3 ms·

From the linked page: "Ideal for high-throughput connectivity with a range of up to 500 m". For reference, that approximately two blocks in NYC.

xxpor 6y ago
That's for maximum bandwidth. You can go farther if you want with slower speeds. Anyway, I looked up the Ubiquiti LiteBeam AC Gen2 since I wasn't familiar with it, and I think OP might have the wrong impression. It's a LiteBeam, not a LightBeam. The LiteBeam is just bog standard 5 GHz 802.11ac with a high gain antenna. That explains the data rates. Given that, there seems to be no disadvantage to using the 60 GHz solution if you're close enough to the next building where it's still faster (probably close to 2 miles). It's only ~$200 more, which spread out over a building is basically nothing.
- Godel_unicode 6y ago
  How are you getting from 500m to 2 miles? Is there any data to support this?
  - notdonspaulding 6y ago
    Ubiquiti makes gigabit speed wireless backhaul devices in the unlicensed 24Ghz band. It's the AF24HD. They can go several miles, but are susceptible to the signal dropping in the rain depending on your climate. MikroTik makes some 60Ghz point to point gigabit radios that can supposedly go for 2km. Finally, many commercial providers of E-band devices (licensed 70-80Ghz spectrum) sell gigabit capable radios that can go a couple of miles. Any of those seem like good options for an urban building in need of better internet service.
    - kbenson 6y ago
      Those are likely great options for people and small groups that don't have other options. At the same time, I doubt you'll see many companies jumping to provide that service, at least not ones that have the experience to handle it appropriately. Wireless internet makes for a very poor product to sell, because the service is unreliable, and often has problems exactly when people want it most (during inclement weather). Also, customers often have a problem dissassociating problems that should be expected with the service from problems with the service provider. It's probably not very gratifying to provide what is often the only option people have for high speed internet to have some subset of them that don't understand the reality, or are just too upset to care, disparage your name online. It also probably doesn't lead to securing additional contracts easily, and as soon as other connectivity does become available, your customers will leave at the earliest opportunity (there's not a lot of friction to signing up somewhere else when the service is currently down).

xxpor 6y ago

That's for maximum bandwidth. You can go farther if you want with slower speeds. Anyway, I looked up the Ubiquiti LiteBeam AC Gen2 since I wasn't familiar with it, and I think OP might have the wrong impression. It's a LiteBeam, not a LightBeam. The LiteBeam is just bog standard 5 GHz 802.11ac with a high gain antenna. That explains the data rates. Given that, there seems to be no disadvantage to using the 60 GHz solution if you're close enough to the next building where it's still faster (probably close to 2 miles). It's only ~$200 more, which spread out over a building is basically nothing.

Godel_unicode 6y ago
How are you getting from 500m to 2 miles? Is there any data to support this?
- notdonspaulding 6y ago
  Ubiquiti makes gigabit speed wireless backhaul devices in the unlicensed 24Ghz band. It's the AF24HD. They can go several miles, but are susceptible to the signal dropping in the rain depending on your climate. MikroTik makes some 60Ghz point to point gigabit radios that can supposedly go for 2km. Finally, many commercial providers of E-band devices (licensed 70-80Ghz spectrum) sell gigabit capable radios that can go a couple of miles. Any of those seem like good options for an urban building in need of better internet service.
  - kbenson 6y ago
    Those are likely great options for people and small groups that don't have other options. At the same time, I doubt you'll see many companies jumping to provide that service, at least not ones that have the experience to handle it appropriately. Wireless internet makes for a very poor product to sell, because the service is unreliable, and often has problems exactly when people want it most (during inclement weather). Also, customers often have a problem dissassociating problems that should be expected with the service from problems with the service provider. It's probably not very gratifying to provide what is often the only option people have for high speed internet to have some subset of them that don't understand the reality, or are just too upset to care, disparage your name online. It also probably doesn't lead to securing additional contracts easily, and as soon as other connectivity does become available, your customers will leave at the earliest opportunity (there's not a lot of friction to signing up somewhere else when the service is currently down).