[173072] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brett Glass)
Tue Jul 15 14:10:11 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:08:19 -0600
To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
From: Brett Glass <nanog@brettglass.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGFn2k1WVBZ_8Us+gXo8Gshm0_C4k0so602YpYxKkVGBBBP9kA@mail.g
mail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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
