Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>]

To have any sort of scalability, you take the free-for-all CSMA/CA and split it into uplink\downlink TDMA time slots. 
All APs transmit at the same time, then all APs listen at the same time. 


You then need to have the same uplink\downlink ratio on all APs in the system. To change the regulatory dynamics of 
upload\download then requires reconfiguration of the whole ecosystem to facilitate that, resulting in wasted cycles. 




BTW: A lot of WISPs use heavily modified versions of WiFi, but a lot also use platforms that have nothing in common 
with WiFi. Very, very few use straight 802.11. Why? Because it sucks at scale. 






Also, the extension of 802.11ax into the 6 GHz band will have variable results. Your usage is still a second class 
citizen (as it should be) to licensed users of the band. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl () gmail com> 
To: "NANOG" <nanog () nanog org> 
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 11:07:45 AM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 






tir. 1. jun. 2021 23.57 skrev Mike Hammett < nanog () ics-il net >: 






Requiring a 100 meg upload really changes up the dynamics of the WISP capabilities, resulting in fiber-only at a cost 
increase of 20x - 40x... for something that isn't needed. 




I will admit to zero WISP experience but wifi is symmetrical speed up/down so why wouldn't a WISP not also be? 


Wifi 6E higher speed and base control of clients, subchannels, simultaneously transmission from multiple clients etc. 
All good stuff that should allow a WISP to deliver much higher upload. 


As soon a certain threshold is reached, higher speed will not cause more utilisation of the airwaves. 


The WISP will need to invest in wifi 6E gear, which I suspect is the real problem. 


Regards 


Baldur