Sure, they work... but that doesn't mean they don't suck compared to native radios.
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Jaime Solorza <[email protected]> wrote: > How you think some 900MHz and 11GHz products work? Convertors > > On May 9, 2017 3:58 PM, "Colin Stanners" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Up-down converters tend to suck for many reasons, adding the fact that >> many modern factors would increase a modern up-down converter's cost over >> the old units ( need two polarizations, high-end amplifiers due to OFDM >> PAPR, tight tx/rx cycles etc). In the end a cheap 5ghz radio and an 60ghz >> UDC would cost more than a midrange 60ghz radio and still lack features. >> >> On May 9, 2017 4:07 PM, "Jaime Solorza" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Wonder who will be first to make a 5Ghz to 60GHz UDC? Is it even legal? >> >> Jaime Solorza >> Wireless Systems Architect >> 915-861-1390 <(915)%20861-1390> >> >> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Eric Muehleisen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Is the 5ghz backup radio enabled and transmitting all the time or does >>> it only come on during fade events. I would hate to chew up valuable 5ghz >>> spectrum to be used only 00.01% of the time. >>> >>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Harold Bledsoe <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> High level, think fiber to the pole and wireless last few hundred >>>> meters. Basically everything is street level in that case. >>>> >>>> You can do fixed wireless off of 60GHz and maybe 5GHz. Wi-Fi then for >>>> best effort service. >>>> >>>> One thing to keep in mind is that in a lot of cities, half the folks >>>> don't have broadband at home. Wi-Fi service could be the economical >>>> solution. :-) >>>> >>>> 60GHz is for achieving gigabit levels of service. >>>> >>>> Hal >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:54 AM Gino A. Villarini <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> What is this angie thing… can’t wrap my head around it yet >>>>> >>>>> From: Af <[email protected]> on behalf of Harold Bledsoe < >>>>> [email protected]> >>>>> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>>> Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 8:00 AM >>>>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 60Ghz PtMP, Why Doesn't Everyone Have It? >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Gino A. Villarini* >>>>> President >>>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 >>>>> >>>>> 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? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>> >>>> Harold Bledsoe >>>> >>> >>> >> >>
