Holy crap, I must be way out of the loop, but I never saw anything on this list about "bleary's" situation. I just googled it, that is nuts.
On Thursday, February 27, 2020, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've been told the attenuation from foliage in 3.5ghz is going to be about > 15db per 100m. Obviously that really depends on what *specifically* is > in the way, but I think that figure lines up with my observations in the > field. It means you can get through trees at a steep angle to a high > tower, or you can penetrate a wind break or the trees lining a suburban > street. You're not literally going to get through a forest whether it's > LTE or Wimax or anything else. > > I believe LTE does have some "magic" to it. The channel space is divided > into small subcarriers and the time slots are divided into (I think) 125us > chunks. The intersection of one time slice and one subcarrier is a > resource block. The UE/CPE sends back Channel Quality Indicators (CQI) > telling the eNB/Base Station the quality of the resource blocks it's > receiving. Then the Base Station can consider who's able to receive a > resource block before allocating them and thereby not waste airtime on > resource blocks you won't get and then consequently it can waste less > airtime on retransmits. You'll see this as better jitter and packet loss > compared to another product in the same location. > > When you have trees in the way you'll get attenuation no matter which > product you use, but LTE seems to give you a more consistent outcome with > nLOS than other stuff does. It's an *incremental* improvement over Wimax > in that regard, and the top end of performance is a lot higher than Wimax > so a UE with good signal could actually impress you. > > That LTE "magic" is definitely a part of the puzzle, along with the power, > noise, etc that you mention. To reiterate, it's an *incremental *improvement > over Wimax. If Wimax didn't work at a site, LTE won't either. We had a > some places where Wimax was on the bleeding edge (like -85 to -90 RSSI) and > LTE didn't work at all, so we actually lost a handful of customers in the > transition from Wimax. This was worth it in the long run because at sites > where Wimax had a good signal, LTE was better....and frankly you didn't > want those CPE with garbage signals anyway. > > If you believed all the hype from a guy who's name rhymed with "bleary" > then you were probably disappointed with LTE, but if you go in > understanding what you'll get then I think you'll find it's a useful tool > to have. > > As an aside, I'm glad to see Ericsson and Cambium getting into this space > and I'm hoping the competition will raise the bar for quality. Frankly, > quality has been the biggest problem with the existing players in LTE for > WISPs. > > -Adam > > > On 2/27/2020 12:03 PM, Ken Hohhof 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> <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> <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 <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf > Of *Ken Hohhof > *Sent:* Monday, February 24, 2020 7:06 PM > *To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <af@af.afmug.com> > <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 <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 <dwilliamson@ > 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 > <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cb86add20912747adc42b08d7b98f079e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637181896280372524&sdata=sDEJMwg%2FrUeE9YW6GqIDR1XzERRWkE%2F6XePPnWoPmRg%3D&reserved=0> > > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cb86add20912747adc42b08d7b98f079e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637181896280382518&sdata=pP5xMGSatWmczFjAPjC1wEXnNEcBOceklsDEIeHxs6c%3D&reserved=0> > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cb86add20912747adc42b08d7b98f079e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637181896280382518&sdata=pP5xMGSatWmczFjAPjC1wEXnNEcBOceklsDEIeHxs6c%3D&reserved=0> > > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cb86add20912747adc42b08d7b98f079e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637181896280392515&sdata=%2BbZTwYPdzPsYWDRGoWDCC16Kx5oRKh7VKuFLS8xZ%2Bek%3D&reserved=0> > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cb86add20912747adc42b08d7b98f079e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637181896280392515&sdata=%2BbZTwYPdzPsYWDRGoWDCC16Kx5oRKh7VKuFLS8xZ%2Bek%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > > -- > 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
