It was brought to my attention over 6 months ago, but I decided it was in
everyone's best interest if I didn't spread it. Within the past month, it got
spread on the FB groups.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <af@af.afmug.com>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 9:28:51 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE
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:
<blockquote>
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:
<blockquote>
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:
<blockquote>
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> On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 7:06 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <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:
<blockquote>
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:
<blockquote>
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:
<blockquote>
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
</blockquote>
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
</blockquote>
--
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
