Ah I see the point now....
On 5/13/2015 10:40 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Usually Mu-MIMO is used when you have four or eight chains talking to
multiple 2 chain clients.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com>
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Wednesday, May 13, 2015 8:58:48 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHZ and Cambium 450
Patrick,
I can envision how MU-MIMO could increase /efficiency/. I don't
understand how it could double /capacity/.
If a spatial stream has capacity "X", then two spatial streams could
have capacity 2X. If We're sending one stream each to two users, or
two streams to one user, we still only have maximum capacity of 2X.
I see an increase in efficiency because if one of the two users was
connected at a lower data rate, then we're devoting only half the
access point's capacity to that low speed user during that time frame,
whereas in single user MIMO we'd be devoting all of our resources to
the low speed user. With clever scheduling you'd certainly get more
out of the access point with MIMO, possibly even double if you have a
wide spread of high and low speed users....but a 50mbps channel
wouldn't become 100mbps channel. Rather, you'd be able to use a
higher proportion of the possible 50mbps.
Unless there's something about MU-MIMO that escapes me (which is
completely possible). Can you explain?
Thanks,
Adam
As I understand it, the SAS will only be required to "try" to keep
those owning two 10 MHz PALs in one census areas contiguous, and
even then will not be required to do so. I think it will be tough
to do carrier agg in 3.55-3.7 GHz given the new rules, even as a
PAL licensee, much less as a GAA user. Further, I'm uncertain of
the technical complexity in getting a base station to be have
dynamic flexibility in frequency assignment in it carrier
aggregation feature. I would suspect such a thing would not be
easy to implement -- seems easy enough in a none aggregating set
of spectrum or a fixed set of aggregated spectrum, but to have
multiple carriers, with each set potentially dynamic AND
aggregated? I'm very doubtful.
What would be much better is MU-MIMO. That will still give you the
doubling of capacity, but enables you to do that within the same
10 or 20 MHz channel.
*Patrick Leary*
***M*727.501.3735
<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>
*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
*Sent:* Saturday, April 18, 2015 9:47 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHZ and Cambium 450
I don't see why you couldn't have 20 MHz.
There haven't been technical enough rules put out to know if you
can do ABAB. I'm guessing not as the SAS will tell you what
frequency to use, but maybe they'll be able to support common systems.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Image removed by sender. <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>Image
removed by sender.
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>Image removed
by sender.
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>Image
removed by sender. <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Matt" <matt.mailingli...@gmail.com>
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Saturday, April 18, 2015 7:42:36 AM
*Subject: *[AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHZ and Cambium 450
Has anyone heard how the Cambium 450 gear will work with the new
3.5Ghz FCC rules and additional spectrum? Will he still have 20Mhz
channels and ABAB capability? How will this all work?
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer viruses.
************************************************************************************
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer viruses.
************************************************************************************
