1500m is exactly what I meant. AKA 1.5 km. I thought I'd have constant rain fade, but it's only switched to the 5GHz backup once and that was in very heavy rain. The links are just below 1500. One is 1486m and another is about 1440m. I'm not sure what my other two are exactly, but pretty close to the same.
I've had the same amount of rain fade as with my AF24 at 3 miles. The PtMP on the other hand fades a lot more in the rain. But it's not often we get sustained rain storms in Utah. They're usually gone as fast as the came. All of my PtMP links that are shorter (sub 500 m) have never faded out in the rain. 60GHz is great! It certainly has its place. I'm using them for more than I should probably, but a gig for $1100 60GHz vs 24GHz 775Mb for $3000 when it's a short link? That's a no brainer. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield > On May 8, 2017, at 3:50 PM, Eric Kuhnke <[email protected]> wrote: > > 1500m between two 30 or 60 cm dishes? > > Fades a bit in rain? You sure you mean 1500m and not 1500 ft? > > 1500m is way too far for 60 GHz PTP unless you're in the Libyan desert. > > > >> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Brett A Mansfield >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> I have a few PTP 60GHz links at 1500 meters working perfectly at -61. Sure >> it fades in heavy rain a tiny bit, but no more than my 3 mile 24GHz links. >> >> I also have several PtMP links as far as 800 meters working well with -65 or >> better. >> >> Thank you, >> Brett A Mansfield >> >>> On May 8, 2017, at 3:43 PM, Eric Kuhnke <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Even if it existed 2000 ft is wildly optimistic. 60 GHz works at 600 meters >>> (just about 2000 ft for you Americans) between two PTP dishes because you >>> have 44-45dBi gain dishes on both ends. Would not be the case with any sort >>> of 60 GHz sector antenna, you'd be looking at much less gain. >>> >>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Bill Prince <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Very location specific. None of our towers would be able to serve anyone >>>> with that kind of range. >>>> >>>> >>>> bp >>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>>> >>>>> On 5/8/2017 2:15 PM, Mathew Howard wrote: >>>>> Indeed... don't underestimate what can be done with a 2000' range. I can >>>>> probably cover a hundred houses with that from the tower next to where >>>>> I'm sitting. >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Gino A. Villarini <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> I concur >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Af <[email protected]> on behalf of Sterling Jacobson >>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>>>> Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 4:31 PM >>>>>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It? >>>>>> >>>>>> Lots. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Lots of places. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I’ve got, and can get fiber up main roads in neighborhoods very easily. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What costs me is the last mile backbone that winds across streets and >>>>>> through ROW in front of houses etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is the majority of my costs right there. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If I can get in with ‘normal’ wireless pricing per AP/CPE but at >>>>>> 1000Mbps I can do the hybrid model easily at much less costs. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It will be amazing for potential customers at the moment. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Might not hold up over time as bandwidth needs increase, but provides an >>>>>> immediate solution at a fraction of the cost of fiber, with the ‘feel’ >>>>>> of fiber. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Colin Stanners >>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 2:29 PM >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> How many places do you want to install a PtMP system that goes a maximum >>>>>> of 1000-2000ft distance, that fiber does not work? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>>>> >>>>>> President >>>>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 >>>>>> <mime-attachment.png> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> What am I missing here? >>>>>> >>>>>> Can't Cambium and UBNT and others simply overlay the same radio >>>>>> architecture/software they have developed over a decade, on top of a >>>>>> 60GHz radio instead of 5Ghz? >>>>>> >>>>>> Is there some fundamental problem with using the same PHY later >>>>>> protocols on 60GHz vs 5GHz? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >
