The scary thing to think of
however is that the big boys may push hard to kick us out of these
bands entirely (which they're already toying around with on 5Ghz).
Aren't we already kind of dead man walking in 5 GHz, hoping for a
reprieve before our execution date? Pending some kind of industry
proposal that would strike a middle ground between the old and
new rules?
-----Original Message-----
From: Caleb Knauer
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 2:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Licensed backhaul pricing - still ridiculous
Sorry, jerk relex ;-)
*Most* of the FUD and doom and gloom about the AF5 wiping out the
entire WISP market by ignorant users has shown to be unfounded after
some 9 odd months of deployments. Some people have been affected
though, and a big hammer carried by a toddler is scary. I do agree
that an 11Ghz and above licensed solution will posses, by the
constraints laid forth by FCC/ETSI reqs, properties that will somewhat
lessen chances of bad actions affecting the masses. But there is some
risk.
There's a lot of conversation here though that I think can be
discussed without the heat. Dirty players, such as the omni blasters
and the DFS douches, are going to cause issues when the barrier to
entry is low and the tools allow you to do bad things. The thought of
a $1k unicorn gigabit link is frankly a bit scary to think of when in
the hands of the dirty players. However the licensed bands are
protected by some scary FCC teeth and that would help significantly.
Everyone playing dirty in 3.65 isn't worried about enforcement, and
the test mode guys don't seem to be too bothered if they aren't near a
radar (although enforcement is cracking down a lot lately). But the
first time VZW brings down the full heat of the feds on top of some
schmuck's head for deploying an illegal 11Ghz "test link" should get
the other dirties to pay attention. The scary thing to think of
however is that the big boys may push hard to kick us out of these
bands entirely (which they're already toying around with on 5Ghz).
There's a lot of things that can be done to protect the lic market in
the case that the unicorn is ever found, such as enforcing buyers have
an existing license before shipping, mfg link activation, etc. It
will be annoying and make legit users agitated, but dummies gonna
dummy and the last thing we need is to turn the 11/18 Ghz bands into a
supersaturated wasteland.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Ben Moore <ben.mo...@ubnt.com> wrote:
I would imagine a licensed backhaul would be similar to AF24 (though not
saying we are doing anything like it)...as for AF5, have actually had a
lot
of reports related to customers taking out other 5GHz links and opening up
more spectrum by using the AF5 (and getting more throughput) ;)
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Caleb Knauer <cknauer.li...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Of course not by AF24, tiny beamwidth and low power. It's brother
however? ;-)
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Ben Moore <ben.mo...@ubnt.com> wrote:
> If only you could read some of Josh's emails to us and you would see
> that he
> isn't always showing us the love ;) He will dish it when it is due...I
> have
> seen it publicly as well ;)
>
> Healthy discussion on backhauls and backhaul pricing...I will say that
> since
> the AF24 launch, I have not seen an email/post related to AF24 causing
> issues due to being installed by ignorant operators...
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:37 PM, TJ Trout <t...@voltbb.com> wrote:
>>
>> Seth be careful stepping on the toes of ubiquiti's No#1 fanboi :)
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Seth Mattinen <se...@rollernet.us>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/15/15 11:02, Josh Reynolds wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand how an 18GHz path has anything to do with
>>>> Ubiquiti
>>>> here, since the closest product they make to that band is on 24GHz.
>>>>
>>>> Ifyour problem is with ignorant operators, or just plain stupid
>>>> operators, say so.
>>>> If your problem is with Ubiquiti, say so.
>>>> If your problem is with people failing to do the proper path
>>>> analysis
>>>> studies and frequency coordination (byyour PCN comment), say so.
>>>>
>>>> In any of these cases, it sounds like you are angry about something
>>>> that
>>>> has nothing to do with Ubiquiti or even an operator, but more or
>>>> less
>>>> whoever was *supposed* to be in chargeof the link design and common
>>>> courtesy.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agreed with the post I responded to and the points contained
>>> therein,
>>> with my real life experience extrapolated to it a short response. I
>>> not only
>>> agree that licensed bands get used up faster, but that it would
>>> exacerbate
>>> existing instances of interference due to a higher percentage of
>>> ignorant
>>> operators jumping on a lower entry point or companies like UBNT
>>> making
>>> it
>>> easier for ignorant operators to enter the space and do bad things
>>> (i.e.
>>> past issues with compliance test mode and TDWR).
>>>
>>> ~Seth
>>
>>
>
