Re: [AFMUG] A Stupid coax question

[Mike Hammett]

My ultimate goal is two SFP (or SFP+ as appropriate) ports and two DC ports on 
each tower radio. Then I can have diversity going down the tower and diversity 
in the power plant and electronics at the bottom. 

I do realize that's a big ask. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Nate Burke" <n...@blastcomm.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 4:37:57 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] A Stupid coax question 

Like i said, it was a stupid idea. I'm all on board the fiber train, but having 
had some rodent just eat through the fiber cable going to the top (on the tower 
side of the service loop), I was longing for something that I could just patch 
back together. 



On 3/29/2018 1:48 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote: 



For once I agree with Mike, lol, I think Teletronics had a coax to Ethernet 
cabling solution catered to hotels and hospitals. Long ago. 


Jaime Solorza 


On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 11:37 AM Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




If we're changing methods, we should be going to glass and power up the tower 
and not use anything conductive for data. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Nate Burke" < n...@blastcomm.com > 
To: "Animal Farm" < af@afmug.com > 
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 10:47:37 AM 
Subject: [AFMUG] A Stupid coax question 

Comcast has been deploying their WIFI hotspot network like mad in the 
Chicago metro. Every public park, gas station, strip mall, hotel, and 
train station seems to have a wifi AP hung outside of it now. These 
units just hang on their aerial coax cable, and get their power and data 
just off a single RG-6 coax run off the nearest splitter. Drawing the 
power off the DC Coax plant. Here's a picture of a typical 
installation. 
http://comcastsupport.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/22608i79AFB9E182CD549C?v=1.0
 

So this got me thinking again, as I have for several years, why are we 
still using POE to run PMP Equipment on towers. It seems from a 
installation, RF Shielding, and grounding/suppression perspective, using 
coax would be the far better choice. Anyone can be taught to terminate 
a perfect RG6 in <5 minutes. No Colors to remember. Any couplers are 
inherently waterproof. No loose plugs or broken clips. Cheap cheap 
cheap outdoor cable. Shielded cables by default. It just seems that 
there are a lot of benefits for the low power draw radios. Obviously a 
licensed link can't pull enough power over an RG6, but EPMP or 450 or 
UBNT PMP radios I would think could run just fine. Instead of having to 
deal with switching equipment or breakout boxes at the top of a tower, 
just run up a larger coax to a splitter. No outdoor enclosure needed. 

Is it simply a lack of products that would make development costs too 
much, or is there another technical aspect I'm missing. Docsis version 
3.1 Full Duplex, which is currently in development will do 10gb sync, 
Docsis 3.1 is 10gb/1gb. More than enough for any of our AP Clusters for 
at least a few years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS#Comparison 
It seems like UBNT or Cambium (heck Motorola already had all the coax 
products built) could easily make a 10gb Fiber to Coax adapter for the 
tower base. Feed it with Fiber and DC, then just keep adding splitters 
and radios until you run out of power budget. 

It just seems like I've never heard it discussed, and I'm not sure why. 
Obviously there is something I'm missing. Docsis is a standard, but 
maybe there's no standard for the power delivery on the coax? So vendor 
Inter-op prohibits development dollars from being spent on it. 

Nate 

Re: [AFMUG] A Stupid coax question

[Jay Weekley]

Can you do POE over a balun?

Nate Burke wrote:
Comcast has been deploying their WIFI hotspot network like mad in the 
Chicago metro.  Every public park, gas station, strip mall, hotel, and 
train station seems to have a wifi AP hung outside of it now. These 
units just hang on their aerial coax cable, and get their power and 
data just off a single RG-6 coax run off the nearest splitter.  
Drawing the power off the DC Coax plant.  Here's a picture of a 
typical installation. 
http://comcastsupport.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/22608i79AFB9E182CD549C?v=1.0


So this got me thinking again, as I have for several years, why are we 
still using POE to run PMP Equipment on towers.  It seems from a 
installation, RF Shielding, and grounding/suppression perspective, 
using coax would be the far better choice.  Anyone can be taught to 
terminate a perfect RG6 in <5 minutes.  No Colors to remember. Any 
couplers are inherently waterproof.  No loose plugs or broken clips.  
Cheap cheap cheap outdoor cable. Shielded cables by default.  It just 
seems that there are a lot of benefits for the low power draw radios.  
Obviously a licensed link can't pull enough power over an RG6, but 
EPMP or 450 or UBNT PMP radios I would think could run just fine.  
Instead of having to deal with switching equipment or breakout boxes 
at the top of a tower, just run up a larger coax to a splitter.  No 
outdoor enclosure needed.


Is it simply a lack of products that would make development costs too 
much, or is there another technical aspect I'm missing. Docsis version 
3.1 Full Duplex, which is currently in development will do 10gb sync, 
Docsis 3.1 is 10gb/1gb.  More than enough for any of our AP Clusters 
for at least a few years. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS#Comparison  It seems like UBNT or 
Cambium (heck Motorola already had all the coax products built) could 
easily make a 10gb Fiber to Coax adapter for the tower base. Feed it 
with Fiber and DC, then just keep adding splitters and radios until 
you run out of power budget.


It just seems like I've never heard it discussed, and I'm not sure 
why.  Obviously there is something I'm missing.  Docsis is a standard, 
but maybe there's no standard for the power delivery on the coax?  So 
vendor Inter-op prohibits development dollars from being spent on it.


Nate

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Re: [AFMUG] A Stupid coax question

[Mark Radabaugh]

It’s just an RF overlay on the fiber plant carrying the video portion.  It’s 
one way toward the customer.

Mark

> On Mar 30, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> There's a cable operator I know of who is using RFoG.  There's apparently an 
> RFoG ONU they install in/on the house, and then they use the same cable 
> modems and STB's they use with their coax service.
> 
> I imagine it would only make sense if you're wanting to re-use an existing 
> cable head end, but I haven't looked into it deeply.
> 
> 
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Jon Lee" <j...@off-gridnetworks.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 3/29/2018 11:28:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] A Stupid coax question
> 
>> It would make it even easier for me when people come over from Hughes Net. 
>> Right now I just use their coax as a cable pull. 
>> 
>> Jon Lee
>> Off-Grid Networks
>> 
>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Nate Burke <n...@blastcomm.com> wrote:
>>> Like i said, it was a stupid idea.  I'm all on board the fiber train, but 
>>> having had some rodent just eat through the fiber cable going to the top 
>>> (on the tower side of the service loop), I was longing for something that I 
>>> could just patch back together.  
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 3/29/2018 1:48 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote:
>>>> For once I agree with Mike, lol, I think Teletronics had a coax to 
>>>> Ethernet cabling solution catered to hotels and hospitals.   Long ago.
>>>> 
>>>> Jaime Solorza
>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 11:37 AM Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
>>>>> If we're changing methods, we should be going to glass and power up the 
>>>>> tower and not use anything conductive for data.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -
>>>>> Mike Hammett
>>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>>>> 
>>>>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Brothers WISP
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> From: "Nate Burke" <n...@blastcomm.com>
>>>>> To: "Animal Farm" <af@afmug.com>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 10:47:37 AM
>>>>> Subject: [AFMUG] A Stupid coax question
>>>>> 
>>>>> Comcast has been deploying their WIFI hotspot network like mad in the 
>>>>> Chicago metro.  Every public park, gas station, strip mall, hotel, and 
>>>>> train station seems to have a wifi AP hung outside of it now.  These 
>>>>> units just hang on their aerial coax cable, and get their power and data 
>>>>> just off a single RG-6 coax run off the nearest splitter.  Drawing the 
>>>>> power off the DC Coax plant.  Here's a picture of a typical 
>>>>> installation. 
>>>>> http://comcastsupport.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/22608i79AFB9E182CD549C?v=1.0
>>>>> 
>>>>> So this got me thinking again, as I have for several years, why are we 
>>>>> still using POE to run PMP Equipment on towers.  It seems from a 
>>>>> installation, RF Shielding, and grounding/suppression perspective, using 
>>>>> coax would be the far better choice.  Anyone can be taught to terminate 
>>>>> a perfect RG6 in <5 minutes.  No Colors to remember. Any couplers are 
>>>>> inherently waterproof.  No loose plugs or broken clips.  Cheap cheap 
>>>>> cheap outdoor cable.  Shielded cables by default.  It just seems that 
>>>>> there are a lot of benefits for the low power draw radios.  Obviously a 
>>>>> licensed link can't pull enough power over an RG6, but EPMP or 450 or 
>>>>> UBNT PMP radios I would think could run just fine.  Instead of having to 
>>>>> deal with switching equipment or breakout boxes at the top of a tower, 
>>>>> just run up a larger coax to a splitter.  No outdoor enclosure needed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is it simply a lack of products that would make development costs too 
>>>>> much, or is there another technical aspect I'm missing.  Docsis version 
>>>>> 3.1 Full Duplex, which is currently in development will do 10gb sync, 
>>>>> Docsis 3.1 is 10gb/1gb.  More than enough for any of our AP Clusters for 
>>>>> at least a few years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS#Comparison  
>>>>> It seems like UBNT or Cambium (heck Motorola already had all the coax 
>>>>> products built) could easily make a 10gb Fiber to Coax adapter for the 
>>>>> tower base. Feed it with Fiber and DC, then just keep adding splitters 
>>>>> and radios until you run out of power budget.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It just seems like I've never heard it discussed, and I'm not sure why.  
>>>>> Obviously there is something I'm missing.  Docsis is a standard, but 
>>>>> maybe there's no standard for the power delivery on the coax?  So vendor 
>>>>> Inter-op prohibits development dollars from being spent on it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Nate
>>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jon Lee
>> Off-Grid Networks
>> c.928.793.2972

Re: [AFMUG] A Stupid coax question

[Adam Moffett]

There's a cable operator I know of who is using RFoG.  There's 
apparently an RFoG ONU they install in/on the house, and then they use 
the same cable modems and STB's they use with their coax service.


I imagine it would only make sense if you're wanting to re-use an 
existing cable head end, but I haven't looked into it deeply.



-- Original Message --
From: "Jon Lee" <j...@off-gridnetworks.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 3/29/2018 11:28:37 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] A Stupid coax question

It would make it even easier for me when people come over from Hughes 
Net. Right now I just use their coax as a cable pull.


Jon Lee
Off-Grid Networks

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Nate Burke <n...@blastcomm.com> wrote:
Like i said, it was a stupid idea.  I'm all on board the fiber train, 
but having had some rodent just eat through the fiber cable going to 
the top (on the tower side of the service loop), I was longing for 
something that I could just patch back together.



On 3/29/2018 1:48 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote:
For once I agree with Mike, lol, I think Teletronics had a coax to 
Ethernet cabling solution catered to hotels and hospitals.   Long 
ago.


Jaime Solorza

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 11:37 AM Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
If we're changing methods, we should be going to glass and power up 
the tower and not use anything conductive for data.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> 
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> 
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>

Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> 
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>

The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

From: "Nate Burke" <n...@blastcomm.com>
To: "Animal Farm" <af@afmug.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 10:47:37 AM
Subject: [AFMUG] A Stupid coax question

Comcast has been deploying their WIFI hotspot network like mad in 
the
Chicago metro.  Every public park, gas station, strip mall, hotel, 
and

train station seems to have a wifi AP hung outside of it now.  These
units just hang on their aerial coax cable, and get their power and 
data
just off a single RG-6 coax run off the nearest splitter.  Drawing 
the

power off the DC Coax plant.  Here's a picture of a typical
installation.
http://comcastsupport.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/22608i79AFB9E182CD549C?v=1.0 
<http://comcastsupport.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/22608i79AFB9E182CD549C?v=1.0>


So this got me thinking again, as I have for several years, why are 
we

still using POE to run PMP Equipment on towers.  It seems from a
installation, RF Shielding, and grounding/suppression perspective, 
using
coax would be the far better choice.  Anyone can be taught to 
terminate
a perfect RG6 in <5 minutes.  No Colors to remember. Any couplers 
are

inherently waterproof.  No loose plugs or broken clips.  Cheap cheap
cheap outdoor cable.  Shielded cables by default.  It just seems 
that
there are a lot of benefits for the low power draw radios.  
Obviously a
licensed link can't pull enough power over an RG6, but EPMP or 450 
or
UBNT PMP radios I would think could run just fine.  Instead of 
having to
deal with switching equipment or breakout boxes at the top of a 
tower,
just run up a larger coax to a splitter.  No outdoor enclosure 
needed.


Is it simply a lack of products that would make development costs 
too
much, or is there another technical aspect I'm missing.  Docsis 
version
3.1 Full Duplex, which is currently in development will do 10gb 
sync,
Docsis 3.1 is 10gb/1gb.  More than enough for any of our AP Clusters 
for
at least a few years. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS#Comparison 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS#Comparison>
It seems like UBNT or Cambium (heck Motorola already had all the 
coax
products built) could easily make a 10gb Fiber to Coax adapter for 
the
tower base. Feed it with Fiber and DC, then just keep adding 
splitters

and radios until you run out of power budget.

It just seems like I've never heard it discussed, and I'm not sure 
why.

Obviously there is something I'm missing.  Docsis is a standard, but
maybe there's no standard for the power delivery on the coax?  So 
vendor

Inter-op prohibits development dollars from being spent on it.

Nate







--
Jon Lee
Off-Grid Networks
c.928.793.2972

Re: [AFMUG] A Stupid coax question

[Jon Lee]

It would make it even easier for me when people come over from Hughes Net.
Right now I just use their coax as a cable pull.

Jon Lee
Off-Grid Networks

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Nate Burke  wrote:

> Like i said, it was a stupid idea.  I'm all on board the fiber train, but
> having had some rodent just eat through the fiber cable going to the top
> (on the tower side of the service loop), I was longing for something that I
> could just patch back together.
>
>
> On 3/29/2018 1:48 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote:
>
> For once I agree with Mike, lol, I think Teletronics had a coax to
> Ethernet cabling solution catered to hotels and hospitals.   Long ago.
>
> Jaime Solorza
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 11:37 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> If we're changing methods, we should be going to glass and power up the
>> tower and not use anything conductive for data.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Nate Burke" 
>> *To: *"Animal Farm" 
>> *Sent: *Thursday, March 29, 2018 10:47:37 AM
>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] A Stupid coax question
>>
>> Comcast has been deploying their WIFI hotspot network like mad in the
>> Chicago metro.  Every public park, gas station, strip mall, hotel, and
>> train station seems to have a wifi AP hung outside of it now.  These
>> units just hang on their aerial coax cable, and get their power and data
>> just off a single RG-6 coax run off the nearest splitter.  Drawing the
>> power off the DC Coax plant.  Here's a picture of a typical
>> installation.
>> http://comcastsupport.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/
>> 22608i79AFB9E182CD549C?v=1.0
>>
>> So this got me thinking again, as I have for several years, why are we
>> still using POE to run PMP Equipment on towers.  It seems from a
>> installation, RF Shielding, and grounding/suppression perspective, using
>> coax would be the far better choice.  Anyone can be taught to terminate
>> a perfect RG6 in <5 minutes.  No Colors to remember. Any couplers are
>> inherently waterproof.  No loose plugs or broken clips.  Cheap cheap
>> cheap outdoor cable.  Shielded cables by default.  It just seems that
>> there are a lot of benefits for the low power draw radios.  Obviously a
>> licensed link can't pull enough power over an RG6, but EPMP or 450 or
>> UBNT PMP radios I would think could run just fine.  Instead of having to
>> deal with switching equipment or breakout boxes at the top of a tower,
>> just run up a larger coax to a splitter.  No outdoor enclosure needed.
>>
>> Is it simply a lack of products that would make development costs too
>> much, or is there another technical aspect I'm missing.  Docsis version
>> 3.1 Full Duplex, which is currently in development will do 10gb sync,
>> Docsis 3.1 is 10gb/1gb.  More than enough for any of our AP Clusters for
>> at least a few years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS#Comparison
>> It seems like UBNT or Cambium (heck Motorola already had all the coax
>> products built) could easily make a 10gb Fiber to Coax adapter for the
>> tower base. Feed it with Fiber and DC, then just keep adding splitters
>> and radios until you run out of power budget.
>>
>> It just seems like I've never heard it discussed, and I'm not sure why.
>> Obviously there is something I'm missing.  Docsis is a standard, but
>> maybe there's no standard for the power delivery on the coax?  So vendor
>> Inter-op prohibits development dollars from being spent on it.
>>
>> Nate
>>
>>
>


-- 
Jon Lee
Off-Grid Networks
c.928.793.2972

Re: [AFMUG] A Stupid coax question

[Nate Burke]

Like i said, it was a stupid idea.  I'm all on board the fiber train, 
but having had some rodent just eat through the fiber cable going to the 
top (on the tower side of the service loop), I was longing for something 
that I could just patch back together.



On 3/29/2018 1:48 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote:
For once I agree with Mike, lol, I think Teletronics had a coax to 
Ethernet cabling solution catered to hotels and hospitals.   Long ago.


Jaime Solorza

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 11:37 AM Mike Hammett > wrote:


If we're changing methods, we should be going to glass and power
up the tower and not use anything conductive for data.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Nate Burke" >
*To: *"Animal Farm" >
*Sent: *Thursday, March 29, 2018 10:47:37 AM
*Subject: *[AFMUG] A Stupid coax question

Comcast has been deploying their WIFI hotspot network like mad in the
Chicago metro.  Every public park, gas station, strip mall, hotel,
and
train station seems to have a wifi AP hung outside of it now.  These
units just hang on their aerial coax cable, and get their power
and data
just off a single RG-6 coax run off the nearest splitter.  Drawing
the
power off the DC Coax plant.  Here's a picture of a typical
installation.

http://comcastsupport.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/22608i79AFB9E182CD549C?v=1.0

So this got me thinking again, as I have for several years, why
are we
still using POE to run PMP Equipment on towers.  It seems from a
installation, RF Shielding, and grounding/suppression perspective,
using
coax would be the far better choice.  Anyone can be taught to
terminate
a perfect RG6 in <5 minutes.  No Colors to remember. Any couplers are
inherently waterproof.  No loose plugs or broken clips. Cheap cheap
cheap outdoor cable.  Shielded cables by default.  It just seems that
there are a lot of benefits for the low power draw radios. 
Obviously a
licensed link can't pull enough power over an RG6, but EPMP or 450 or
UBNT PMP radios I would think could run just fine. Instead of
having to
deal with switching equipment or breakout boxes at the top of a
tower,
just run up a larger coax to a splitter.  No outdoor enclosure needed.

Is it simply a lack of products that would make development costs too
much, or is there another technical aspect I'm missing. Docsis
version
3.1 Full Duplex, which is currently in development will do 10gb sync,
Docsis 3.1 is 10gb/1gb.  More than enough for any of our AP
Clusters for
at least a few years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS#Comparison
It seems like UBNT or Cambium (heck Motorola already had all the coax
products built) could easily make a 10gb Fiber to Coax adapter for
the
tower base. Feed it with Fiber and DC, then just keep adding
splitters
and radios until you run out of power budget.

It just seems like I've never heard it discussed, and I'm not sure
why.
Obviously there is something I'm missing.  Docsis is a standard, but
maybe there's no standard for the power delivery on the coax?  So
vendor
Inter-op prohibits development dollars from being spent on it.

Nate

Re: [AFMUG] A Stupid coax question

[Steve Jones]

With the things customers do with our ethernet, splicing with twist nuts,
plugging usb and telephone cords into router ports, etc, i would absolutly
not want sometging they could screw into their cable splitter and take out
their cable and probably our gear.
That being said, the alvarion fhss stuff was rg58 tnc and it was fast
installation

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 2:41 PM Dave  wrote:

> with Medusa and newer radio heads coming that need the high availability
> and capacity WHY NOT :)
>
> Already doing this on our towers but I am standing on my soap box about
> something new from cambium
> that has me with high hopes to integrate it into a nema enclosure just for
> this purpose.
>
>
>
> On 03/29/2018 12:37 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> If we're changing methods, we should be going to glass and power up the
> tower and not use anything conductive for data.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Nate Burke"  
> *To: *"Animal Farm"  
> *Sent: *Thursday, March 29, 2018 10:47:37 AM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] A Stupid coax question
>
> Comcast has been deploying their WIFI hotspot network like mad in the
> Chicago metro.  Every public park, gas station, strip mall, hotel, and
> train station seems to have a wifi AP hung outside of it now.  These
> units just hang on their aerial coax cable, and get their power and data
> just off a single RG-6 coax run off the nearest splitter.  Drawing the
> power off the DC Coax plant.  Here's a picture of a typical
> installation.
>
> http://comcastsupport.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/22608i79AFB9E182CD549C?v=1.0
>
> So this got me thinking again, as I have for several years, why are we
> still using POE to run PMP Equipment on towers.  It seems from a
> installation, RF Shielding, and grounding/suppression perspective, using
> coax would be the far better choice.  Anyone can be taught to terminate
> a perfect RG6 in <5 minutes.  No Colors to remember. Any couplers are
> inherently waterproof.  No loose plugs or broken clips.  Cheap cheap
> cheap outdoor cable.  Shielded cables by default.  It just seems that
> there are a lot of benefits for the low power draw radios.  Obviously a
> licensed link can't pull enough power over an RG6, but EPMP or 450 or
> UBNT PMP radios I would think could run just fine.  Instead of having to
> deal with switching equipment or breakout boxes at the top of a tower,
> just run up a larger coax to a splitter.  No outdoor enclosure needed.
>
> Is it simply a lack of products that would make development costs too
> much, or is there another technical aspect I'm missing.  Docsis version
> 3.1 Full Duplex, which is currently in development will do 10gb sync,
> Docsis 3.1 is 10gb/1gb.  More than enough for any of our AP Clusters for
> at least a few years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS#Comparison
> It seems like UBNT or Cambium (heck Motorola already had all the coax
> products built) could easily make a 10gb Fiber to Coax adapter for the
> tower base. Feed it with Fiber and DC, then just keep adding splitters
> and radios until you run out of power budget.
>
> It just seems like I've never heard it discussed, and I'm not sure why.
> Obviously there is something I'm missing.  Docsis is a standard, but
> maybe there's no standard for the power delivery on the coax?  So vendor
> Inter-op prohibits development dollars from being spent on it.
>
> Nate
>
>
> --
>

Re: [AFMUG] A Stupid coax question

[Dave]

with Medusa and newer radio heads coming that need the high availability 
and capacity WHY NOT :)


Already doing this on our towers but I am standing on my soap box about 
something new from cambium
that has me with high hopes to integrate it into a nema enclosure just 
for this purpose.




On 03/29/2018 12:37 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
If we're changing methods, we should be going to glass and power up 
the tower and not use anything conductive for data.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Nate Burke" 
*To: *"Animal Farm" 
*Sent: *Thursday, March 29, 2018 10:47:37 AM
*Subject: *[AFMUG] A Stupid coax question

Comcast has been deploying their WIFI hotspot network like mad in the
Chicago metro.  Every public park, gas station, strip mall, hotel, and
train station seems to have a wifi AP hung outside of it now.  These
units just hang on their aerial coax cable, and get their power and data
just off a single RG-6 coax run off the nearest splitter.  Drawing the
power off the DC Coax plant.  Here's a picture of a typical
installation.
http://comcastsupport.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/22608i79AFB9E182CD549C?v=1.0

So this got me thinking again, as I have for several years, why are we
still using POE to run PMP Equipment on towers.  It seems from a
installation, RF Shielding, and grounding/suppression perspective, using
coax would be the far better choice.  Anyone can be taught to terminate
a perfect RG6 in <5 minutes.  No Colors to remember. Any couplers are
inherently waterproof.  No loose plugs or broken clips.  Cheap cheap
cheap outdoor cable.  Shielded cables by default.  It just seems that
there are a lot of benefits for the low power draw radios.  Obviously a
licensed link can't pull enough power over an RG6, but EPMP or 450 or
UBNT PMP radios I would think could run just fine.  Instead of having to
deal with switching equipment or breakout boxes at the top of a tower,
just run up a larger coax to a splitter.  No outdoor enclosure needed.

Is it simply a lack of products that would make development costs too
much, or is there another technical aspect I'm missing.  Docsis version
3.1 Full Duplex, which is currently in development will do 10gb sync,
Docsis 3.1 is 10gb/1gb.  More than enough for any of our AP Clusters for
at least a few years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS#Comparison
It seems like UBNT or Cambium (heck Motorola already had all the coax
products built) could easily make a 10gb Fiber to Coax adapter for the
tower base. Feed it with Fiber and DC, then just keep adding splitters
and radios until you run out of power budget.

It just seems like I've never heard it discussed, and I'm not sure why.
Obviously there is something I'm missing.  Docsis is a standard, but
maybe there's no standard for the power delivery on the coax?  So vendor
Inter-op prohibits development dollars from being spent on it.

Nate



--

Re: [AFMUG] A Stupid coax question

[Mathew Howard]

I have no interest in running coax up towers, but I do think that using
coax on the CPE side of things could be pretty nice. Everything exists to
make it work, it would just be a matter of a manufacturer integrating it
all into a radio... but I imagine it would add too much to the cost to make
it worthwhile.

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 1:48 PM, Jaime Solorza 
wrote:

> For once I agree with Mike, lol, I think Teletronics had a coax to
> Ethernet cabling solution catered to hotels and hospitals.   Long ago.
>
> Jaime Solorza
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 11:37 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> If we're changing methods, we should be going to glass and power up the
>> tower and not use anything conductive for data.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Nate Burke" 
>> *To: *"Animal Farm" 
>> *Sent: *Thursday, March 29, 2018 10:47:37 AM
>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] A Stupid coax question
>>
>> Comcast has been deploying their WIFI hotspot network like mad in the
>> Chicago metro.  Every public park, gas station, strip mall, hotel, and
>> train station seems to have a wifi AP hung outside of it now.  These
>> units just hang on their aerial coax cable, and get their power and data
>> just off a single RG-6 coax run off the nearest splitter.  Drawing the
>> power off the DC Coax plant.  Here's a picture of a typical
>> installation.
>> http://comcastsupport.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/
>> 22608i79AFB9E182CD549C?v=1.0
>>
>> So this got me thinking again, as I have for several years, why are we
>> still using POE to run PMP Equipment on towers.  It seems from a
>> installation, RF Shielding, and grounding/suppression perspective, using
>> coax would be the far better choice.  Anyone can be taught to terminate
>> a perfect RG6 in <5 minutes.  No Colors to remember. Any couplers are
>> inherently waterproof.  No loose plugs or broken clips.  Cheap cheap
>> cheap outdoor cable.  Shielded cables by default.  It just seems that
>> there are a lot of benefits for the low power draw radios.  Obviously a
>> licensed link can't pull enough power over an RG6, but EPMP or 450 or
>> UBNT PMP radios I would think could run just fine.  Instead of having to
>> deal with switching equipment or breakout boxes at the top of a tower,
>> just run up a larger coax to a splitter.  No outdoor enclosure needed.
>>
>> Is it simply a lack of products that would make development costs too
>> much, or is there another technical aspect I'm missing.  Docsis version
>> 3.1 Full Duplex, which is currently in development will do 10gb sync,
>> Docsis 3.1 is 10gb/1gb.  More than enough for any of our AP Clusters for
>> at least a few years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS#Comparison
>> It seems like UBNT or Cambium (heck Motorola already had all the coax
>> products built) could easily make a 10gb Fiber to Coax adapter for the
>> tower base. Feed it with Fiber and DC, then just keep adding splitters
>> and radios until you run out of power budget.
>>
>> It just seems like I've never heard it discussed, and I'm not sure why.
>> Obviously there is something I'm missing.  Docsis is a standard, but
>> maybe there's no standard for the power delivery on the coax?  So vendor
>> Inter-op prohibits development dollars from being spent on it.
>>
>> Nate
>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] A Stupid coax question

[Jaime Solorza]

For once I agree with Mike, lol, I think Teletronics had a coax to Ethernet
cabling solution catered to hotels and hospitals.   Long ago.

Jaime Solorza

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 11:37 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> If we're changing methods, we should be going to glass and power up the
> tower and not use anything conductive for data.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Nate Burke" 
> *To: *"Animal Farm" 
> *Sent: *Thursday, March 29, 2018 10:47:37 AM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] A Stupid coax question
>
> Comcast has been deploying their WIFI hotspot network like mad in the
> Chicago metro.  Every public park, gas station, strip mall, hotel, and
> train station seems to have a wifi AP hung outside of it now.  These
> units just hang on their aerial coax cable, and get their power and data
> just off a single RG-6 coax run off the nearest splitter.  Drawing the
> power off the DC Coax plant.  Here's a picture of a typical
> installation.
>
> http://comcastsupport.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/22608i79AFB9E182CD549C?v=1.0
>
> So this got me thinking again, as I have for several years, why are we
> still using POE to run PMP Equipment on towers.  It seems from a
> installation, RF Shielding, and grounding/suppression perspective, using
> coax would be the far better choice.  Anyone can be taught to terminate
> a perfect RG6 in <5 minutes.  No Colors to remember. Any couplers are
> inherently waterproof.  No loose plugs or broken clips.  Cheap cheap
> cheap outdoor cable.  Shielded cables by default.  It just seems that
> there are a lot of benefits for the low power draw radios.  Obviously a
> licensed link can't pull enough power over an RG6, but EPMP or 450 or
> UBNT PMP radios I would think could run just fine.  Instead of having to
> deal with switching equipment or breakout boxes at the top of a tower,
> just run up a larger coax to a splitter.  No outdoor enclosure needed.
>
> Is it simply a lack of products that would make development costs too
> much, or is there another technical aspect I'm missing.  Docsis version
> 3.1 Full Duplex, which is currently in development will do 10gb sync,
> Docsis 3.1 is 10gb/1gb.  More than enough for any of our AP Clusters for
> at least a few years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS#Comparison
> It seems like UBNT or Cambium (heck Motorola already had all the coax
> products built) could easily make a 10gb Fiber to Coax adapter for the
> tower base. Feed it with Fiber and DC, then just keep adding splitters
> and radios until you run out of power budget.
>
> It just seems like I've never heard it discussed, and I'm not sure why.
> Obviously there is something I'm missing.  Docsis is a standard, but
> maybe there's no standard for the power delivery on the coax?  So vendor
> Inter-op prohibits development dollars from being spent on it.
>
> Nate
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] A Stupid coax question

[Mike Hammett]

If we're changing methods, we should be going to glass and power up the tower 
and not use anything conductive for data. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Nate Burke"  
To: "Animal Farm"  
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 10:47:37 AM 
Subject: [AFMUG] A Stupid coax question 

Comcast has been deploying their WIFI hotspot network like mad in the 
Chicago metro. Every public park, gas station, strip mall, hotel, and 
train station seems to have a wifi AP hung outside of it now. These 
units just hang on their aerial coax cable, and get their power and data 
just off a single RG-6 coax run off the nearest splitter. Drawing the 
power off the DC Coax plant. Here's a picture of a typical 
installation. 
http://comcastsupport.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/22608i79AFB9E182CD549C?v=1.0
 

So this got me thinking again, as I have for several years, why are we 
still using POE to run PMP Equipment on towers. It seems from a 
installation, RF Shielding, and grounding/suppression perspective, using 
coax would be the far better choice. Anyone can be taught to terminate 
a perfect RG6 in <5 minutes. No Colors to remember. Any couplers are 
inherently waterproof. No loose plugs or broken clips. Cheap cheap 
cheap outdoor cable. Shielded cables by default. It just seems that 
there are a lot of benefits for the low power draw radios. Obviously a 
licensed link can't pull enough power over an RG6, but EPMP or 450 or 
UBNT PMP radios I would think could run just fine. Instead of having to 
deal with switching equipment or breakout boxes at the top of a tower, 
just run up a larger coax to a splitter. No outdoor enclosure needed. 

Is it simply a lack of products that would make development costs too 
much, or is there another technical aspect I'm missing. Docsis version 
3.1 Full Duplex, which is currently in development will do 10gb sync, 
Docsis 3.1 is 10gb/1gb. More than enough for any of our AP Clusters for 
at least a few years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS#Comparison 
It seems like UBNT or Cambium (heck Motorola already had all the coax 
products built) could easily make a 10gb Fiber to Coax adapter for the 
tower base. Feed it with Fiber and DC, then just keep adding splitters 
and radios until you run out of power budget. 

It just seems like I've never heard it discussed, and I'm not sure why. 
Obviously there is something I'm missing. Docsis is a standard, but 
maybe there's no standard for the power delivery on the coax? So vendor 
Inter-op prohibits development dollars from being spent on it. 

Nate 

Re: [AFMUG] A Stupid coax question

[Rory Conaway]

It would add more cost to a price sensitive product and require our techs to 
carry more equipment.

Rory

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Nate Burke
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 8:48 AM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: [AFMUG] A Stupid coax question

Comcast has been deploying their WIFI hotspot network like mad in the Chicago 
metro.  Every public park, gas station, strip mall, hotel, and train station 
seems to have a wifi AP hung outside of it now.  These units just hang on their 
aerial coax cable, and get their power and data just off a single RG-6 coax run 
off the nearest splitter.  Drawing the power off the DC Coax plant.  Here's a 
picture of a typical installation. 
http://comcastsupport.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/22608i79AFB9E182CD549C?v=1.0

So this got me thinking again, as I have for several years, why are we still 
using POE to run PMP Equipment on towers.  It seems from a installation, RF 
Shielding, and grounding/suppression perspective, using coax would be the far 
better choice.  Anyone can be taught to terminate a perfect RG6 in <5 minutes.  
No Colors to remember. Any couplers are inherently waterproof.  No loose plugs 
or broken clips.  Cheap cheap cheap outdoor cable.  Shielded cables by default. 
 It just seems that there are a lot of benefits for the low power draw radios.  
Obviously a licensed link can't pull enough power over an RG6, but EPMP or 450 
or UBNT PMP radios I would think could run just fine.  Instead of having to 
deal with switching equipment or breakout boxes at the top of a tower, just run 
up a larger coax to a splitter.  No outdoor enclosure needed.

Is it simply a lack of products that would make development costs too much, or 
is there another technical aspect I'm missing.  Docsis version
3.1 Full Duplex, which is currently in development will do 10gb sync, Docsis 
3.1 is 10gb/1gb.  More than enough for any of our AP Clusters for at least a 
few years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS#Comparison
It seems like UBNT or Cambium (heck Motorola already had all the coax products 
built) could easily make a 10gb Fiber to Coax adapter for the tower base. Feed 
it with Fiber and DC, then just keep adding splitters and radios until you run 
out of power budget.

It just seems like I've never heard it discussed, and I'm not sure why.  
Obviously there is something I'm missing.  Docsis is a standard, but maybe 
there's no standard for the power delivery on the coax?  So vendor Inter-op 
prohibits development dollars from being spent on it.

Nate