Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)

[Anurag Bhatia <me () anuragbhatia com>]

Probably it will be a good alternate to FSO based laswer links for
backhual. Probably cheaper & more reliable solution then hanging lasers
between towers for backhaul?

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Oliver Garraux <oliver () g garraux net>wrote:

> > Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace).
> Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're
> drowning in a high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all.
> Like what's happened to 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz in a lot of places. There's few
> urban or 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  frequencies 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


-- 

Anurag Bhatia
anuragbhatia.com
or simply - http://[2600:3c01:e000:1::5] if you are on IPv6 connected
network!

Twitter: @anurag_bhatia <https://twitter.com/#!/anurag_bhatia>
Linkedin: http://linkedin.anuragbhatia.com