Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
At 11:40 AM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
Read again. You answered thinking about AirFiber 24, while he mentioned AirFiber 5, which goes much longer.
Ah. I assumed that you were talking about the 24 GHz version, because we rejected the 5 GHz radio the moment we scanned the data sheet. It does not meet our standards for antenna gain or spectral efficiency. The 5 GHz band is in heavy use in our area (not only by us, but by many others). Such a radio simply couldn't survive in our RF environment. And even if by some miracle it could, the 5 GHz band is far too valuable for us to devote so much spectrum to a single backhaul. We use other bands and better equipment for high capacity point-to-point links. --Brett Glass
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Brett Glass <nanog@brettglass.com> wrote:
At 11:40 AM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
Read again. You answered thinking about AirFiber 24, while he mentioned
AirFiber 5, which goes much longer.
Ah. I assumed that you were talking about the 24 GHz version, because we rejected the 5 GHz radio the moment we scanned the data sheet. It does not meet our standards for antenna gain or spectral efficiency. The 5 GHz band is in heavy use in our area (not only by us, but by many others). Such a radio simply couldn't survive in our RF environment. And even if by some miracle it could, the 5 GHz band is far too valuable for us to devote so much spectrum to a single backhaul. We use other bands and better equipment for high capacity point-to-point links.
If you are picky enough to prefer other radios that cost more on Mbps/$, that's your call, what people are pointing is that there are low-cost alternatives for low-density networks. If those exceed your requirements, you move up the food chain to better and more expensive gear, but then you have more subscribers and more revenue to pay for those. Rubens
participants (2)
-
Brett Glass -
Rubens Kuhl