I don't think it ever came up on this list... I had no idea about it either until a week or so ago.
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:14 PM Jason McKemie < j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote: > 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 < >> 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 >> <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 >
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
