenet radios. I’m not running fiber, which is also cost prohibitive 
>>> without deep pockets.  A good ROI for a WISP is 6-12 months. For fiber it’s 
>>> 5-6 years. The reason being you’ll get many more service calls with 
>>> wireless, as well as less consistent speeds. Fiber is solid and you don’t 
>>> have to replace as many electronics as often. So I’m not sure why you laugh 
>>> when I say Ignitenet is cost prohibitive. 
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> Brett A Mansfield
>>> 
>>> > On Sep 11, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Chris Wright <ch...@velociter.net> wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > Ignitenet is cost prohibitive? LOL
>>> > 
>>> > Chris Wright
>>> > Network Administrator
>>> > 
>>> > -Original Message-
>>> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Brett A Mansfield
>>> > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 3:24 PM
>>> > To: af@afmug.com
>>> > Subject: [AFMUG] 60GHz
>>> > 
>>> > Anyone know anything about the Mikrotik 60GHz stuff yet? I’m looking for 
>>> > some good gear and I use some Ignitenet. Ignitenet is great but so cost 
>>> > prohibitive. I’m hoping Mikrotik will have theirs released very soon as I 
>>> > need a couple hundred radios. 
>>> > 
>>> > Thank you,
>>> > Brett A Mansfield
>>> > 
>>> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

[Chris Wright]

Because IgniteNet is cheaper than anyone else out there. The only reason we all 
know their name is because their 60GHz radios deliver gigabit speeds for at 
least tenth of the cost of anyone else in the game. Why do you mention fiber?

Chris Wright
Network Administrator


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Brett A Mansfield
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 3:56 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

I’m not sure why that is funny. The average CPE cost is much less than the 
Ignitenet radios. I’m not running fiber, which is also cost prohibitive without 
deep pockets.  A good ROI for a WISP is 6-12 months. For fiber it’s 5-6 years. 
The reason being you’ll get many more service calls with wireless, as well as 
less consistent speeds. Fiber is solid and you don’t have to replace as many 
electronics as often. So I’m not sure why you laugh when I say Ignitenet is 
cost prohibitive. 

Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Chris Wright <ch...@velociter.net> wrote:
> 
> Ignitenet is cost prohibitive? LOL
> 
> Chris Wright
> Network Administrator
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Brett A Mansfield
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 3:24 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: [AFMUG] 60GHz
> 
> Anyone know anything about the Mikrotik 60GHz stuff yet? I’m looking for some 
> good gear and I use some Ignitenet. Ignitenet is great but so cost 
> prohibitive. I’m hoping Mikrotik will have theirs released very soon as I 
> need a couple hundred radios. 
> 
> Thank you,
> Brett A Mansfield
> 

Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

[Mathew Howard]

It's certainly more expensive than most of us are used to with PTMP, but
it's not really that bad... if you consider the cost of the APs, compared
to something like PMP450 or LTE, it doesn't start to look so bad.

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Brett A Mansfield <
li...@silverlakeinternet.com> wrote:

> Yeah, that makes sense. I think Ignitenet is excellent price and quality
> wise when talking PTP. It’s PTMP that it is cost prohibitive I think.
>
> Thank you,
> Brett A Mansfield
>
> On Sep 11, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
>
> Because IgniteNet is way cheaper than Siklu, which is way cheaper than
> everything else. There's links going for over $10k and IgniteNet is 1/10th
> of that.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> ------
> *From: *"Brett A Mansfield" <li...@silverlakeinternet.com>
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Monday, September 11, 2017 5:55:42 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz
>
> I’m not sure why that is funny. The average CPE cost is much less than the
> Ignitenet radios. I’m not running fiber, which is also cost prohibitive
> without deep pockets.  A good ROI for a WISP is 6-12 months. For fiber it’s
> 5-6 years. The reason being you’ll get many more service calls with
> wireless, as well as less consistent speeds. Fiber is solid and you don’t
> have to replace as many electronics as often. So I’m not sure why you laugh
> when I say Ignitenet is cost prohibitive.
>
> Thank you,
> Brett A Mansfield
>
> > On Sep 11, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Chris Wright <ch...@velociter.net> wrote:
> >
> > Ignitenet is cost prohibitive? LOL
> >
> > Chris Wright
> > Network Administrator
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf
> Of Brett A Mansfield
> > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 3:24 PM
> > To: af@afmug.com
> > Subject: [AFMUG] 60GHz
> >
> > Anyone know anything about the Mikrotik 60GHz stuff yet? I’m looking for
> some good gear and I use some Ignitenet. Ignitenet is great but so cost
> prohibitive. I’m hoping Mikrotik will have theirs released very soon as I
> need a couple hundred radios.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Brett A Mansfield
> >
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

[Mathew Howard]

It will be interesting to see what Mikrotik comes out with... but I notice
that FCC application lists it as only going up to 62.64ghz - that's going
to limit it's range compared to Ignitenet.



On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp/posts/1297938056998310
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Brett A Mansfield" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Monday, September 11, 2017 5:24:23 PM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] 60GHz
>
> Anyone know anything about the Mikrotik 60GHz stuff yet? I’m looking for
> some good gear and I use some Ignitenet. Ignitenet is great but so cost
> prohibitive. I’m hoping Mikrotik will have theirs released very soon as I
> need a couple hundred radios.
>
> Thank you,
> Brett A Mansfield
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

[Brett A Mansfield]

Yeah, that makes sense. I think Ignitenet is excellent price and quality wise 
when talking PTP. It’s PTMP that it is cost prohibitive I think.

Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
> 
> Because IgniteNet is way cheaper than Siklu, which is way cheaper than 
> everything else. There's links going for over $10k and IgniteNet is 1/10th of 
> that.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> 
> The Brothers WISP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: "Brett A Mansfield" <li...@silverlakeinternet.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 5:55:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz
> 
> I’m not sure why that is funny. The average CPE cost is much less than the 
> Ignitenet radios. I’m not running fiber, which is also cost prohibitive 
> without deep pockets.  A good ROI for a WISP is 6-12 months. For fiber it’s 
> 5-6 years. The reason being you’ll get many more service calls with wireless, 
> as well as less consistent speeds. Fiber is solid and you don’t have to 
> replace as many electronics as often. So I’m not sure why you laugh when I 
> say Ignitenet is cost prohibitive. 
> 
> Thank you,
> Brett A Mansfield
> 
> > On Sep 11, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Chris Wright <ch...@velociter.net> wrote:
> > 
> > Ignitenet is cost prohibitive? LOL
> > 
> > Chris Wright
> > Network Administrator
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Brett A Mansfield
> > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 3:24 PM
> > To: af@afmug.com
> > Subject: [AFMUG] 60GHz
> > 
> > Anyone know anything about the Mikrotik 60GHz stuff yet? I’m looking for 
> > some good gear and I use some Ignitenet. Ignitenet is great but so cost 
> > prohibitive. I’m hoping Mikrotik will have theirs released very soon as I 
> > need a couple hundred radios. 
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > Brett A Mansfield
> > 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

[Mike Hammett]

Because IgniteNet is way cheaper than Siklu, which is way cheaper than 
everything else. There's links going for over $10k and IgniteNet is 1/10th of 
that. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Brett A Mansfield" <li...@silverlakeinternet.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 5:55:42 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz 

I’m not sure why that is funny. The average CPE cost is much less than the 
Ignitenet radios. I’m not running fiber, which is also cost prohibitive without 
deep pockets. A good ROI for a WISP is 6-12 months. For fiber it’s 5-6 years. 
The reason being you’ll get many more service calls with wireless, as well as 
less consistent speeds. Fiber is solid and you don’t have to replace as many 
electronics as often. So I’m not sure why you laugh when I say Ignitenet is 
cost prohibitive. 

Thank you, 
Brett A Mansfield 

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Chris Wright <ch...@velociter.net> wrote: 
> 
> Ignitenet is cost prohibitive? LOL 
> 
> Chris Wright 
> Network Administrator 
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Brett A Mansfield 
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 3:24 PM 
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: [AFMUG] 60GHz 
> 
> Anyone know anything about the Mikrotik 60GHz stuff yet? I’m looking for some 
> good gear and I use some Ignitenet. Ignitenet is great but so cost 
> prohibitive. I’m hoping Mikrotik will have theirs released very soon as I 
> need a couple hundred radios. 
> 
> Thank you, 
> Brett A Mansfield 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

[Mike Hammett]

https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp/posts/1297938056998310 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Brett A Mansfield"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 5:24:23 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] 60GHz 

Anyone know anything about the Mikrotik 60GHz stuff yet? I’m looking for some 
good gear and I use some Ignitenet. Ignitenet is great but so cost prohibitive. 
I’m hoping Mikrotik will have theirs released very soon as I need a couple 
hundred radios. 

Thank you, 
Brett A Mansfield 

Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

[Brett A Mansfield]

I’m not sure why that is funny. The average CPE cost is much less than the 
Ignitenet radios. I’m not running fiber, which is also cost prohibitive without 
deep pockets.  A good ROI for a WISP is 6-12 months. For fiber it’s 5-6 years. 
The reason being you’ll get many more service calls with wireless, as well as 
less consistent speeds. Fiber is solid and you don’t have to replace as many 
electronics as often. So I’m not sure why you laugh when I say Ignitenet is 
cost prohibitive. 

Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Chris Wright  wrote:
> 
> Ignitenet is cost prohibitive? LOL
> 
> Chris Wright
> Network Administrator
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Brett A Mansfield
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 3:24 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: [AFMUG] 60GHz
> 
> Anyone know anything about the Mikrotik 60GHz stuff yet? I’m looking for some 
> good gear and I use some Ignitenet. Ignitenet is great but so cost 
> prohibitive. I’m hoping Mikrotik will have theirs released very soon as I 
> need a couple hundred radios. 
> 
> Thank you,
> Brett A Mansfield
> 

Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

[Chris Wright]

Ignitenet is cost prohibitive? LOL

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Brett A Mansfield
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 3:24 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] 60GHz

Anyone know anything about the Mikrotik 60GHz stuff yet? I’m looking for some 
good gear and I use some Ignitenet. Ignitenet is great but so cost prohibitive. 
I’m hoping Mikrotik will have theirs released very soon as I need a couple 
hundred radios. 

Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Jaime Solorza]

Very few native radios...most are converted from IF or such, but I know
what you mean...some UDCs are crap...I guess it would be expensive at
frequencies above 6GHz ...gallium arsenide components for one...

On May 9, 2017 5:11 PM, "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sure, they work... but that doesn't mean they don't suck compared to
> native radios.
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> How you think some 900MHz and 11GHz products work? Convertors
>>
>> On May 9, 2017 3:58 PM, "Colin Stanners" <cstann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Up-down converters tend to suck for many reasons, adding the fact that
>>> many modern factors would increase a modern up-down converter's cost over
>>> the old units ( need two polarizations, high-end amplifiers due to OFDM
>>> PAPR, tight tx/rx cycles etc). In the end a cheap 5ghz radio and an 60ghz
>>> UDC would cost more than a midrange 60ghz radio and still lack features.
>>>
>>> On May 9, 2017 4:07 PM, "Jaime Solorza" <losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Wonder who will be first to make a 5Ghz to 60GHz UDC?Is it even
>>> legal?
>>>
>>> Jaime Solorza
>>> Wireless Systems Architect
>>> 915-861-1390 <(915)%20861-1390>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Eric Muehleisen <ericm...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is the 5ghz backup radio enabled and transmitting all the time or does
>>>> it only come on during fade events. I would hate to chew up valuable 5ghz
>>>> spectrum to be used only 00.01% of the time.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Harold Bledsoe <hbledso...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> High level, think fiber to the pole and wireless last few hundred
>>>>> meters. Basically everything is street level in that case.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can do fixed wireless off of 60GHz and maybe 5GHz. Wi-Fi then for
>>>>> best effort service.
>>>>>
>>>>> One thing to keep in mind is that in a lot of cities, half the folks
>>>>> don't have broadband at home. Wi-Fi service could be the economical
>>>>> solution. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> 60GHz is for achieving gigabit levels of service.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hal
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:54 AM Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What is this angie thing… can’t wrap my head around it yet
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Harold Bledsoe <
>>>>>> hbledso...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 8:00 AM
>>>>>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>>>> Hey Sterling,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No worries, we will have 15 CPE per sector support in mid June
>>>>>> (software update).  The next step will be 32 (another software update).  
>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Hal
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>>>>>> President
>>>>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:29 PM Sterling Jacobson <
>>>>>> sterl...@avative.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't have a problem with their range or capacity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I do have an issue with current specs is that it is one AP to 8
>>>>>>> clients.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I need this to be more in the 'normal' range of an AP to 15-30
>>>>>>> clients or more.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given the higher bandwidth, it would be a lot easier to spread a
>>>>>>> 1000Mbps connection around to 30-100 clients than the 5GHz 100Mbps to 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> same client number.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Mathew Howard]

Sure, they work... but that doesn't mean they don't suck compared to native
radios.

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> How you think some 900MHz and 11GHz products work? Convertors
>
> On May 9, 2017 3:58 PM, "Colin Stanners" <cstann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Up-down converters tend to suck for many reasons, adding the fact that
>> many modern factors would increase a modern up-down converter's cost over
>> the old units ( need two polarizations, high-end amplifiers due to OFDM
>> PAPR, tight tx/rx cycles etc). In the end a cheap 5ghz radio and an 60ghz
>> UDC would cost more than a midrange 60ghz radio and still lack features.
>>
>> On May 9, 2017 4:07 PM, "Jaime Solorza" <losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Wonder who will be first to make a 5Ghz to 60GHz UDC?Is it even legal?
>>
>> Jaime Solorza
>> Wireless Systems Architect
>> 915-861-1390 <(915)%20861-1390>
>>
>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Eric Muehleisen <ericm...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Is the 5ghz backup radio enabled and transmitting all the time or does
>>> it only come on during fade events. I would hate to chew up valuable 5ghz
>>> spectrum to be used only 00.01% of the time.
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Harold Bledsoe <hbledso...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> High level, think fiber to the pole and wireless last few hundred
>>>> meters. Basically everything is street level in that case.
>>>>
>>>> You can do fixed wireless off of 60GHz and maybe 5GHz. Wi-Fi then for
>>>> best effort service.
>>>>
>>>> One thing to keep in mind is that in a lot of cities, half the folks
>>>> don't have broadband at home. Wi-Fi service could be the economical
>>>> solution. :-)
>>>>
>>>> 60GHz is for achieving gigabit levels of service.
>>>>
>>>> Hal
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:54 AM Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What is this angie thing… can’t wrap my head around it yet
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Harold Bledsoe <
>>>>> hbledso...@gmail.com>
>>>>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>>>> Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 8:00 AM
>>>>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>>> Hey Sterling,
>>>>>
>>>>> No worries, we will have 15 CPE per sector support in mid June
>>>>> (software update).  The next step will be 32 (another software update).  
>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> -Hal
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>>>>> President
>>>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:29 PM Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have a problem with their range or capacity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I do have an issue with current specs is that it is one AP to 8
>>>>>> clients.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I need this to be more in the 'normal' range of an AP to 15-30
>>>>>> clients or more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the higher bandwidth, it would be a lot easier to spread a
>>>>>> 1000Mbps connection around to 30-100 clients than the 5GHz 100Mbps to the
>>>>>> same client number.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Law of averages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, though, I can see that being a CPU/processor limited thing in
>>>>>> current radio designs for lower frequencies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 2:21 PM
>>>>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The top reasons that come to mind right away are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) Range. How close can you tolerate? It's not going to go very far
>>>>>> in a PMP environment. Maybe a few hundred yards. If there are trees, 
>>>>>> forget
>>>>>> about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) Modulation. Don't expect something in that frequency to be doing
>>>>>> higher level modulations. Because you can run ginormous channels, maybe 
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> a big deal, but I wouldn't count on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (3) Costs. Getting things to run at that frequency would probably
>>>>>> require higher end components.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> bp
>>>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/8/2017 1:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
>>>>>> > What am I missing here?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio
>>>>>> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 
>>>>>> 60GHz
>>>>>> radio instead of 5Ghz?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later
>>>>>> protocols on 60GHz vs 5GHz?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Harold Bledsoe
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Jaime Solorza]

How you think some 900MHz and 11GHz products work? Convertors

On May 9, 2017 3:58 PM, "Colin Stanners" <cstann...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Up-down converters tend to suck for many reasons, adding the fact that
> many modern factors would increase a modern up-down converter's cost over
> the old units ( need two polarizations, high-end amplifiers due to OFDM
> PAPR, tight tx/rx cycles etc). In the end a cheap 5ghz radio and an 60ghz
> UDC would cost more than a midrange 60ghz radio and still lack features.
>
> On May 9, 2017 4:07 PM, "Jaime Solorza" <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Wonder who will be first to make a 5Ghz to 60GHz UDC?Is it even legal?
>
> Jaime Solorza
> Wireless Systems Architect
> 915-861-1390 <(915)%20861-1390>
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Eric Muehleisen <ericm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Is the 5ghz backup radio enabled and transmitting all the time or does it
>> only come on during fade events. I would hate to chew up valuable 5ghz
>> spectrum to be used only 00.01% of the time.
>>
>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Harold Bledsoe <hbledso...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> High level, think fiber to the pole and wireless last few hundred
>>> meters. Basically everything is street level in that case.
>>>
>>> You can do fixed wireless off of 60GHz and maybe 5GHz. Wi-Fi then for
>>> best effort service.
>>>
>>> One thing to keep in mind is that in a lot of cities, half the folks
>>> don't have broadband at home. Wi-Fi service could be the economical
>>> solution. :-)
>>>
>>> 60GHz is for achieving gigabit levels of service.
>>>
>>> Hal
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:54 AM Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What is this angie thing… can’t wrap my head around it yet
>>>>
>>>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Harold Bledsoe <
>>>> hbledso...@gmail.com>
>>>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>>> Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 8:00 AM
>>>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>> Hey Sterling,
>>>>
>>>> No worries, we will have 15 CPE per sector support in mid June
>>>> (software update).  The next step will be 32 (another software update).  
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> -Hal
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>>>> President
>>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:29 PM Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't have a problem with their range or capacity.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I do have an issue with current specs is that it is one AP to 8
>>>>> clients.
>>>>>
>>>>> I need this to be more in the 'normal' range of an AP to 15-30 clients
>>>>> or more.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the higher bandwidth, it would be a lot easier to spread a
>>>>> 1000Mbps connection around to 30-100 clients than the 5GHz 100Mbps to the
>>>>> same client number.
>>>>>
>>>>> Law of averages.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, though, I can see that being a CPU/processor limited thing in
>>>>> current radio designs for lower frequencies.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 2:21 PM
>>>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>>>
>>>>> The top reasons that come to mind right away are:
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) Range. How close can you tolerate? It's not going to go very far
>>>>> in a PMP environment. Maybe a few hundred yards. If there are trees, 
>>>>> forget
>>>>> about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) Modulation. Don't expect something in that frequency to be doing
>>>>> higher level modulations. Because you can run ginormous channels, maybe 
>>>>> not
>>>>> a big deal, but I wouldn't count on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> (3) Costs. Getting things to run at that frequency would probably
>>>>> require higher end components.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> bp
>>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/8/2017 1:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
>>>>> > What am I missing here?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio
>>>>> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz
>>>>> radio instead of 5Ghz?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later
>>>>> protocols on 60GHz vs 5GHz?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>
>>> Harold Bledsoe
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Colin Stanners]

Up-down converters tend to suck for many reasons, adding the fact that many
modern factors would increase a modern up-down converter's cost over the
old units ( need two polarizations, high-end amplifiers due to OFDM PAPR,
tight tx/rx cycles etc). In the end a cheap 5ghz radio and an 60ghz UDC
would cost more than a midrange 60ghz radio and still lack features.

On May 9, 2017 4:07 PM, "Jaime Solorza" <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:

Wonder who will be first to make a 5Ghz to 60GHz UDC?Is it even legal?

Jaime Solorza
Wireless Systems Architect
915-861-1390 <(915)%20861-1390>

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Eric Muehleisen <ericm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is the 5ghz backup radio enabled and transmitting all the time or does it
> only come on during fade events. I would hate to chew up valuable 5ghz
> spectrum to be used only 00.01% of the time.
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Harold Bledsoe <hbledso...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> High level, think fiber to the pole and wireless last few hundred meters.
>> Basically everything is street level in that case.
>>
>> You can do fixed wireless off of 60GHz and maybe 5GHz. Wi-Fi then for
>> best effort service.
>>
>> One thing to keep in mind is that in a lot of cities, half the folks
>> don't have broadband at home. Wi-Fi service could be the economical
>> solution. :-)
>>
>> 60GHz is for achieving gigabit levels of service.
>>
>> Hal
>>
>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:54 AM Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What is this angie thing… can’t wrap my head around it yet
>>>
>>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Harold Bledsoe <
>>> hbledso...@gmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>> Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 8:00 AM
>>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>> Hey Sterling,
>>>
>>> No worries, we will have 15 CPE per sector support in mid June (software
>>> update).  The next step will be 32 (another software update).  :-)
>>>
>>> -Hal
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>>> President
>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:29 PM Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't have a problem with their range or capacity.
>>>>
>>>> What I do have an issue with current specs is that it is one AP to 8
>>>> clients.
>>>>
>>>> I need this to be more in the 'normal' range of an AP to 15-30 clients
>>>> or more.
>>>>
>>>> Given the higher bandwidth, it would be a lot easier to spread a
>>>> 1000Mbps connection around to 30-100 clients than the 5GHz 100Mbps to the
>>>> same client number.
>>>>
>>>> Law of averages.
>>>>
>>>> Again, though, I can see that being a CPU/processor limited thing in
>>>> current radio designs for lower frequencies.
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 2:21 PM
>>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>>
>>>> The top reasons that come to mind right away are:
>>>>
>>>> (1) Range. How close can you tolerate? It's not going to go very far in
>>>> a PMP environment. Maybe a few hundred yards. If there are trees, forget
>>>> about it.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Modulation. Don't expect something in that frequency to be doing
>>>> higher level modulations. Because you can run ginormous channels, maybe not
>>>> a big deal, but I wouldn't count on it.
>>>>
>>>> (3) Costs. Getting things to run at that frequency would probably
>>>> require higher end components.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bp
>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/8/2017 1:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
>>>> > What am I missing here?
>>>> >
>>>> > Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio
>>>> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz
>>>> radio instead of 5Ghz?
>>>> >
>>>> > Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later
>>>> protocols on 60GHz vs 5GHz?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>
>> Harold Bledsoe
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Harold Bledsoe]

It probably could be made legally but really it wouldn't be very cost
effective.  RFIC is probably the most cost effective.

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 5:07 PM Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Wonder who will be first to make a 5Ghz to 60GHz UDC?Is it even legal?
>
> Jaime Solorza
> Wireless Systems Architect
> 915-861-1390 <(915)%20861-1390>
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Eric Muehleisen <ericm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Is the 5ghz backup radio enabled and transmitting all the time or does it
>> only come on during fade events. I would hate to chew up valuable 5ghz
>> spectrum to be used only 00.01% of the time.
>>
>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Harold Bledsoe <hbledso...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> High level, think fiber to the pole and wireless last few hundred
>>> meters. Basically everything is street level in that case.
>>>
>>> You can do fixed wireless off of 60GHz and maybe 5GHz. Wi-Fi then for
>>> best effort service.
>>>
>>> One thing to keep in mind is that in a lot of cities, half the folks
>>> don't have broadband at home. Wi-Fi service could be the economical
>>> solution. :-)
>>>
>>> 60GHz is for achieving gigabit levels of service.
>>>
>>> Hal
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:54 AM Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What is this angie thing… can’t wrap my head around it yet
>>>>
>>>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Harold Bledsoe <
>>>> hbledso...@gmail.com>
>>>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>>> Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 8:00 AM
>>>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>> Hey Sterling,
>>>>
>>>> No worries, we will have 15 CPE per sector support in mid June
>>>> (software update).  The next step will be 32 (another software update).  
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> -Hal
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>>>> President
>>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:29 PM Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't have a problem with their range or capacity.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I do have an issue with current specs is that it is one AP to 8
>>>>> clients.
>>>>>
>>>>> I need this to be more in the 'normal' range of an AP to 15-30 clients
>>>>> or more.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the higher bandwidth, it would be a lot easier to spread a
>>>>> 1000Mbps connection around to 30-100 clients than the 5GHz 100Mbps to the
>>>>> same client number.
>>>>>
>>>>> Law of averages.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, though, I can see that being a CPU/processor limited thing in
>>>>> current radio designs for lower frequencies.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 2:21 PM
>>>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>>>
>>>>> The top reasons that come to mind right away are:
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) Range. How close can you tolerate? It's not going to go very far
>>>>> in a PMP environment. Maybe a few hundred yards. If there are trees, 
>>>>> forget
>>>>> about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) Modulation. Don't expect something in that frequency to be doing
>>>>> higher level modulations. Because you can run ginormous channels, maybe 
>>>>> not
>>>>> a big deal, but I wouldn't count on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> (3) Costs. Getting things to run at that frequency would probably
>>>>> require higher end components.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> bp
>>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/8/2017 1:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
>>>>> > What am I missing here?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio
>>>>> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz
>>>>> radio instead of 5Ghz?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later
>>>>> protocols on 60GHz vs 5GHz?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>
>>> Harold Bledsoe
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Harold Bledsoe]

Hey Eric,

It transmits enough to maintain the link (<0.1% of airtime).  So it should
not cause problems with coexistence on the same channel.

-Hal

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 4:34 PM Eric Muehleisen <ericm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is the 5ghz backup radio enabled and transmitting all the time or does it
> only come on during fade events. I would hate to chew up valuable 5ghz
> spectrum to be used only 00.01% of the time.
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Harold Bledsoe <hbledso...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> High level, think fiber to the pole and wireless last few hundred meters.
>> Basically everything is street level in that case.
>>
>> You can do fixed wireless off of 60GHz and maybe 5GHz. Wi-Fi then for
>> best effort service.
>>
>> One thing to keep in mind is that in a lot of cities, half the folks
>> don't have broadband at home. Wi-Fi service could be the economical
>> solution. :-)
>>
>> 60GHz is for achieving gigabit levels of service.
>>
>> Hal
>>
>
>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:54 AM Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What is this angie thing… can’t wrap my head around it yet
>>>
>>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Harold Bledsoe <
>>> hbledso...@gmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>> Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 8:00 AM
>>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>> Hey Sterling,
>>>
>>> No worries, we will have 15 CPE per sector support in mid June (software
>>> update).  The next step will be 32 (another software update).  :-)
>>>
>>> -Hal
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>>> President
>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:29 PM Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't have a problem with their range or capacity.
>>>>
>>>> What I do have an issue with current specs is that it is one AP to 8
>>>> clients.
>>>>
>>>> I need this to be more in the 'normal' range of an AP to 15-30 clients
>>>> or more.
>>>>
>>>> Given the higher bandwidth, it would be a lot easier to spread a
>>>> 1000Mbps connection around to 30-100 clients than the 5GHz 100Mbps to the
>>>> same client number.
>>>>
>>>> Law of averages.
>>>>
>>>> Again, though, I can see that being a CPU/processor limited thing in
>>>> current radio designs for lower frequencies.
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 2:21 PM
>>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>>
>>>> The top reasons that come to mind right away are:
>>>>
>>>> (1) Range. How close can you tolerate? It's not going to go very far in
>>>> a PMP environment. Maybe a few hundred yards. If there are trees, forget
>>>> about it.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Modulation. Don't expect something in that frequency to be doing
>>>> higher level modulations. Because you can run ginormous channels, maybe not
>>>> a big deal, but I wouldn't count on it.
>>>>
>>>> (3) Costs. Getting things to run at that frequency would probably
>>>> require higher end components.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bp
>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/8/2017 1:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
>>>> > What am I missing here?
>>>> >
>>>> > Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio
>>>> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz
>>>> radio instead of 5Ghz?
>>>> >
>>>> > Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later
>>>> protocols on 60GHz vs 5GHz?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>
>> Harold Bledsoe
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Jaime Solorza]

Wonder who will be first to make a 5Ghz to 60GHz UDC?Is it even legal?

Jaime Solorza
Wireless Systems Architect
915-861-1390

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Eric Muehleisen <ericm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is the 5ghz backup radio enabled and transmitting all the time or does it
> only come on during fade events. I would hate to chew up valuable 5ghz
> spectrum to be used only 00.01% of the time.
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Harold Bledsoe <hbledso...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> High level, think fiber to the pole and wireless last few hundred meters.
>> Basically everything is street level in that case.
>>
>> You can do fixed wireless off of 60GHz and maybe 5GHz. Wi-Fi then for
>> best effort service.
>>
>> One thing to keep in mind is that in a lot of cities, half the folks
>> don't have broadband at home. Wi-Fi service could be the economical
>> solution. :-)
>>
>> 60GHz is for achieving gigabit levels of service.
>>
>> Hal
>>
>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:54 AM Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What is this angie thing… can’t wrap my head around it yet
>>>
>>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Harold Bledsoe <
>>> hbledso...@gmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>> Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 8:00 AM
>>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>> Hey Sterling,
>>>
>>> No worries, we will have 15 CPE per sector support in mid June (software
>>> update).  The next step will be 32 (another software update).  :-)
>>>
>>> -Hal
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>>> President
>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:29 PM Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't have a problem with their range or capacity.
>>>>
>>>> What I do have an issue with current specs is that it is one AP to 8
>>>> clients.
>>>>
>>>> I need this to be more in the 'normal' range of an AP to 15-30 clients
>>>> or more.
>>>>
>>>> Given the higher bandwidth, it would be a lot easier to spread a
>>>> 1000Mbps connection around to 30-100 clients than the 5GHz 100Mbps to the
>>>> same client number.
>>>>
>>>> Law of averages.
>>>>
>>>> Again, though, I can see that being a CPU/processor limited thing in
>>>> current radio designs for lower frequencies.
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 2:21 PM
>>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>>
>>>> The top reasons that come to mind right away are:
>>>>
>>>> (1) Range. How close can you tolerate? It's not going to go very far in
>>>> a PMP environment. Maybe a few hundred yards. If there are trees, forget
>>>> about it.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Modulation. Don't expect something in that frequency to be doing
>>>> higher level modulations. Because you can run ginormous channels, maybe not
>>>> a big deal, but I wouldn't count on it.
>>>>
>>>> (3) Costs. Getting things to run at that frequency would probably
>>>> require higher end components.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bp
>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/8/2017 1:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
>>>> > What am I missing here?
>>>> >
>>>> > Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio
>>>> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz
>>>> radio instead of 5Ghz?
>>>> >
>>>> > Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later
>>>> protocols on 60GHz vs 5GHz?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>
>> Harold Bledsoe
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Eric Muehleisen]

Is the 5ghz backup radio enabled and transmitting all the time or does it
only come on during fade events. I would hate to chew up valuable 5ghz
spectrum to be used only 00.01% of the time.

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Harold Bledsoe <hbledso...@gmail.com> wrote:

> High level, think fiber to the pole and wireless last few hundred meters.
> Basically everything is street level in that case.
>
> You can do fixed wireless off of 60GHz and maybe 5GHz. Wi-Fi then for best
> effort service.
>
> One thing to keep in mind is that in a lot of cities, half the folks don't
> have broadband at home. Wi-Fi service could be the economical solution. :-)
>
> 60GHz is for achieving gigabit levels of service.
>
> Hal
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:54 AM Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com>
> wrote:
>
>> What is this angie thing… can’t wrap my head around it yet
>>
>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Harold Bledsoe <
>> hbledso...@gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 8:00 AM
>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>> Hey Sterling,
>>
>> No worries, we will have 15 CPE per sector support in mid June (software
>> update).  The next step will be 32 (another software update).  :-)
>>
>> -Hal
>>
>>
>>
>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>> President
>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>
>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:29 PM Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't have a problem with their range or capacity.
>>>
>>> What I do have an issue with current specs is that it is one AP to 8
>>> clients.
>>>
>>> I need this to be more in the 'normal' range of an AP to 15-30 clients
>>> or more.
>>>
>>> Given the higher bandwidth, it would be a lot easier to spread a
>>> 1000Mbps connection around to 30-100 clients than the 5GHz 100Mbps to the
>>> same client number.
>>>
>>> Law of averages.
>>>
>>> Again, though, I can see that being a CPU/processor limited thing in
>>> current radio designs for lower frequencies.
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
>>> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 2:21 PM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>
>>> The top reasons that come to mind right away are:
>>>
>>> (1) Range. How close can you tolerate? It's not going to go very far in
>>> a PMP environment. Maybe a few hundred yards. If there are trees, forget
>>> about it.
>>>
>>> (2) Modulation. Don't expect something in that frequency to be doing
>>> higher level modulations. Because you can run ginormous channels, maybe not
>>> a big deal, but I wouldn't count on it.
>>>
>>> (3) Costs. Getting things to run at that frequency would probably
>>> require higher end components.
>>>
>>>
>>> bp
>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>>
>>> On 5/8/2017 1:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
>>> > What am I missing here?
>>> >
>>> > Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio
>>> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz
>>> radio instead of 5Ghz?
>>> >
>>> > Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later
>>> protocols on 60GHz vs 5GHz?
>>>
>>> --
>
> Harold Bledsoe
>

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Harold Bledsoe]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-fired_ceramic

Is what we use now. Specifically the LTCC variety.

There's pros and cons. It is possible to use something like Teflon like you
said and we started there but now prefer ceramics.

Hal

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:56 PM Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

> That is for certain, gotta use exotic substrates.  Not sure even teflon is
> good at that freq.
>
> *From:* Harold Bledsoe
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 09, 2017 1:37 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
> Yep and also the materials matter a lot. No FR4 for these babies...
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:59 AM Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>
>> All antenna designs scale.  Things are just much smaller at this
>> frequency.
>>
>> *From:* Joe Novak
>> *Sent:* Monday, May 08, 2017 7:39 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>> I have read that building a 60ghz antenna is a whole new ball game of
>> complicated compared to other bands. Until recently 60ghz antennas where
>> built SOC style, directly on the PCB of the board next to or on the radio
>> itself. I believe this may actually still be the case. Ignitenet's design
>> is based on this smartly utilizing some tricks in the 'feed horn' of the
>> radio from what I recall. I can't find the articles I was reading of
>> course, but it came up when people had taken apart the Ignitenet radio and
>> saw the usb dongle that was used, however, for cost effective 60ghz I'm not
>> sure what else exists for the market.
>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Jason McKemie <
>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The power taps are what would kill anything but a very dense deployment.
>>> Anything less and you'd be better off just running fiber.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, May 8, 2017, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>> I think the 30 degree sector Ignitenet has is something like 18dbi, vs
>>>> 25dbi for their bigger directional... I tried to get a pair of Metrolinqs
>>>> to work at just under a mile (which should theoretically work), but I never
>>>> could get them to link. I tested at about half that distance and it worked
>>>> fine... I don't remember what the signal was, but I thought at the time
>>>> that it would probably link with 17dbi less antenna. Even so, 1000' should
>>>> be workable, which still has a lot of potential. I've been toying with the
>>>> idea of putting them on street lights - I'm thinking you could do something
>>>> like one 30 degree sector at the end of each street and cover a block or
>>>> two.
>>>>
>>>> Heck, even if you only figured 500'-1000', you could build a network
>>>> pretty cheaply using street lights.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is only going to be useful in pretty specific areas... at
>>>> the majority of our towers 60ghz is going to be completely worthless, but I
>>>> can certainly find places where it would work.
>>>>
>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>> Even if it existed 2000 ft is wildly optimistic. 60 GHz works at 600
>>>>> meters (just about 2000 ft for you Americans) between two PTP dishes
>>>>> because you have 44-45dBi gain dishes on both ends. Would not be the case
>>>>> with any sort of 60 GHz sector antenna, you'd be looking at much less 
>>>>> gain.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Very location specific. None of our towers would be able to serve
>>>>>> anyone with that kind of range.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> bp
>>>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/8/2017 2:15 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed... don't underestimate what can be done with a 2000' range. I
>>>>>> can probably cover a hundred houses with that from the tower next to 
>>>>>> where
>>>>>> I'm sitting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>&g

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Chuck McCown]

That is for certain, gotta use exotic substrates.  Not sure even teflon is good 
at that freq.  

From: Harold Bledsoe 
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 1:37 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

Yep and also the materials matter a lot. No FR4 for these babies...

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:59 AM Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

  All antenna designs scale.  Things are just much smaller at this frequency.  

  From: Joe Novak 
  Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 7:39 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
  I have read that building a 60ghz antenna is a whole new ball game of 
complicated compared to other bands. Until recently 60ghz antennas where built 
SOC style, directly on the PCB of the board next to or on the radio itself. I 
believe this may actually still be the case. Ignitenet's design is based on 
this smartly utilizing some tricks in the 'feed horn' of the radio from what I 
recall. I can't find the articles I was reading of course, but it came up when 
people had taken apart the Ignitenet radio and saw the usb dongle that was 
used, however, for cost effective 60ghz I'm not sure what else exists for the 
market.
  On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Jason McKemie 
<j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

The power taps are what would kill anything but a very dense deployment. 
Anything less and you'd be better off just running fiber. 


On Monday, May 8, 2017, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:

  I think the 30 degree sector Ignitenet has is something like 18dbi, vs 
25dbi for their bigger directional... I tried to get a pair of Metrolinqs to 
work at just under a mile (which should theoretically work), but I never could 
get them to link. I tested at about half that distance and it worked fine... I 
don't remember what the signal was, but I thought at the time that it would 
probably link with 17dbi less antenna. Even so, 1000' should be workable, which 
still has a lot of potential. I've been toying with the idea of putting them on 
street lights - I'm thinking you could do something like one 30 degree sector 
at the end of each street and cover a block or two.


  Heck, even if you only figured 500'-1000', you could build a network 
pretty cheaply using street lights.


  Of course it is only going to be useful in pretty specific areas... at 
the majority of our towers 60ghz is going to be completely worthless, but I can 
certainly find places where it would work.

  On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Even if it existed 2000 ft is wildly optimistic. 60 GHz works at 600 
meters (just about 2000 ft for you Americans) between two PTP dishes because 
you have 44-45dBi gain dishes on both ends. Would not be the case with any sort 
of 60 GHz sector antenna, you'd be looking at much less gain.

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:

  Very location specific. None of our towers would be able to serve 
anyone with that kind of range.



bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 5/8/2017 2:15 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:

Indeed... don't underestimate what can be done with a 2000' range. 
I can probably cover a hundred houses with that from the tower next to where 
I'm sitting.


On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Gino A. Villarini 
<g...@aeronetpr.com> wrote:

  I concur 

  From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Sterling Jacobson 
<sterl...@avative.net>
  Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
  Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 4:31 PM
          To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?


  Lots.



  Lots of places.



  I’ve got, and can get fiber up main roads in neighborhoods very 
easily.



  What costs me is the last mile backbone that winds across streets 
and through ROW in front of houses etc.

  That is the majority of my costs right there.



  If I can get in with ‘normal’ wireless pricing per AP/CPE but at 
1000Mbps I can do the hybrid model easily at much less costs.



  It will be amazing for potential customers at the moment.



  Might not hold up over time as bandwidth needs increase, but 
provides an immediate solution at a fraction of the cost of fiber, with the 
‘feel’ of fiber.



  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Colin Stanners
  Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 2:29 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?



  How many places do you want to install a PtMP system that goes a 
maximum of 1000-

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Harold Bledsoe]

High level, think fiber to the pole and wireless last few hundred meters.
Basically everything is street level in that case.

You can do fixed wireless off of 60GHz and maybe 5GHz. Wi-Fi then for best
effort service.

One thing to keep in mind is that in a lot of cities, half the folks don't
have broadband at home. Wi-Fi service could be the economical solution. :-)

60GHz is for achieving gigabit levels of service.

Hal

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:54 AM Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com> wrote:

> What is this angie thing… can’t wrap my head around it yet
>
> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Harold Bledsoe <
> hbledso...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
> Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 8:00 AM
> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
> Hey Sterling,
>
> No worries, we will have 15 CPE per sector support in mid June (software
> update).  The next step will be 32 (another software update).  :-)
>
> -Hal
>
>
>
> *Gino A. Villarini*
> President
> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>
> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:29 PM Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net>
> wrote:
>
>> I don't have a problem with their range or capacity.
>>
>> What I do have an issue with current specs is that it is one AP to 8
>> clients.
>>
>> I need this to be more in the 'normal' range of an AP to 15-30 clients or
>> more.
>>
>> Given the higher bandwidth, it would be a lot easier to spread a 1000Mbps
>> connection around to 30-100 clients than the 5GHz 100Mbps to the same
>> client number.
>>
>> Law of averages.
>>
>> Again, though, I can see that being a CPU/processor limited thing in
>> current radio designs for lower frequencies.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
>> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 2:21 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>
>> The top reasons that come to mind right away are:
>>
>> (1) Range. How close can you tolerate? It's not going to go very far in a
>> PMP environment. Maybe a few hundred yards. If there are trees, forget
>> about it.
>>
>> (2) Modulation. Don't expect something in that frequency to be doing
>> higher level modulations. Because you can run ginormous channels, maybe not
>> a big deal, but I wouldn't count on it.
>>
>> (3) Costs. Getting things to run at that frequency would probably require
>> higher end components.
>>
>>
>> bp
>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>
>> On 5/8/2017 1:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
>> > What am I missing here?
>> >
>> > Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio
>> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz
>> radio instead of 5Ghz?
>> >
>> > Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later
>> protocols on 60GHz vs 5GHz?
>>
>> --

Harold Bledsoe

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Harold Bledsoe]

Yep and also the materials matter a lot. No FR4 for these babies...

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:59 AM Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

> All antenna designs scale.  Things are just much smaller at this
> frequency.
>
> *From:* Joe Novak
> *Sent:* Monday, May 08, 2017 7:39 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
> I have read that building a 60ghz antenna is a whole new ball game of
> complicated compared to other bands. Until recently 60ghz antennas where
> built SOC style, directly on the PCB of the board next to or on the radio
> itself. I believe this may actually still be the case. Ignitenet's design
> is based on this smartly utilizing some tricks in the 'feed horn' of the
> radio from what I recall. I can't find the articles I was reading of
> course, but it came up when people had taken apart the Ignitenet radio and
> saw the usb dongle that was used, however, for cost effective 60ghz I'm not
> sure what else exists for the market.
> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>
>> The power taps are what would kill anything but a very dense deployment.
>> Anything less and you'd be better off just running fiber.
>
>
>>
>> On Monday, May 8, 2017, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> I think the 30 degree sector Ignitenet has is something like 18dbi, vs
>>> 25dbi for their bigger directional... I tried to get a pair of Metrolinqs
>>> to work at just under a mile (which should theoretically work), but I never
>>> could get them to link. I tested at about half that distance and it worked
>>> fine... I don't remember what the signal was, but I thought at the time
>>> that it would probably link with 17dbi less antenna. Even so, 1000' should
>>> be workable, which still has a lot of potential. I've been toying with the
>>> idea of putting them on street lights - I'm thinking you could do something
>>> like one 30 degree sector at the end of each street and cover a block or
>>> two.
>>>
>>> Heck, even if you only figured 500'-1000', you could build a network
>>> pretty cheaply using street lights.
>>>
>>> Of course it is only going to be useful in pretty specific areas... at
>>> the majority of our towers 60ghz is going to be completely worthless, but I
>>> can certainly find places where it would work.
>>>
>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>> Even if it existed 2000 ft is wildly optimistic. 60 GHz works at 600
>>>> meters (just about 2000 ft for you Americans) between two PTP dishes
>>>> because you have 44-45dBi gain dishes on both ends. Would not be the case
>>>> with any sort of 60 GHz sector antenna, you'd be looking at much less gain.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Very location specific. None of our towers would be able to serve
>>>>> anyone with that kind of range.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> bp
>>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/8/2017 2:15 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed... don't underestimate what can be done with a 2000' range. I
>>>>> can probably cover a hundred houses with that from the tower next to where
>>>>> I'm sitting.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I concur
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Sterling Jacobson <
>>>>>> sterl...@avative.net>
>>>>>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>>>>> Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 4:31 PM
>>>>>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lots of places.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’ve got, and can get fiber up main roads in neighborhoods very
>>>>>> easily.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Gino A. Villarini]

What is this angie thing… can’t wrap my head around it yet

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of 
Harold Bledsoe <hbledso...@gmail.com<mailto:hbledso...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
<af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 8:00 AM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

Hey Sterling,

No worries, we will have 15 CPE per sector support in mid June (software 
update).  The next step will be 32 (another software update).  :-)

-Hal




Gino A. Villarini


President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

[cid:aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png]

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:29 PM Sterling Jacobson 
<sterl...@avative.net<mailto:sterl...@avative.net>> wrote:
I don't have a problem with their range or capacity.

What I do have an issue with current specs is that it is one AP to 8 clients.

I need this to be more in the 'normal' range of an AP to 15-30 clients or more.

Given the higher bandwidth, it would be a lot easier to spread a 1000Mbps 
connection around to 30-100 clients than the 5GHz 100Mbps to the same client 
number.

Law of averages.

Again, though, I can see that being a CPU/processor limited thing in current 
radio designs for lower frequencies.

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf 
Of Bill Prince
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 2:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

The top reasons that come to mind right away are:

(1) Range. How close can you tolerate? It's not going to go very far in a PMP 
environment. Maybe a few hundred yards. If there are trees, forget about it.

(2) Modulation. Don't expect something in that frequency to be doing higher 
level modulations. Because you can run ginormous channels, maybe not a big 
deal, but I wouldn't count on it.

(3) Costs. Getting things to run at that frequency would probably require 
higher end components.


bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 5/8/2017 1:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
> What am I missing here?
>
> Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio 
> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz 
> radio instead of 5Ghz?
>
> Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later protocols on 
> 60GHz vs 5GHz?

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Gino A. Villarini]

Hey Hal, don’t forget to send me those TRILL units specs

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of 
Harold Bledsoe <hbledso...@gmail.com<mailto:hbledso...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
<af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 8:00 AM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

Hey Sterling,

No worries, we will have 15 CPE per sector support in mid June (software 
update).  The next step will be 32 (another software update).  :-)

-Hal




Gino A. Villarini


President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

[cid:aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png]

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:29 PM Sterling Jacobson 
<sterl...@avative.net<mailto:sterl...@avative.net>> wrote:
I don't have a problem with their range or capacity.

What I do have an issue with current specs is that it is one AP to 8 clients.

I need this to be more in the 'normal' range of an AP to 15-30 clients or more.

Given the higher bandwidth, it would be a lot easier to spread a 1000Mbps 
connection around to 30-100 clients than the 5GHz 100Mbps to the same client 
number.

Law of averages.

Again, though, I can see that being a CPU/processor limited thing in current 
radio designs for lower frequencies.

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf 
Of Bill Prince
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 2:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

The top reasons that come to mind right away are:

(1) Range. How close can you tolerate? It's not going to go very far in a PMP 
environment. Maybe a few hundred yards. If there are trees, forget about it.

(2) Modulation. Don't expect something in that frequency to be doing higher 
level modulations. Because you can run ginormous channels, maybe not a big 
deal, but I wouldn't count on it.

(3) Costs. Getting things to run at that frequency would probably require 
higher end components.


bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 5/8/2017 1:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
> What am I missing here?
>
> Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio 
> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz 
> radio instead of 5Ghz?
>
> Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later protocols on 
> 60GHz vs 5GHz?

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Chuck McCown]

All antenna designs scale.  Things are just much smaller at this frequency.  

From: Joe Novak 
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 7:39 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

I have read that building a 60ghz antenna is a whole new ball game of 
complicated compared to other bands. Until recently 60ghz antennas where built 
SOC style, directly on the PCB of the board next to or on the radio itself. I 
believe this may actually still be the case. Ignitenet's design is based on 
this smartly utilizing some tricks in the 'feed horn' of the radio from what I 
recall. I can't find the articles I was reading of course, but it came up when 
people had taken apart the Ignitenet radio and saw the usb dongle that was 
used, however, for cost effective 60ghz I'm not sure what else exists for the 
market.

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Jason McKemie 
<j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

  The power taps are what would kill anything but a very dense deployment. 
Anything less and you'd be better off just running fiber. 


  On Monday, May 8, 2017, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think the 30 degree sector Ignitenet has is something like 18dbi, vs 
25dbi for their bigger directional... I tried to get a pair of Metrolinqs to 
work at just under a mile (which should theoretically work), but I never could 
get them to link. I tested at about half that distance and it worked fine... I 
don't remember what the signal was, but I thought at the time that it would 
probably link with 17dbi less antenna. Even so, 1000' should be workable, which 
still has a lot of potential. I've been toying with the idea of putting them on 
street lights - I'm thinking you could do something like one 30 degree sector 
at the end of each street and cover a block or two.


Heck, even if you only figured 500'-1000', you could build a network pretty 
cheaply using street lights.


Of course it is only going to be useful in pretty specific areas... at the 
majority of our towers 60ghz is going to be completely worthless, but I can 
certainly find places where it would work.


On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote:

  Even if it existed 2000 ft is wildly optimistic. 60 GHz works at 600 
meters (just about 2000 ft for you Americans) between two PTP dishes because 
you have 44-45dBi gain dishes on both ends. Would not be the case with any sort 
of 60 GHz sector antenna, you'd be looking at much less gain.

  On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:

Very location specific. None of our towers would be able to serve 
anyone with that kind of range.



bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 5/8/2017 2:15 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:

  Indeed... don't underestimate what can be done with a 2000' range. I 
can probably cover a hundred houses with that from the tower next to where I'm 
sitting.


  On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Gino A. Villarini 
<g...@aeronetpr.com> wrote:

I concur 

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Sterling Jacobson 
<sterl...@avative.net>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 4:31 PM
        To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?


Lots.



Lots of places.



I’ve got, and can get fiber up main roads in neighborhoods very 
easily.



What costs me is the last mile backbone that winds across streets 
and through ROW in front of houses etc.

That is the majority of my costs right there.



If I can get in with ‘normal’ wireless pricing per AP/CPE but at 
1000Mbps I can do the hybrid model easily at much less costs.



It will be amazing for potential customers at the moment.



Might not hold up over time as bandwidth needs increase, but 
provides an immediate solution at a fraction of the cost of fiber, with the 
‘feel’ of fiber.



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Colin Stanners
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 2:29 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?



How many places do you want to install a PtMP system that goes a 
maximum of 1000-2000ft distance, that fiber does not work?






  Gino A. Villarini
 
  President 
  Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 



On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
<sterl...@avative.net> wrote: 
  What am I missing here?

  Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio 
architecture/software they have developed over a deca

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Stefan Englhardt]

For Microcells Mimosa has done a good form factor. It has to be something 
which could attach to the end of a pole. No windload, working 
omnidirectional and look pleasing.
As soon as these microcells are between houses they have to look like a nice 
lamp and not like a small cellphone tower. We have a lot of discussions and 
problems with placement of microcell poles. We have to dig to move them to 
places where nobody gets angry.



On Tue, 9 May 2017 11:57:21 +
 Harold Bledsoe <hbledso...@gmail.com> wrote:
There's a lot more "tools" coming this year that will 
continue to make
building gigabit wireless networks with 60GHz easier and 
easier.  With
today's tools it is already possible to build 500m 
radius cells @ 99.99% in
rain zone K - even with a resi-friendly 8in. size.  If 
you bump that up to

1' size, you can get to 2500' (750m) radius.

Besides the 30º sector we have today, we will continue 
to add to this other
coverages and form factors.  That, combined with some 
other tools like
low-cost TRILL rbridges will make building these 
networks much easier.


Some folks are taking a different approach and doing 
high density cities:


https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/blueprint-building-5g-primed-fiber-backhauled-telecom-neal-lachman

There's other deployment models too including pure 
wireless ones.  There's
building wireless mesh/rings, there's using lower band 
licensed PTMP to

feed wireless rings, etc.

Thanks,
-Hal

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 6:09 PM Mathew Howard 
<mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:


I think the 30 degree sector Ignitenet has is something 
like 18dbi, vs
25dbi for their bigger directional... I tried to get a 
pair of Metrolinqs
to work at just under a mile (which should theoretically 
work), but I never
could get them to link. I tested at about half that 
distance and it worked
fine... I don't remember what the signal was, but I 
thought at the time
that it would probably link with 17dbi less antenna. 
Even so, 1000' should
be workable, which still has a lot of potential. I've 
been toying with the
idea of putting them on street lights - I'm thinking you 
could do something
like one 30 degree sector at the end of each street and 
cover a block or

two.

Heck, even if you only figured 500'-1000', you could 
build a network

pretty cheaply using street lights.

Of course it is only going to be useful in pretty 
specific areas... at the
majority of our towers 60ghz is going to be completely 
worthless, but I can

certainly find places where it would work.

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
<eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote:


Even if it existed 2000 ft is wildly optimistic. 60 GHz 
works at 600
meters (just about 2000 ft for you Americans) between 
two PTP dishes
because you have 44-45dBi gain dishes on both ends. 
Would not be the case
with any sort of 60 GHz sector antenna, you'd be looking 
at much less gain.


On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Bill Prince 
<part15...@gmail.com> wrote:


Very location specific. None of our towers would be able 
to serve anyone

with that kind of range.


bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>


On 5/8/2017 2:15 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:

Indeed... don't underestimate what can be done with a 
2000' range. I can
probably cover a hundred houses with that from the tower 
next to where I'm

sitting.

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Gino A. Villarini 
<g...@aeronetpr.com>

wrote:


I concur

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Sterling 
Jacobson <

sterl...@avative.net>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 4:31 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone 
Have It?


Lots.



Lots of places.



I’ve got, and can get fiber up main roads in 
neighborhoods very easily.




What costs me is the last mile backbone that winds 
across streets and

through ROW in front of houses etc.

That is the majority of my costs right there.



If I can get in with ‘normal’ wireless pricing per 
AP/CPE but at
1000Mbps I can do the hybrid model easily at much less 
costs.




It will be amazing for potential customers at the 
moment.




Might not hold up over time as bandwidth needs increase, 
but provides
an immediate solution at a fraction of the cost of 
fiber, with the ‘feel’

of fiber.



*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com 
<af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On

Behalf Of *Colin Stanners
*Sent:* Monday, May 8, 2017 2:29 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone 
Have It?




How many places do you want to install a PtMP system 
that goes a
maximum of 1000-2000ft distance, that fiber does not 
work?






*Gino A. Villarini*
President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 
00968


On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
<sterl...@avative.net>

wrote:

What am I missing here?

Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the 

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Harold Bledsoe]

Hey Sterling,

No worries, we will have 15 CPE per sector support in mid June (software
update).  The next step will be 32 (another software update).  :-)

-Hal

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:29 PM Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net>
wrote:

> I don't have a problem with their range or capacity.
>
> What I do have an issue with current specs is that it is one AP to 8
> clients.
>
> I need this to be more in the 'normal' range of an AP to 15-30 clients or
> more.
>
> Given the higher bandwidth, it would be a lot easier to spread a 1000Mbps
> connection around to 30-100 clients than the 5GHz 100Mbps to the same
> client number.
>
> Law of averages.
>
> Again, though, I can see that being a CPU/processor limited thing in
> current radio designs for lower frequencies.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 2:21 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>
> The top reasons that come to mind right away are:
>
> (1) Range. How close can you tolerate? It's not going to go very far in a
> PMP environment. Maybe a few hundred yards. If there are trees, forget
> about it.
>
> (2) Modulation. Don't expect something in that frequency to be doing
> higher level modulations. Because you can run ginormous channels, maybe not
> a big deal, but I wouldn't count on it.
>
> (3) Costs. Getting things to run at that frequency would probably require
> higher end components.
>
>
> bp
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>
> On 5/8/2017 1:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
> > What am I missing here?
> >
> > Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio
> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz
> radio instead of 5Ghz?
> >
> > Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later
> protocols on 60GHz vs 5GHz?
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Harold Bledsoe]

There's a lot more "tools" coming this year that will continue to make
building gigabit wireless networks with 60GHz easier and easier.  With
today's tools it is already possible to build 500m radius cells @ 99.99% in
rain zone K - even with a resi-friendly 8in. size.  If you bump that up to
1' size, you can get to 2500' (750m) radius.

Besides the 30º sector we have today, we will continue to add to this other
coverages and form factors.  That, combined with some other tools like
low-cost TRILL rbridges will make building these networks much easier.

Some folks are taking a different approach and doing high density cities:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/blueprint-building-5g-primed-fiber-backhauled-telecom-neal-lachman

There's other deployment models too including pure wireless ones.  There's
building wireless mesh/rings, there's using lower band licensed PTMP to
feed wireless rings, etc.

Thanks,
-Hal

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 6:09 PM Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think the 30 degree sector Ignitenet has is something like 18dbi, vs
> 25dbi for their bigger directional... I tried to get a pair of Metrolinqs
> to work at just under a mile (which should theoretically work), but I never
> could get them to link. I tested at about half that distance and it worked
> fine... I don't remember what the signal was, but I thought at the time
> that it would probably link with 17dbi less antenna. Even so, 1000' should
> be workable, which still has a lot of potential. I've been toying with the
> idea of putting them on street lights - I'm thinking you could do something
> like one 30 degree sector at the end of each street and cover a block or
> two.
>
> Heck, even if you only figured 500'-1000', you could build a network
> pretty cheaply using street lights.
>
> Of course it is only going to be useful in pretty specific areas... at the
> majority of our towers 60ghz is going to be completely worthless, but I can
> certainly find places where it would work.
>
> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Even if it existed 2000 ft is wildly optimistic. 60 GHz works at 600
>> meters (just about 2000 ft for you Americans) between two PTP dishes
>> because you have 44-45dBi gain dishes on both ends. Would not be the case
>> with any sort of 60 GHz sector antenna, you'd be looking at much less gain.
>>
>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Very location specific. None of our towers would be able to serve anyone
>>> with that kind of range.
>>>
>>>
>>> bp
>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/8/2017 2:15 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>>
>>> Indeed... don't underestimate what can be done with a 2000' range. I can
>>> probably cover a hundred houses with that from the tower next to where I'm
>>> sitting.
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I concur
>>>>
>>>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Sterling Jacobson <
>>>> sterl...@avative.net>
>>>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>>> Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 4:31 PM
>>>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>>
>>>> Lots.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lots of places.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I’ve got, and can get fiber up main roads in neighborhoods very easily.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What costs me is the last mile backbone that winds across streets and
>>>> through ROW in front of houses etc.
>>>>
>>>> That is the majority of my costs right there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I can get in with ‘normal’ wireless pricing per AP/CPE but at
>>>> 1000Mbps I can do the hybrid model easily at much less costs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It will be amazing for potential customers at the moment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Might not hold up over time as bandwidth needs increase, but provides
>>>> an immediate solution at a fraction of the cost of fiber, with the ‘feel’
>>>> of fiber.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
>>>> Behalf Of *Colin Stanners
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, May 8, 2017 2:29 PM
>>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How many places do you want to install a PtMP system that goes a
>>>> maximum of 1000-2000ft distance, that fiber does not work?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>>>> President
>>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What am I missing here?
>>>>
>>>> Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio
>>>> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz
>>>> radio instead of 5Ghz?
>>>>
>>>> Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later
>>>> protocols on 60GHz vs 5GHz?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Joe Novak]

I have read that building a 60ghz antenna is a whole new ball game of
complicated compared to other bands. Until recently 60ghz antennas where
built SOC style, directly on the PCB of the board next to or on the radio
itself. I believe this may actually still be the case. Ignitenet's design
is based on this smartly utilizing some tricks in the 'feed horn' of the
radio from what I recall. I can't find the articles I was reading of
course, but it came up when people had taken apart the Ignitenet radio and
saw the usb dongle that was used, however, for cost effective 60ghz I'm not
sure what else exists for the market.

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Jason McKemie <
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

> The power taps are what would kill anything but a very dense deployment.
> Anything less and you'd be better off just running fiber.
>
>
> On Monday, May 8, 2017, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think the 30 degree sector Ignitenet has is something like 18dbi, vs
>> 25dbi for their bigger directional... I tried to get a pair of Metrolinqs
>> to work at just under a mile (which should theoretically work), but I never
>> could get them to link. I tested at about half that distance and it worked
>> fine... I don't remember what the signal was, but I thought at the time
>> that it would probably link with 17dbi less antenna. Even so, 1000' should
>> be workable, which still has a lot of potential. I've been toying with the
>> idea of putting them on street lights - I'm thinking you could do something
>> like one 30 degree sector at the end of each street and cover a block or
>> two.
>>
>> Heck, even if you only figured 500'-1000', you could build a network
>> pretty cheaply using street lights.
>>
>> Of course it is only going to be useful in pretty specific areas... at
>> the majority of our towers 60ghz is going to be completely worthless, but I
>> can certainly find places where it would work.
>>
>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Even if it existed 2000 ft is wildly optimistic. 60 GHz works at 600
>>> meters (just about 2000 ft for you Americans) between two PTP dishes
>>> because you have 44-45dBi gain dishes on both ends. Would not be the case
>>> with any sort of 60 GHz sector antenna, you'd be looking at much less gain.
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Very location specific. None of our towers would be able to serve
>>>> anyone with that kind of range.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bp
>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/8/2017 2:15 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Indeed... don't underestimate what can be done with a 2000' range. I
>>>> can probably cover a hundred houses with that from the tower next to where
>>>> I'm sitting.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I concur
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Sterling Jacobson <
>>>>> sterl...@avative.net>
>>>>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>>>> Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 4:31 PM
>>>>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>>>
>>>>> Lots.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lots of places.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I’ve got, and can get fiber up main roads in neighborhoods very easily.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What costs me is the last mile backbone that winds across streets and
>>>>> through ROW in front of houses etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is the majority of my costs right there.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If I can get in with ‘normal’ wireless pricing per AP/CPE but at
>>>>> 1000Mbps I can do the hybrid model easily at much less costs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It will be amazing for potential customers at the moment.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Might not hold up over time as bandwidth needs increase, but provides
>>>>> an immediate solution at a fraction of the cost of fiber, with the ‘feel’
>>>>> of fiber.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Colin Stanners
>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, May 8, 2017 2:29 PM
>>>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How many places do you want to install a PtMP system that goes a
>>>>> maximum of 1000-2000ft distance, that fiber does not work?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>>>>> President
>>>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson <
>>>>> sterl...@avative.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What am I missing here?
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio
>>>>> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz
>>>>> radio instead of 5Ghz?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later
>>>>> protocols on 60GHz vs 5GHz?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Jason McKemie]

The power taps are what would kill anything but a very dense deployment.
Anything less and you'd be better off just running fiber.

On Monday, May 8, 2017, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think the 30 degree sector Ignitenet has is something like 18dbi, vs
> 25dbi for their bigger directional... I tried to get a pair of Metrolinqs
> to work at just under a mile (which should theoretically work), but I never
> could get them to link. I tested at about half that distance and it worked
> fine... I don't remember what the signal was, but I thought at the time
> that it would probably link with 17dbi less antenna. Even so, 1000' should
> be workable, which still has a lot of potential. I've been toying with the
> idea of putting them on street lights - I'm thinking you could do something
> like one 30 degree sector at the end of each street and cover a block or
> two.
>
> Heck, even if you only figured 500'-1000', you could build a network
> pretty cheaply using street lights.
>
> Of course it is only going to be useful in pretty specific areas... at the
> majority of our towers 60ghz is going to be completely worthless, but I can
> certainly find places where it would work.
>
> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','eric.kuh...@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>> Even if it existed 2000 ft is wildly optimistic. 60 GHz works at 600
>> meters (just about 2000 ft for you Americans) between two PTP dishes
>> because you have 44-45dBi gain dishes on both ends. Would not be the case
>> with any sort of 60 GHz sector antenna, you'd be looking at much less gain.
>>
>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','part15...@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>
>>> Very location specific. None of our towers would be able to serve anyone
>>> with that kind of range.
>>>
>>>
>>> bp
>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/8/2017 2:15 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>>
>>> Indeed... don't underestimate what can be done with a 2000' range. I can
>>> probably cover a hundred houses with that from the tower next to where I'm
>>> sitting.
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','g...@aeronetpr.com');>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I concur
>>>>
>>>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>> on behalf of
>>>> Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sterl...@avative.net');>>
>>>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>"
>>>> <af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>>
>>>> Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 4:31 PM
>>>> To: "af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>" <
>>>> af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>>
>>>> Lots.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lots of places.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I’ve got, and can get fiber up main roads in neighborhoods very easily.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What costs me is the last mile backbone that winds across streets and
>>>> through ROW in front of houses etc.
>>>>
>>>> That is the majority of my costs right there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I can get in with ‘normal’ wireless pricing per AP/CPE but at
>>>> 1000Mbps I can do the hybrid model easily at much less costs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It will be amazing for potential customers at the moment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Might not hold up over time as bandwidth needs increase, but provides
>>>> an immediate solution at a fraction of the cost of fiber, with the ‘feel’
>>>> of fiber.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] *On Behalf Of 
>>>> *Colin
>>>> Stanners
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, May 8, 2017 2:29 PM
>>>> *To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How many places do you want to install a PtMP system that goes a
>>>> maximum of 1000-2000ft distance, that fiber does not work?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>>>> President
>>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sterl...@avative.net');>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What am I missing here?
>>>>
>>>> Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio
>>>> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz
>>>> radio instead of 5Ghz?
>>>>
>>>> Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later
>>>> protocols on 60GHz vs 5GHz?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Mathew Howard]

I think the 30 degree sector Ignitenet has is something like 18dbi, vs
25dbi for their bigger directional... I tried to get a pair of Metrolinqs
to work at just under a mile (which should theoretically work), but I never
could get them to link. I tested at about half that distance and it worked
fine... I don't remember what the signal was, but I thought at the time
that it would probably link with 17dbi less antenna. Even so, 1000' should
be workable, which still has a lot of potential. I've been toying with the
idea of putting them on street lights - I'm thinking you could do something
like one 30 degree sector at the end of each street and cover a block or
two.

Heck, even if you only figured 500'-1000', you could build a network pretty
cheaply using street lights.

Of course it is only going to be useful in pretty specific areas... at the
majority of our towers 60ghz is going to be completely worthless, but I can
certainly find places where it would work.

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Even if it existed 2000 ft is wildly optimistic. 60 GHz works at 600
> meters (just about 2000 ft for you Americans) between two PTP dishes
> because you have 44-45dBi gain dishes on both ends. Would not be the case
> with any sort of 60 GHz sector antenna, you'd be looking at much less gain.
>
> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Very location specific. None of our towers would be able to serve anyone
>> with that kind of range.
>>
>>
>> bp
>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>
>>
>> On 5/8/2017 2:15 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>
>> Indeed... don't underestimate what can be done with a 2000' range. I can
>> probably cover a hundred houses with that from the tower next to where I'm
>> sitting.
>>
>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I concur
>>>
>>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Sterling Jacobson <
>>> sterl...@avative.net>
>>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>> Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 4:31 PM
>>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>
>>> Lots.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lots of places.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’ve got, and can get fiber up main roads in neighborhoods very easily.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What costs me is the last mile backbone that winds across streets and
>>> through ROW in front of houses etc.
>>>
>>> That is the majority of my costs right there.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If I can get in with ‘normal’ wireless pricing per AP/CPE but at
>>> 1000Mbps I can do the hybrid model easily at much less costs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It will be amazing for potential customers at the moment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Might not hold up over time as bandwidth needs increase, but provides an
>>> immediate solution at a fraction of the cost of fiber, with the ‘feel’ of
>>> fiber.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
>>> Behalf Of *Colin Stanners
>>> *Sent:* Monday, May 8, 2017 2:29 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How many places do you want to install a PtMP system that goes a maximum
>>> of 1000-2000ft distance, that fiber does not work?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>>> President
>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> What am I missing here?
>>>
>>> Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio
>>> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz
>>> radio instead of 5Ghz?
>>>
>>> Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later
>>> protocols on 60GHz vs 5GHz?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Brett A Mansfield]

1500m is exactly what I meant. AKA 1.5 km. I thought I'd have constant rain 
fade, but it's only switched to the 5GHz backup once and that was in very heavy 
rain. The links are just below 1500. One is 1486m and another is about 1440m. 
I'm not sure what my other two are exactly, but pretty close to the same. 

I've had the same amount of rain fade as with my AF24 at 3 miles. 

The PtMP on the other hand fades a lot more in the rain. But it's not often we 
get sustained rain storms in Utah. They're usually gone as fast as the came. 
All of my PtMP links that are shorter (sub 500 m) have never faded out in the 
rain. 

60GHz is great! It certainly has its place. I'm using them for more than I 
should probably, but a gig for $1100 60GHz vs 24GHz 775Mb for $3000 when it's a 
short link? That's a no brainer. 

Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield

> On May 8, 2017, at 3:50 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 1500m between two 30 or 60 cm dishes?
> 
> Fades a bit in rain?   You sure you mean 1500m and not 1500 ft? 
> 
> 1500m is way too far for 60 GHz PTP unless you're in the Libyan desert.
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Brett A Mansfield 
>> <li...@silverlakeinternet.com> wrote:
>> I have a few PTP 60GHz links at 1500 meters working perfectly at -61. Sure 
>> it fades in heavy rain a tiny bit, but no more than my 3 mile 24GHz links. 
>> 
>> I also have several PtMP links as far as 800 meters working well with -65 or 
>> better.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Brett A Mansfield
>> 
>>> On May 8, 2017, at 3:43 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Even if it existed 2000 ft is wildly optimistic. 60 GHz works at 600 meters 
>>> (just about 2000 ft for you Americans) between two PTP dishes because you 
>>> have 44-45dBi gain dishes on both ends. Would not be the case with any sort 
>>> of 60 GHz sector antenna, you'd be looking at much less gain.
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Very location specific. None of our towers would be able to serve anyone 
>>>> with that kind of range.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> bp
>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>>> 
>>>>> On 5/8/2017 2:15 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>>>> Indeed... don't underestimate what can be done with a 2000' range. I can 
>>>>> probably cover a hundred houses with that from the tower next to where 
>>>>> I'm sitting.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I concur 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Sterling Jacobson 
>>>>>> <sterl...@avative.net>
>>>>>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>>>>> Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 4:31 PM
>>>>>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Lots.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Lots of places.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I’ve got, and can get fiber up main roads in neighborhoods very easily.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What costs me is the last mile backbone that winds across streets and 
>>>>>> through ROW in front of houses etc.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That is the majority of my costs right there.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If I can get in with ‘normal’ wireless pricing per AP/CPE but at 
>>>>>> 1000Mbps I can do the hybrid model easily at much less costs.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It will be amazing for potential customers at the moment.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Might not hold up over time as bandwidth needs increase, but provides an 
>>>>>> immediate solution at a fraction of the cost of fiber, with the ‘feel’ 
>>>>>> of fiber.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Colin Stanners
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 2:29 PM
>>>>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> How many places do you want to install a PtMP system that goes a maximum 
>>>>>> of 1000-2000ft distance, that fiber does not work?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Gino A. Villarini
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> President
>>>>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> What am I missing here?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio 
>>>>>> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 
>>>>>> 60GHz radio instead of 5Ghz?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later 
>>>>>> protocols on 60GHz vs 5GHz?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Jaime Solorza]

Be creative... Backhaul with 5 or 11GHz to good spot to set up 60GHz PMP AP
and hit nearby business or homes...Vivint does it with 28Ghz and 5GHz...

On May 8, 2017 3:43 PM, "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Even if it existed 2000 ft is wildly optimistic. 60 GHz works at 600
> meters (just about 2000 ft for you Americans) between two PTP dishes
> because you have 44-45dBi gain dishes on both ends. Would not be the case
> with any sort of 60 GHz sector antenna, you'd be looking at much less gain.
>
> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Very location specific. None of our towers would be able to serve anyone
>> with that kind of range.
>>
>>
>> bp
>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>
>>
>> On 5/8/2017 2:15 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>
>> Indeed... don't underestimate what can be done with a 2000' range. I can
>> probably cover a hundred houses with that from the tower next to where I'm
>> sitting.
>>
>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I concur
>>>
>>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Sterling Jacobson <
>>> sterl...@avative.net>
>>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>> Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 4:31 PM
>>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>
>>> Lots.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lots of places.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’ve got, and can get fiber up main roads in neighborhoods very easily.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What costs me is the last mile backbone that winds across streets and
>>> through ROW in front of houses etc.
>>>
>>> That is the majority of my costs right there.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If I can get in with ‘normal’ wireless pricing per AP/CPE but at
>>> 1000Mbps I can do the hybrid model easily at much less costs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It will be amazing for potential customers at the moment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Might not hold up over time as bandwidth needs increase, but provides an
>>> immediate solution at a fraction of the cost of fiber, with the ‘feel’ of
>>> fiber.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
>>> Behalf Of *Colin Stanners
>>> *Sent:* Monday, May 8, 2017 2:29 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How many places do you want to install a PtMP system that goes a maximum
>>> of 1000-2000ft distance, that fiber does not work?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>>> President
>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> What am I missing here?
>>>
>>> Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio
>>> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz
>>> radio instead of 5Ghz?
>>>
>>> Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later
>>> protocols on 60GHz vs 5GHz?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Eric Kuhnke]

1500m between two 30 or 60 cm dishes?

Fades *a bit* in rain?   You sure you mean 1500m and not 1500 ft?

1500m is way too far for 60 GHz PTP unless you're in the Libyan desert.



On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Brett A Mansfield <
li...@silverlakeinternet.com> wrote:

> I have a few PTP 60GHz links at 1500 meters working perfectly at -61. Sure
> it fades in heavy rain a tiny bit, but no more than my 3 mile 24GHz links.
>
> I also have several PtMP links as far as 800 meters working well with -65
> or better.
>
> Thank you,
> Brett A Mansfield
>
> On May 8, 2017, at 3:43 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Even if it existed 2000 ft is wildly optimistic. 60 GHz works at 600
> meters (just about 2000 ft for you Americans) between two PTP dishes
> because you have 44-45dBi gain dishes on both ends. Would not be the case
> with any sort of 60 GHz sector antenna, you'd be looking at much less gain.
>
> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Very location specific. None of our towers would be able to serve anyone
>> with that kind of range.
>>
>>
>> bp
>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>
>>
>> On 5/8/2017 2:15 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>
>> Indeed... don't underestimate what can be done with a 2000' range. I can
>> probably cover a hundred houses with that from the tower next to where I'm
>> sitting.
>>
>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I concur
>>>
>>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Sterling Jacobson <
>>> sterl...@avative.net>
>>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>> Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 4:31 PM
>>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>
>>> Lots.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lots of places.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’ve got, and can get fiber up main roads in neighborhoods very easily.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What costs me is the last mile backbone that winds across streets and
>>> through ROW in front of houses etc.
>>>
>>> That is the majority of my costs right there.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If I can get in with ‘normal’ wireless pricing per AP/CPE but at
>>> 1000Mbps I can do the hybrid model easily at much less costs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It will be amazing for potential customers at the moment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Might not hold up over time as bandwidth needs increase, but provides an
>>> immediate solution at a fraction of the cost of fiber, with the ‘feel’ of
>>> fiber.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
>>> Behalf Of *Colin Stanners
>>> *Sent:* Monday, May 8, 2017 2:29 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How many places do you want to install a PtMP system that goes a maximum
>>> of 1000-2000ft distance, that fiber does not work?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>>> President
>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>>
>>> 
>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> What am I missing here?
>>>
>>> Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio
>>> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz
>>> radio instead of 5Ghz?
>>>
>>> Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later
>>> protocols on 60GHz vs 5GHz?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Brett A Mansfield]

I have a few PTP 60GHz links at 1500 meters working perfectly at -61. Sure it 
fades in heavy rain a tiny bit, but no more than my 3 mile 24GHz links. 

I also have several PtMP links as far as 800 meters working well with -65 or 
better.

Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield

> On May 8, 2017, at 3:43 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Even if it existed 2000 ft is wildly optimistic. 60 GHz works at 600 meters 
> (just about 2000 ft for you Americans) between two PTP dishes because you 
> have 44-45dBi gain dishes on both ends. Would not be the case with any sort 
> of 60 GHz sector antenna, you'd be looking at much less gain.
> 
>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Very location specific. None of our towers would be able to serve anyone 
>> with that kind of range.
>> 
>> 
>> bp
>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>> 
>>> On 5/8/2017 2:15 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>> Indeed... don't underestimate what can be done with a 2000' range. I can 
>>> probably cover a hundred houses with that from the tower next to where I'm 
>>> sitting.
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> I concur 
>>>> 
>>>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Sterling Jacobson 
>>>> <sterl...@avative.net>
>>>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>>> Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 4:31 PM
>>>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>> 
>>>> Lots.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Lots of places.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> I’ve got, and can get fiber up main roads in neighborhoods very easily.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> What costs me is the last mile backbone that winds across streets and 
>>>> through ROW in front of houses etc.
>>>> 
>>>> That is the majority of my costs right there.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> If I can get in with ‘normal’ wireless pricing per AP/CPE but at 1000Mbps 
>>>> I can do the hybrid model easily at much less costs.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> It will be amazing for potential customers at the moment.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Might not hold up over time as bandwidth needs increase, but provides an 
>>>> immediate solution at a fraction of the cost of fiber, with the ‘feel’ of 
>>>> fiber.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Colin Stanners
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 2:29 PM
>>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> How many places do you want to install a PtMP system that goes a maximum 
>>>> of 1000-2000ft distance, that fiber does not work?
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Gino A. Villarini
>>>> 
>>>> President
>>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> What am I missing here?
>>>> 
>>>> Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio 
>>>> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz 
>>>> radio instead of 5Ghz?
>>>> 
>>>> Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later protocols 
>>>> on 60GHz vs 5GHz?
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Eric Kuhnke]

Even if it existed 2000 ft is wildly optimistic. 60 GHz works at 600 meters
(just about 2000 ft for you Americans) between two PTP dishes because you
have 44-45dBi gain dishes on both ends. Would not be the case with any sort
of 60 GHz sector antenna, you'd be looking at much less gain.

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Very location specific. None of our towers would be able to serve anyone
> with that kind of range.
>
>
> bp
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>
>
> On 5/8/2017 2:15 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>
> Indeed... don't underestimate what can be done with a 2000' range. I can
> probably cover a hundred houses with that from the tower next to where I'm
> sitting.
>
> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I concur
>>
>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Sterling Jacobson <
>> sterl...@avative.net>
>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>> Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 4:31 PM
>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>
>> Lots.
>>
>>
>>
>> Lots of places.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’ve got, and can get fiber up main roads in neighborhoods very easily.
>>
>>
>>
>> What costs me is the last mile backbone that winds across streets and
>> through ROW in front of houses etc.
>>
>> That is the majority of my costs right there.
>>
>>
>>
>> If I can get in with ‘normal’ wireless pricing per AP/CPE but at 1000Mbps
>> I can do the hybrid model easily at much less costs.
>>
>>
>>
>> It will be amazing for potential customers at the moment.
>>
>>
>>
>> Might not hold up over time as bandwidth needs increase, but provides an
>> immediate solution at a fraction of the cost of fiber, with the ‘feel’ of
>> fiber.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
>> Behalf Of *Colin Stanners
>> *Sent:* Monday, May 8, 2017 2:29 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>>
>>
>>
>> How many places do you want to install a PtMP system that goes a maximum
>> of 1000-2000ft distance, that fiber does not work?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>> President
>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>
>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> What am I missing here?
>>
>> Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio
>> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz
>> radio instead of 5Ghz?
>>
>> Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later protocols
>> on 60GHz vs 5GHz?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Bill Prince]

Very location specific. None of our towers would be able to serve anyone 
with that kind of range.



bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 5/8/2017 2:15 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Indeed... don't underestimate what can be done with a 2000' range. I 
can probably cover a hundred houses with that from the tower next to 
where I'm sitting.


On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com 
<mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com>> wrote:


I concur

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on
behalf of Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net
<mailto:sterl...@avative.net>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com
<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 4:31 PM
To: "af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com
<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

Lots.

Lots of places.

I’ve got, and can get fiber up main roads in neighborhoods very
easily.

What costs me is the last mile backbone that winds across streets
and through ROW in front of houses etc.

That is the majority of my costs right there.

If I can get in with ‘normal’ wireless pricing per AP/CPE but at
1000Mbps I can do the hybrid model easily at much less costs.

It will be amazing for potential customers at the moment.

Might not hold up over time as bandwidth needs increase, but
provides an immediate solution at a fraction of the cost of fiber,
with the ‘feel’ of fiber.

*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Colin Stanners
    *Sent:* Monday, May 8, 2017 2:29 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

How many places do you want to install a PtMP system that goes a
maximum of 1000-2000ft distance, that fiber does not work?

*//*

*/Gino A. Villarini/*

President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson
<sterl...@avative.net <mailto:sterl...@avative.net>> wrote:

What am I missing here?

Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same
radio architecture/software they have developed over a decade,
on top of a 60GHz radio instead of 5Ghz?

Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY
later protocols on 60GHz vs 5GHz?

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Mathew Howard]

Indeed... don't underestimate what can be done with a 2000' range. I can
probably cover a hundred houses with that from the tower next to where I'm
sitting.

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com> wrote:

> I concur
>
> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Sterling Jacobson <
> sterl...@avative.net>
> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
> Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 4:31 PM
> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>
> Lots.
>
>
>
> Lots of places.
>
>
>
> I’ve got, and can get fiber up main roads in neighborhoods very easily.
>
>
>
> What costs me is the last mile backbone that winds across streets and
> through ROW in front of houses etc.
>
> That is the majority of my costs right there.
>
>
>
> If I can get in with ‘normal’ wireless pricing per AP/CPE but at 1000Mbps
> I can do the hybrid model easily at much less costs.
>
>
>
> It will be amazing for potential customers at the moment.
>
>
>
> Might not hold up over time as bandwidth needs increase, but provides an
> immediate solution at a fraction of the cost of fiber, with the ‘feel’ of
> fiber.
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *Colin Stanners
> *Sent:* Monday, May 8, 2017 2:29 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?
>
>
>
> How many places do you want to install a PtMP system that goes a maximum
> of 1000-2000ft distance, that fiber does not work?
>
>
>
>
>
> *Gino A. Villarini*
> President
> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>
> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net>
> wrote:
>
> What am I missing here?
>
> Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio
> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz
> radio instead of 5Ghz?
>
> Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later protocols
> on 60GHz vs 5GHz?
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Gino A. Villarini]

I concur

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of 
Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net<mailto:sterl...@avative.net>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
<af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 4:31 PM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

Lots.

Lots of places.

I’ve got, and can get fiber up main roads in neighborhoods very easily.

What costs me is the last mile backbone that winds across streets and through 
ROW in front of houses etc.
That is the majority of my costs right there.

If I can get in with ‘normal’ wireless pricing per AP/CPE but at 1000Mbps I can 
do the hybrid model easily at much less costs.

It will be amazing for potential customers at the moment.

Might not hold up over time as bandwidth needs increase, but provides an 
immediate solution at a fraction of the cost of fiber, with the ‘feel’ of fiber.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Colin Stanners
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 2:29 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

How many places do you want to install a PtMP system that goes a maximum of 
1000-2000ft distance, that fiber does not work?




Gino A. Villarini


President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

[cid:aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png]

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
<sterl...@avative.net<mailto:sterl...@avative.net>> wrote:
What am I missing here?

Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio 
architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz 
radio instead of 5Ghz?

Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later protocols on 
60GHz vs 5GHz?

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Sterling Jacobson]

Lots.

Lots of places.

I’ve got, and can get fiber up main roads in neighborhoods very easily.

What costs me is the last mile backbone that winds across streets and through 
ROW in front of houses etc.
That is the majority of my costs right there.

If I can get in with ‘normal’ wireless pricing per AP/CPE but at 1000Mbps I can 
do the hybrid model easily at much less costs.

It will be amazing for potential customers at the moment.

Might not hold up over time as bandwidth needs increase, but provides an 
immediate solution at a fraction of the cost of fiber, with the ‘feel’ of fiber.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Colin Stanners
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 2:29 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

How many places do you want to install a PtMP system that goes a maximum of 
1000-2000ft distance, that fiber does not work?

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
<sterl...@avative.net<mailto:sterl...@avative.net>> wrote:
What am I missing here?

Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio 
architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz 
radio instead of 5Ghz?

Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later protocols on 
60GHz vs 5GHz?

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Eric Kuhnke]

1000 to 2000 ft distance is really optimistic for PtMP in 60 GHz even...
With FCC EIRP limits for 60 GHz PTP the longest it's good for around here
is 600 meters. A little bit more out to 800-900m with the weird Bridgewave
60 GHz product that combines regular maximum Tx power but uses a 60 cm dish
on each end for more gain.

But that is with the gain of a parabolic dish at 60 GHz, which is
considerable, some sort of sector or phased array flat panel antenna will
have a great deal less gain in the 60 GHz band.



On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Colin Stanners  wrote:

> How many places do you want to install a PtMP system that goes a maximum
> of 1000-2000ft distance, that fiber does not work?
>
> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
> wrote:
>
>> What am I missing here?
>>
>> Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio
>> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz
>> radio instead of 5Ghz?
>>
>> Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later protocols
>> on 60GHz vs 5GHz?
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Sterling Jacobson]

I don't have a problem with their range or capacity.

What I do have an issue with current specs is that it is one AP to 8 clients.

I need this to be more in the 'normal' range of an AP to 15-30 clients or more.

Given the higher bandwidth, it would be a lot easier to spread a 1000Mbps 
connection around to 30-100 clients than the 5GHz 100Mbps to the same client 
number.

Law of averages.

Again, though, I can see that being a CPU/processor limited thing in current 
radio designs for lower frequencies.

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 2:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

The top reasons that come to mind right away are:

(1) Range. How close can you tolerate? It's not going to go very far in a PMP 
environment. Maybe a few hundred yards. If there are trees, forget about it.

(2) Modulation. Don't expect something in that frequency to be doing higher 
level modulations. Because you can run ginormous channels, maybe not a big 
deal, but I wouldn't count on it.

(3) Costs. Getting things to run at that frequency would probably require 
higher end components.


bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 5/8/2017 1:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
> What am I missing here?
>
> Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio 
> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz 
> radio instead of 5Ghz?
>
> Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later protocols on 
> 60GHz vs 5GHz?

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Colin Stanners]

How many places do you want to install a PtMP system that goes a maximum of
1000-2000ft distance, that fiber does not work?

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
wrote:

> What am I missing here?
>
> Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio
> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz
> radio instead of 5Ghz?
>
> Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later protocols
> on 60GHz vs 5GHz?
>

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Chuck McCown]

I am hoping that a ton of 60 GHz amps are being developed for this so I can 
make my own homebrew "active denial" system.


Hide the transmitter and antenna under my coat.  Go up to someone that is 
giving me grief and raise my hands:  " I command you in the name of (insert 
favorite deity or demigod here) to depart or I will set ye on FIRE!"  And 
then hit them with the signal.


-Original Message- 
From: Bill Prince

Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 2:20 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

The top reasons that come to mind right away are:

(1) Range. How close can you tolerate? It's not going to go very far in
a PMP environment. Maybe a few hundred yards. If there are trees, forget
about it.

(2) Modulation. Don't expect something in that frequency to be doing
higher level modulations. Because you can run ginormous channels, maybe
not a big deal, but I wouldn't count on it.

(3) Costs. Getting things to run at that frequency would probably
require higher end components.


bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 5/8/2017 1:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:

What am I missing here?

Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio 
architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz 
radio instead of 5Ghz?


Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later protocols 
on 60GHz vs 5GHz?

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Bill Prince]

The top reasons that come to mind right away are:

(1) Range. How close can you tolerate? It's not going to go very far in 
a PMP environment. Maybe a few hundred yards. If there are trees, forget 
about it.


(2) Modulation. Don't expect something in that frequency to be doing 
higher level modulations. Because you can run ginormous channels, maybe 
not a big deal, but I wouldn't count on it.


(3) Costs. Getting things to run at that frequency would probably 
require higher end components.



bp


On 5/8/2017 1:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:

What am I missing here?

Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio 
architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz 
radio instead of 5Ghz?

Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later protocols on 
60GHz vs 5GHz?

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Sterling Jacobson]

I agree, I think it’s unproven market, and perhaps the need for much faster CPU 
processing for the throughput?

Still, the basics of the PtMP coding should all be the same no matter what band?

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 2:13 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

But all of that is in the second half of the radio.  From the ethernet port to 
the modulation demodulation systems it should be the same as other radios.  And 
if they use robust modultion, you could just transvert an old canopy FSK 
design...  Of course with much higher throughput.

I am guessing ROI bashfulness.  Who wants to invest in this band until we have 
real world users evangelizing for the band.  I am a skeptic.  But I have been 
proven wrong many times before.

From: Eric Kuhnke
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 2:09 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

The atmospheric characteristics of 60 GHz are radically different. Antenna 
design is very different due to frequency for anything resembling a "sector". 
Unless you want PtMP that's only good within 250 meters...  More challenging 
than you might think.
A lot of the work that has been done over the past ten years in 60 GHz is for 
high capacity PTP using very "loose" modulations, channel sizes of 500 MHz or 
larger at BPSK/OOK or QPSK.  Very different than 802.11ac based radios.

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
<sterl...@avative.net<mailto:sterl...@avative.net>> wrote:
What am I missing here?

Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio 
architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz 
radio instead of 5Ghz?

Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later protocols on 
60GHz vs 5GHz?

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Chuck McCown]

But all of that is in the second half of the radio.  From the ethernet port to 
the modulation demodulation systems it should be the same as other radios.  And 
if they use robust modultion, you could just transvert an old canopy FSK 
design...  Of course with much higher throughput.  

I am guessing ROI bashfulness.  Who wants to invest in this band until we have 
real world users evangelizing for the band.  I am a skeptic.  But I have been 
proven wrong many times before.  

From: Eric Kuhnke 
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 2:09 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

The atmospheric characteristics of 60 GHz are radically different. Antenna 
design is very different due to frequency for anything resembling a "sector". 
Unless you want PtMP that's only good within 250 meters...  More challenging 
than you might think.


A lot of the work that has been done over the past ten years in 60 GHz is for 
high capacity PTP using very "loose" modulations, channel sizes of 500 MHz or 
larger at BPSK/OOK or QPSK.  Very different than 802.11ac based radios.


On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net> wrote:

  What am I missing here?

  Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio 
architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz 
radio instead of 5Ghz?

  Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later protocols on 
60GHz vs 5GHz?

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Eric Kuhnke]

The atmospheric characteristics of 60 GHz are radically different. Antenna
design is very different due to frequency for anything resembling a
"sector". Unless you want PtMP that's only good within 250 meters...  More
challenging than you might think.

A lot of the work that has been done over the past ten years in 60 GHz is
for high capacity PTP using very "loose" modulations, channel sizes of 500
MHz or larger at BPSK/OOK or QPSK.  Very different than 802.11ac based
radios.

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
wrote:

> What am I missing here?
>
> Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio
> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz
> radio instead of 5Ghz?
>
> Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later protocols
> on 60GHz vs 5GHz?
>

Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

[Chuck McCown]

Has any of these been deployed, in an area with real seasons for a full year 
yet?


-Original Message- 
From: Sterling Jacobson

Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 2:05 PM
To: 'af@afmug.com'
Subject: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It?

What am I missing here?

Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio 
architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a 60GHz 
radio instead of 5Ghz?


Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later protocols on 
60GHz vs 5GHz? 

Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

[Brett A Mansfield]

Im trying to avoid expensive licensed links. My customer base is too small for 
now. If I have to spend money on licensed links for such a small area it 
wouldn't be much more to just run my own fiber. 

Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield

 On Mar 3, 2015, at 8:42 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote:
 
 The range severely drops when you're getting more beamwidth and sacrificing 
 forward gain.
 
 Have you looked at 28 GHz from CTI?  I think that sounds like an ideal 
 solution for you.
 
 
 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373
 
 On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Brett A Mansfield 
 br...@silverlakeinternet.com wrote:
 Anyone know if there is any 60GHz PTMP solution out there yet? All of my 
 towers cover less than half a mile so short range 60GHz would be ideal for 
 me. I am competing with fiber and would like to offer similar speeds.
 
 Thank you,
 Brett A Mansfield
 Silver Lake Internet
 

Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

[Chuck Hogg]

LOL, so true.

Regards,
Chuck

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:

   You never regret running fiber.

  *From:* Brett A Mansfield br...@silverlakeinternet.com
 *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:45 AM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

  Im trying to avoid expensive licensed links. My customer base is too
 small for now. If I have to spend money on licensed links for such a small
 area it wouldn't be much more to just run my own fiber.

 Thank you,
 Brett A Mansfield

 On Mar 3, 2015, at 8:42 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
 wrote:

  The range severely drops when you're getting more beamwidth and
 sacrificing forward gain.

 Have you looked at 28 GHz from CTI?  I think that sounds like an ideal
 solution for you.


 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373

 On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Brett A Mansfield 
 br...@silverlakeinternet.com wrote:

 Anyone know if there is any 60GHz PTMP solution out there yet? All of my
 towers cover less than half a mile so short range 60GHz would be ideal for
 me. I am competing with fiber and would like to offer similar speeds.

 Thank you,
 Brett A Mansfield
 Silver Lake Internet

Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

[Josh Luthman]

The range severely drops when you're getting more beamwidth and sacrificing
forward gain.

Have you looked at 28 GHz from CTI?  I think that sounds like an ideal
solution for you.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Brett A Mansfield 
br...@silverlakeinternet.com wrote:

 Anyone know if there is any 60GHz PTMP solution out there yet? All of my
 towers cover less than half a mile so short range 60GHz would be ideal for
 me. I am competing with fiber and would like to offer similar speeds.

 Thank you,
 Brett A Mansfield
 Silver Lake Internet

Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

[Chuck McCown]

You never regret running fiber.

From: Brett A Mansfield 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:45 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

Im trying to avoid expensive licensed links. My customer base is too small for 
now. If I have to spend money on licensed links for such a small area it 
wouldn't be much more to just run my own fiber. 

Thank you, 
Brett A Mansfield

On Mar 3, 2015, at 8:42 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote:


  The range severely drops when you're getting more beamwidth and sacrificing 
forward gain. 

  Have you looked at 28 GHz from CTI?  I think that sounds like an ideal 
solution for you.


  Josh Luthman
  Office: 937-552-2340
  Direct: 937-552-2343
  1100 Wayne St
  Suite 1337
  Troy, OH 45373

  On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Brett A Mansfield 
br...@silverlakeinternet.com wrote:

Anyone know if there is any 60GHz PTMP solution out there yet? All of my 
towers cover less than half a mile so short range 60GHz would be ideal for me. 
I am competing with fiber and would like to offer similar speeds.

Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield
Silver Lake Internet

Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

[Chuck McCown]

I remember a few years ago Doug Clark was going on about a 24 GHz PTMP system.  
 Seems like he may have actually purchased on.  

Then there was the ultraviolet light system that required reflection from 
airborne dust particles.  

From: Josh Luthman 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:42 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

The range severely drops when you're getting more beamwidth and sacrificing 
forward gain. 

Have you looked at 28 GHz from CTI?  I think that sounds like an ideal solution 
for you.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Brett A Mansfield 
br...@silverlakeinternet.com wrote:

  Anyone know if there is any 60GHz PTMP solution out there yet? All of my 
towers cover less than half a mile so short range 60GHz would be ideal for me. 
I am competing with fiber and would like to offer similar speeds.

  Thank you,
  Brett A Mansfield
  Silver Lake Internet

Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

[Chuck McCown]

It can be done on the cheap.
Rent a trencher.
Get the duct.  Put the fiber in the duct before laying it in the trench if 
possible.
Lots of slack on both ends.  At least 100 feet.
Use something the unicam machine for ends rather than fusion splicing or hire 
someone to do the splicing.  

Total cost of materials can be around $1/foot plus the cost of trenching.  

How far do you have to go?

From: Brett A Mansfield 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:10 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

Seems like running fiber might be the best way. I was just hoping there was a 
good wireless solution that would be cheaper. Fiber ROI is pretty high and when 
paying out of my own pocket without financing it's a huge chunk out of savings. 
I'll just have to find a way to convince the Mrs that it will be worth it in 
the long run. 

Thank you, 
Brett A Mansfield

On Mar 3, 2015, at 8:51 AM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote:


  LOL, so true.

  Regards,
  Chuck

  On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:

You never regret running fiber.

From: Brett A Mansfield 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:45 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

Im trying to avoid expensive licensed links. My customer base is too small 
for now. If I have to spend money on licensed links for such a small area it 
wouldn't be much more to just run my own fiber. 

Thank you, 
Brett A Mansfield

On Mar 3, 2015, at 8:42 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com 
wrote:


  The range severely drops when you're getting more beamwidth and 
sacrificing forward gain. 

  Have you looked at 28 GHz from CTI?  I think that sounds like an ideal 
solution for you.


  Josh Luthman
  Office: 937-552-2340
  Direct: 937-552-2343
  1100 Wayne St
  Suite 1337
  Troy, OH 45373

  On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Brett A Mansfield 
br...@silverlakeinternet.com wrote:

Anyone know if there is any 60GHz PTMP solution out there yet? All of 
my towers cover less than half a mile so short range 60GHz would be ideal for 
me. I am competing with fiber and would like to offer similar speeds.

Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield
Silver Lake Internet

Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

[Jaime Solorza]

Doesn't Elva or whatever they are called sell a 38 Ghz ptmp system

Jaime Solorza
On Mar 3, 2015 8:46 AM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:

   I remember a few years ago Doug Clark was going on about a 24 GHz PTMP
 system.   Seems like he may have actually purchased on.

 Then there was the ultraviolet light system that required reflection from
 airborne dust particles.

  *From:* Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
 *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:42 AM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

  The range severely drops when you're getting more beamwidth and
 sacrificing forward gain.

 Have you looked at 28 GHz from CTI?  I think that sounds like an ideal
 solution for you.


 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373

 On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Brett A Mansfield 
 br...@silverlakeinternet.com wrote:

 Anyone know if there is any 60GHz PTMP solution out there yet? All of my
 towers cover less than half a mile so short range 60GHz would be ideal for
 me. I am competing with fiber and would like to offer similar speeds.

 Thank you,
 Brett A Mansfield
 Silver Lake Internet

Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

[Brett A Mansfield]

Its PTMP, so if I run fiber it would be to the home. In the neighborhood I'm in 
it's about 400 homes right now. They are on phase 2 of 9. The next 2 phases are 
high density housing and then the rest are homes to total about 2400 homes. 
Laying fiber will be easy and cheap for the remaining phases. It will be more 
difficult in the ones already built. It will be around 80k -150k linear ft.

Anyone ever work with Coax? It's cheap and I can splice it easily. Is this cost 
similar to fiber?

Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield

 On Mar 3, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
 
 It can be done on the cheap.
 Rent a trencher.
 Get the duct.  Put the fiber in the duct before laying it in the trench if 
 possible.
 Lots of slack on both ends.  At least 100 feet.
 Use something the unicam machine for ends rather than fusion splicing or hire 
 someone to do the splicing. 
  
 Total cost of materials can be around $1/foot plus the cost of trenching. 
  
 How far do you have to go?
  
 From: Brett A Mansfield
 Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:10 AM
 To: af@afmug.com
 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz
  
 Seems like running fiber might be the best way. I was just hoping there was a 
 good wireless solution that would be cheaper. Fiber ROI is pretty high and 
 when paying out of my own pocket without financing it's a huge chunk out of 
 savings. I'll just have to find a way to convince the Mrs that it will be 
 worth it in the long run.
 
 Thank you,
 Brett A Mansfield
 
 On Mar 3, 2015, at 8:51 AM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote:
 
 LOL, so true.
  
 Regards,
 Chuck
  
 On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
 You never regret running fiber.
  
 From: Brett A Mansfield
 Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:45 AM
 To: af@afmug.com
 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz
  
 Im trying to avoid expensive licensed links. My customer base is too small 
 for now. If I have to spend money on licensed links for such a small area 
 it wouldn't be much more to just run my own fiber. 
 
 Thank you,
 Brett A Mansfield
 
 On Mar 3, 2015, at 8:42 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com 
 wrote:
 
 The range severely drops when you're getting more beamwidth and 
 sacrificing forward gain.
  
 Have you looked at 28 GHz from CTI?  I think that sounds like an ideal 
 solution for you.
  
  
 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373
  
 On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Brett A Mansfield 
 br...@silverlakeinternet.com wrote:
 Anyone know if there is any 60GHz PTMP solution out there yet? All of my 
 towers cover less than half a mile so short range 60GHz would be ideal 
 for me. I am competing with fiber and would like to offer similar speeds.
 
 Thank you,
 Brett A Mansfield
 Silver Lake Internet

Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz

[Mike Hammett]

If you bury anything, bury fiber. Do not bury anything else new. No. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



- Original Message -

From: Brett A Mansfield br...@silverlakeinternet.com 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 10:47:41 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz 


Its PTMP, so if I run fiber it would be to the home. In the neighborhood I'm in 
it's about 400 homes right now. They are on phase 2 of 9. The next 2 phases are 
high density housing and then the rest are homes to total about 2400 homes. 
Laying fiber will be easy and cheap for the remaining phases. It will be more 
difficult in the ones already built. It will be around 80k -150k linear ft. 


Anyone ever work with Coax? It's cheap and I can splice it easily. Is this cost 
similar to fiber? 

Thank you, 
Brett A Mansfield 

On Mar 3, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Chuck McCown  ch...@wbmfg.com  wrote: 







It can be done on the cheap. 
Rent a trencher. 
Get the duct. Put the fiber in the duct before laying it in the trench if 
possible. 
Lots of slack on both ends. At least 100 feet. 
Use something the unicam machine for ends rather than fusion splicing or hire 
someone to do the splicing. 

Total cost of materials can be around $1/foot plus the cost of trenching. 

How far do you have to go? 




From: Brett A Mansfield 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:10 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz 


Seems like running fiber might be the best way. I was just hoping there was a 
good wireless solution that would be cheaper. Fiber ROI is pretty high and when 
paying out of my own pocket without financing it's a huge chunk out of savings. 
I'll just have to find a way to convince the Mrs that it will be worth it in 
the long run. 

Thank you, 
Brett A Mansfield 

On Mar 3, 2015, at 8:51 AM, Chuck Hogg  ch...@shelbybb.com  wrote: 


blockquote


LOL, so true. 



Regards, 
Chuck 

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Chuck McCown  ch...@wbmfg.com  wrote: 

blockquote




You never regret running fiber. 




From: Brett A Mansfield 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:45 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60GHz 


Im trying to avoid expensive licensed links. My customer base is too small for 
now. If I have to spend money on licensed links for such a small area it 
wouldn't be much more to just run my own fiber. 

Thank you, 
Brett A Mansfield 

On Mar 3, 2015, at 8:42 AM, Josh Luthman  j...@imaginenetworksllc.com  wrote: 




blockquote


The range severely drops when you're getting more beamwidth and sacrificing 
forward gain. 

Have you looked at 28 GHz from CTI? I think that sounds like an ideal solution 
for you. 





Josh Luthman 
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St 
Suite 1337 
Troy, OH 45373 

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Brett A Mansfield  
br...@silverlakeinternet.com  wrote: 

blockquote
Anyone know if there is any 60GHz PTMP solution out there yet? All of my towers 
cover less than half a mile so short range 60GHz would be ideal for me. I am 
competing with fiber and would like to offer similar speeds. 

Thank you, 
Brett A Mansfield 
Silver Lake Internet 




/blockquote

/blockquote


/blockquote

/blockquote