Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Rubens Kuhl <rubensk () gmail com>]

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