[LibreQoS] Rain Fade (was Ack-filtering)

[dan]

Tarana makes me chuckle a bit. Every few years, various WISP forums fill up
> with "game changer, must buy X!" and it's tulip mania
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania> all over again. Tarana is
> really expensive, and with the typical 3-5 year life cycle of wireless
> products it's pretty hard to justify the cost if you have any sort of
> competition, or lower population densities. Even if it weren't buggy, it's
> a tough one. They also have a relatively limited window, because their
> special sauce is pretty amazing but it's not *that* far ahead of what you
> can do with 802.11AX and the sync extensions (and the Quantenna chips they
> use just got discontinued, which is going to cause them - and Mimosa - a
> lot of pain). And like all excited tulip purchases, we're already starting
> to see people complain who bought it for areas that aren't the type of
> deployment for which Tarana really shines.
>
> Terragraph is nice on paper, but it's really over-engineered. (Not that
> surprising if you've ever looked at Meta's "Folly" and other code; Meta
> doesn't do "keep it simple") It does look great for getting coverage out
> over a high-density area.
>

The way I see it, and a couple of those I know that are using it, is that
it's your gap fill.  expensive gap fill, but just that.  One guy is beta on
epmp4600 and he's thinking 95% on that 6Ghz platform and tarana will be the
'we service everyone' option.  It's very expensive, but complete market
penetration has value.  Another guy (the neighbor) is Wave is primary,
tarana as gap fill.    A third friend has been waiting for G2 because he's
desperate for an nLoS ptmp backhaul product, he's been doing 450m 5 and
3Ghz for ptmp backhauls but the ~100M per that was once awesome is now not
cutting it.


>
> And that's the big problem with the current wave of tech. Ranges are
> getting shorter, because competing with fiber requires MUCH higher CINR
> numbers. That's *great* for the high-density areas (which tend to be
> getting fiber anyway), but it's problematic for the really rural
> deployments. It's really common out here to have to hop 10-15 miles between
> clusters of buildings, and you're still only hitting 10 houses within a
> couple of miles of a POP. So "decent service at longer ranges" is a lot
> more useful here than "amazing service at 1.5 miles". That's also where
> they are crying out for service (we've had so many customers "leave" for
> StarLink and be back within a month when they find out what high-latency,
> frequent disconnect 1d6+1 * 10 Mbps service feels like) - and the fiber
> companies don't want to go. We've been working with an electric co-op that
> rolled out fiber to provide wireless for the areas they don't plan on ever
> building into (for example, 3 houses that connect to a fiber-served road...
> with a 5 mile driveway).
>

For us, we have a lot of assets to handle that shorter range.  We still
have some 'traditional' longer rural shots but we've shorted them up with
narrow/high gain horns and we can push 100x20 today and a slight bump in an
AX radio would make us safe from 'starlink advertised speeds'.  We've had
people switch back from starlink already.  2km on 60Ghz WAVE is immensely
useful and legit ~850Mbps.  Twice that on a low EIRP 5/6Ghz product with
some AX special sauce and that's about 90% of our potential population.

It's a pretty solid argument for next gen wireless agility vs slow and
costly yet permanent fiber build.

end of the day though, everything needs shaped so every single delivery
tech is a target for libreqos.  We even shape our LTE in preseem vs
LTE's scheduler.  Actually we do both, a 50x5 LTE Plan is 52x6 in preseem
and 55x7 in LTE service plan.  My small GPON deployments have preseem as
well.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/libreqos/attachments/20221026/e4823d4b/attachment-0001.html>