i worry about both equally On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 2:10 PM Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote:
> By performance hit are you referring to the frame period? Which is a > tradeoff between throughput and latency, so which are you worried about > most? > > > > Or did I misunderstand the issue. > > > > *From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones > *Sent:* Friday, February 21, 2020 1:46 PM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] 450m in 3.5Ghz max STA performance > > > > the hit is on the 450 not the LTE though to sync? > > what kind of a performance hit is it? > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 1:29 PM Ryan Ray <ryan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes sir. We do it with others running 3.65 Huawei LTE. Works great. > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 11:11 AM Jason McKemie < > j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote: > > Is it possible to sync Cambium with LTE gear? > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:36 PM Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote: > > There's also advantage to coexistence groups, though as I understand it, > that's a SAS value add and not a requirement. > > > > As I understand it, a group of operators could form a co-existence group > to ignore each other when determining availability. This would be used when > a group of operators agreed to the same timing, uplink\downlink, etc. > settings so that they didn't interfere with each other... like how > GPS-based operators coexist today. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Steve Jones" <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <af@af.afmug.com> > *Sent: *Friday, February 21, 2020 12:31:28 PM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] 450m in 3.5Ghz max STA performance > > people worry about the contiguous block issue too much. The longest you > would go with a non contiguous grant is a day. When the sas get jiggy with > each other at night the channels will be redistributed in contiguous blocks. > > > > Getting 4 channels for a 40mhz will happen for a period, but man is that a > bad business decision for the long term unless there is zero competition > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:34 AM Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: > > The answer is a bit complicated, for example I suspect the SAS could give > you a grant, but not at the full xmt power a 450m is capable of, so your > range and modulation is reduced. > > > > Probably nobody knows the answer. A few WISPs who participated in ICD > might have some idea. But if you are asking can you count on getting 80 > MHz out of a total 150 MHz, and also as 2 contiguous blocks, I think we > know the answer. Even if it happened initially, that seems unlikely long > term. > > > > Much advertising hype in our business is based on “could it happen” rather > than “can we count on it”. That works with 5G because they are talking > about everybody getting gigabit speeds but if everybody only gets 1/10 of > that it’s still pretty damn fast. Not sure the same applies if you talk > about everybody getting 100 meg but most of the time it’s more like 10 meg. > > > > > > *From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of *castarritt . > *Sent:* Friday, February 21, 2020 9:11 AM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] 450m in 3.5Ghz max STA performance > > > > The other important question is if we can count on getting a > contiguous 40mhz channel from the SAS, much less two of them to run a full > cluster of 450m in ABAB. > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 8:59 AM Matt Mangriotis via AF <af@af.afmug.com> > wrote: > > Using 450i or 450b on the SM (client) side, a real world aggregate speed > test can be as high as 250 Mbps. If you have cnMeudsa (450m AP) for the > sector, you can achieve >750 Mbps (theoretically up to 1 Gbps, but I would > be lying to tell you I have ever seen this kind of efficiency in the real > world) sector capacity due to the Multi-User MIMO capabilities (i.e. > simultaneous transmissions to up to 4 clients in the same time slot). > > > > Running under Part 90 or Part 96 does not affect the system performance > (provided the channel size is the same, of course). > > > > Matt > > > > *From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of *Peter Kranz via AF > *Sent:* Thursday, February 20, 2020 6:31 PM > *To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <af@af.afmug.com> > *Cc:* Peter Kranz <pkr...@unwiredltd.com> > *Subject:* [ External ] [AFMUG] 450m in 3.5Ghz max STA performance > > > > What is the real world expected station performance in a TCP speedtest > running a 40Mhz channel with a 450m running the CBRS software? > > > > > *Peter Kranz*www.UnwiredLtd.com > <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unwiredltd.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7C754d6b42c39f4416aded08d7b6657af6%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637178419289348066&sdata=OPw7empnbwc2kPgGzH90j1T5uzlyjAdoA6mlfONSX5g%3D&reserved=0> > Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 > Mobile: 510-207-0000 > pkr...@unwiredltd.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 > > -- > 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
