I'm just saying it doesn't make sense, unless all your clients are short range, in all one direction, and tower rent is costly.
It's a niche of a niche. (I'm not saying it is a bad product, I'm not saying that at all, I'm just saying it's not the second coming like people make it out to be.) On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:55 AM, Sean Heskett <af...@zirkel.us> wrote: > Then by all means don’t deploy any 450m’s josh. Geeze dude take a chill > pill. > > I’m just stating what I have on my network in a real world environment, > earning me real world dollars and conserving much needed spectrum. > > It’s not the right tool for every situation, BUT under the right conditions > the 450m delivers. > > Cheers bud > > -sean > > > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:46 PM Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote: >> >> Further note: You can see I did those calcs at 1024QAM, so reduce that >> down the 256QAM for closer to real numbers :) >> >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> >> wrote: >> > Let's break this down a bit. >> > >> > Firstly, what outdoor PTMP platform is really using WiFi anymore? >> > *shakes head* >> > >> > Mu-MIMO only works if the clients are sufficiently spread apart >> > (physically), and their tx/rx windows can fit into almost the same >> > timeframe. Any degradation in signal of one client that ends up in the >> > same window as other clients reduces the overall capacity of the AP >> > (like in many other situations). It can, in some situations, lead to >> > cumulative transfer windows where overall throughput ends up getting >> > reduced as the rx/tx hold time for the other clients end up taking a >> > hit in efficiency. This is one of the few failings of MU-MIMO, not >> > even taking into account "massive" systems like 14x14 that end up >> > costing quite a bit in overall power budget due to the number of >> > elements, further meaning that your range is severely limited in a >> > system like this... so only decent in very dense situations. That's a >> > unique niche. >> > >> > So, 80 clients. That's a pretty average number for a modern system >> > (450, Mimosa, AC Prism Gen2). >> > >> > 30Mbps per client... okay, but most customers are actually streaming. >> > Let's throw another margin on top of that and say a few Mbps for >> > gaming. 10Mbps is a nice round number. Now, that data gets sent in >> > most services in bursts and buffered, so it's not continuous. Let's >> > take that average number down to about 8 Mbps. Now let's assume that >> > maybe 70% of those 80 customers is doing something like that, and >> > that's probably a generous number. 56 customers. So 56 customers x >> > 8Mbps = 448Mbps. On a 20Mhz channel? Wait, this doesn't seem to work >> > out! >> > >> > Soo.... 1024 QAM on a 20MHz channel gives you 250Mbps, very roughly. >> > If you're optimistic about modern patterns, you're between an 80/20 >> > and a 60/40 Download/Upload ratio on a split GPS synced system. >> > >> > 80/20 = 200Mbps Down, 50Mbps Up >> > 60/40 = 150 Down, 100Mbps Up >> > >> > Let's say for the sake of argument that you're in the 80/20 camp, >> > giving you 200Mbps to work with in above perfect conditions, gives you >> > 3.57 Mbps per subscriber. Roughly 4M/sub, good for 480p streaming. >> > >> > That's a very expensive platform for that kind of throughput and >> > subscriber count with such limitations in range and needed a "perfect >> > storm" of client distribution and data patterns to really take >> > advantage of. With working GPS in all modern platforms, I would be >> > hard pressed to not use an additional 20mhz channel if available, or >> > just cut the channel width in half to 10MHz each, and put up 4 Mimosas >> > or 4 Gen2 Prism radios and have far more than 4x the possible >> > subscriber account, improved tx/rx efficiency, improved range >> > (increasing distance and SNR in many situations), and greatly reduced >> > cost. >> > >> > Again, I'm far more excited about the 4x increase in spectral >> > efficiency via OFDMA that doesn't cause you to cut down on tx/rx >> > chains for multi-client transmission (costing your range, per client >> > snr, and per-client throughput in the process). MU-MIMO is and will >> > always be a niche hack that never lived up to what was promised. >> > >> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:12 AM, Sean Heskett <af...@zirkel.us> wrote: >> >> Being able to load a 450m AP with 80 subs and deliver 30mbps service to >> >> all >> >> of them at peak Netflix time in a 20mhz channel without breaking a >> >> sweat is >> >> worth every penny. >> >> >> >> But it’s one tool in the tool box and isn’t the best solution for every >> >> deployment. >> >> >> >> 2 cents >> >> >> >> -sean >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:32 PM Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> The more I dig into MU-MIMO, the more I realize it's not all that >> >>> great. >> >>> >> >>> I am far more excited by the 9 client simultaneous transmissions in >> >>> 802.11ax via OFDMA. >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:00 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> > 450 still does a few things that ePMP doesn't. >> >>> > Plus there's that 14 chain MU-MIMO thing......ePMP will probably >> >>> > never >> >>> > have >> >>> > something like that. >> >>> > UI is still sluggish on ePMP. >> >>> > >> >>> > On the other hand ePMP has gotten so many feature improvements over >> >>> > these >> >>> > past few years that it's gotten really hard to argue with the value >> >>> > it >> >>> > provides. >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > ------ Original Message ------ >> >>> > From: "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com> >> >>> > To: af@afmug.com >> >>> > Sent: 2/12/2018 8:27:56 PM >> >>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] mini wisp >> >>> > >> >>> > The UI server was probably the worst I have ever seen. >> >>> > >> >>> > So, less than 25 subs per site, what speed packages do you sell to >> >>> > those >> >>> > 25? >> >>> > >> >>> > Packetflux GPS sync. >> >>> > >> >>> > From: Joe Novak >> >>> > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 5:20 PM >> >>> > To: af@afmug.com >> >>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] mini wisp >> >>> > >> >>> > What didn't you like about it? The interface came a long way since >> >>> > the >> >>> > early >> >>> > days of EPMP. We've got quite a bit deployed. A lot of people are >> >>> > having >> >>> > weird GPS situations come up with the on-board GPS, we have this >> >>> > problem >> >>> > once in a while too. Our packetflux sites are rock solid though. >> >>> > That is >> >>> > assuming density isn't more then 25 per AP, because then I don't >> >>> > exactly >> >>> > have enough experience with it. Most of our APs are sitting right >> >>> > around >> >>> > 25 >> >>> > customers, and according to airtime we still have quite a bit of >> >>> > room. >> >>> > >> >>> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Jaime Solorza >> >>> > <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> >> >>> > wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> I separated frequencies to three I found cleanest on AFx5s...On >> >>> >> Rockets >> >>> >> and Powerbeams I choose one frequency and shut off the rest on APs >> >>> >> and >> >>> >> on >> >>> >> PowerBeams I only use two...this method has worked well since >> >>> >> August of >> >>> >> 2017 >> >>> >> when I replaced all the radios on this network and have had to >> >>> >> change >> >>> >> them >> >>> >> since. Two of the WISPs live in Fabens and work with us on issues. >> >>> >> The >> >>> >> other one from El Paso uses my services once in a while and works >> >>> >> with >> >>> >> us as >> >>> >> well. Texas Gas put up allot of 5GHz units around Fabens but still >> >>> >> no >> >>> >> issues. I used larger dishes at Wells and lift stations as well. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Jaime Solorza >> >>> >> >> >>> >> On Feb 12, 2018 4:50 PM, "Jaime Solorza" >> >>> >> <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> >> >>> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Two AF5x on same tower, One AP on second tower 20 ft away...all >> >>> >>> other >> >>> >>> radios within 4 mile radius... >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Jaime Solorza >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> On Feb 12, 2018 4:43 PM, "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> All on the same tower, right? >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> From: Jaime Solorza >> >>> >>>> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 4:41 PM >> >>> >>>> To: Animal Farm >> >>> >>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] mini wisp >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> Yes..I have two AF5X links as PTP and 25 radios all in 5 GHz off >> >>> >>>> 4 >> >>> >>>> APs >> >>> >>>> in Fabens, Texas sharing spectrum with 3 WISPs...no issues... >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> Jaime Solorza >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> On Feb 12, 2018 4:32 PM, "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> Talking to a friend that wants to build a small wisp. He is >> >>> >>>>> about >> >>> >>>>> 5.5 >> >>> >>>>> miles from a backbone connection. I would suggest AF5X to him >> >>> >>>>> but >> >>> >>>>> he is >> >>> >>>>> gonna want to use 5 GHz for his wisp I presume. >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> Can an AF5X and some 5 GHz cambium (or others) access points >> >>> >>>>> peacefully >> >>> >>>>> coexist on a tower? >> >>> >>>>> Very rural area. Not expecting much interference other than >> >>> >>>>> home >> >>> >>>>> routers. >> >>> > >> >>> >
