7;t.
Greg
>
> Dylan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:18 PM
> To: Oliver Garraux
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)
>
>
> On Mar 29, 2012, at
l Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:18 PM
> To: Oliver Garraux
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)
>
>
> On Mar 29, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux wrote:
>
>>> Als
com]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:18 PM
To: Oliver Garraux
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)
On Mar 29, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux wrote:
>> Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace).
>> Nothing stops everyone e
On Mar 29, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux wrote:
>> Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace).
>> Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're
>> drowning in a high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all. Like
>> what's h
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
> Cost will continue to drop, fact of the matter is the beam width is
> rather narrow and they attenuate rather well so you can have a fair
> number of them deployed without co-channel interference. if you pack a
> tower full of them you're goin
On 3/29/12 21:53 , Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux wrote:
>> I was at Ubiquiti's conference. I don't disagree with what you're
>> saying. Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely
>> never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is. They
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux wrote:
> I was at Ubiquiti's conference. I don't disagree with what you're
> saying. Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely
> never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is. They are seeing 24 Ghz
> as only for backhaul - no c
Probably it will be a good alternate to FSO based laswer links for
backhual. Probably cheaper & more reliable solution then hanging lasers
between towers for backhaul?
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Oliver Garraux wrote:
> > Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace)
> Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace).
> Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're
> drowning in a high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all. Like
> what's happened to 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz in a lot of places. There's f
Respectfully, the claim isn't a "decline in the cost of backhaul bandwidth
between 10 and 100 times", the claim is "Operators will be able to get 10 to
100 times more data throughput for the same dollar." which granted is a very
good thing, but it does not imply how much more money one would hav
On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Josh Baird wrote:
> Anyhow, check the
> video out on ubnt.com for an introduction and technical overview -
> it's worth watching.
The claim is a huge decline in the cost of backhaul bandwidth for wisps between
10 and 100 times. I have just finished the preparation
11 matches
Mail list logo
