> On Oct 14, 2020, at 1:38 PM, Brian Webster <i...@wirelessmapping.com> wrote: > > I think it made it to 5 GHz too because SkyPilot had radios that ran under > PTP rules.
Yes and no…. this is an active petition from Radwin before the FCC to allow higher power using beamforming antennas in U-NII-1 and U-NII-3: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10618241749047/Radwin%20Petition%20for%20Rulemaking.pdf <https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10618241749047/Radwin%20Petition%20for%20Rulemaking.pdf> "RADWIN seeks modification of Section 15.407 of the rules to allow devices that emit multiple directional beams sequentially in the U-NII-1 and U-NII-3 bands to operate at power limits that are allowed for point-to-point systems in those bands." WISPA, the WISPA Policy Committee, as well as Cambium have supported this proposal but it has not see action from the FCC. Details of the fine points are in above reference PDF including a discussion of the current rules. Mark > > Thank you, > Brian Webster > www.wirelessmapping.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Grip > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:33 AM > To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? > > Well, it is more like a PtP to the client. > > Anybody ever had hands on a GO AP? > > -----Original Message----- > From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:22 AM > To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <af@af.afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? > > The infamous "Vivato Rule". > http://www.vivato.com/pdfs/Vivato_Technical_White_Paper.pdf > > Some would say the FCC was asleep at the wheel when they allowed this. It is > apparently for 2.4 GHz only. > > -----Original Message----- > From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:45 AM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? > > There's a couple of things to break down here. One is that there are 2 major > kinds of beamforming - analog and digital. The ones you mention (and I'll > add Go Networks to the list) were using analog beamforming. These are > antenna arrays that can be phased together to make a stronger beam and is > steerable. The chip-based beamforming in the WiFi standard is a bit > different and you don't get this sort of powerful beam out of it. That kind > of digital beamforming is more useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would > be useful in an indoor wifi environment. > > I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the impression it is > more of an array of fixed sectors that have physically different coverage > areas that are connected to different radio chains. So that is yet another > sort of variation. > > One thing that made the analog beamforming systems achieve better coverage > was that the FCC allowed (maybe they still do?) higher EIRP from this > specific type of system. So it had physically more power and punch to it. > > I am personally not aware of any companies actively developing analog > beamforming systems like those older ones. It gets significantly more > difficult for those designs to support the sort of advanced macs that came > after 11n - 11ax supports MU-MIMO and OFDMA for example which would be > challenging to support with an analog beamformer. > > > On 10/13/20, 3:42 PM, "AF on behalf of Jeremy Grip" <af-boun...@af.afmug.com > on behalf of g...@nbnworks.net> wrote: > > A few years ago, when the electrical utility trashed the 900 spectrum with > “smart” meters, I did a forklift upgrade of a bunch of 900 PtMP with some old > Wavion beamforming sectors talking to ubnt clients in 2.4. I was surprised > that I got just about the same coverage that I had with 900 (Trango) and of > course better throughput. Those original Wavions were b/g; I’ve since found a > couple of .11n versions from the brief last gasp of Alvarion (R.I.P.) that > did even better. Anybody know if anybody’s currently producing a beamforming > 2.4 sector that will talk to standards compliant 11n radios? > > I’m assuming that the beamforming saved this location—one tower plus a > couple of other little nodes in a little spread out village in the middle of > a dense National Forest of mixed tall evergreens and hardwood. I just don’t > see how 2.4 could match the old 900 penetration otherwise, but maybe somebody > can enlighten me. It wouldn’t be worth it to try and change out all the > clients--more than a few are 50’+ up in trees. If there was an ePMP medusa in > 2.4 and that sex-change from ubnt to ePMP worked it would be worth a try, but > as far as I know Cambium's just doing medusa in 5GHz. > > With my other hand I'm working to see FTTH across the region and it looks > like it'll probably happen within the next five or six years, so any serious > wireless investment here doesn't make any sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > > https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cdc78411902c54763564b08d86fb8903d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637382185761458359%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=zbo9OIz4lCXUY9IyN4i8oxI14HEuhvlHVUrlhsJ2W7Y%3D&reserved=0 > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
