Wow. Great write up. Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 9, 2020, at 5:23 PM, David Coudron <david.coud...@advantenon.com> > wrote: > > > Sorry for the very slow reply. We have been putting up towers like crazy > trying to stay ahead of the weather. Here are some things we have found > that in our opinion, moved us toward a Blinq/LTE decision: > What has been said in this thread about the complexity of LTE is absolutely > true. EPCs, Software maintenance agreements, complex tower designs, and > expensive equipment, are all the norm with LTE. Very frustrating. What > we found with Blinq is a relief in some of these frustration points: > An option for an embedded EPC. Still a little more setup than 5 GHz type > systems, but not really any more difficult than cnMaestro setup for CBRS for > a new workstation. > More reasonable software maintenance options > Simple network design. 180 degree Access Points, self contained, no EPC or > other controllers, very simple. Just run power and fiber to each Access > Point, just like any other Cambium access point. > Reasonably priced. The Access Points are about the same as PMP 450m, but > cover 180 degrees. > Our problem was not capacity or throughput, it was coverage with lots of > trees. Therefore, a solution that had less overall capacity, but better > coverage was a better fit for us. After talking with other WISPs that had > run both 450m and Blinq, we think this fits that requirement. > We have a number of 450i access points in place. We understand that 450i > and 450 are not the same due to a few factors, not the least of which is max > EIRP, however, we can run max EIRP on the Blinqs and we were getting non-LOS > coverage in our tests we wouldn’t even attempt with the 450i’s. I know that > folks will say that 450m will do lots better than 450i, but from talking to > folks who have run both 450m and Blinq, the LTE technology handles trees > better than 450m at the same EIRP. I am not trying to start a war on this > topic, but that is what we learned. > > For folks who need lots of capacity on each tower, the solution we went with > may not be the right path, and the 450m might be a far better choice. > However, we have a pretty significant tree problem and felt we had to do > everything we could to get the best non-LOS we could. > > A couple of other notes. As others have said, cnHeat is awesome. We > modeled our towers using their non-LOS settings and tested out the Blinq > radios in partial LOS and complete non-LOS and compared against the results > cnHeat said we should get. It is very accurate. > > As others have said the PMP 450m equipment is pretty hard to get, and we had > to know we could get the equipment for all towers by the middle of Nov. We > wouldn’t have been able to do that with 450m and wouldn’t have been able to > do this project. > > I would love to see the Cambium CBRS LTE solution, but we just couldn’t wait > for it. This project has to be done by the end of the year. > > We’ll know a heck of a lot more in two months when we get several customers > on each tower. Right now it is a lot of test results, but not enough real > world. We went through this process pretty fast, so take our decisions > with a grain of salt… 😊 > > Regards, > > David Coudron > > From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of David Coudron > Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 12:50 PM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors > > I will provide more detail when back in front of a computer but we tested a > few different things. We ended up doing Blinq Networks for a few reasons. > The nonLOS was pretty impressive. More to come.... > > Get Outlook for iOS > From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> on behalf of Jeremy Grip > <g...@nbnworks.net> > Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:37:30 AM > To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <af@af.afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors > > 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
