I was saying one direction IS 90 degrees in the "standard tower plan" :)
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:17 AM, Sean Heskett <af...@zirkel.us> wrote: > how else would you suggest building a tower?!?! > > friends don't let friends use omni's ;-) > > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:15 AM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> > wrote: >> >> If you do the standard 4xAP so you can do 2 channels and back to back >> frequency reuse, 90 degrees is one direction... >> >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:12 AM, Sean Heskett <af...@zirkel.us> wrote: >> > actually you don't want them all in one direction, you want the clients >> > evenly spread in a 90* swath so that you can take advantage of the >> > MU-MIMO. >> > >> > we have clients connected out to 8 miles running in 6x (which is 64qam). >> > >> > it actually saves on tower rent because to do the same thing with >> > regular >> > 450 APs (which we were prior to deploying the 450m's) you would need 3 >> > APs >> > each using 20Mhz so 60Mhz total of spectrum used. >> > >> > win, win, win. >> > >> > but i also wouldn't install them at every tower. >> > >> > 2 cents >> > >> > -sean >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:58 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> > >> > > >
