Hold on. 30dBm is well within legal power for CBRS. Also a station connected getting 5 megabits is not dragging the entire sector down to 5 megabits. That’s not how LTE works.
> On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Attenuation in 3.5ghz is on average 15db per 100meters of foliage. I got > that number from a Telrad engineer, and it seemed to hold up experimentally. > Whether it's Wimax, LTE, etc, there's no reason that would be different. > > LTE can connect with almost nothing for a signal. So a person testing with a > single base station and a single UE might run around and say "wow I've got 5 > megs here and No LOS!", but I think they forget that the entire base > station's capacity is 5meg when it's talking to that single UE at 5mbps. > It's impressive that it worked, but is that actually useful as a fixed ISP? > > Another thing I noticed is that Telrad could turn the Tx Power all the way to > +30dbm, and people were actually doing it, and Telrad support seemed to be > encouraging them to do it. At a training session someone in Telrad support > told me, "Adam, if you're worried about the legal EIRP limit then you're the > only one worried about it." So if you're 8-10db stronger than the legally > operating product, and you can technically connect with a signal too weak for > the other product, that certainly makes people feel like there's better > penetration. > > There may also be some "magic" in how LTE allocates resource blocks and gets > feedback from the UE's (CQI) on which resource blocks are working best for > each unit, but I think that's a matter of getting the most value possible out > of a trashy signal. If you're a fixed operator building for capacity and > performance then you hopefully won't be installing with a trashy signal > anyway. > > My biggest issue of all is that all of the WISP priced LTE stuff is clunky > and buggy. Frankly, that was true of WiMax too. It seemed like Telrad's > bridging modes never quite worked right for example. You were better off > building an L2 tunnel on your own box behind the UE. > > -Adam > > > > On 9/14/2020 12:19 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >> Ever since I got bamboozled into deploying a WiMax basestation, I have been >> skeptical of tree penetration hype. >> >> We have been deploying Cambium 450 in 3.5 GHz / CBRS and it’s great, but it >> doesn’t “penetrate” trees. OK, an SM within a mile can go through 1 or 2 >> trees, depending on the size/density/type of tree. And with the usual >> caveat that trees near the customer are more problematic than trees in the >> middle of the path. >> >> Some people say otherwise, but there were all sorts of glowing testimonials >> for the WiMax equipment as well. >> >> Maybe LTE has magic properties. I doubt it, but I haven’t tried it, I don’t >> want to repeat the WiMax fiasco. So I could be wrong. But when I’m wrong, >> usually it’s because I wasn’t pessimistic enough and things are even worse >> than I feared. Only on rare occasions do I expect a lion behind the door >> and there’s a beautiful lady. Usually there’s 2 lions. >> >> Certainly turning on CBRS made all our 3.5 GHz Cambium stuff work better, we >> got several dB higher xmt power, and usually cleaner spectrum. But the >> cleaner spectrum thing is only true until other operators fire up their >> stuff in 3550-3650. Even if you get a PAL, it’s not like nobody can use >> that frequency in the whole county. The interference at the edge of your >> PAL protection zone should be below some level that the SAS uses when >> authorizing nearby operators to transmit. But that level isn’t -99 dBm. >> >> LTE gear may be designed with better receiver sensitivity, that will help if >> the noise floor is really really low. On the other hand, does most LTE gear >> use the highest allowed EIRP? What about the CPE? That was another problem >> with the WiMax stuff, the CPE was 3rd party stuff that typically had kind of >> wimpy xmt power and not particularly high antenna gain. Maybe that’s not >> true of LTE gear, I haven’t looked into it. But pull out a Cambium 3 GHz >> 450b high-gain SM spec sheet and compare to the LTE CPE. >> >> From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Trey Scarborough >> Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 4:43 PM >> To: af@af.afmug.com >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors >> >> Has anyone done a comparison or know of a whitepaper between LTE and >> Cambium? I am mainly looking at tree penetration or lower DB signals to >> actual throughput comparison. I have been told that LTE gets a little better >> tree penetration but if that is at a low rate that really doesn't help any. >> >> On 9/12/2020 10:03 AM, Darin Steffl wrote: >> It comes down to complexity. Ericsson, Nokia, etc are all cellular brands >> and to run and manage those complex LTE networks, you need full time >> engineers to manage, debug, and optimize things. >> >> Cambium is so easy, in comparison, there's very little extra learning to do >> in order to get it running great. Ericsson LTE probably would require months >> of training and needing to hire someone just to run the gear or hire >> expensive consultants to do it for you. >> >> On Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 9:49 AM Kurt Fankhauser <lists.wavel...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> 450m is the only way to do, especially if your already using the 450 >> platform in other parts of your network, there is an operator in my area >> with the Ericson system and they had a ton of issues with getting it up and >> running, not even sure if they ever got it all resolved. >> >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:00 PM Sean Heskett <af...@zirkel.us> wrote: >> Yup what josh said lol. >> >> We tried the LTE thing and glad we switch to 450m...much easier. >> >> -Sean >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 4:43 PM Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> >> wrote: >> Having done one LTE vendor and 450m the only mistake I made was not buying >> the 450m sooner. >> >> >> Josh Luthman >> 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:54 PM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And yeah, 450m might be expensive, but so is all the LTE stuff. >> >> You'll max out the legal EIRP with 450m, and get 8x8 MIMO. I think >> >> part of the magic with LTE is that it will connect with ridiculously >> >> low signal, but on a fixed system you probably won't really want the >> >> trashy signals anyway. >> >> >> Cambium also has LTE for whatever it's worth. The CBRS version >> >> is supposed to be available relatively soon (though I forget >> >> precisely when). >> >> >> >> I don't know if I state it as "fewer issues since there is no >> >> EPC", but definitely fewer complexities and fewer things to worry >> >> about. The connection from eNB to EPC has to be pristine, >> >> and the EPC comes with its own set of new terminology and new >> >> concepts to figure out. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 9/11/2020 4:06 PM, Darin Steffl >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I have seen lots to people doing 450M in CBRS >> >> stating coverage is nearly the same as LTE but way better speeds >> >> and triple the aggregate capacity due to mu-mimo. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Way fewer issues too since there is no EPC. Just >> >> straight layer 2 with no bullshit. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 2:39 PM >> >> David Coudron <david.coud...@advantenon.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> We are looking at a new area to >> >> expand out network that has a lot more tree cover than >> >> our current footprint. We are thinking with the >> >> combination of CBRS and LTE, that we might be able to >> >> offer better coverage than with traditional fixed >> >> wireless options. We have started conversations with >> >> the following vendors, wondering if anyone has any hands >> >> on experience with any of them and what their >> >> impressions were: >> >> >> Blinq >> >> >> Airspan >> >> >> Baicells >> >> >> Ericsson >> >> >> >> >> >> The Ericsson equipment is in a class >> >> by itself price wise, but the others are similarly >> >> priced, and somewhere around double the price of PMP 450 >> >> stuff. Normally we would add more tower sites for >> >> better coverage, but this project will need to be done >> >> before the end of the year and building towers isn’t an >> >> option. We have good enough spread on the towers that >> >> we think we can do this with PMP 450 APs, but are >> >> thinking we’d get even better coverage out of LTE. Any >> >> opinions on the reliability and the manageability of the >> >> four vendors above? Sorry for such an open ended >> >> question, but not sure what to ask to be more >> >> specific. We know that we will have the LTE stuff to >> >> deal with like access to an EPC and so on, so not so >> >> much worried about that as more the manufacturers >> >> themselves. Baicells concerns us as they may get >> >> lumped in with Huawei. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> >> >> David Coudron >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> -- >> >> Trey Scarborough >> VP Engineering >> 3DS Communications LLC >> p:9729741539 >> >> > -- > 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
