Organization of a wi-fi mesh network of a microprovider?

Question

Computer networks

Good afternoon. Let's go back a few years ago, when it was fashionable to cost a local phone))
I live in a new microdistrict from a large number of panel houses of 9-18 floors. The first year I didn’t have Internet in an 18-storey building and I agreed with the provider and threw the connection from the neighboring house to my balcony, then I distributed it to my neighbors by wire for a nominal subscription fee, from 20 apartments it came out at 4000 per month, the total channel was 100 Mbps for everyone. :)
The essence of the topic is that more than 15 new houses have been built behind my house, which will soon be handed over. I want to organize the distribution of the Internet to new houses via wi-fi with the scheme point -> many points in apartments.
Since the end routers will be in random places of 9-storey buildings, they need to connect with each other and (or) with the base station so that there is a common web with a single Internet.
What is the best way to organize it? I am considering a Mikrotik dish at 5GHz and client dual-band routers MikroTik RB952Ui-5ac2nD, keep the main network at 5GHz, give 2.4GHz to clients. The distance from the BS to the nearest house is 100-150 meters.
Does the idea have the right to life from the technical and legal side (there are no licenses and legal entities)?
Has anyone had experience with something like this?

Answer 1

From a legal point of view, this is a complete fail.
Without a license for telecom and radio, at best, you will get off with fines. If you also get access for money, then the tax office may be excited about this, although 4k per month may not be of interest, although you are the best candidate for "public flogging".
It's a good idea not to do this in 2018. It made sense at the beginning of 2000, like buying a fat channel for a lot of money from a provider who is not particularly in a hurry to the private sector and distribute it to neighbors, collectively it’s not expensive and everyone seems to be happy. Users are satisfied with the presence of the Internet, the provider is satisfied with the presence of a fat client and the absence of the need to build its own network. In 2002 it would have worked.

Answer 2

Does the idea have the right to life from the technical and legal side (there are no licenses and legal entities)?

Well, here's the first prov that comes across, you will be merged "where you need it" by using Wi-Fi :)

Answer 3

You can sell services under the guise of a provider's agent (i.e. customers enter into contracts with the provider) + if the provider may be interested in the network, rent out the finished network (which, I think, will not happen).

Answer 4

Does the idea have the right to life from the technical and legal side (there are no licenses and legal entities)?

If you are legally savvy, speak fluently in the "judicial office", have a cheeky and quarrelsome character and like to go to court - this is it :) you can bet on who will come running ahead. Tax for illegal entrepreneurship, FSB for provider without a license (and where does the FSB - and with SORM, which you are obliged to install), or Roskomnadzor for illegal use of the frequency.

Answer 5

I agree with a colleague with the nickname "Atem". I will add that fiber optic cable is cheaper and more reliable, at the same time, Wi-fi networks are very capricious and problems often arise. Would not recommend you to waste time with antennas. Do it reliably, put optics, a gigabit switch and a router in each apartment. For me, it’s possible to have an optician in every apartment.