[skyebook]

I thought 83 GB/hr seemed like not much capacity, and indeed that really isn't much. I've seen these units (and from other carriers as well, IIRC) before and figured they were bringing massive amounts of extra backhaul to spots with big events.

I'm curious how these figures relate with what 'normal' towers have allocated. I've seen the rough 1 gbps figure before but don't know how accurate that is.

[jauer]

1Gbps assumes the tower has fiber. Since this was a temporary event we can assume they don't have fiber available, that and the article illustration shows a microwave backhaul.

Standard microwave backhaul in a licensed band typically tops out around 263Mbps as that's what you get with 256QAM in 40Mhz of spectrum.

[parimm]

A lot of operators are switching to higher frequency bands for their backhauls, I see a lot of Ubiquity airfibers popping up here in India. Airfibers are 800mbps full duplex

[jauer]

What kind of distances are they pushing them to?

AirFiber radios (I'm quite fond of mine) and other 24Ghz, 60Ghz, and 80Ghz radios have severe rain fade so you need to keep the distance down to one or two miles unless you feel lucky. Now find a cell tower in that distance with fiber and available mounting space. I suppose that isn't a big problem in a more densely populated area like southern California, but still more challenging than parking a 11Ghz dish on a rooftop somewhere within 14 mile or so.

From what I've heard most carrier interest in high frequency bands is for links going a few city blocks to connect micropops back to a area hub site. That kind of caution with fade margin is more in line of what I'd expect out of at&t or a similar provider.

[parimm]

I'm pretty sure that the distances are under 10 Km or 6 miles.

[Retric]

83 GB/hr is not capacity that's actual usage. Considering the overheads involved I would not be surprised if this was 2-5 times faster in terms of raw bandwidth.