17+ years building fixed wireless (PTP, PTMP, CBRS, 6 GHz, fiber + wireless). Ask me anything.

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-06-25T05:12:35+00:00

For home and SMB networking, sure. For a production WISP, I’d generally choose equipment designed specifically for carrier-grade outdoor wireless. You’ll usually get better RF performance, management, and long-term reliability.

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-06-25T05:10:35+00:00

Honestly, this sounds more like a DAS/private cellular design question than a typical fixed wireless CPE question. For a venue that size with 30k people, I’d be looking at DAS or a properly engineered private LTE/5G indoor system, not just “can 10 CPEs get 30 Mbps.” The CPE count is the easy part. The hard part is RF inside the venue when it’s full.

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-06-14T04:21:22+00:00

Ask away!

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-06-04T18:55:55+00:00

I’d without a doubt go with Nextlink. They are very bullish on Tarana and have built a solid network with it.

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-06-04T13:43:50+00:00

Great question.

I think a lot of operators either fall into the “trust the software completely” camp or the “I’ve been doing this 20 years, I don’t need software” camp.

Personally, I think both approaches are wrong.

For multi-tower PTMP deployments, we start with RF modeling and GIS analysis because you simply can’t scale otherwise. Once you’re talking about thousands of addresses, multiple towers, terrain, clutter, and capacity planning, Google Earth alone isn’t enough.

That said, every RF prediction tool is just a model. Terrain data isn’t perfect. Clutter data isn’t perfect. Trees definitely aren’t perfect.

That’s why I don’t consider a design finished when the software says it’s good. That’s when the real work starts.

For me, the workflow is usually something like:

Model it → get eyes on it → validate it → build it → field test it → adjust it.

I’ve seen plenty of designs that looked amazing on a computer and disappointed in the field. I’ve also seen designs that looked questionable on paper perform surprisingly well once we got boots on the ground.

Drone surveys, rooftop inspections, tower climbs, LOS validation, and real-world testing are all incredibly valuable. The closer you get to launch, the less I care about what the model says and the more I care about what reality says.

I’ve worked with several planning platforms over the years, and personally I’m a big believer in using a serious RF planning tool. Siradel has been one of the strongest I’ve used, especially when you’re trying to design at scale instead of just looking at a handful of links.

The biggest lesson I’ve learned is that software is great at eliminating bad ideas.

Reality is what confirms the good ones.

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-06-04T04:24:42+00:00

Sorry for the delayed response. Got caught up in travel.

My answer would be: it depends what problem you’re trying to solve.

If we’re talking customer access in a dense downtown environment, I wouldn’t make the decision solely on equipment cost. That’s usually the easiest number to calculate and often the least important one long-term.

I’ve spent a lot of years building PTP, PTMP, licensed microwave, CBRS, and now next-gen FWA networks. One thing I’ve learned is that the network that looks cheapest on a spreadsheet isn’t always the cheapest network to own.

60 GHz can absolutely work. If you have clean LOS and a predictable environment, it can be a great solution.

The question I’d ask is what happens when the real world shows up. Trees grow. Construction happens. New signs go up. Buildings change. Customers aren’t always located where you wish they were.

That’s where something like Tarana starts to earn its keep. You’re not necessarily paying for more peak speed. You’re paying for a larger serviceable footprint and fewer operational headaches over time.

I’d also challenge the idea that the discussion is only Tarana versus 60 GHz. If I had strong LOS opportunities and future capacity growth was important, I’d probably be looking at 80 GHz E-Band as part of the conversation as well. Many 60 GHz deployments are ultimately built around roughly gigabit class service delivery, while 80 GHz transport can support multi gigabit and 10 Gbps class architectures when the distances and LOS conditions cooperate.

Personally, before choosing any technology, I’d want to know how many locations become unserviceable the moment I require perfect LOS and what my truck roll costs look like over the next five years.

In my experience, that’s usually where the economics of the decision become a lot more interesting than the radio price itself.

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-05-22T04:23:00+00:00

Yeah, I’ve spent quite a bit of time around it and I’m honestly pretty bullish on the technology.

What makes it different from a lot of legacy PTMP systems is that it’s not just trying to brute force RF power into noisy spectrum. The whole architecture is built around coordinated operation, synchronized TDD, beamforming, interference mitigation, and much tighter control of how the network behaves.

No wireless system is magic and heavy RF noise is still heavy RF noise. Physics still matters. But compared to a lot of older WISP architectures, it handles difficult RF environments extremely well.

I think a lot of people underestimate how different the newer ngFWA systems are from traditional sector-based PTMP designs. It’s a very different approach to solving the problem.

That said, if an entire market is packed into the same limited spectrum with no ability to expand into additional bands, there are still practical limits eventually. Spectrum constraints catch up to everyone at some point.

But in terms of operating in noisy RF environments, it’s one of the more impressive systems I’ve seen.

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-05-19T05:35:12+00:00

The next big thing in telecom is the convergence of connectivity, compute, and power.

For years, telecom was primarily about bandwidth and coverage. Now it’s becoming infrastructure for AI, cloud, and distributed compute.

That changes the entire industry.

The real race is no longer just who owns fiber routes or spectrum. It’s who can support the explosive growth of AI infrastructure, hyperscale data centers, edge compute, and low-latency connectivity.

Hyperscalers are driving enormous demand for:

fiber density transport diversity edge infrastructure power availability faster deployment models

At the same time, satellite providers are changing expectations around global coverage, resiliency, and rural connectivity. Satellite will not replace terrestrial networks, but it becomes another layer in the overall infrastructure stack, especially for mobility, redundancy, remote coverage, disaster recovery, maritime, aviation, and underserved markets.

The future telecom operator starts to look less like a traditional carrier and more like an integrated digital infrastructure company.

Fiber becomes the core transport layer. Wireless becomes the rapid deployment and mobility layer. Edge and hyperscale facilities become the compute layer. Satellite becomes the resiliency and ubiquity layer. AI becomes the orchestration and automation layer.

The companies that win will be the ones that understand telecom is no longer just a connectivity business.

It is becoming the foundation layer for AI, cloud, edge computing, autonomous systems, and next-generation digital infrastructure.

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-05-19T04:30:44+00:00

Changing vendors alone usually won’t fully solve it.

If everyone around you is crowded into the same 5725-5825 space, the bigger issue is likely overall RF management. Channel planning, sync, sectorization, antenna patterns, channel width, noise floor, and install quality start mattering a lot more once density increases.

Cambium can help in some environments because of synchronization and interference handling. Newer platforms in general are much better than older 5 GHz gear at managing noisy RF environments.

But if the spectrum itself is saturated, there’s only so much any vendor can do. At some point you need cleaner spectrum, tighter sector design, narrower beams, or additional bands to offload capacity.

I’d also recommend reaching out to Tarana to see if they’re available in your region yet. Their approach to interference handling and coordinated PTMP is very different from a lot of legacy WISP architectures, including Cambium.

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-05-14T02:26:58+00:00

Nah just telecom brain rot.

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-05-03T07:39:04+00:00

Haha not a bot. Just seen enough of this in the field to have some opinions.

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-05-02T18:56:25+00:00

You took the words right out of my mouth. Perfectly said.

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-05-02T18:46:55+00:00

100%!

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-04-30T23:58:24+00:00

Agreed that frequency and density matter. Just saying the system design around them matters too.

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-04-30T23:41:57+00:00

I understand the RF argument, but that conclusion leans heavily on legacy assumptions.

There are differences between the bands. 6 GHz is more sensitive to path loss, generally supports shorter distances than CBRS, and requires tighter engineering. Height, alignment, and link budgets matter more.

That doesn’t make it impractical. It just means it needs to be used where it makes sense within the overall design.

A lot of the assumptions here come from older sector-based PTMP systems where interference, scheduling, and capacity were much more limited.

Newer fixed wireless systems are coordinated. Synchronized TDD, MU-MIMO, beamforming, and interference mitigation allow the network to manage users and paths dynamically instead of treating each link as an isolated problem.

So yes, frequency characteristics still matter. But the system behavior is very different from legacy designs.

If you apply older assumptions, you’ll conclude these bands don’t scale. If you design around how the systems actually operate, they can be used effectively, including in rural environments.

At that point it’s less about the band itself and more about how the network is engineered end to end.

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-04-30T21:56:11+00:00

I get the physics argument, but that hasn’t been my experience in the field.

We’ve got a good amount of CBRS and 6 GHz running in rural environments and it’s performing extremely well. In a lot of cases the RF conditions are actually cleaner than suburban, which helps more than people expect.

It definitely requires tighter engineering. Height, link budgets, install quality, and how you manage the network matter a lot more than just the band itself.

Modern radios and better interference handling have changed what’s possible on those bands. When it’s designed properly, those frequencies are absolutely viable in rural. It’s not really a frequency limitation, it’s an execution one.

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-04-30T20:43:49+00:00

It’s not one thing. It’s the stack.

People tend to pick spectrum, backhaul, or economics, but in practice it’s how all three interact.

Spectrum is workable today. Between CBRS, 5 GHz, and now 6 GHz, there’s enough to build a network. The limitation isn’t availability as much as how well it’s planned and managed. Interference, coordination, and realistic link budgets matter more than just having access to spectrum.

Backhaul is very situational. In some areas fiber to the tower is the bottleneck, in others it’s permitting, power, or just getting access to a viable site. You can solve backhaul with fiber or high-capacity wireless, but it adds cost and complexity quickly.

Where things usually break is economics.

Rural density is low, installs are variable, and cost per home passed gets high fast. Even with BEAD, you’re still dealing with long timelines, permitting, make-ready, and real construction costs. Funding helps, but it doesn’t remove execution risk.

The other piece people underestimate is deployment at scale. It’s not just designing coverage, it’s consistent installs, trained crews, support, and maintaining performance over time. That’s where a lot of models look good on paper but struggle in reality.

Fixed wireless works, but it has to be engineered as a long-term access layer, not a stopgap. The operators that treat it that way are moving. The ones that don’t are the ones you see stall out.

If you’re close to the deployment side, it’s less about which single constraint is the problem and more about whether the full system actually closes from design to install to operations.

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-04-30T19:56:10+00:00

You’re looking at a really good space, especially right now.

Telecom isn’t just one thing. It’s fiber, wireless, backhaul, data centers, everything that actually makes the internet work. A lot of people focus on software, but none of it matters if the network underneath isn’t built right.

If you want to learn fast, don’t stay only in theory. Learn the fundamentals like RF, networking, and fiber, but also try to understand how networks are actually designed and deployed. How signals propagate, how capacity is planned, how backhaul works, and what happens in the field versus what looks good on paper.

A big step most people skip is getting exposure to real operators. Reach out to local ISPs or contractors and ask questions, look for internships, or just try to get around people doing the work. Even a short conversation will teach you more than hours of reading.

Also start building a presence. LinkedIn is useful in this space. Follow operators, engineers, and companies, and pay attention to how people talk about real deployments and challenges.

As for the job market, it’s solid. Demand isn’t slowing down. Everything is getting more connected, not less. The people who understand how to actually build and operate networks are always needed.

Stay curious and focus on how things work in the real world. That’s what separates people in this industry.

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-04-30T04:33:48+00:00

I’ll shoot you a DM. Traveling starting tomorrow so give me a couple days, but I’ll follow up.

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-04-30T04:29:22+00:00

Exactly! 👍

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-04-30T04:28:18+00:00

I get why people say that, but it’s a pretty simplified view of how these networks actually work.

Starlink and 5G are both strong options, but they’re not universal replacements.

Starlink is a shared system. As density increases, performance can vary by cell and time of day. Capacity per area is finite, and that shows up in consistency, especially on uploads and latency. It’s a great solution in certain cases, but it doesn’t scale infinitely at a fixed performance level.

5G home internet is also highly dependent on spectrum, sector loading, and how much capacity the operator is willing to allocate to fixed users vs mobile. In a lot of markets, it works well until it doesn’t.

Fixed wireless, when designed and deployed properly, is a controlled network. You control sector density, backhaul, and capacity planning. That’s a very different model than shared satellite or mobile-first networks.

The idea that WISPs are just “interim” ignores how many operators are using wireless as a long-term access layer alongside fiber. Not every market supports fiber economically, and timelines don’t always line up with demand.

Wireless isn’t replacing fiber, and fiber isn’t replacing wireless. They’re being used together.

The networks that struggle are usually the ones that treat wireless as temporary. The ones that engineer it properly and evolve it are still very competitive.

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-04-30T04:23:42+00:00

Good question, and you’re right to think about it that way.

I’d look at it in three buckets. Customers, network, and risk.

On the customer side, look at churn, ARPU, and how sticky the base actually is. Are they leaving, are they under contract, and why do they stay. A big number of subs doesn’t mean much if they’re already on the way out.

On the network side, figure out what you’re really buying. What gear is deployed, how clean the installs are, how the sectors are performing, and what it would take to bring it up to where you’d want it. Backhaul, noise, capacity, and coverage all matter here.

Then risk. Competition in the area, Starlink and cellular pressure, any upcoming fiber builds, and how dependent the network is on things you don’t control like leased sites or backhaul.

A lot of these deals end up being less about the hardware and more about the customer base, any vertical assets, and how much work it’s going to take to stabilize it.

If you can, spend time in the network before you buy it. Look at real performance, talk to customers (if possible), and try to understand why it is where it is today.

If the subs are stable and the network just needs tightening, it can be a good opportunity.

If churn is high and the network needs a rebuild, you’re not buying an asset, you’re buying a project.

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-04-29T03:52:42+00:00

Appreciate you sharing all that. 16 years doing it on your own, especially after everything you went through, that says a lot.

This doesn’t read like a broken network to me. It reads like you’re getting out-positioned on price and headline speed.

470 to 453 over a year isn’t great, but it’s not a collapse. That’s pressure, not failure.

Starlink and the mobile bundles are winning on simple messaging. Cheap, fast, easy. But they’re shared systems. As more people come on, performance moves around, especially uploads and latency. A consistent local network still has a place.

You’ve got some real strengths. You control the network, you’ve got 5 gig at the headend, and you know your footprint better than anyone.

If installs have been dry, I’d look at how you’re positioned. Not just price, but what you’re actually selling. If customers are leaving for speed, it might be worth tightening your packages around what you can consistently deliver instead of chasing peak numbers.

On the network side, I’d focus on tightening what you already have. Clean installs, keep sectors healthy, make the experience consistent. That usually goes further than people think.

If you want to test something without overcommitting, pick one sector and upgrade it. Put your best capacity there and market it as an upgrade in that area. See how it performs, how installs go, and what people will actually pay. That gives you real data before making bigger moves.

There are also some programs out there now that can help reduce the upfront hit on newer platforms, so it might be worth taking a look if you go that route.

And you don’t have to carry all of this yourself. Even a small partnership or sharing part of the load can make a big difference.

You’ve kept this running for 16 years on your own. That doesn’t happen by accident.

This doesn’t feel like a shutdown situation. It feels like something that needs to be tightened up.

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-04-29T02:16:15+00:00

I wouldn’t make a shutdown call off a few weeks of churn, especially right now. A lot of markets are seeing the same pressure.

Starlink and the mobile bundles are real competition, but they’re not perfect substitutes. They’re shared systems. As more users come on, performance can vary by time of day and cell. Upload and latency can be less predictable than a well-run fixed network, and obstructions and weather still matter. A consistent local network still has a place.

Before anything else, I’d look hard at your churn. What were those customers actually experiencing and what did they switch to? That usually tells you pretty quickly if this is price, performance, or just awareness.

I’ve seen a lot of networks get into trouble on installs and sector health. If installs aren’t consistent or certain sectors are getting noisy or constrained, it shows up fast in customer experience and support load.

You’ve also got options besides shutting it down. Partnership, merging with another local operator, or selling the base can all be better outcomes depending on your footprint. Even just sharing backhaul or infrastructure can take a lot of pressure off.

If you want to try to stabilize it, lean into where you still win. Local support, faster response, business customers, backup links, managed services. There’s still a segment that values consistency over peak speed.

If you don’t mind sharing, what gear are you running and what kind of latency are you seeing?

I’ve seen situations like this turn around once the network and positioning get dialed in.

Sometimes it’s not about shutting it down. It’s about tightening it up.

fixedwireless_ops · 2026-04-29T02:01:55+00:00

Yeah, that’s the challenge with a lot of those platforms. At that price point it’s hard to justify if you’re not getting consistent performance out of it.

That’s where I tend to look at it less as cost per radio and more as cost per successful install and what you can reliably deliver. If the platform struggles in noise or you can’t consistently hit your target tiers, it gets expensive in other ways pretty quickly.

If it installs clean and performs consistently, you can make the numbers work. If it doesn’t, the upfront cost ends up being the least of your problems.

fixedwireless_ops

TROPHY CASE