Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?
SkyPilot only turned on 1 antenna at a time, thus PTP. Rory From: AF On Behalf Of Adam Moffett Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 10:59 AM To: af@af.afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? I think SkyPilot argued that the CPE was a point to point and used the higher Tx power only in the upload direction. I think that held up to scrutiny, but not sure how helpful that was. It probably didn't hurt. On 10/14/2020 1:55 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: On Oct 14, 2020, at 1:38 PM, Brian Webster mailto:i...@wirelessmapping.com>> wrote: I think it made it to 5 GHz too because SkyPilot had radios that ran under PTP rules. Yes and no…. this is an active petition from Radwin before the FCC to allow higher power using beamforming antennas in U-NII-1 and U-NII-3: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10618241749047/Radwin%20Petition%20for%20Rulemaking.pdf<https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10618241749047/Radwin%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20Petition%20for%20Rulemaking.pdf> "RADWIN seeks modification of Section 15.407 of the rules to allow devices that emit multiple directional beams sequentially in the U-NII-1 and U-NII-3 bands to operate at power limits that are allowed for point-to-point systems in those bands." WISPA, the WISPA Policy Committee, as well as Cambium have supported this proposal but it has not see action from the FCC. Details of the fine points are in above reference PDF including a discussion of the current rules. Mark Thank you, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com<http://www.wirelessmapping.com> -Original Message- From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Grip Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:33 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? Well, it is more like a PtP to the client. Anybody ever had hands on a GO AP? -Original Message- From: AF <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:22 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? The infamous "Vivato Rule". http://www.vivato.com/pdfs/Vivato_Technical_White_Paper.pdf Some would say the FCC was asleep at the wheel when they allowed this. It is apparently for 2.4 GHz only. -Original Message- From: AF <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:45 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? There's a couple of things to break down here. One is that there are 2 major kinds of beamforming - analog and digital. The ones you mention (and I'll add Go Networks to the list) were using analog beamforming. These are antenna arrays that can be phased together to make a stronger beam and is steerable. The chip-based beamforming in the WiFi standard is a bit different and you don't get this sort of powerful beam out of it. That kind of digital beamforming is more useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would be useful in an indoor wifi environment. I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the impression it is more of an array of fixed sectors that have physically different coverage areas that are connected to different radio chains. So that is yet another sort of variation. One thing that made the analog beamforming systems achieve better coverage was that the FCC allowed (maybe they still do?) higher EIRP from this specific type of system. So it had physically more power and punch to it. I am personally not aware of any companies actively developing analog beamforming systems like those older ones. It gets significantly more difficult for those designs to support the sort of advanced macs that came after 11n - 11ax supports MU-MIMO and OFDMA for example which would be challenging to support with an analog beamformer. On 10/13/20, 3:42 PM, "AF on behalf of Jeremy Grip" <mailto:af-bounces@af.afmug.comonbehalfofg...@nbnworks.net> wrote: A few years ago, when the electrical utility trashed the 900 spectrum with “smart” meters, I did a forklift upgrade of a bunch of 900 PtMP with some old Wavion beamforming sectors talking to ubnt clients in 2.4. I was surprised that I got just about the same coverage that I had with 900 (Trango) and of course better throughput. Those original Wavions were b/g; I’ve since found a couple of .11n versions from the brief last gasp of Alvarion (R.I.P.) that did even better. Anybody know if anybody’s currently producing a beamforming 2.4 sector that will talk to standards compliant 11n radios? I’m assuming that the beamforming saved this location—one tower plus a couple of other little nodes i
Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?
HOLY SNIKEYS! On good big truck at 50MPH would end that crap LOL :) On 10/15/20 9:00 AM, Adam Moffett wrote: If they would let anybody just string up or bury anything anywhere they wanted to, then it would be done. But you can't because it'll look like this. Even if you took away all the rules and property rights barriers you have another problem in labor availability. NY State tried dumping craploads of money into broadband and pounding their fist on the table wondering why it wasn't all getting built. Turns out the market only supplies so many linesmen & field engineers. There are enough of them to meet demand in the current market, and dumping money into the demand side doesn't automatically make more of them available. The union electricians who do the aerial make-ready are getting paid double time to lure them away from other projects across the Northeast.and last I knew there still weren't enough. Electric Pole With Messy Wire That Look Dangerous Stock Photo, Picture And Royalty Free Image. Image 28858353. On 10/15/2020 8:30 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: The fiber gods are slower than I expected, at least the last mile fiber gods. Meanwhile, cable companies won a bunch of PALs in our semi-rural area, I expect everywhere. What's that all about? -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Dave Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 7:07 AM To:af@af.afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? It doesnt matter about any of it because the fiber gods will soon take over. waiting on the light beams from space On 10/14/2020 1:34 PM, Bill Prince wrote: or it's OK to shoot 10,000 long guns in random directions. bp On 10/14/2020 10:57 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: This rule seems based on the idea that radio interference doesn't matter if it's not 100% of the time. Like I can shoot you with a rifle as long as sometimes I point it at other people. I feel like the FCC doesn't understand that broadband isn't a hobby or best effort service, people expect it to work reliably not intermittently. I get the same feeling about other decisions. Like their love of shared spectrum. Or allowing FHSS to hop all over the band randomly clobbering other users but using high power spectral density, on the assumption that it's equivalent to the lower psd that you would calculate by spreading the same power over a much wider piece of spectrum. Again, I'm allowed to shoot at you with a long gun, and you shouldn't mind because most of the time I'm shooting at other people, so you're only dead part of the time. -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 12:38 PM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? I think it made it to 5 GHz too because SkyPilot had radios that ran under PTP rules. Thank you, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Grip Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:33 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? Well, it is more like a PtP to the client. Anybody ever had hands on a GO AP? -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:22 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? The infamous "Vivato Rule". http://www.vivato.com/pdfs/Vivato_Technical_White_Paper.pdf Some would say the FCC was asleep at the wheel when they allowed this. It is apparently for 2.4 GHz only. -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:45 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? There's a couple of things to break down here. One is that there are 2 major kinds of beamforming - analog and digital. The ones you mention (and I'll add Go Networks to the list) were using analog beamforming. These are antenna arrays that can be phased together to make a stronger beam and is steerable. The chip-based beamforming in the WiFi standard is a bit different and you don't get this sort of powerful beam out of it. That kind of digital beamforming is more useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would be useful in an indoor wifi environment. I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the impression it is more of an array of fixed sectors that have physically different coverage areas that are connected to different radio chains. So that is yet another sort of variation. One thing that made the analog beamforming systems achieve better coverage was that the FCC allowed (maybe they still do?) highe
Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?
Charter cable got alot of the 3.65ghz licenses in my area. If I was betting I would say that it is not for internet service it is for there mobile phone service. Right now they are an MVNO and I bet they could save a ton of money doing there own cell service in there footprint. On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 8:30 AM Ken Hohhof wrote: > The fiber gods are slower than I expected, at least the last mile fiber > gods. Meanwhile, cable companies won a bunch of PALs in our semi-rural > area, I expect everywhere. What's that all about? > > -Original Message- > From: AF On Behalf Of Dave > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 7:07 AM > To: af@af.afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? > > It doesnt matter about any of it because the fiber gods will soon take > over. > > waiting on the light beams from space > > On 10/14/2020 1:34 PM, Bill Prince wrote: > > or it's OK to shoot 10,000 long guns in random directions. > > > > bp > > > > > > On 10/14/2020 10:57 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > >> This rule seems based on the idea that radio interference doesn't > >> matter if it's not 100% of the time. Like I can shoot you with a > >> rifle as long as sometimes I point it at other people. I feel like > >> the FCC doesn't understand that broadband isn't a hobby or best > >> effort service, people expect it to work reliably not intermittently. > >> > >> I get the same feeling about other decisions. Like their love of > >> shared spectrum. Or allowing FHSS to hop all over the band randomly > >> clobbering other users but using high power spectral density, on the > >> assumption that it's equivalent to the lower psd that you would > >> calculate by spreading the same power over a much wider piece of > >> spectrum. Again, I'm allowed to shoot at you with a long gun, and > >> you shouldn't mind because most of the time I'm shooting at other > >> people, so you're only dead part of the time. > >> > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: AF On Behalf Of Brian Webster > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 12:38 PM > >> To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' > >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? > >> > >> I think it made it to 5 GHz too because SkyPilot had radios that ran > >> under PTP rules. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> Brian Webster > >> www.wirelessmapping.com > >> > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Grip > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:33 AM > >> To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' > >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? > >> > >> Well, it is more like a PtP to the client. > >> > >> Anybody ever had hands on a GO AP? > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: AF On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:22 AM > >> To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' > >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? > >> > >> The infamous "Vivato Rule". > >> http://www.vivato.com/pdfs/Vivato_Technical_White_Paper.pdf > >> > >> Some would say the FCC was asleep at the wheel when they allowed > >> this. It is apparently for 2.4 GHz only. > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: AF On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:45 AM > >> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group > >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? > >> > >> There's a couple of things to break down here. One is that there are > >> 2 major kinds of beamforming - analog and digital. The ones you > >> mention (and I'll add Go Networks to the list) were using analog > >> beamforming. These are antenna arrays that can be phased together to > >> make a stronger beam and is steerable. The chip-based beamforming in > >> the WiFi standard is a bit different and you don't get this sort of > >> powerful beam out of it. That kind of digital beamforming is more > >> useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would be useful in an indoor > >> wifi environment. > >> > >> I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the > >> impression it is more o
Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?
If they would let anybody just string up or bury anything anywhere they wanted to, then it would be done. But you can't because it'll look like this. Even if you took away all the rules and property rights barriers you have another problem in labor availability. NY State tried dumping craploads of money into broadband and pounding their fist on the table wondering why it wasn't all getting built. Turns out the market only supplies so many linesmen & field engineers. There are enough of them to meet demand in the current market, and dumping money into the demand side doesn't automatically make more of them available. The union electricians who do the aerial make-ready are getting paid double time to lure them away from other projects across the Northeast.and last I knew there still weren't enough. Electric Pole With Messy Wire That Look Dangerous Stock Photo, Picture And Royalty Free Image. Image 28858353. On 10/15/2020 8:30 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: The fiber gods are slower than I expected, at least the last mile fiber gods. Meanwhile, cable companies won a bunch of PALs in our semi-rural area, I expect everywhere. What's that all about? -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Dave Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 7:07 AM To: af@af.afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? It doesnt matter about any of it because the fiber gods will soon take over. waiting on the light beams from space On 10/14/2020 1:34 PM, Bill Prince wrote: or it's OK to shoot 10,000 long guns in random directions. bp On 10/14/2020 10:57 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: This rule seems based on the idea that radio interference doesn't matter if it's not 100% of the time. Like I can shoot you with a rifle as long as sometimes I point it at other people. I feel like the FCC doesn't understand that broadband isn't a hobby or best effort service, people expect it to work reliably not intermittently. I get the same feeling about other decisions. Like their love of shared spectrum. Or allowing FHSS to hop all over the band randomly clobbering other users but using high power spectral density, on the assumption that it's equivalent to the lower psd that you would calculate by spreading the same power over a much wider piece of spectrum. Again, I'm allowed to shoot at you with a long gun, and you shouldn't mind because most of the time I'm shooting at other people, so you're only dead part of the time. -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 12:38 PM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? I think it made it to 5 GHz too because SkyPilot had radios that ran under PTP rules. Thank you, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Grip Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:33 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? Well, it is more like a PtP to the client. Anybody ever had hands on a GO AP? -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:22 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? The infamous "Vivato Rule". http://www.vivato.com/pdfs/Vivato_Technical_White_Paper.pdf Some would say the FCC was asleep at the wheel when they allowed this. It is apparently for 2.4 GHz only. -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:45 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? There's a couple of things to break down here. One is that there are 2 major kinds of beamforming - analog and digital. The ones you mention (and I'll add Go Networks to the list) were using analog beamforming. These are antenna arrays that can be phased together to make a stronger beam and is steerable. The chip-based beamforming in the WiFi standard is a bit different and you don't get this sort of powerful beam out of it. That kind of digital beamforming is more useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would be useful in an indoor wifi environment. I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the impression it is more of an array of fixed sectors that have physically different coverage areas that are connected to different radio chains. So that is yet another sort of variation. One thing that made the analog beamforming systems achieve better coverage was that the FCC allowed (maybe they still do?) higher EIRP from this specific type of system. So it had physically more power and punch to it. I am personally not aware o
Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?
So maybe Mediacom will buy me out? -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 7:39 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? It’s sometimes hard to tell the cable companies from the WISP’s these days. There have been a number of big acquisitions of larger WISPs by cable companies - and so far the cable companies are not changing the names of the WISPs they purchase. Mark > On Oct 15, 2020, at 8:30 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > > The fiber gods are slower than I expected, at least the last mile fiber gods. > Meanwhile, cable companies won a bunch of PALs in our semi-rural area, I > expect everywhere. What's that all about? > > -Original Message- > From: AF On Behalf Of Dave > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 7:07 AM > To: af@af.afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? > > It doesnt matter about any of it because the fiber gods will soon take over. > > waiting on the light beams from space > > On 10/14/2020 1:34 PM, Bill Prince wrote: >> or it's OK to shoot 10,000 long guns in random directions. >> >> bp >> >> >> On 10/14/2020 10:57 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >>> This rule seems based on the idea that radio interference doesn't >>> matter if it's not 100% of the time. Like I can shoot you with a >>> rifle as long as sometimes I point it at other people. I feel like >>> the FCC doesn't understand that broadband isn't a hobby or best >>> effort service, people expect it to work reliably not intermittently. >>> >>> I get the same feeling about other decisions. Like their love of >>> shared spectrum. Or allowing FHSS to hop all over the band randomly >>> clobbering other users but using high power spectral density, on the >>> assumption that it's equivalent to the lower psd that you would >>> calculate by spreading the same power over a much wider piece of >>> spectrum. Again, I'm allowed to shoot at you with a long gun, and >>> you shouldn't mind because most of the time I'm shooting at other >>> people, so you're only dead part of the time. >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: AF On Behalf Of Brian Webster >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 12:38 PM >>> To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? >>> >>> I think it made it to 5 GHz too because SkyPilot had radios that ran >>> under PTP rules. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Brian Webster >>> www.wirelessmapping.com >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Grip >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:33 AM >>> To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? >>> >>> Well, it is more like a PtP to the client. >>> >>> Anybody ever had hands on a GO AP? >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: AF On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:22 AM >>> To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? >>> >>> The infamous "Vivato Rule". >>> http://www.vivato.com/pdfs/Vivato_Technical_White_Paper.pdf >>> >>> Some would say the FCC was asleep at the wheel when they allowed >>> this. It is apparently for 2.4 GHz only. >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: AF On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:45 AM >>> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? >>> >>> There's a couple of things to break down here. One is that there >>> are >>> 2 major kinds of beamforming - analog and digital. The ones you >>> mention (and I'll add Go Networks to the list) were using analog >>> beamforming. These are antenna arrays that can be phased together >>> to make a stronger beam and is steerable. The chip-based >>> beamforming in the WiFi standard is a bit different and you don't >>> get this sort of powerful beam out of it. That kind of digital >>> beamforming is more useful for nulls mu-mi
Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?
It’s sometimes hard to tell the cable companies from the WISP’s these days. There have been a number of big acquisitions of larger WISPs by cable companies - and so far the cable companies are not changing the names of the WISPs they purchase. Mark > On Oct 15, 2020, at 8:30 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > > The fiber gods are slower than I expected, at least the last mile fiber gods. > Meanwhile, cable companies won a bunch of PALs in our semi-rural area, I > expect everywhere. What's that all about? > > -Original Message- > From: AF On Behalf Of Dave > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 7:07 AM > To: af@af.afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? > > It doesnt matter about any of it because the fiber gods will soon take over. > > waiting on the light beams from space > > On 10/14/2020 1:34 PM, Bill Prince wrote: >> or it's OK to shoot 10,000 long guns in random directions. >> >> bp >> >> >> On 10/14/2020 10:57 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >>> This rule seems based on the idea that radio interference doesn't >>> matter if it's not 100% of the time. Like I can shoot you with a >>> rifle as long as sometimes I point it at other people. I feel like >>> the FCC doesn't understand that broadband isn't a hobby or best >>> effort service, people expect it to work reliably not intermittently. >>> >>> I get the same feeling about other decisions. Like their love of >>> shared spectrum. Or allowing FHSS to hop all over the band randomly >>> clobbering other users but using high power spectral density, on the >>> assumption that it's equivalent to the lower psd that you would >>> calculate by spreading the same power over a much wider piece of >>> spectrum. Again, I'm allowed to shoot at you with a long gun, and >>> you shouldn't mind because most of the time I'm shooting at other >>> people, so you're only dead part of the time. >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: AF On Behalf Of Brian Webster >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 12:38 PM >>> To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? >>> >>> I think it made it to 5 GHz too because SkyPilot had radios that ran >>> under PTP rules. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Brian Webster >>> www.wirelessmapping.com >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Grip >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:33 AM >>> To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? >>> >>> Well, it is more like a PtP to the client. >>> >>> Anybody ever had hands on a GO AP? >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: AF On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:22 AM >>> To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? >>> >>> The infamous "Vivato Rule". >>> http://www.vivato.com/pdfs/Vivato_Technical_White_Paper.pdf >>> >>> Some would say the FCC was asleep at the wheel when they allowed >>> this. It is apparently for 2.4 GHz only. >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: AF On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:45 AM >>> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? >>> >>> There's a couple of things to break down here. One is that there are >>> 2 major kinds of beamforming - analog and digital. The ones you >>> mention (and I'll add Go Networks to the list) were using analog >>> beamforming. These are antenna arrays that can be phased together to >>> make a stronger beam and is steerable. The chip-based beamforming in >>> the WiFi standard is a bit different and you don't get this sort of >>> powerful beam out of it. That kind of digital beamforming is more >>> useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would be useful in an indoor >>> wifi environment. >>> >>> I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the >>> impression it is more of an array of fixed sectors that have >>> phy
Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?
The fiber gods are slower than I expected, at least the last mile fiber gods. Meanwhile, cable companies won a bunch of PALs in our semi-rural area, I expect everywhere. What's that all about? -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Dave Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 7:07 AM To: af@af.afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? It doesnt matter about any of it because the fiber gods will soon take over. waiting on the light beams from space On 10/14/2020 1:34 PM, Bill Prince wrote: > or it's OK to shoot 10,000 long guns in random directions. > > bp > > > On 10/14/2020 10:57 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >> This rule seems based on the idea that radio interference doesn't >> matter if it's not 100% of the time. Like I can shoot you with a >> rifle as long as sometimes I point it at other people. I feel like >> the FCC doesn't understand that broadband isn't a hobby or best >> effort service, people expect it to work reliably not intermittently. >> >> I get the same feeling about other decisions. Like their love of >> shared spectrum. Or allowing FHSS to hop all over the band randomly >> clobbering other users but using high power spectral density, on the >> assumption that it's equivalent to the lower psd that you would >> calculate by spreading the same power over a much wider piece of >> spectrum. Again, I'm allowed to shoot at you with a long gun, and >> you shouldn't mind because most of the time I'm shooting at other >> people, so you're only dead part of the time. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: AF On Behalf Of Brian Webster >> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 12:38 PM >> To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? >> >> I think it made it to 5 GHz too because SkyPilot had radios that ran >> under PTP rules. >> >> Thank you, >> Brian Webster >> www.wirelessmapping.com >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Grip >> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:33 AM >> To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? >> >> Well, it is more like a PtP to the client. >> >> Anybody ever had hands on a GO AP? >> >> -Original Message- >> From: AF On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof >> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:22 AM >> To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? >> >> The infamous "Vivato Rule". >> http://www.vivato.com/pdfs/Vivato_Technical_White_Paper.pdf >> >> Some would say the FCC was asleep at the wheel when they allowed >> this. It is apparently for 2.4 GHz only. >> >> -Original Message- >> From: AF On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe >> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:45 AM >> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? >> >> There's a couple of things to break down here. One is that there are >> 2 major kinds of beamforming - analog and digital. The ones you >> mention (and I'll add Go Networks to the list) were using analog >> beamforming. These are antenna arrays that can be phased together to >> make a stronger beam and is steerable. The chip-based beamforming in >> the WiFi standard is a bit different and you don't get this sort of >> powerful beam out of it. That kind of digital beamforming is more >> useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would be useful in an indoor >> wifi environment. >> >> I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the >> impression it is more of an array of fixed sectors that have >> physically different coverage areas that are connected to different >> radio chains. So that is yet another sort of variation. >> >> One thing that made the analog beamforming systems achieve better >> coverage was that the FCC allowed (maybe they still do?) higher EIRP >> from this specific type of system. So it had physically more power >> and punch to it. >> >> I am personally not aware of any companies actively developing analog >> beamforming systems like those older ones. It gets significantly >> more difficult for those designs to support the sort of advanced macs >> that came after 11n - 11ax supports MU-MIMO and OFDMA for ex
Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?
It doesnt matter about any of it because the fiber gods will soon take over. waiting on the light beams from space On 10/14/2020 1:34 PM, Bill Prince wrote: or it's OK to shoot 10,000 long guns in random directions. bp On 10/14/2020 10:57 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: This rule seems based on the idea that radio interference doesn't matter if it's not 100% of the time. Like I can shoot you with a rifle as long as sometimes I point it at other people. I feel like the FCC doesn't understand that broadband isn't a hobby or best effort service, people expect it to work reliably not intermittently. I get the same feeling about other decisions. Like their love of shared spectrum. Or allowing FHSS to hop all over the band randomly clobbering other users but using high power spectral density, on the assumption that it's equivalent to the lower psd that you would calculate by spreading the same power over a much wider piece of spectrum. Again, I'm allowed to shoot at you with a long gun, and you shouldn't mind because most of the time I'm shooting at other people, so you're only dead part of the time. -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 12:38 PM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? I think it made it to 5 GHz too because SkyPilot had radios that ran under PTP rules. Thank you, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Grip Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:33 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? Well, it is more like a PtP to the client. Anybody ever had hands on a GO AP? -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:22 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? The infamous "Vivato Rule". http://www.vivato.com/pdfs/Vivato_Technical_White_Paper.pdf Some would say the FCC was asleep at the wheel when they allowed this. It is apparently for 2.4 GHz only. -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:45 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? There's a couple of things to break down here. One is that there are 2 major kinds of beamforming - analog and digital. The ones you mention (and I'll add Go Networks to the list) were using analog beamforming. These are antenna arrays that can be phased together to make a stronger beam and is steerable. The chip-based beamforming in the WiFi standard is a bit different and you don't get this sort of powerful beam out of it. That kind of digital beamforming is more useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would be useful in an indoor wifi environment. I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the impression it is more of an array of fixed sectors that have physically different coverage areas that are connected to different radio chains. So that is yet another sort of variation. One thing that made the analog beamforming systems achieve better coverage was that the FCC allowed (maybe they still do?) higher EIRP from this specific type of system. So it had physically more power and punch to it. I am personally not aware of any companies actively developing analog beamforming systems like those older ones. It gets significantly more difficult for those designs to support the sort of advanced macs that came after 11n - 11ax supports MU-MIMO and OFDMA for example which would be challenging to support with an analog beamformer. On 10/13/20, 3:42 PM, "AF on behalf of Jeremy Grip" wrote: A few years ago, when the electrical utility trashed the 900 spectrum with “smart” meters, I did a forklift upgrade of a bunch of 900 PtMP with some old Wavion beamforming sectors talking to ubnt clients in 2.4. I was surprised that I got just about the same coverage that I had with 900 (Trango) and of course better throughput. Those original Wavions were b/g; I’ve since found a couple of .11n versions from the brief last gasp of Alvarion (R.I.P.) that did even better. Anybody know if anybody’s currently producing a beamforming 2.4 sector that will talk to standards compliant 11n radios? I’m assuming that the beamforming saved this location—one tower plus a couple of other little nodes in a little spread out village in the middle of a dense National Forest of mixed tall evergreens and hardwood. I just don’t see how 2.4 could match the old 900 penetration otherwise, but maybe somebody can enlighten me. It wouldn’t be worth it to try and ch
Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?
or it's OK to shoot 10,000 long guns in random directions. bp On 10/14/2020 10:57 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: This rule seems based on the idea that radio interference doesn't matter if it's not 100% of the time. Like I can shoot you with a rifle as long as sometimes I point it at other people. I feel like the FCC doesn't understand that broadband isn't a hobby or best effort service, people expect it to work reliably not intermittently. I get the same feeling about other decisions. Like their love of shared spectrum. Or allowing FHSS to hop all over the band randomly clobbering other users but using high power spectral density, on the assumption that it's equivalent to the lower psd that you would calculate by spreading the same power over a much wider piece of spectrum. Again, I'm allowed to shoot at you with a long gun, and you shouldn't mind because most of the time I'm shooting at other people, so you're only dead part of the time. -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 12:38 PM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? I think it made it to 5 GHz too because SkyPilot had radios that ran under PTP rules. Thank you, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Grip Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:33 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? Well, it is more like a PtP to the client. Anybody ever had hands on a GO AP? -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:22 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? The infamous "Vivato Rule". http://www.vivato.com/pdfs/Vivato_Technical_White_Paper.pdf Some would say the FCC was asleep at the wheel when they allowed this. It is apparently for 2.4 GHz only. -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:45 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? There's a couple of things to break down here. One is that there are 2 major kinds of beamforming - analog and digital. The ones you mention (and I'll add Go Networks to the list) were using analog beamforming. These are antenna arrays that can be phased together to make a stronger beam and is steerable. The chip-based beamforming in the WiFi standard is a bit different and you don't get this sort of powerful beam out of it. That kind of digital beamforming is more useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would be useful in an indoor wifi environment. I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the impression it is more of an array of fixed sectors that have physically different coverage areas that are connected to different radio chains. So that is yet another sort of variation. One thing that made the analog beamforming systems achieve better coverage was that the FCC allowed (maybe they still do?) higher EIRP from this specific type of system. So it had physically more power and punch to it. I am personally not aware of any companies actively developing analog beamforming systems like those older ones. It gets significantly more difficult for those designs to support the sort of advanced macs that came after 11n - 11ax supports MU-MIMO and OFDMA for example which would be challenging to support with an analog beamformer. On 10/13/20, 3:42 PM, "AF on behalf of Jeremy Grip" wrote: A few years ago, when the electrical utility trashed the 900 spectrum with “smart” meters, I did a forklift upgrade of a bunch of 900 PtMP with some old Wavion beamforming sectors talking to ubnt clients in 2.4. I was surprised that I got just about the same coverage that I had with 900 (Trango) and of course better throughput. Those original Wavions were b/g; I’ve since found a couple of .11n versions from the brief last gasp of Alvarion (R.I.P.) that did even better. Anybody know if anybody’s currently producing a beamforming 2.4 sector that will talk to standards compliant 11n radios? I’m assuming that the beamforming saved this location—one tower plus a couple of other little nodes in a little spread out village in the middle of a dense National Forest of mixed tall evergreens and hardwood. I just don’t see how 2.4 could match the old 900 penetration otherwise, but maybe somebody can enlighten me. It wouldn’t be worth it to try and change out all the clients--more than a few are 50’+ up in trees. If there was an ePMP medusa in 2.4 and that sex-change from ubnt to ePMP worked it would be worth a try, but
Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?
I think SkyPilot argued that the CPE was a point to point and used the higher Tx power only in the upload direction. I think that held up to scrutiny, but not sure how helpful that was. It probably didn't hurt. On 10/14/2020 1:55 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: On Oct 14, 2020, at 1:38 PM, Brian Webster <mailto:i...@wirelessmapping.com>> wrote: I think it made it to 5 GHz too because SkyPilot had radios that ran under PTP rules. Yes and no…. this is an active petition from Radwin before the FCC to allow higher power using beamforming antennas in U-NII-1 and U-NII-3: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10618241749047/Radwin%20Petition%20for%20Rulemaking.pdf <https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10618241749047/Radwin Petition for Rulemaking.pdf> "RADWIN seeks modification of Section 15.407 of the rules to allow devices that emit multiple directional beams sequentially in the U-NII-1 and U-NII-3 bands to operate at power limits that are allowed for point-to-point systems in those bands." WISPA, the WISPA Policy Committee, as well as Cambium have supported this proposal but it has not see action from the FCC. Details of the fine points are in above reference PDF including a discussion of the current rules. Mark Thank you, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com <http://www.wirelessmapping.com> -Original Message- From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Grip Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:33 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? Well, it is more like a PtP to the client. Anybody ever had hands on a GO AP? -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:22 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? The infamous "Vivato Rule". http://www.vivato.com/pdfs/Vivato_Technical_White_Paper.pdf Some would say the FCC was asleep at the wheel when they allowed this. It is apparently for 2.4 GHz only. -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:45 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? There's a couple of things to break down here. One is that there are 2 major kinds of beamforming - analog and digital. The ones you mention (and I'll add Go Networks to the list) were using analog beamforming. These are antenna arrays that can be phased together to make a stronger beam and is steerable. The chip-based beamforming in the WiFi standard is a bit different and you don't get this sort of powerful beam out of it. That kind of digital beamforming is more useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would be useful in an indoor wifi environment. I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the impression it is more of an array of fixed sectors that have physically different coverage areas that are connected to different radio chains. So that is yet another sort of variation. One thing that made the analog beamforming systems achieve better coverage was that the FCC allowed (maybe they still do?) higher EIRP from this specific type of system. So it had physically more power and punch to it. I am personally not aware of any companies actively developing analog beamforming systems like those older ones. It gets significantly more difficult for those designs to support the sort of advanced macs that came after 11n - 11ax supports MU-MIMO and OFDMA for example which would be challenging to support with an analog beamformer. On 10/13/20, 3:42 PM, "AF on behalf of Jeremy Grip" wrote: A few years ago, when the electrical utility trashed the 900 spectrum with “smart” meters, I did a forklift upgrade of a bunch of 900 PtMP with some old Wavion beamforming sectors talking to ubnt clients in 2.4. I was surprised that I got just about the same coverage that I had with 900 (Trango) and of course better throughput. Those original Wavions were b/g; I’ve since found a couple of .11n versions from the brief last gasp of Alvarion (R.I.P.) that did even better. Anybody know if anybody’s currently producing a beamforming 2.4 sector that will talk to standards compliant 11n radios? I’m assuming that the beamforming saved this location—one tower plus a couple of other little nodes in a little spread out village in the middle of a dense National Forest of mixed tall evergreens and hardwood. I just don’t see how 2.4 could match the old 900 penetration otherwise, but maybe somebody can enlighten me. It wouldn’t be worth it to try and change out all the clients--more than a few are 50’+ up in trees. If there was an ePMP medusa in 2.4 and that sex-change from ubnt to ePMP worked it would be worth a try, but as fa
Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?
This rule seems based on the idea that radio interference doesn't matter if it's not 100% of the time. Like I can shoot you with a rifle as long as sometimes I point it at other people. I feel like the FCC doesn't understand that broadband isn't a hobby or best effort service, people expect it to work reliably not intermittently. I get the same feeling about other decisions. Like their love of shared spectrum. Or allowing FHSS to hop all over the band randomly clobbering other users but using high power spectral density, on the assumption that it's equivalent to the lower psd that you would calculate by spreading the same power over a much wider piece of spectrum. Again, I'm allowed to shoot at you with a long gun, and you shouldn't mind because most of the time I'm shooting at other people, so you're only dead part of the time. -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 12:38 PM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? I think it made it to 5 GHz too because SkyPilot had radios that ran under PTP rules. Thank you, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Grip Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:33 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? Well, it is more like a PtP to the client. Anybody ever had hands on a GO AP? -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:22 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? The infamous "Vivato Rule". http://www.vivato.com/pdfs/Vivato_Technical_White_Paper.pdf Some would say the FCC was asleep at the wheel when they allowed this. It is apparently for 2.4 GHz only. -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:45 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? There's a couple of things to break down here. One is that there are 2 major kinds of beamforming - analog and digital. The ones you mention (and I'll add Go Networks to the list) were using analog beamforming. These are antenna arrays that can be phased together to make a stronger beam and is steerable. The chip-based beamforming in the WiFi standard is a bit different and you don't get this sort of powerful beam out of it. That kind of digital beamforming is more useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would be useful in an indoor wifi environment. I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the impression it is more of an array of fixed sectors that have physically different coverage areas that are connected to different radio chains. So that is yet another sort of variation. One thing that made the analog beamforming systems achieve better coverage was that the FCC allowed (maybe they still do?) higher EIRP from this specific type of system. So it had physically more power and punch to it. I am personally not aware of any companies actively developing analog beamforming systems like those older ones. It gets significantly more difficult for those designs to support the sort of advanced macs that came after 11n - 11ax supports MU-MIMO and OFDMA for example which would be challenging to support with an analog beamformer. On 10/13/20, 3:42 PM, "AF on behalf of Jeremy Grip" wrote: A few years ago, when the electrical utility trashed the 900 spectrum with “smart” meters, I did a forklift upgrade of a bunch of 900 PtMP with some old Wavion beamforming sectors talking to ubnt clients in 2.4. I was surprised that I got just about the same coverage that I had with 900 (Trango) and of course better throughput. Those original Wavions were b/g; I’ve since found a couple of .11n versions from the brief last gasp of Alvarion (R.I.P.) that did even better. Anybody know if anybody’s currently producing a beamforming 2.4 sector that will talk to standards compliant 11n radios? I’m assuming that the beamforming saved this location—one tower plus a couple of other little nodes in a little spread out village in the middle of a dense National Forest of mixed tall evergreens and hardwood. I just don’t see how 2.4 could match the old 900 penetration otherwise, but maybe somebody can enlighten me. It wouldn’t be worth it to try and change out all the clients--more than a few are 50’+ up in trees. If there was an ePMP medusa in 2.4 and that sex-change from ubnt to ePMP worked it would be worth a try, but as far as I know Cambium's just doing medusa in 5GHz. With my other hand I'm working to see FTTH acro
Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?
> On Oct 14, 2020, at 1:38 PM, Brian Webster wrote: > > I think it made it to 5 GHz too because SkyPilot had radios that ran under > PTP rules. Yes and no…. this is an active petition from Radwin before the FCC to allow higher power using beamforming antennas in U-NII-1 and U-NII-3: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10618241749047/Radwin%20Petition%20for%20Rulemaking.pdf <https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10618241749047/Radwin%20Petition%20for%20Rulemaking.pdf> "RADWIN seeks modification of Section 15.407 of the rules to allow devices that emit multiple directional beams sequentially in the U-NII-1 and U-NII-3 bands to operate at power limits that are allowed for point-to-point systems in those bands." WISPA, the WISPA Policy Committee, as well as Cambium have supported this proposal but it has not see action from the FCC. Details of the fine points are in above reference PDF including a discussion of the current rules. Mark > > Thank you, > Brian Webster > www.wirelessmapping.com > > > -Original Message- > From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Grip > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:33 AM > To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? > > Well, it is more like a PtP to the client. > > Anybody ever had hands on a GO AP? > > -Original Message- > From: AF On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:22 AM > To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? > > The infamous "Vivato Rule". > http://www.vivato.com/pdfs/Vivato_Technical_White_Paper.pdf > > Some would say the FCC was asleep at the wheel when they allowed this. It is > apparently for 2.4 GHz only. > > -Original Message- > From: AF On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:45 AM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? > > There's a couple of things to break down here. One is that there are 2 major > kinds of beamforming - analog and digital. The ones you mention (and I'll > add Go Networks to the list) were using analog beamforming. These are > antenna arrays that can be phased together to make a stronger beam and is > steerable. The chip-based beamforming in the WiFi standard is a bit > different and you don't get this sort of powerful beam out of it. That kind > of digital beamforming is more useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would > be useful in an indoor wifi environment. > > I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the impression it is > more of an array of fixed sectors that have physically different coverage > areas that are connected to different radio chains. So that is yet another > sort of variation. > > One thing that made the analog beamforming systems achieve better coverage > was that the FCC allowed (maybe they still do?) higher EIRP from this > specific type of system. So it had physically more power and punch to it. > > I am personally not aware of any companies actively developing analog > beamforming systems like those older ones. It gets significantly more > difficult for those designs to support the sort of advanced macs that came > after 11n - 11ax supports MU-MIMO and OFDMA for example which would be > challenging to support with an analog beamformer. > > > On 10/13/20, 3:42 PM, "AF on behalf of Jeremy Grip" on behalf of g...@nbnworks.net> wrote: > >A few years ago, when the electrical utility trashed the 900 spectrum with > “smart” meters, I did a forklift upgrade of a bunch of 900 PtMP with some old > Wavion beamforming sectors talking to ubnt clients in 2.4. I was surprised > that I got just about the same coverage that I had with 900 (Trango) and of > course better throughput. Those original Wavions were b/g; I’ve since found a > couple of .11n versions from the brief last gasp of Alvarion (R.I.P.) that > did even better. Anybody know if anybody’s currently producing a beamforming > 2.4 sector that will talk to standards compliant 11n radios? > >I’m assuming that the beamforming saved this location—one tower plus a > couple of other little nodes in a little spread out village in the middle of > a dense National Forest of mixed tall evergreens and hardwood. I just don’t > see how 2.4 could match the old 900 penetration otherwise, but maybe somebody > can enlighten me. It wouldn’t be worth it to try and change out all the > clients--more than a few are 50’+ up in trees. If there was an ePMP medusa in > 2.4 and tha
Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?
I think it made it to 5 GHz too because SkyPilot had radios that ran under PTP rules. Thank you, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Grip Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:33 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? Well, it is more like a PtP to the client. Anybody ever had hands on a GO AP? -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:22 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? The infamous "Vivato Rule". http://www.vivato.com/pdfs/Vivato_Technical_White_Paper.pdf Some would say the FCC was asleep at the wheel when they allowed this. It is apparently for 2.4 GHz only. -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:45 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? There's a couple of things to break down here. One is that there are 2 major kinds of beamforming - analog and digital. The ones you mention (and I'll add Go Networks to the list) were using analog beamforming. These are antenna arrays that can be phased together to make a stronger beam and is steerable. The chip-based beamforming in the WiFi standard is a bit different and you don't get this sort of powerful beam out of it. That kind of digital beamforming is more useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would be useful in an indoor wifi environment. I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the impression it is more of an array of fixed sectors that have physically different coverage areas that are connected to different radio chains. So that is yet another sort of variation. One thing that made the analog beamforming systems achieve better coverage was that the FCC allowed (maybe they still do?) higher EIRP from this specific type of system. So it had physically more power and punch to it. I am personally not aware of any companies actively developing analog beamforming systems like those older ones. It gets significantly more difficult for those designs to support the sort of advanced macs that came after 11n - 11ax supports MU-MIMO and OFDMA for example which would be challenging to support with an analog beamformer. On 10/13/20, 3:42 PM, "AF on behalf of Jeremy Grip" wrote: A few years ago, when the electrical utility trashed the 900 spectrum with “smart” meters, I did a forklift upgrade of a bunch of 900 PtMP with some old Wavion beamforming sectors talking to ubnt clients in 2.4. I was surprised that I got just about the same coverage that I had with 900 (Trango) and of course better throughput. Those original Wavions were b/g; I’ve since found a couple of .11n versions from the brief last gasp of Alvarion (R.I.P.) that did even better. Anybody know if anybody’s currently producing a beamforming 2.4 sector that will talk to standards compliant 11n radios? I’m assuming that the beamforming saved this location—one tower plus a couple of other little nodes in a little spread out village in the middle of a dense National Forest of mixed tall evergreens and hardwood. I just don’t see how 2.4 could match the old 900 penetration otherwise, but maybe somebody can enlighten me. It wouldn’t be worth it to try and change out all the clients--more than a few are 50’+ up in trees. If there was an ePMP medusa in 2.4 and that sex-change from ubnt to ePMP worked it would be worth a try, but as far as I know Cambium's just doing medusa in 5GHz. With my other hand I'm working to see FTTH across the region and it looks like it'll probably happen within the next five or six years, so any serious wireless investment here doesn't make any sense. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cdc78411902c54763564b08d86fb8903d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637382185761458359%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=zbo9OIz4lCXUY9IyN4i8oxI14HEuhvlHVUrlhsJ2W7Y%3D&reserved=0 -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?
Well, it is more like a PtP to the client. Anybody ever had hands on a GO AP? -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:22 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? The infamous "Vivato Rule". http://www.vivato.com/pdfs/Vivato_Technical_White_Paper.pdf Some would say the FCC was asleep at the wheel when they allowed this. It is apparently for 2.4 GHz only. -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:45 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? There's a couple of things to break down here. One is that there are 2 major kinds of beamforming - analog and digital. The ones you mention (and I'll add Go Networks to the list) were using analog beamforming. These are antenna arrays that can be phased together to make a stronger beam and is steerable. The chip-based beamforming in the WiFi standard is a bit different and you don't get this sort of powerful beam out of it. That kind of digital beamforming is more useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would be useful in an indoor wifi environment. I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the impression it is more of an array of fixed sectors that have physically different coverage areas that are connected to different radio chains. So that is yet another sort of variation. One thing that made the analog beamforming systems achieve better coverage was that the FCC allowed (maybe they still do?) higher EIRP from this specific type of system. So it had physically more power and punch to it. I am personally not aware of any companies actively developing analog beamforming systems like those older ones. It gets significantly more difficult for those designs to support the sort of advanced macs that came after 11n - 11ax supports MU-MIMO and OFDMA for example which would be challenging to support with an analog beamformer. On 10/13/20, 3:42 PM, "AF on behalf of Jeremy Grip" wrote: A few years ago, when the electrical utility trashed the 900 spectrum with “smart” meters, I did a forklift upgrade of a bunch of 900 PtMP with some old Wavion beamforming sectors talking to ubnt clients in 2.4. I was surprised that I got just about the same coverage that I had with 900 (Trango) and of course better throughput. Those original Wavions were b/g; I’ve since found a couple of .11n versions from the brief last gasp of Alvarion (R.I.P.) that did even better. Anybody know if anybody’s currently producing a beamforming 2.4 sector that will talk to standards compliant 11n radios? I’m assuming that the beamforming saved this location—one tower plus a couple of other little nodes in a little spread out village in the middle of a dense National Forest of mixed tall evergreens and hardwood. I just don’t see how 2.4 could match the old 900 penetration otherwise, but maybe somebody can enlighten me. It wouldn’t be worth it to try and change out all the clients--more than a few are 50’+ up in trees. If there was an ePMP medusa in 2.4 and that sex-change from ubnt to ePMP worked it would be worth a try, but as far as I know Cambium's just doing medusa in 5GHz. With my other hand I'm working to see FTTH across the region and it looks like it'll probably happen within the next five or six years, so any serious wireless investment here doesn't make any sense. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cdc78411902c54763564b08d86fb8903d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637382185761458359%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=zbo9OIz4lCXUY9IyN4i8oxI14HEuhvlHVUrlhsJ2W7Y%3D&reserved=0 -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?
The infamous "Vivato Rule". http://www.vivato.com/pdfs/Vivato_Technical_White_Paper.pdf Some would say the FCC was asleep at the wheel when they allowed this. It is apparently for 2.4 GHz only. -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:45 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4? There's a couple of things to break down here. One is that there are 2 major kinds of beamforming - analog and digital. The ones you mention (and I'll add Go Networks to the list) were using analog beamforming. These are antenna arrays that can be phased together to make a stronger beam and is steerable. The chip-based beamforming in the WiFi standard is a bit different and you don't get this sort of powerful beam out of it. That kind of digital beamforming is more useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would be useful in an indoor wifi environment. I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the impression it is more of an array of fixed sectors that have physically different coverage areas that are connected to different radio chains. So that is yet another sort of variation. One thing that made the analog beamforming systems achieve better coverage was that the FCC allowed (maybe they still do?) higher EIRP from this specific type of system. So it had physically more power and punch to it. I am personally not aware of any companies actively developing analog beamforming systems like those older ones. It gets significantly more difficult for those designs to support the sort of advanced macs that came after 11n - 11ax supports MU-MIMO and OFDMA for example which would be challenging to support with an analog beamformer. On 10/13/20, 3:42 PM, "AF on behalf of Jeremy Grip" wrote: A few years ago, when the electrical utility trashed the 900 spectrum with “smart” meters, I did a forklift upgrade of a bunch of 900 PtMP with some old Wavion beamforming sectors talking to ubnt clients in 2.4. I was surprised that I got just about the same coverage that I had with 900 (Trango) and of course better throughput. Those original Wavions were b/g; I’ve since found a couple of .11n versions from the brief last gasp of Alvarion (R.I.P.) that did even better. Anybody know if anybody’s currently producing a beamforming 2.4 sector that will talk to standards compliant 11n radios? I’m assuming that the beamforming saved this location—one tower plus a couple of other little nodes in a little spread out village in the middle of a dense National Forest of mixed tall evergreens and hardwood. I just don’t see how 2.4 could match the old 900 penetration otherwise, but maybe somebody can enlighten me. It wouldn’t be worth it to try and change out all the clients--more than a few are 50’+ up in trees. If there was an ePMP medusa in 2.4 and that sex-change from ubnt to ePMP worked it would be worth a try, but as far as I know Cambium's just doing medusa in 5GHz. With my other hand I'm working to see FTTH across the region and it looks like it'll probably happen within the next five or six years, so any serious wireless investment here doesn't make any sense. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cdc78411902c54763564b08d86fb8903d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637382185761458359%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=zbo9OIz4lCXUY9IyN4i8oxI14HEuhvlHVUrlhsJ2W7Y%3D&reserved=0 -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?
There's a couple of things to break down here. One is that there are 2 major kinds of beamforming - analog and digital. The ones you mention (and I'll add Go Networks to the list) were using analog beamforming. These are antenna arrays that can be phased together to make a stronger beam and is steerable. The chip-based beamforming in the WiFi standard is a bit different and you don't get this sort of powerful beam out of it. That kind of digital beamforming is more useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would be useful in an indoor wifi environment. I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the impression it is more of an array of fixed sectors that have physically different coverage areas that are connected to different radio chains. So that is yet another sort of variation. One thing that made the analog beamforming systems achieve better coverage was that the FCC allowed (maybe they still do?) higher EIRP from this specific type of system. So it had physically more power and punch to it. I am personally not aware of any companies actively developing analog beamforming systems like those older ones. It gets significantly more difficult for those designs to support the sort of advanced macs that came after 11n - 11ax supports MU-MIMO and OFDMA for example which would be challenging to support with an analog beamformer. On 10/13/20, 3:42 PM, "AF on behalf of Jeremy Grip" wrote: A few years ago, when the electrical utility trashed the 900 spectrum with “smart” meters, I did a forklift upgrade of a bunch of 900 PtMP with some old Wavion beamforming sectors talking to ubnt clients in 2.4. I was surprised that I got just about the same coverage that I had with 900 (Trango) and of course better throughput. Those original Wavions were b/g; I’ve since found a couple of .11n versions from the brief last gasp of Alvarion (R.I.P.) that did even better. Anybody know if anybody’s currently producing a beamforming 2.4 sector that will talk to standards compliant 11n radios? I’m assuming that the beamforming saved this location—one tower plus a couple of other little nodes in a little spread out village in the middle of a dense National Forest of mixed tall evergreens and hardwood. I just don’t see how 2.4 could match the old 900 penetration otherwise, but maybe somebody can enlighten me. It wouldn’t be worth it to try and change out all the clients--more than a few are 50’+ up in trees. If there was an ePMP medusa in 2.4 and that sex-change from ubnt to ePMP worked it would be worth a try, but as far as I know Cambium's just doing medusa in 5GHz. With my other hand I'm working to see FTTH across the region and it looks like it'll probably happen within the next five or six years, so any serious wireless investment here doesn't make any sense. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cdc78411902c54763564b08d86fb8903d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637382185761458359%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=zbo9OIz4lCXUY9IyN4i8oxI14HEuhvlHVUrlhsJ2W7Y%3D&reserved=0 -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
[AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?
A few years ago, when the electrical utility trashed the 900 spectrum with “smart” meters, I did a forklift upgrade of a bunch of 900 PtMP with some old Wavion beamforming sectors talking to ubnt clients in 2.4. I was surprised that I got just about the same coverage that I had with 900 (Trango) and of course better throughput. Those original Wavions were b/g; I’ve since found a couple of .11n versions from the brief last gasp of Alvarion (R.I.P.) that did even better. Anybody know if anybody’s currently producing a beamforming 2.4 sector that will talk to standards compliant 11n radios? I’m assuming that the beamforming saved this location—one tower plus a couple of other little nodes in a little spread out village in the middle of a dense National Forest of mixed tall evergreens and hardwood. I just don’t see how 2.4 could match the old 900 penetration otherwise, but maybe somebody can enlighten me. It wouldn’t be worth it to try and change out all the clients--more than a few are 50’+ up in trees. If there was an ePMP medusa in 2.4 and that sex-change from ubnt to ePMP worked it would be worth a try, but as far as I know Cambium's just doing medusa in 5GHz. With my other hand I'm working to see FTTH across the region and it looks like it'll probably happen within the next five or six years, so any serious wireless investment here doesn't make any sense. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
