Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman <josh () imaginenetworksllc com>]

WISP is not symmetrical.  Wireless isn't symmetrical.  Nor is cable/dsl.

WiFi 6E should have MU-MIMO which is something the WISPs have had for a few
years, but not on equipment that speaks 802.11 WiFi.  That protocol wasn't
really designed to do 1-15 miles, it was designed for 1-150 feet.  That
doesn't really have anything to do with upload, I don't know where you got
that.

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

That's simply not going to happen.  Do you think the cell companies stopped
deploying towers, too?

Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 12:08 PM Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com>
wrote:

> 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