On 3/29/12 21:53 , Jonathan Lassoff wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux <oli...@g.garraux.net> wrote: >> 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 suspect this is just due to cost and practicality. ISPs, nor users > will want to pay 3k USD, nor widely utilize a service that requires > near-direct LOS. > I could see this working well in rural or sparse areas that might not > mind the transceiver.
Cost will continue to drop, fact of the matter is the beam width is rather narrow and they attenuate rather well so you can have a fair number of them deployed without co-channel interference. if you pack a tower full of them you're going to have issues. >> I guess >> point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24 >> Ghz. > > The whole point of these unlicensed bands is that their usage is not > tightly controlled. I imagine hardware for use still should comply > with FCC's part 15 rules though. > >> 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. > > Being so directional, I'm not sure that cross-talk will as much of an > issue, except for dense hub-like sites. It sounds like there's some > novel application of using GPS timing to make the radios spectrally > orthogonal -- that's pretty cool. If they can somehow coordinate > timing across point-to-point links, that would be great for sites that > co-locate multiple link terminations. > > Overall, this looks like a pretty cool product! > > --j > >