Asking for three years, but likely to take something less, with an appeal process for specific situations. It’s a moving target.
Jeff Broadwick CTIconnect 312-205-2519 Office 574-220-7826 Cell jbroadw...@cticonnect.com > On Aug 21, 2019, at 4:02 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: > > Isn’t WISPA still trying to get an extension? The start date slipped 5 years > but the end date stayed the same. But probably the govt doesn’t care because > only us nobodies deployed under Part 90, not important entities like AT&T and > Verizon. So transition? What transition? This is greenfield spectrum (for > the cellcos). > > From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Steve Jones > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 1:21 PM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65 > > its got to be turned down in april > > we are converting everything, we missed the deadline about signing up to be > grandfathered before we even knew about it, besides the grandfathering isnt > likely to give any authority > > I dont know if theyll even tell us how to report unauthorized transmitters, > and even if we get a mechanism I have to question whether theyll enforce > anything on behalf of a nobody operator like us > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 9:42 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > Good point. > > We have a tower with old Alvarion Wimax gear on it. We know we'll have to > replace it with something that talks to the SAS, but it's a tough pill to > swallow. LTE is expensive and a new Wimax product would be a dead end, but > it's almost 100% nLOS so we basically have to pick between those two flavors > of crap sandwich. > > We basically decided on LTE and it'll get done, but I could imagine people in > that circumstance operating out of compliance for awhile because they can't > pay for the replacement. There's also going to be somebody out there who > hasn't been paying attention and has no idea that their hardware is going to > become illegal. > > -Adam > > > > On 8/21/2019 10:28 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > Not really SAS per se, but the fact that at some date, legacy Part 90 > equipment that can’t be certified under Part 96 is supposed to be > decommissioned. That means WiMAX stuff like PMP320 as well as Ubiquiti M > series and AF3x. > > I think it’s a bit naïve though to assume this will “eliminate” that gear > like waving a magic wand. Yes, responsible network operators will replace a > lot of it with CBRS equipment or something else, but it’s not just going to > turn into pumpkins at midnight because the FCC wishes it. We have some > grandfathered backhauls with AF3x and even some Rockets and Powerbridges, > those won’t be going CBRS, probably 11 GHz where possible. > > > From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Steve Jones > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 8:54 AM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65 > > Sas is suppposed to eliminate the rogue ubnt gear. Im assuming there is > recourse if there is an illegal operator, but as far as i know, that path is > not clearly defined > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 8:43 AM Paul McCall <pa...@pdmnet.net> wrote: > Great feedback everyone. Kinda what I figured though. No special sauce > added on the MU-Mimo part of the 450 APs that overcome tree penetration > issues. We have had good luck with the 320s for the most part, but they are > only ¾ baked as a system , and far from being future proof, capacity wise. > > The 3.65 band in general makes they choice a bit tentative. Meaning you > can spend a bunch of money on LTE gear and have a $ 150 UBNT device start > interfering with you, with little recourse. Ouch. No 2.5ghz band available > in my area. > > And, In Florida our ROI sheet has to account for more equipment damage that > most, so its not an easy call. > > Paul > > > From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Steve Jones > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11:36 AM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65 > > We are at decision time on what to do with the 320/ubnt 3ghz, same boat on > decisions. LTE is a brand new horse to us, but the historic issues of > interference frighten my more than walking in on my wife with another man > when she should be doing laundry, I need clean work shirts. We had done some > base testing with baicells and we considering the trigger pull, but we have > the 450 out, and its performed as well or better than expected, this is not i > or m but it was considered, by us to be a drop in replacement for the wimax, > and ePMP to pick up the LOS UBNT junk. > Ive been trying to find out what SAS is actually doing real world, but I dont > know that the trial operators are allowed to speak of it without ending up in > a lake with concrete shoes. If SAS solves all the worlds woes regarding > interference, its a cost no brainer to deploy the crap out of baicells, take > the range hit, and fill the gaps with microcells where required. > but, 450, being the horse it is, works, and works well, even in the > interference we have. Its drop in for us on the wimax because we were very > careful on EIRP to not push our luck. we may take a 1x hit here and there, > but offloading the LOS customers to EPMP will make up for that. May still > require the occasional non standard solution for the customers that just dont > work on anything other than the wimax, solely because it connected at such a > crummy level. We should have addressed them historically anyway though. > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:17 AM Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: > Probably not applicable to PMP320, but with the Purewave basestations, I’m > convinced many operators were setting them to max xmt power ignoring FCC > limits on EIRP. That of course didn’t help upstream, and the CPE was fairly > anemic. But downstream, I think that was part of the “magic”. > > I think with CBRS there is the potential of increased EIRP over what we are > allowed under Part 90. Given the huge power consumption of the 3.6 GHz > PMP450m, I have to suspect it has the power amps to take advantage of higher > EIRP, not sure about the regular 450 AP. If I remember correctly though, it > doesn’t have as many antenna beams as the 5 GHz 450m. And given the size, > weight and power consumption, we have sites I doubt we could deploy 4 sectors. > > > From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Colin Stanners > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:50 AM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65 > > I agree on the PMP320's impressive tree penetration. We moved some sites from > PMP320 to PMP450... with the added gain of the PMP450 reflector dish (8+11dBi > vs the PMP320's 14dBi) I expected it to make up for the PMP450's lower > transmit power, and as a result have "similar" final signal levels. In the > end, some customers heavily in trees "lost" up to 10dB of signal and required > moving their mounts etc. So the WiMAX / flat-panel-in-NLOS magic seems to > have been adding around 10dB. > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:58 AM Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> wrote: > Quite the opposite for us. PMP320 could burn through trees! > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:30 AM Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: > WiMAX had little to no magical power against trees when we deployed it. > Trees apparently are hype resistant. YMMV. > > From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Paul McCall > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:22 AM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> > Subject: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65 > > We were told recently by Cambium that their Medusa product in 3.65 competes > favorable with LTE competitors. We ONLY need it for tree penetration > challenged customers. > > I have a healthy skepticism on 3.65 Medusa being able to magically work > better that standard 2.4 Ghz penetration, seeing the regular 450SM in 3.65 > performed as expected compared to a 2.4 Ghz 450SM, meaning not as well. > Seeing that LTE or Wimax far exceeds normal 2.4 Ghz gear, expecting 3.65 in > 450 series (even Medusa) is a strong leap of faith. > > We are open minded but skeptical of these recent claims. We are not happy > with the LTE options available ATM, having field tested Baicells and Bliniq > for a while now. > > Paul > > > Paul McCall, President > Florida Broadband / PDMNet > 658 Old Dixie Highway > Vero Beach, FL 32962 > 772-564-6800 > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
