Cambium is specifically selling the 450 product right now for CBRS to use in non los situations.
> On Nov 8, 2020, at 2:41 PM, Matt Hoppes <mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> > wrote: > > > The lowest we will install a 450 CBRS is -70, same as LTE - no lower than > -100. Otherwise you’re asking for issues. > > The other benefit for 450 is higher uplink power. LTE is limited to 23dB. > Cambium 450 goes much higher. > > Finally, we have - as others pointed out - have had issues with trees close > in to the customer with LTE. We have not observed that issue with the 450. > >>> On Nov 8, 2020, at 2:34 PM, Jeremy Grip <g...@nbnworks.net> wrote: >>> >> >> Of course you can’t get your hands on the 450s now until sometime in 2021. >> >> From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes >> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 2:07 PM >> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors >> >> It’s not he ability to hold modulation through multipath changes. UBNT >> doesn’t have this. >> >> LTE does this but at the expense of lower modulations. Think 80 down and 6 >> up max for the sector. >> >> 450 is blowing that out of the water. 150 down and 60 up on the sector. >> Completely obscured. >> >> We have customers installed to 450i 3ghz through forests. Rocking 80 meg >> down. >> >> We won’t deploy another tower without it. >> >> >> On Nov 8, 2020, at 2:01 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: >> >> >> I would not recommend Cambium 450 / CBRS if your main goal is foliage >> penetration in a densely forested town. It won’t magically penetrate dense >> foliage, and you may even have problems with a strong signal through just 1 >> or 2 trees when the branches blow in the wind. >> >> I am skeptical of the LTE claims but have no first hand knowledge. >> >> From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes >> Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:44 AM >> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors >> >> -100 would be full modulation on LTE. That being said please consider >> Cambium 450 - you’ll save yourself a ton of headache in the short and long >> run and have a better experience. >> >> >> >> On Nov 8, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Grip <g...@nbnworks.net> wrote: >> >> >> Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE >> for my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage >> penetration. >> >> What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in >> CBRS 3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a >> rough equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a >> -100dBm signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe >> he’s being a little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE? >> >> And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various >> platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or >> Airspan stuff? >> >> From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Adam Moffett >> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM >> To: af@af.afmug.com >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors >> >> For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal. >> When I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still >> a hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license >> with the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit. >> >> And yeah that's how ALL wireless works. At the moment in time when the AP >> is talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps. At >> the moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the >> capacity is 300Mbps. The average capacity over time is going to be a >> function of how much time is spent talking to each station at each rate. If >> you literally had one at 1Mbps and one at 300Mbps and both were allocated >> equal airtime then your capacity would be 150.5Mbps. It's true that a 5Mbps >> UE won't make the capacity of the eNB 5Mbps, but it is true that while the >> channel is being used to talk to that UE, the channel is only running at >> 5Mbps. My point was, if someone is testing with a single UE and happy that >> they're getting 5Mbps, then they're forgetting that they won't actually get >> 5Mbps when there are other UE operating at the same time, and that the weak >> connections they install are weakening efficiency of the whole sector. I >> know you know this, I think you're just misinterpreting what I said. >> >> >> >> On 9/14/2020 8:39 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote: >> 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 >> -- >> 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
