2 ms·
But they could have used newer tech that would preform better, no? https://www.ubnt.com/airfiber/airfiber-11fx/ https://www.ubnt.com/airfiber/airfiber-11fx/ 3
by AdamJacobMuller 9y ago
But they could have used newer tech that would preform better, no?
https://www.ubnt.com/airfiber/airfiber-11fx/ https://www.ubnt.com/airfiber/airfiber-11fx/
300km @ 1gbit?
Admittedly, I've never actually deployed this particular UBNT product but I know their stuff is good (I've used their APs for years).
- pdabbadabba 9y agoWell, are we sure that this is better performance than the TERRA backbone gets? I think you'd have a hard time offering 6mbps in northern Alaska if all the customer traffic ultimately has to squeeze through one of the two terminal 1 gigabit links down south. (And 1gbps at 300km seems pretty optimistic for any real-world deployment. On a 100 ft tower, line of sight is limited to less than 20km due to the curvature of the Earth.)
- ad_hominem 9y agoIn microwave frequencies, you also have to worry about Fresnel zone clearances
- dboreham 9y agoTypically towers are constructed on hills or at least the best small rise around to avoid this problem. Fresnel zone is not too wide at the frequencies used (probably 11-18GHz, perhaps 6).