WiMax was originally promised to do 70 Mbps to 70 subscribers at 70 miles. I
think those commas were misinterpreted.
From: Steve Jones
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 12:34 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE
I was glad that we put up ubnt around the same time as the 320. It quickly
forced me to understand there was zero sauce to the band, outside it being
clean at the time. the ubnt offered no "penetration" as would be expected. the
320, wimax offered better penetration, but not 900mhz penetration, where the
frequency had the penetration characteristic. I was told, whether true or not,
that wimax made use of multipath, made enough sense for me not to learn much
about what wimax did on any technical level. so 320 penetrated, ubnt didnt, but
in the presence of interference, 320 would effectively die, whereas the ubnt
could still hobble, probably due to the higher rx power levels as LOS.
The 450 initially was about the same as the ubnt, then they released the 1x
firmware, and that gave us the penetration.
One of the biggest problems i see is people talking about LOS, nLOS, NLOS, and
thinking that all three have the same performance. I take the throughput hits
into account when im talking about any of them.
Its like fsk 900, 30 miles, 4mbps, NLOS. thats where i learned about commas
meaning OR, not AND
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:04 AM Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote:
For years there has been enthusiasm for the idea that 3.5 GHz is suitable for
NLOS propagation in a way that doesn’t apply to other mid band spectrum like
2.4, 2.5 or 5 GHz. Initially is wasn’t clear what type of NLOS people meant –
urban clutter or foliage – but I think it’s pretty clear people are talking
about foliage.
Why do people expect this? Is it the frequency, or the protocol like WiMAX
and now LTE? Or no theoretical basis, just it works don’t ask why?
I can think of several possible explanations, not sure if any of these are
why people associate 3.65 GHz LTE with NLOS.
- 3.65 GHz somehow is absorbed less by foliage than other mid band frequencies
- some feature of the LTE protocol that overcomes NLOS
- LTE equipment has more sensitive receivers
- 3.65 GHz has less interference due to being semi licensed
- some combination of receiver sensitivity and lack of interference
- none of the above but LTE equipment is just made better
Maybe it’s real world experience with no theoretical basis. But I always
like to know why something works, or doesn’t. You’d prefer that the reason it
works isn’t some temporary anomaly. Like service is really good at this new
restaurant, because nobody knows about it yet.
From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Eric Muehleisen
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 10:29 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE
Still in winter. I'd like to see how it performs when the leaves are full in
May.
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:26 AM dave <dmilho...@wletc.com> wrote:
We R starting to see some real world impressive results with just the pmp450i
CBRS radios on a 20Mhz channels
This guy is nearLOS about 2.5 miles of some tree and pointing into edge of
panel
Current Results Status
Stats for LUID: 65 Test Duration: 10 Pkt Length: 1714 Test Direction
Bi-Directional
Link Test without Bridging
Data
Channel
Priority
Downlink
Uplink
Aggregate
Packet Transmit
Packet Receive
Actual
Actual
Low
50.01 Mbps
32.97 Mbps
82.98 Mbps, 6008 pps
23887 (2388 pps)
36207 (3620 pps)
Efficiency
Downlink
Uplink
Efficiency
Fragments
count
Efficiency
Fragments
count
Actual
Missed
Actual
Missed
99%
984301
7409
99%
647582
3593
Link Test ran on 15:20:50 02/27/2020 UTC
Currently transmitting at:
8X/6X MIMO-B
Current Contention Mode Status: No Piggyback of data in contention
On 2/25/20 3:59 PM, Matt Mangriotis via AF wrote:
I completely understand your skepticism Ken. However, Cambium did design
the 3 GHz 450m with every intention of being able to support a transition to
LTE (specifically, as a RRH with cnRanger). The intent is for this device to be
a fully capable 8x8 MU-MIMO. Yes, you’ve got that right though, you’ll need new
CPE devices and a BBU for each sector.
We don’t have a target date when this will be developed yet… right now,
we’re focused on getting the cnRanger CBRS 2x2 RRH and High Gain Cat 6 CPE
devices out in August!
With respect to NLOS coverage, I will agree that 450 is not quite on par
with some of the things that LTE brings to the table (regarding range and the
ability to maintain the downlink). However, with the increased power limits of
CBRS, the 450m does an admirable job. In fact, in comparing equipment cost and
performance, I would suggest that the 450 platform outperforms anything out
there. That is, it’s less expensive to get bandwidth where it needs to be (at a
higher rate, and to more customers). If the customer density can support the
cost of cnMedusa, you’re going to be better off from total cost of ownership
(both CapEx and OpEx) perspective.
The new 3GHz 450b High Gain has 29 dBm Tx Pwr, and a 20 dBi dish integrated
antenna… this is pretty impressive for CBRS CPE equipment (most of the high
gain/high power LTE stuff I see is only going to be 23 dBm Tx, plus 15 dBi
antenna).
There are several customers out there that have done these comparisons…
hopefully, they can chime in.
Matt
From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 7:06 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' mailto:af@af.afmug.com
Subject: [ External ] Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE
You should probably talk to someone at Cambium, unless someone here has
already done that. There was talk 1-2 years ago about 450m is software defined
so maybe they could use it as a remote radio head with their cnRanger LTE
BaseBand Unit (BBU). It has been pretty quiet since then, but I haven’t been
able to make it to the shows.
Without an update directly from the horse’s mouth like Matt at Cambium, or
some kind of announcement, I wouldn’t hold my breath. Back in 2018 it was in
the realm of “it would be nice”. That’s pretty tentative. Plus you’d still
have to buy the BBU and new CPE, so it doesn’t sound like a huge savings
anyway, still 2/3 of a forklift upgrade. I mean, if it turned out that the 3
GHz cnRanger RRH was literally a 450m, that would probably be the best case,
but how likely do you think that is?
This is just my personal speculation, if it’s an important part of a
decision you’re making now, you probably need to get hold of your Cambium
regional sales manager, or the 450 or cnRanger product manager. If you’re
going to WISPAmerica, you can probably do it there.
From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 6:03 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE
So the 450M is supposed to be LTE upgradable?
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 3:45 PM Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Something aboit the medusa top can be used with cnranger potentially with
a fiber run and a software update
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 3:38 PM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:
In my opinion, 450 is better than Baicells or Telrad LTE at everything
except NLOS performance.
....Except that NLOS performance is so useful that one can be tempted
to ignore all of the other features of the 450. I do understand that tradeoff
because I've had to make it myself.
On 2/24/2020 4:30 PM, David Williamson wrote:
450 3.65Ghz vs. Baicells 3.65Ghz LTE = no comparison. All but one of
the 450 APs are already removed from our network. I am just trying to
determine if the SMs will be usable on Cambium LTE once they roll it out, or if
it will require a completely different SM.
David
From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 4:28 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE
Why are you getting rid of 3.65 Cambium in favor of LTE?
On Monday, February 24, 2020, David Williamson
<dwilliam...@customcomputersva.com> wrote:
Will the Cambium 3.65 LTE have a completely new SM or will it use the
existing 450SM's? Trying to determine if I should keep our 450SM's or just go
ahead and sell them to one of our secondary market distributors along with our
450 AP's.
Thanks!
David Williamson
-----Original Message-----
From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 1:57 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE
I think I heard next quarter for the 3.5.
On 2/24/2020 1:48 PM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists wrote:
> 3.5 isn’t available yet.
>
> I believe that 2.5 can be purchased.
>
> Jeff Broadwick
> CTIconnect
> 312-205-2519 Office
> 574-220-7826 Cell
> jbroadw...@cticonnect.com
>
>> On Feb 24, 2020, at 12:44 PM, Avatar Davis
<acd...@mail.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone have experience with Cambium LTE? I am highly
dissatisfied with my current manufacturer and was wondering if anyone had
experience using/demoing their product line. Cambium products seem consistently
good in my experience.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
