Probably it will be a good alternate to FSO based laswer links for backhual. Probably cheaper & more reliable solution then hanging lasers between towers for backhaul?
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Oliver Garraux <oli...@g.garraux.net>wrote: > > Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace). > Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're > drowning in a high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all. > Like what's happened to 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz in a lot of places. There's few > urban or semi-urban places where you still can use those frequencies for > backhaul. The reason why people pay the big bucks for licenses and gear for > licensed frequencies is you're buying insurance it's going to work in the > future. > > > > Greg > > I was at Ubiquiti's conference. I don't disagree with what you're > saying. Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely > never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is. They are seeing 24 Ghz > as only for backhaul - no connections to end users. I guess > point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24 > Ghz. AirFiber appears to be fairly highly directional. It needs to > be though, as each link uses 100 Mhz, and there's only 250 Mhz > available @ 24 Ghz. > > It also sounded like there was a decent possibility of supporting > licensed 21 / 25 Ghz spectrum with AirFiber in the future. > > Oliver > > -- Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com or simply - http://[2600:3c01:e000:1::5] if you are on IPv6 connected network! Twitter: @anurag_bhatia <https://twitter.com/#!/anurag_bhatia> Linkedin: http://linkedin.anuragbhatia.com
