Hey Sterling, No worries, we will have 15 CPE per sector support in mid June (software update). The next step will be 32 (another software update). :-)
-Hal On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:29 PM Sterling Jacobson <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't have a problem with their range or capacity. > > What I do have an issue with current specs is that it is one AP to 8 > clients. > > I need this to be more in the 'normal' range of an AP to 15-30 clients or > more. > > Given the higher bandwidth, it would be a lot easier to spread a 1000Mbps > connection around to 30-100 clients than the 5GHz 100Mbps to the same > client number. > > Law of averages. > > Again, though, I can see that being a CPU/processor limited thing in > current radio designs for lower frequencies. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill Prince > Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 2:21 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It? > > The top reasons that come to mind right away are: > > (1) Range. How close can you tolerate? It's not going to go very far in a > PMP environment. Maybe a few hundred yards. If there are trees, forget > about it. > > (2) Modulation. Don't expect something in that frequency to be doing > higher level modulations. Because you can run ginormous channels, maybe not > a big deal, but I wouldn't count on it. > > (3) Costs. Getting things to run at that frequency would probably require > higher end components. > > > bp > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > On 5/8/2017 1:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson 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? > >
