Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com>]

The kind of WISP we have around here is one or more AP on a tower or corn
silo and that one tower will cover a huge area by line of sight. There will
be nothing like you describe as each AP has separate frequency and
therefore no conflict. The gear is more or less standard wifi, often
Ubiquity.

If the density becomes great enough for scalability to be an issue, you
have a business case for fiber.

802.11ax has options for longer guard intervals to make it work at greater
distances.

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:33 PM Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:

> 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
>
> ------------------------------
> *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