, March 29, 2012 7:18 PM
To: Oliver Garraux
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)
On Mar 29, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux wrote:
Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace).
Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up
and you won't see that benefit. So if you're thinking that's going to help
between competitors it won't.
Greg
Dylan
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:18 PM
To: Oliver Garraux
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: airFiber (text
Subject: Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)
On Mar 29, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux wrote:
Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace).
Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're
drowning in a high noise floor
On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Josh Baird wrote:
Anyhow, check the
video out on ubnt.com for an introduction and technical overview -
it's worth watching.
The claim is a huge decline in the cost of backhaul bandwidth for wisps between
10 and 100 times. I have just finished the preparation of
Respectfully, the claim isn't a decline in the cost of backhaul bandwidth
between 10 and 100 times, the claim is Operators will be able to get 10 to
100 times more data throughput for the same dollar. which granted is a very
good thing, but it does not imply how much more money one would have
Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace).
Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're
drowning in a high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all. Like
what's happened to 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz in a lot of places. There's few
Probably it will be a good alternate to FSO based laswer links for
backhual. Probably cheaper more reliable solution then hanging lasers
between towers for backhaul?
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Oliver Garraux oli...@g.garraux.netwrote:
Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux oli...@g.garraux.net wrote:
I was at Ubiquiti's conference. I don't disagree with what you're
saying. Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely
never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is. They are seeing 24 Ghz
as only
On 3/29/12 21:53 , Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux oli...@g.garraux.net wrote:
I was at Ubiquiti's conference. I don't disagree with what you're
saying. Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely
never be used to the extent that 2.4 /
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
Cost will continue to drop, fact of the matter is the beam width is
rather narrow and they attenuate rather well so you can have a fair
number of them deployed without co-channel interference. if you pack a
tower full of
On Mar 29, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux wrote:
Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace).
Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're
drowning in a high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all. Like
what's happened
11 matches
Mail list logo
