Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
At 12:18 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
If you are picky enough to prefer other radios that cost more on Mbps/$, that's your call,
We need reliability. That particular radio wouldn't cut it. As I've mentioned, users can get away with much less bandwidth if the quality is high, so going for a less reliable radio with a high nominal speed does not actually save money. Also, that 5 GHz radio is a "spectrum spammer" and hence is a bad neighbor. After 25 years of doing wireless, one learns what really works and what is a false economy. Believe me, we've learned some hard and expensive lessons. --Brett Glass
This is a lot of why I have a lot of respect for the wireless guys I know or have met that clearly know their wireless, even if some of them are wingnuts outside of the wireless domain. Wireless is Hard(tm), and doesn't really overlap a lot with other ISP knowledge sets. -Blake On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Brett Glass <nanog@brettglass.com> wrote:
At 12:18 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
If you are picky enough to prefer other radios that cost more on Mbps/$, that's your call,
We need reliability. That particular radio wouldn't cut it. As I've mentioned, users can get away with much less bandwidth if the quality is high, so going for a less reliable radio with a high nominal speed does not actually save money.
Also, that 5 GHz radio is a "spectrum spammer" and hence is a bad neighbor.
After 25 years of doing wireless, one learns what really works and what is a false economy. Believe me, we've learned some hard and expensive lessons.
--Brett Glass
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Brett Glass <nanog@brettglass.com> wrote:
At 12:18 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
If you are picky enough to prefer other radios that cost more on Mbps/$,
that's your call,
We need reliability. That particular radio wouldn't cut it. As I've mentioned, users can get away with much less bandwidth if the quality is high, so going for a less reliable radio with a high nominal speed does not actually save money.
Also, that 5 GHz radio is a "spectrum spammer" and hence is a bad neighbor.
Actually not, it has a better bps/Hz figure than other unlicensed radios with comparable bandwidth like 802.11ac. What you are referring to is that using the same channel for back-haul and for serving users is usually a problem, but besides some vertical and horizontal separation techniques that could be used, there is always the option of using 2.4 GHz and 900 MHz for POP-to-user communication if back-haul is needing that frequency. If reliability is more important than bandwidth, than reducing modulation to decrease data-rate but increasing reliability is an option with both AirFiber and other 802.11 unlicensed gear.
After 25 years of doing wireless, one learns what really works and what is a false economy. Believe me, we've learned some hard and expensive lessons.
Yes, but not mentioning the choices makes you sound like you are trying to prove a point instead of actually discussing the technical possibilities. I was in charge of engineering for a WISP for some years and still have many contacts with local WISPs, in a country(Brazil) that pretty much resembles your technical and market challenges... think you have a problem with rain fade ? US ITU-R rain zone regions seem like blue sky for us. (http://www.racom.eu/images/radost/images/hw/ray/rain_zone_h.png) Rubens
participants (3)
-
Blake Dunlap -
Brett Glass -
Rubens Kuhl