[151729] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Oliver Garraux)
Thu Mar 29 15:34:39 2012
In-Reply-To: <5FF4C0E4-23FC-4BEC-989F-C7226186ED1C@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:33:41 -0400
From: Oliver Garraux <oliver@g.garraux.net>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace). N=
othing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're dro=
wning in a high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all. Like w=
hat's happened to 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz in a lot of places. There's few urban o=
r semi-urban places where you still can use those frequencies for backhaul.=
The reason why people pay the big bucks for licenses and gear for licensed=
=A0frequencies is you're buying insurance it's going to work in the future=
.
>
> Greg
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 connections to end users. I guess
point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24
Ghz. AirFiber appears to be fairly highly directional. It needs to
be though, as each link uses 100 Mhz, and there's only 250 Mhz
available @ 24 Ghz.
It also sounded like there was a decent possibility of supporting
licensed 21 / 25 Ghz spectrum with AirFiber in the future.
Oliver
