New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Wed Jun 2 21:17:41 UTC 2021

Baldur,

Mike and I operate WISPs with dozens/hundreds of towers.  We both operate
fiber networks as well.  What you've stated is simply inaccurate.

Ubiquiti uses TDD for the last several years.  It's not WiFi nor can you
work with 802.11 devices as stations.  Just because it has a separate
frequency doesn't mean it doesn't cause interference - see the harmonic of
Verizon's network affected by the clock rate of the (ironically also Ubnt)
CPU, the older cheaper radios would bleed well past the 10/20/40 MHz
channel it was occupying.

Density is not the only factor.  There are operators that can't deploy
fiber due to extremely high costs of getting through the ground (ie rock)
or aerial (make ready).

802.11ax distances are still limited by 802.11 rules, of which the
distances of a mile or more are not anticipated nor expected.

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 5:00 PM Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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 at 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 at gmail.com>
>> *To: *"NANOG" <nanog at 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 at 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
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210602/7c0c7931/attachment.html>