That's fine. The less usable spectrum you have, the more you need to optimize what you have. The more middle of nowhere it doesn't matter what you do. the more you have neighbors, the more you have to plan more carefully and use better gear. You know I operate in the Chicago metro area. You know I have a dozen WISP competitors (last time I counted), not to mention the same private users that you mention. I know a busy airspace.
I don't put as much into Jim's findings regarding the ePMP as you. 802.11ac is 33% - 38% more efficient than N. The ePMP still isn't a great performer in Jim's charts, but it gets a heck of a lot closer. Now put two of the PtMP platforms tested on the same tower and see who wins. Two of them back to back and ePMP is still only using 20 MHz, while the others are using 40 because they can't be using the same frequency back to back. It'd be interesting to see how the 450 stacks up. I'm not likely to deploy 450, but would like to see how it compares. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Josh Reynolds" <j...@spitwspots.com> To: af@afmug.com Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 1:49:46 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Very interesting post.. Except those competitors don't sync with you, and it's very often that our clients don't actually have the strongest signal to our tower, but somebody else's. Many of our clients see 15-20 APs, and many more are hidden because they are 30 or 40MHz wide channels. There are environments much, much worse than ours. GPS sync is good *in certain environments, in certain situations*, but it is not this mythical magic bullet that allows you to be a lazy operator. Also, by the results today, the only real viable solution on the market at this time that does have GPS sync in a PtMP configuration does piss poor in adjacent channel interference environments, which is exactly the type of environment I'm in. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com On 04/18/2015 08:11 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: The more competitors, the *MORE* you need sync. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Josh Reynolds" <j...@spitwspots.com> To: af@afmug.com , "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2015 8:51:00 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Very interesting post.. AF absolutely has sync? As far as AirMaxAC, sure, no sync.. At this time. In the end though, there are a lot of operators that simply don't care about sync. Eventually in many markets it will come to a point when you simply run out of clean frequency, ie: using one or two or three per tower won't cut it, due to competitors, cell offload, etc. In that scenario where GPS sync is virtually useless (because you're picking the best freq per direction), its pretty obvious that there are a few radios that would currently excel in that scenario. There are many places where we are, for instance, where multiple competitors, city and state links, federal, etc have towers less than a mile from us. Having the ability to "shrug off" that adjacent and co channel noise is critical for us. On April 18, 2015 4:52:38 PM AKDT, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote: <blockquote> This test ignores a few kind of important details... the UBNT and Mikrotik AC radios have no ability to sync, which gives them a significant disadvantage. also, the Mimosa radios are (theoretically) capable of higher throughput since they are the only ones with the ability to use two 80mhz channels... granted, it's pretty rare that is actually possible in the real world, but if you had synced Mimosas everywhere, it could be done. He's also using a $499 ePMP radio, when he should be using a $200 Force110 PTP. That said, the conclusion the the AF5x is the best is probably right :P On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Ken Hohhof < af...@kwisp.com > wrote: <blockquote> If your criterion is performance in the presence of a signal on a different frequency 30 dB stronger than the desired signal, this analysis is relevant. Also, this seems to be the scenario airPrism is designed to address. But how often would this occur? Even if the interference is from another non-synced transmitter on the same tower, you’d think directional antennas would knock the interfering signal down to less than 1000 times the desired signal. I guess this could be realistic if you have a point to point link in the same band as a sector, so that a giant dish at the other end is pointed right at your sector. From: Josh Reynolds Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2015 5:34 PM To: af@afmug.com ; Seth Mattinen Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Very interesting post.. Horseshit, read the article. Did you miss the portion where Jim said "it's the exact same chip that's in the RM5"? I would have liked to have seen the RM5 in this test as a baseline, but ignoring the results simply because it's N tech in the EPMP is silly. Not only does the throughput drop, but the LEVEL it degrades at is only "bested" by the B5C in a few of the tests. N or not, that's a very poor result. I would love to see other tests posted on this from other people, its always nice to have multiple sources to remove any potential level of bias. Jim did an excellent job on this and should be commended. On April 18, 2015 2:26:50 PM AKDT, Seth Mattinen < se...@rollernet.us > wrote: <blockquote> On 4/18/15 2:49 PM, Peter Kranz wrote: <blockquote> Very interesting shootout comparing AF5X, AC-Lite, AC PTP, EPMP-1000, B5c and RB922 https://community.ubnt.com/t5/airMAX-Stories/Radio-Shootout-Pt-2-let-s-try-a-whole-bunch-of-them/cns-p/1232309 Dude didn't seem to catch that the ePMP is an N radio and dismisses it as worst of the worst. Looks to me like it would probably hold up comparably to its AC counterparts if you take that into consideration. ~Seth </blockquote> -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. </blockquote> </blockquote> -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. </blockquote>
