Very few native radios...most are converted from IF or such, but I know what you mean...some UDCs are crap...I guess it would be expensive at frequencies above 6GHz ...gallium arsenide components for one...
On May 9, 2017 5:11 PM, "Mathew Howard" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >
