Hi All
I am curious to hear from you what is your feedback about the new
Ubiquiti point-to-point link in noisy environments
Did you already swapped old link with the new technology with the same
channel width?
Regards
--
Ing. Paolo Di Francesco
Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale
Sede operativa:
How is that going to make a difference?
Gino A. Villarini
President
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
www.aeronetpr.com
@aeronetpr
On 12/9/14, 11:11 PM, daniel.mul...@metrocom.ca
daniel.mul...@metrocom.ca wrote:
Using 200 MHz of bandwidth - just wait until Ubiquiti decides to do 10x
The non-airPrism isn't going to be any better and probably worse in noisy
areas.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Paolo Di Francesco paolo.difrance...@level7.it
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
It is a better idea we get higher throughput with better modulations instead of
simply grabbing larger pieces of spectrum. We cannot make ever larger channel
sizes without running into problems!
Daniel
Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote ..
How is that going to make a difference?
Why not allow both?
I think every vendor is releasing equipment with better spectral efficiency.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: daniel mullen daniel.mul...@metrocom.ca
To: WISPA General List
While I understand the joke here, please be aware that LTE is designed to use
the same channels even in adjacent cells using eICIC (enhanced inter-cell
interference coordination)
http://4g-lte-world.blogspot.com/2012/06/icic-and-eicic.html
This does two HUGE things:
1. No more cell planning
It is beyond basic concepts like increased efficiency. LTE goes much further.
See my last post.
Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D01452.28C223F0]http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf
Of Mike Hammett
Sent:
I know of eICIC. It's still increasing efficiency as you're now doing this all
in one channel everywhere vs. one channel per radio or a couple channels per
tower.
That said, in unlicensed spectrum that is busy like 5 GHz or 2.4, you're not
going to use the same channel everywhere as it would
Those are good points Mike, and it explains one reason I'm so excited over
3.550-3.650 MHz. I think the coming spectrum is a game changer for many
reasons, this among them.
Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image002.png@01D01459.A4C42FF0]http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet
From:
will that spectrum be licensed?
Those are good points Mike, and it explains one reason I'm so excited
over 3.550-3.650 MHz. I think the coming spectrum is a game changer
for many reasons, this among them.
*Patrick Leary*
***M*727.501.3735
http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet
Yes and no.
WISPA has had several webinars and e-mails about the 3550 - 3700 band. Perhaps
one of hte admins can direct you to one of them.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Paolo Di Francesco
Paolo,
As Mike notes, WISPA has had a number of webinars on the topic. Here is my
understanding of what's to be expected, in part, of the emerging rules. NOTE:
THIS MAY NOT BE WHAT ACTUALLY EMERGES AS THE RULES, it comprises MY educated
expectation. None have a better understanding though than
re those comments in 2002, here's an example. During the Spectrum Policy
Task Force, there were some elements of industry trying to insist the FCC
codify Wi-Fi as the only standard accepted for use in future unlicensed bands.
I argued aggressively against this, with this being my opening
Also only my opinion, but I believe:
The licenses are 10 MHz wide, but unlicensed operations can do whatever they
want regarding channel size (well, and device certification).
An operator can only have three licenses in a given area (block, tract, I
forget what).
50 MHz will remain for
Yes, this could be what happens. I prefer your version re the non-specific
exclusivity; I think that'd be an excellent devolopment.
I'll be happy when we all know definitively.
Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D01467.FD546D20]http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet
From:
I agreed with not setting specific interfaces on spectrum, which was a problem
we had in Canada back in the 1990s, but the FCC has in the past allowed things
- namely a certain 4G operator using satellite spectrum for terrestrial use -
where existings users - anyone with GPS technology - were
Bit late on this, but the announcement is based on licensed spectrum and
the ability for carriers to aggregate various spectrum assets on the same
RAN. Its definetly does not apply for Unlicensed Spectrum.
Cant get more efficient than this, show me a technology that could deliver
21 bits per hz
Glad that someone asked - LTE Advanced using 8x8 MIMO can do 30 bits per Hertz.
That is quite the improvement obviously!
The limitations are important though as the Shannon - Hartley research shows.
Daniel
Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote ..
Bit late on this, but the announcement is
18 matches
Mail list logo
