Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

[Mark Radabaugh]

> On Feb 25, 2020, at 5:20 PM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
> 
> 

> I would assume that if a CBRS operator puts up gear that you're interfering 
> with, it's going to be handled pretty much the same way it was under the old 
> rules (in other words, work it out with eachother, or shut up and live with 
> it)... there's a reason that they made 3650-3700 GAA only.
> 

I would expect the FCC to make an example of a couple of operators who continue 
to operate 90z equipment illegally after the license expires.   We all have too 
much to lose here if the operators are not running legally and the mobile 
industry starts another attempt to push everyone out that isn’t a mobile 
carrier.

Mark


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

[Mike Hammett]

"by the time most of us realized" That's why people need to pay attention to 
WISPA e-mails. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Steve Jones"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 4:05:22 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry 


people are confusing grandfathered with expiry. The grandfather thing was a 
deal you had to do to get the grandfather CBRS status. by the time most of us 
realized, the deadline had passed. the expiration is just that, when your 
license expires, it does NOT give you grandfather status in regard to CBRS. it 
just allows you not to cease operations in april. 
Nobody has been very clear on what that means if a CBRS operator puts up gear, 
I would assume it gives them the right to petition FCC to do cease and desist 
on you. 


On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 2:05 PM Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 




grandfathered status is pretty much irrelevant at this point anyway... if I 
understand right, it goes away after April regardless of when your license 
expires, and since CBRS is really just starting to get deployed now, it's 
probably not going to make much difference to most people. 



But yeah, the consensus seems to be that we can keep operating under part 90 
until our licenses expire. 



On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 12:11 PM Eric Nielsen < ericlniel...@gmail.com > wrote: 




Did you register for grandfathered status before the deadline? 



On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 12:51 PM Chris Fabien < ch...@lakenetmi.com > wrote: 



We have a little bit of old WiMax gear, PMP320 and Telrad. At some point my 
understanding was we could operate this until the expiry of our 10 year 
license. Has that changed now? We are not planning to deploy anything under 
CBRS just will let these few customers stay on until we have to shut it down. 
Thanks 

Chris 

-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 


-- 

Eric Nielsen 
571-508-7409 
ericlniel...@gmail.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

Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE

[Mike Hammett]

Is the CBRS power that much higher where a 450 at CBRS power makes up for the 
lack of nLOS capability as compared to LTE on NN? 


Obviously LTE at CBRS power would be that much better, but maybe it's a good 
fit where people need just a little more nLOS capability than 450 provides and 
the extra power gets that for them. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Matt Mangriotis via AF"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Cc: "Matt Mangriotis"  
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 3:59:25 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE 



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  On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof 
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 7:06 PM 
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'  
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 ] 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 

Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

[Mike Hammett]

That is an insane value proposition over the AF24HD. 


Which specific radio, the 10G single band 4800? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Darin Steffl"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 9:29:10 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex 


The best deal right now is Aviat 10Gbps full duplex for about $5k with dishes 
and everything. 


On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:24 PM Sean Heskett < af...@zirkel.us > wrote: 




Good choice Lewis! 


We have a dozen of them and they are rock solid and fast! Been really amazed 
during rain events (heavy mountain downpours) that they keep on keepin on!! 


-Sean 





On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Lewis Bergman < lewis.berg...@gmail.com > 
wrote: 



Thanks everyone. I think we'll give the 80G Siklu a shot. 


On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 




At that distance, rain fade shouldn't be a problem with 60ghz, so it really 
comes down to hardware reliability, and budget, and specific requirements. 



If the project isn't cost sensitive, and you want the best you can get, then 
just go with 80ghz... there basically is no cheap junk for that band, so just 
pick your favorite vendor and buy what they have. 

If you do want to go cheap, then there are a few things to consider. Ignitenet 
an Ubiquiti (although I don't think their radios are actually shipping yet), 
have an extra channel at the top end of the band that can get a bit better 
range, which the Mikrotiks can't (legally) use... but that's not really going 
to make a lot of difference at that distance anyway. Ignitenet is the only one 
with an SFP port, if that matters, and they also have a radio that's capable of 
2.5gbps, instead of only 1gpbs... they're also the most expensive of the cheap 
options. Mikrotik uses a beam forming antenna, so they're about 10x easier 
to aim then the Ignitenets (I believe Ubiquiti does as well, but I haven't used 
their radios yet). 



None of the cheap 60ghz radios are true full duplex radios, but I think they're 
all capable of delivering a full gig in each direction at the same time. 


If you don't want cheap, but don't want to deal with 80ghz licensing (which is 
pretty cheap and simple, but it is another thing that has to be done), then 
Siklu 60ghz would probably be a good option. Or you could just stick with 
AF24HD, which will certainly do the job, but considering what they cost, it 
makes more sense to me to just go with 80ghz at that distance. You could also 
go with Mimosa B24 for 24ghz, but they're half duplex radios, and I don't think 
that they can handle a full 2gbps aggregate. 





On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:09 AM dave < dmilho...@wletc.com > wrote: 



I guess it depends on the 9s you want. 
Cheaper is not always better for consistency. 





On 2/24/20 8:36 AM, Josh Baird wrote: 



No way I would consider AF24HD for this. You can get 80ghz links for less that 
do MUCH more throughput (10Gbps). 


Vendors in this space include Bridgewave, Siklu and Aviat. Aviat probably gives 
you the best bang for your buck. Cambium has a new mmWave product, but I don't 
know anything about it. 



Josh 


On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 9:31 AM dave < dmilho...@wletc.com > wrote: 



Not sure which product mentioned but the PTP550 unlicensed will take all of 
your 5g spectrum and 
there is the ptp850E 




On 2/24/20 8:27 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote: 



What are the current recommendations for something like this. I see Cambium has 
something that looks like it will work but their product selector returns no 
matches . 


Ubiquiti has the 24HD. 


Anything else I should be aware of? 
-- 


Lewis Bergman 



-- 
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 





-- 


Lewis Bergman 
325-439-0533 Cell -- 
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

Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

[Josh Baird]

Yes - this is the WTM4800.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:53 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> That is an insane value proposition over the AF24HD.
>
> Which specific radio, the 10G single band 4800?
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Darin Steffl" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, February 25, 2020 9:29:10 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex
>
> The best deal right now is Aviat 10Gbps full duplex for about $5k with
> dishes and everything.
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:24 PM Sean Heskett  wrote:
>
>> Good choice Lewis!
>>
>> We have a dozen of them and they are rock solid and fast!  Been really
>> amazed during rain events (heavy mountain downpours) that they keep on
>> keepin on!!
>>
>> -Sean
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Lewis Bergman 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks everyone. I think we'll give the 80G Siklu a shot.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mathew Howard 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 At that distance, rain fade shouldn't be a problem with 60ghz, so it
 really comes down to hardware reliability, and budget, and specific
 requirements.

 If the project isn't cost sensitive, and you want the best you can get,
 then just go with 80ghz... there basically is no cheap junk for that band,
 so just pick your favorite vendor and buy what they have.
 If you do want to go cheap, then there are a few things to consider.
 Ignitenet an Ubiquiti (although I don't think their radios are actually
 shipping yet), have an extra channel at the top end of the band that can
 get a bit better range, which the Mikrotiks can't (legally) use... but
 that's not really going to make a lot of difference at that distance
 anyway. Ignitenet is the only one with an SFP port, if that matters, and
 they also have a radio that's capable of 2.5gbps, instead of only 1gpbs...
 they're also the most expensive of the cheap options. Mikrotik uses a beam
 forming antenna, so they're about 10x easier to aim then the Ignitenets
 (I believe Ubiquiti does as well, but I haven't used their radios yet).

 None of the cheap 60ghz radios are true full duplex radios, but I think
 they're all capable of delivering a full gig in each direction at the same
 time.

 If you don't want cheap, but don't want to deal with 80ghz licensing
 (which is pretty cheap and simple, but it is another thing that has to be
 done), then Siklu 60ghz would probably be a good option. Or you could just
 stick with AF24HD, which will certainly do the job, but considering what
 they cost, it makes more sense to me to just go with 80ghz at that
 distance. You could also go with Mimosa B24 for 24ghz, but they're half
 duplex radios, and I don't think that they can handle a full 2gbps
 aggregate.


 On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:09 AM dave  wrote:

> I guess it depends on the 9s you want.
> Cheaper is not always better for consistency.
>
>
>
> On 2/24/20 8:36 AM, Josh Baird wrote:
>
> No way I would consider AF24HD for this.  You can get 80ghz links for
> less that do MUCH more throughput (10Gbps).
>
> Vendors in this space include Bridgewave, Siklu and Aviat.  Aviat
> probably gives you the best bang for your buck.  Cambium has a new mmWave
> product, but I don't know anything about it.
>
> Josh
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 9:31 AM dave  wrote:
>
>> Not sure which product mentioned but the PTP550 unlicensed will take
>> all of your 5g spectrum and
>> there is the ptp850E
>>
>>
>> On 2/24/20 8:27 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
>>
>> What are the current recommendations for something like this. I see
>> Cambium has something that looks like it will work but their product
>> selector returns no matches .
>>
>> Ubiquiti has the 24HD.
>>
>> Anything else I should be aware of?
>> --
>> Lewis Bergman
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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/

Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

[Darin Steffl]

Yes the 4800 model.

Contact Ken Ruppel over there for more details and he'll get everyone setup
with that pricing. I bought a siklu 8010 with the wispa pricing at the end
if 2019 for $6100 which was the best deal at that time. But the aviat
pricing at $5k is the best I've seen for true carrier grade radios today.

When we need more of these links, we'll probably lean towards aviat for
that pricing. That is unless siklu decides to price match as I prefer to
choose one vendor and stick with them if possible to keep thing simple and
make it easy to spare if necessary.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 8:05 AM Josh Baird  wrote:

> Yes - this is the WTM4800.
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:53 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> That is an insane value proposition over the AF24HD.
>>
>> Which specific radio, the 10G single band 4800?
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Darin Steffl" 
>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, February 25, 2020 9:29:10 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex
>>
>> The best deal right now is Aviat 10Gbps full duplex for about $5k with
>> dishes and everything.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:24 PM Sean Heskett  wrote:
>>
>>> Good choice Lewis!
>>>
>>> We have a dozen of them and they are rock solid and fast!  Been really
>>> amazed during rain events (heavy mountain downpours) that they keep on
>>> keepin on!!
>>>
>>> -Sean
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Lewis Bergman 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Thanks everyone. I think we'll give the 80G Siklu a shot.

 On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mathew Howard 
 wrote:

> At that distance, rain fade shouldn't be a problem with 60ghz, so it
> really comes down to hardware reliability, and budget, and specific
> requirements.
>
> If the project isn't cost sensitive, and you want the best you can
> get, then just go with 80ghz... there basically is no cheap junk for that
> band, so just pick your favorite vendor and buy what they have.
> If you do want to go cheap, then there are a few things to consider.
> Ignitenet an Ubiquiti (although I don't think their radios are actually
> shipping yet), have an extra channel at the top end of the band that can
> get a bit better range, which the Mikrotiks can't (legally) use... but
> that's not really going to make a lot of difference at that distance
> anyway. Ignitenet is the only one with an SFP port, if that matters, and
> they also have a radio that's capable of 2.5gbps, instead of only 1gpbs...
> they're also the most expensive of the cheap options. Mikrotik uses a beam
> forming antenna, so they're about 10x easier to aim then the 
> Ignitenets
> (I believe Ubiquiti does as well, but I haven't used their radios yet).
>
> None of the cheap 60ghz radios are true full duplex radios, but I
> think they're all capable of delivering a full gig in each direction at 
> the
> same time.
>
> If you don't want cheap, but don't want to deal with 80ghz licensing
> (which is pretty cheap and simple, but it is another thing that has to be
> done), then Siklu 60ghz would probably be a good option. Or you could just
> stick with AF24HD, which will certainly do the job, but considering what
> they cost, it makes more sense to me to just go with 80ghz at that
> distance. You could also go with Mimosa B24 for 24ghz, but they're half
> duplex radios, and I don't think that they can handle a full 2gbps
> aggregate.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:09 AM dave  wrote:
>
>> I guess it depends on the 9s you want.
>> Cheaper is not always better for consistency.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/24/20 8:36 AM, Josh Baird wrote:
>>
>> No way I would consider AF24HD for this.  You can get 80ghz links for
>> less that do MUCH more throughput (10Gbps).
>>
>> Vendors in this space include Bridgewave, Siklu and Aviat.  Aviat
>> probably gives you the best bang for your buck.  Cambium has a new mmWave
>> product, but I don't know anything about it.
>>
>> Josh
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 9:31 AM dave  wrote:
>>
>>> Not sure which product mentioned but the PTP550 unlicensed will take
>>> all of your 5g spectrum and
>

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

[Mathew Howard]

Yeah, I agree, they probably will make an example out of a few operators.
But I don't see any reason why they'd bother with somebody who still has a
valid license. They'll probably go after some guys that are blatantly
running some old Ubiquiti or WiMax gear after their license expires.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:56 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

>
> > On Feb 25, 2020, at 5:20 PM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
> >
> > 
>
> > I would assume that if a CBRS operator puts up gear that you're
> interfering with, it's going to be handled pretty much the same way it was
> under the old rules (in other words, work it out with eachother, or shut up
> and live with it)... there's a reason that they made 3650-3700 GAA only.
> >
>
> I would expect the FCC to make an example of a couple of operators who
> continue to operate 90z equipment illegally after the license expires.   We
> all have too much to lose here if the operators are not running legally and
> the mobile industry starts another attempt to push everyone out that isn’t
> a mobile carrier.
>
> Mark
>
>
> --
> 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

Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

[Mathew Howard]

Is there some kind of special pricing or something? I logged into my Aviat
account, and it's looking more like $7k for a link to me.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:05 AM Josh Baird  wrote:

> Yes - this is the WTM4800.
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:53 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> That is an insane value proposition over the AF24HD.
>>
>> Which specific radio, the 10G single band 4800?
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Darin Steffl" 
>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, February 25, 2020 9:29:10 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex
>>
>> The best deal right now is Aviat 10Gbps full duplex for about $5k with
>> dishes and everything.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:24 PM Sean Heskett  wrote:
>>
>>> Good choice Lewis!
>>>
>>> We have a dozen of them and they are rock solid and fast!  Been really
>>> amazed during rain events (heavy mountain downpours) that they keep on
>>> keepin on!!
>>>
>>> -Sean
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Lewis Bergman 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Thanks everyone. I think we'll give the 80G Siklu a shot.

 On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mathew Howard 
 wrote:

> At that distance, rain fade shouldn't be a problem with 60ghz, so it
> really comes down to hardware reliability, and budget, and specific
> requirements.
>
> If the project isn't cost sensitive, and you want the best you can
> get, then just go with 80ghz... there basically is no cheap junk for that
> band, so just pick your favorite vendor and buy what they have.
> If you do want to go cheap, then there are a few things to consider.
> Ignitenet an Ubiquiti (although I don't think their radios are actually
> shipping yet), have an extra channel at the top end of the band that can
> get a bit better range, which the Mikrotiks can't (legally) use... but
> that's not really going to make a lot of difference at that distance
> anyway. Ignitenet is the only one with an SFP port, if that matters, and
> they also have a radio that's capable of 2.5gbps, instead of only 1gpbs...
> they're also the most expensive of the cheap options. Mikrotik uses a beam
> forming antenna, so they're about 10x easier to aim then the 
> Ignitenets
> (I believe Ubiquiti does as well, but I haven't used their radios yet).
>
> None of the cheap 60ghz radios are true full duplex radios, but I
> think they're all capable of delivering a full gig in each direction at 
> the
> same time.
>
> If you don't want cheap, but don't want to deal with 80ghz licensing
> (which is pretty cheap and simple, but it is another thing that has to be
> done), then Siklu 60ghz would probably be a good option. Or you could just
> stick with AF24HD, which will certainly do the job, but considering what
> they cost, it makes more sense to me to just go with 80ghz at that
> distance. You could also go with Mimosa B24 for 24ghz, but they're half
> duplex radios, and I don't think that they can handle a full 2gbps
> aggregate.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:09 AM dave  wrote:
>
>> I guess it depends on the 9s you want.
>> Cheaper is not always better for consistency.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/24/20 8:36 AM, Josh Baird wrote:
>>
>> No way I would consider AF24HD for this.  You can get 80ghz links for
>> less that do MUCH more throughput (10Gbps).
>>
>> Vendors in this space include Bridgewave, Siklu and Aviat.  Aviat
>> probably gives you the best bang for your buck.  Cambium has a new mmWave
>> product, but I don't know anything about it.
>>
>> Josh
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 9:31 AM dave  wrote:
>>
>>> Not sure which product mentioned but the PTP550 unlicensed will take
>>> all of your 5g spectrum and
>>> there is the ptp850E
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/24/20 8:27 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
>>>
>>> What are the current recommendations for something like this. I see
>>> Cambium has something that looks like it will work but their product
>>> selector returns no matches .
>>>
>>> Ubiquiti has the 24HD.
>>>
>>> Anything else I should be aware of?
>>> --
>>> Lewis Bergman
>>>
>>>
>>> --

Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

[Josh Baird]

It may be WISPA member pricing.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:02 AM Mathew Howard  wrote:

> Is there some kind of special pricing or something? I logged into my Aviat
> account, and it's looking more like $7k for a link to me.
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:05 AM Josh Baird  wrote:
>
>> Yes - this is the WTM4800.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:53 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>
>>> That is an insane value proposition over the AF24HD.
>>>
>>> Which specific radio, the 10G single band 4800?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Darin Steffl" 
>>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, February 25, 2020 9:29:10 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex
>>>
>>> The best deal right now is Aviat 10Gbps full duplex for about $5k with
>>> dishes and everything.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:24 PM Sean Heskett  wrote:
>>>
 Good choice Lewis!

 We have a dozen of them and they are rock solid and fast!  Been really
 amazed during rain events (heavy mountain downpours) that they keep on
 keepin on!!

 -Sean


 On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Lewis Bergman 
 wrote:

> Thanks everyone. I think we'll give the 80G Siklu a shot.
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
>> At that distance, rain fade shouldn't be a problem with 60ghz, so it
>> really comes down to hardware reliability, and budget, and specific
>> requirements.
>>
>> If the project isn't cost sensitive, and you want the best you can
>> get, then just go with 80ghz... there basically is no cheap junk for that
>> band, so just pick your favorite vendor and buy what they have.
>> If you do want to go cheap, then there are a few things to consider.
>> Ignitenet an Ubiquiti (although I don't think their radios are actually
>> shipping yet), have an extra channel at the top end of the band that can
>> get a bit better range, which the Mikrotiks can't (legally) use... but
>> that's not really going to make a lot of difference at that distance
>> anyway. Ignitenet is the only one with an SFP port, if that matters, and
>> they also have a radio that's capable of 2.5gbps, instead of only 
>> 1gpbs...
>> they're also the most expensive of the cheap options. Mikrotik uses a 
>> beam
>> forming antenna, so they're about 10x easier to aim then the 
>> Ignitenets
>> (I believe Ubiquiti does as well, but I haven't used their radios yet).
>>
>> None of the cheap 60ghz radios are true full duplex radios, but I
>> think they're all capable of delivering a full gig in each direction at 
>> the
>> same time.
>>
>> If you don't want cheap, but don't want to deal with 80ghz licensing
>> (which is pretty cheap and simple, but it is another thing that has to be
>> done), then Siklu 60ghz would probably be a good option. Or you could 
>> just
>> stick with AF24HD, which will certainly do the job, but considering what
>> they cost, it makes more sense to me to just go with 80ghz at that
>> distance. You could also go with Mimosa B24 for 24ghz, but they're half
>> duplex radios, and I don't think that they can handle a full 2gbps
>> aggregate.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:09 AM dave  wrote:
>>
>>> I guess it depends on the 9s you want.
>>> Cheaper is not always better for consistency.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/24/20 8:36 AM, Josh Baird wrote:
>>>
>>> No way I would consider AF24HD for this.  You can get 80ghz links
>>> for less that do MUCH more throughput (10Gbps).
>>>
>>> Vendors in this space include Bridgewave, Siklu and Aviat.  Aviat
>>> probably gives you the best bang for your buck.  Cambium has a new 
>>> mmWave
>>> product, but I don't know anything about it.
>>>
>>> Josh
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 9:31 AM dave  wrote:
>>>
 Not sure which product mentioned but the PTP550 unlicensed will
 take all of your 5g spectrum and
 there is the ptp850E


 On 2/24/20 8:27 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:

 What are the current recommendations for something like this. I see
 Cambium ha

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Corona-fu (was UBNT stock)

[castarritt .]

My respirator is rated to stop 95% of one petahertz.


On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:32 PM Matt Hoppes <
mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:

> Make sure you change your RF Filters.
>
> On Feb 25, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
> if corona virus hits the internet, it wont be able to survive the filth
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 1:18 PM Colin Stanners 
> wrote:
>
>> If the coronavirus somehow becomes able to spread via the internet,
>> humanity is done for.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:19 AM Robert  wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, the cruise ship resulted in them changing it to aerosolized in
>>> propagation...
>>>
>>> On 2/25/20 8:02 AM, Bill Prince wrote:
>>>
>>> Recirculating air would not be a vector, as it's been established this
>>> virus is not airborne, except by physical droplets. It's all about what/who
>>> you touch or get over-spray from nearby coughs and sneezes.
>>>
>>>
>>> bp
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/24/2020 7:57 PM, Robert wrote:
>>>
>>> Very similar to an Commercial airliner with 80 percent recirculation...
>>>
>>> On 2/24/20 8:17 AM, Bill Prince wrote:
>>>
>>> A cruise ship is like a 5,000 seat petri dish.
>>>
>>> bp
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/23/2020 11:05 AM, Robert wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmmm, I don't think they used trench/squat toilets on the cruise ship,
>>> I'm pretty sure they don't use them in S. Korea and a severe case
>>> percentage of 20% and confirmed death rate _by WHO_ of 2% vs .1 percent for
>>> flu is apples and oranges.   But you keep telling yourself what makes you
>>> feel safe.   Keep drinking the koolaid while the long storage food supplies
>>> are bought up.( check on Amazon what's still available vs. sold out
>>> ).   Let's see what the numbers are in S. Korea NEXT Sunday. and see what
>>> modern medicine can do.
>>>
>>> On 2/23/20 10:19 AM, Bill Prince wrote:
>>>
>>> [TINHATOFF]
>>>
>>> It still after several weeks looks way overblown. It's beginning to look
>>> like the trench/squat toilets common in China (and not most other places)
>>> is the major disease vector.
>>>
>>> Total cases in the US is only 35 individuals, and ZERO deaths.
>>>
>>> Contrast this to the latest US-only flu data
>>> , with 29 million infections
>>> and 16,000 deaths. I think we are paying attention to the wrong things  (so
>>> what's new about that?).
>>>
>>> [/TINHATOFF]
>>>
>>> bp
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/23/2020 9:40 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>>
>>> Experts are starting to say it’s time to prepare for a pandemic, and
>>> that containment didn’t fail, containment was hopeless from the start.
>>> More communicable than SARS, more deadly than seasonal flu.  Still remains
>>> to be seen how it plays out in countries with better (and worse) healthcare
>>> systems than China, but it’s gonna spread worldwide.  Masks, thermometers
>>> and quarantine don’t seem to be magic bullets.  Buy lots of hand soap, and
>>> stay off cruise ships.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.vox.com/2020/2/23/21149327/coronavirus-pandemic-meaning-italy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* AF   *On
>>> Behalf Of *Colin Stanners
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 23, 2020 12:58 AM
>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>>> 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Corona-fu (was UBNT stock)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  It seems that America's enemies know that the best way to
>>> have America's economy crumble is to let the Trump rallies go on fully
>>> unimpeded. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A kill rate of 2% seems small as statistic, but that's still a few
>>> thousand currently dead, including many medical staff, who are being
>>> mourned by their friends and families. It's likely that the number of
>>> people killed by coronavirus will surpass that of the 9/11 attacks shortly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Most frightening is that with its virulence, if uncontrolled it could
>>> infect or have infected millions or much more, then suddenly that 2% dead
>>> becomes unimaginable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 11:55 PM Steve Jones 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> You dont think releasing something as hyped up as kungflu at a major
>>> public gathering, especially a trump rally wouldnt be a major terror
>>> success? CNN and MSNBC would be advertising for the terrorists 24/7. By the
>>> time they were done with it, it could have killed zero people, and everyone
>>> would still be hid out in their house listening to their propaganda. Our
>>> economy would crumble
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 9:14 PM Bill Prince  wrote:
>>>
>>> Not for me. So far it has mostly been meh.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> bp
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/22/2020 6:48 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> As a terror weapon it would be perfect
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 8:11 PM Bill Prince  wrote:
>>>
>>> Kill rate is far too low to be considered a bio-weapon. Kill rate needs
>>> to be over 30%.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> bp
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF

Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE

[Mathew Howard]

It's a 5-6db increase, if I remember correctly, so that could certainly be
enough to make the difference in a lot of cases.

Of course there's also the fact that half of the people running Baicells
radios with sectors are probably already running (illegally) at that power
level anyway...

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:50 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Is the CBRS power that much higher where a 450 at CBRS power makes up for
> the lack of nLOS capability as compared to LTE on NN?
>
> Obviously LTE at CBRS power would be that much better, but maybe it's a
> good fit where people need just a little more nLOS capability than 450
> provides and the extra power gets that for them.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Matt Mangriotis via AF" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Cc: *"Matt Mangriotis" 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, February 25, 2020 3:59:25 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re:  Cambium LTE
>
> 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  *On Behalf Of * Ken Hohhof
> *Sent:* Monday, February 24, 2020 7:06 PM
> *To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
> *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  *On Behalf Of *Jason McKemie
> *Sent:* Monday, February 24, 2020 6:03 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *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 
> 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  wrote:
>
> In my opinion, 450 is better than Ba

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

[Steve Jones]

I was told when I asked about examples being made that hopefully SAS will
sort things out on its own. If it goes outside of SAS being able to manage
an issue, such all illegal operators, particularly when more sensing
capability comes into play with SAS 2.0, you do not want to be the guy who
gets nailed. Apparently this iteration of the SAS modality is an entry run
for a much larger spectrum management, as is the cowboy days are over
moving forward

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:54 AM Mathew Howard  wrote:

> Yeah, I agree, they probably will make an example out of a few operators.
> But I don't see any reason why they'd bother with somebody who still has a
> valid license. They'll probably go after some guys that are blatantly
> running some old Ubiquiti or WiMax gear after their license expires.
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:56 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Feb 25, 2020, at 5:20 PM, Mathew Howard 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > 
>>
>> > I would assume that if a CBRS operator puts up gear that you're
>> interfering with, it's going to be handled pretty much the same way it was
>> under the old rules (in other words, work it out with eachother, or shut up
>> and live with it)... there's a reason that they made 3650-3700 GAA only.
>> >
>>
>> I would expect the FCC to make an example of a couple of operators who
>> continue to operate 90z equipment illegally after the license expires.   We
>> all have too much to lose here if the operators are not running legally and
>> the mobile industry starts another attempt to push everyone out that isn’t
>> a mobile carrier.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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

Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

[Darin Steffl]

Yes I ran into the same thing with the web store showing a higher cost.

Just reach out to Ken and he'll quote you the pricing I'm talking about.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 9:05 AM Josh Baird  wrote:

> It may be WISPA member pricing.
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:02 AM Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
>> Is there some kind of special pricing or something? I logged into my
>> Aviat account, and it's looking more like $7k for a link to me.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:05 AM Josh Baird  wrote:
>>
>>> Yes - this is the WTM4800.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:53 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>>
 That is an insane value proposition over the AF24HD.

 Which specific radio, the 10G single band 4800?



 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions 
 
 
 
 
 Midwest Internet Exchange 
 
 
 
 The Brothers WISP 
 


 
 --
 *From: *"Darin Steffl" 
 *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
 *Sent: *Tuesday, February 25, 2020 9:29:10 PM
 *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

 The best deal right now is Aviat 10Gbps full duplex for about $5k with
 dishes and everything.

 On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:24 PM Sean Heskett  wrote:

> Good choice Lewis!
>
> We have a dozen of them and they are rock solid and fast!  Been really
> amazed during rain events (heavy mountain downpours) that they keep on
> keepin on!!
>
> -Sean
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Lewis Bergman 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks everyone. I think we'll give the 80G Siklu a shot.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mathew Howard 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> At that distance, rain fade shouldn't be a problem with 60ghz, so it
>>> really comes down to hardware reliability, and budget, and specific
>>> requirements.
>>>
>>> If the project isn't cost sensitive, and you want the best you can
>>> get, then just go with 80ghz... there basically is no cheap junk for 
>>> that
>>> band, so just pick your favorite vendor and buy what they have.
>>> If you do want to go cheap, then there are a few things to consider.
>>> Ignitenet an Ubiquiti (although I don't think their radios are actually
>>> shipping yet), have an extra channel at the top end of the band that can
>>> get a bit better range, which the Mikrotiks can't (legally) use... but
>>> that's not really going to make a lot of difference at that distance
>>> anyway. Ignitenet is the only one with an SFP port, if that matters, and
>>> they also have a radio that's capable of 2.5gbps, instead of only 
>>> 1gpbs...
>>> they're also the most expensive of the cheap options. Mikrotik uses a 
>>> beam
>>> forming antenna, so they're about 10x easier to aim then the 
>>> Ignitenets
>>> (I believe Ubiquiti does as well, but I haven't used their radios yet).
>>>
>>> None of the cheap 60ghz radios are true full duplex radios, but I
>>> think they're all capable of delivering a full gig in each direction at 
>>> the
>>> same time.
>>>
>>> If you don't want cheap, but don't want to deal with 80ghz licensing
>>> (which is pretty cheap and simple, but it is another thing that has to 
>>> be
>>> done), then Siklu 60ghz would probably be a good option. Or you could 
>>> just
>>> stick with AF24HD, which will certainly do the job, but considering what
>>> they cost, it makes more sense to me to just go with 80ghz at that
>>> distance. You could also go with Mimosa B24 for 24ghz, but they're half
>>> duplex radios, and I don't think that they can handle a full 2gbps
>>> aggregate.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:09 AM dave  wrote:
>>>
 I guess it depends on the 9s you want.
 Cheaper is not always better for consistency.



 On 2/24/20 8:36 AM, Josh Baird wrote:

 No way I would consider AF24HD for this.  You can get 80ghz links
 for less that do MUCH more throughput (10Gbps).

 Vendors in this space include Bridgewave, Siklu and Aviat.  Aviat
 probably gives you the best bang for your buck.  Cambium has a new 
 mmWave
 product, but I don't know anything about it.

 Josh

 On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 9:31 AM 

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

[Mathew Howard]

Yeah, but tricky part is going to be stuff that's still operating legally
under an unexpired license that the SAS can't manage. I think it would be
wise to make sure everything is properly registered and you're not doing
anything questionable if you plan to keep operating under the old rules
much beyond April.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:17 AM Steve Jones 
wrote:

> I was told when I asked about examples being made that hopefully SAS will
> sort things out on its own. If it goes outside of SAS being able to manage
> an issue, such all illegal operators, particularly when more sensing
> capability comes into play with SAS 2.0, you do not want to be the guy who
> gets nailed. Apparently this iteration of the SAS modality is an entry run
> for a much larger spectrum management, as is the cowboy days are over
> moving forward
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:54 AM Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I agree, they probably will make an example out of a few operators.
>> But I don't see any reason why they'd bother with somebody who still has a
>> valid license. They'll probably go after some guys that are blatantly
>> running some old Ubiquiti or WiMax gear after their license expires.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:56 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > On Feb 25, 2020, at 5:20 PM, Mathew Howard 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 
>>>
>>> > I would assume that if a CBRS operator puts up gear that you're
>>> interfering with, it's going to be handled pretty much the same way it was
>>> under the old rules (in other words, work it out with eachother, or shut up
>>> and live with it)... there's a reason that they made 3650-3700 GAA only.
>>> >
>>>
>>> I would expect the FCC to make an example of a couple of operators who
>>> continue to operate 90z equipment illegally after the license expires.   We
>>> all have too much to lose here if the operators are not running legally and
>>> the mobile industry starts another attempt to push everyone out that isn’t
>>> a mobile carrier.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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

Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE

[Ken Hohhof]

I’m shocked, shocked …

 



 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:14 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE

 

It's a 5-6db increase, if I remember correctly, so that could certainly be 
enough to make the difference in a lot of cases.

 

Of course there's also the fact that half of the people running Baicells radios 
with sectors are probably already running (illegally) at that power level 
anyway...

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:50 AM Mike Hammett mailto:af...@ics-il.net> > wrote:

Is the CBRS power that much higher where a 450 at CBRS power makes up for the 
lack of nLOS capability as compared to LTE on NN?

 

Obviously LTE at CBRS power would be that much better, but maybe it's a good 
fit where people need just a little more nLOS capability than 450 provides and 
the extra power gets that for them.



-
Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
   
  
  
 
  Midwest Internet Exchange
   
  
 
  The Brothers WISP
   
 





  _  


From: "Matt Mangriotis via AF" mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Cc: "Matt Mangriotis" mailto:matt.mangrio...@cambiumnetworks.com> >
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 3:59:25 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re:  Cambium LTE

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 mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 7:06 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' mailto: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 mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 6:03 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE

 

So the 450M is supposed to be LTE upg

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

[Mark Radabaugh]

I would very much second that statement - make sure you are following all the 
rules for 90z going forward.

Mark

> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:25 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
> 
> Yeah, but tricky part is going to be stuff that's still operating legally 
> under an unexpired license that the SAS can't manage. I think it would be 
> wise to make sure everything is properly registered and you're not doing 
> anything questionable if you plan to keep operating under the old rules much 
> beyond April.
> 
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:17 AM Steve Jones  > wrote:
> I was told when I asked about examples being made that hopefully SAS will 
> sort things out on its own. If it goes outside of SAS being able to manage an 
> issue, such all illegal operators, particularly when more sensing capability 
> comes into play with SAS 2.0, you do not want to be the guy who gets nailed. 
> Apparently this iteration of the SAS modality is an entry run for a much 
> larger spectrum management, as is the cowboy days are over moving forward
> 
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:54 AM Mathew Howard  > wrote:
> Yeah, I agree, they probably will make an example out of a few operators. But 
> I don't see any reason why they'd bother with somebody who still has a valid 
> license. They'll probably go after some guys that are blatantly running some 
> old Ubiquiti or WiMax gear after their license expires.
> 
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:56 AM Mark Radabaugh  > wrote:
> 
> > On Feb 25, 2020, at 5:20 PM, Mathew Howard  > > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> 
> > I would assume that if a CBRS operator puts up gear that you're interfering 
> > with, it's going to be handled pretty much the same way it was under the 
> > old rules (in other words, work it out with eachother, or shut up and live 
> > with it)... there's a reason that they made 3650-3700 GAA only.
> > 
> 
> I would expect the FCC to make an example of a couple of operators who 
> continue to operate 90z equipment illegally after the license expires.   We 
> all have too much to lose here if the operators are not running legally and 
> the mobile industry starts another attempt to push everyone out that isn’t a 
> mobile carrier.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

[Tim Hardy]

For what it’s worth, I researched current FCC license records for Radio Service 
NN and here is the number of licenses that expire by year:

2020969 Most of these on 4/17/2020
2021363
2022298
2023260
2024220
202583
20261

> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:31 AM, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
> 
> I would very much second that statement - make sure you are following all the 
> rules for 90z going forward.
> 
> Mark
> 
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:25 AM, Mathew Howard > > wrote:
>> 
>> Yeah, but tricky part is going to be stuff that's still operating legally 
>> under an unexpired license that the SAS can't manage. I think it would be 
>> wise to make sure everything is properly registered and you're not doing 
>> anything questionable if you plan to keep operating under the old rules much 
>> beyond April.
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:17 AM Steve Jones > > wrote:
>> I was told when I asked about examples being made that hopefully SAS will 
>> sort things out on its own. If it goes outside of SAS being able to manage 
>> an issue, such all illegal operators, particularly when more sensing 
>> capability comes into play with SAS 2.0, you do not want to be the guy who 
>> gets nailed. Apparently this iteration of the SAS modality is an entry run 
>> for a much larger spectrum management, as is the cowboy days are over moving 
>> forward
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:54 AM Mathew Howard > > wrote:
>> Yeah, I agree, they probably will make an example out of a few operators. 
>> But I don't see any reason why they'd bother with somebody who still has a 
>> valid license. They'll probably go after some guys that are blatantly 
>> running some old Ubiquiti or WiMax gear after their license expires.
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:56 AM Mark Radabaugh > > wrote:
>> 
>> > On Feb 25, 2020, at 5:20 PM, Mathew Howard > > > wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> 
>> > I would assume that if a CBRS operator puts up gear that you're 
>> > interfering with, it's going to be handled pretty much the same way it was 
>> > under the old rules (in other words, work it out with eachother, or shut 
>> > up and live with it)... there's a reason that they made 3650-3700 GAA only.
>> > 
>> 
>> I would expect the FCC to make an example of a couple of operators who 
>> continue to operate 90z equipment illegally after the license expires.   We 
>> all have too much to lose here if the operators are not running legally and 
>> the mobile industry starts another attempt to push everyone out that isn’t a 
>> mobile carrier.
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

[Mathew Howard]

Good to know. That's an incredibly good deal... definitely what I'd go
with. You'll probably be paying at least that for a 1Gbps link from any of
the other manufacturers.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:20 AM Darin Steffl 
wrote:

> Yes I ran into the same thing with the web store showing a higher cost.
>
> Just reach out to Ken and he'll quote you the pricing I'm talking about.
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 9:05 AM Josh Baird  wrote:
>
>> It may be WISPA member pricing.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:02 AM Mathew Howard 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there some kind of special pricing or something? I logged into my
>>> Aviat account, and it's looking more like $7k for a link to me.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:05 AM Josh Baird  wrote:
>>>
 Yes - this is the WTM4800.

 On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:53 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> That is an insane value proposition over the AF24HD.
>
> Which specific radio, the 10G single band 4800?
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Darin Steffl" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, February 25, 2020 9:29:10 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex
>
> The best deal right now is Aviat 10Gbps full duplex for about $5k with
> dishes and everything.
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:24 PM Sean Heskett  wrote:
>
>> Good choice Lewis!
>>
>> We have a dozen of them and they are rock solid and fast!  Been
>> really amazed during rain events (heavy mountain downpours) that they 
>> keep
>> on keepin on!!
>>
>> -Sean
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Lewis Bergman <
>> lewis.berg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks everyone. I think we'll give the 80G Siklu a shot.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mathew Howard 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 At that distance, rain fade shouldn't be a problem with 60ghz, so
 it really comes down to hardware reliability, and budget, and specific
 requirements.

 If the project isn't cost sensitive, and you want the best you can
 get, then just go with 80ghz... there basically is no cheap junk for 
 that
 band, so just pick your favorite vendor and buy what they have.
 If you do want to go cheap, then there are a few things to
 consider. Ignitenet an Ubiquiti (although I don't think their radios 
 are
 actually shipping yet), have an extra channel at the top end of the 
 band
 that can get a bit better range, which the Mikrotiks can't (legally) 
 use...
 but that's not really going to make a lot of difference at that 
 distance
 anyway. Ignitenet is the only one with an SFP port, if that matters, 
 and
 they also have a radio that's capable of 2.5gbps, instead of only 
 1gpbs...
 they're also the most expensive of the cheap options. Mikrotik uses a 
 beam
 forming antenna, so they're about 10x easier to aim then the 
 Ignitenets
 (I believe Ubiquiti does as well, but I haven't used their radios yet).

 None of the cheap 60ghz radios are true full duplex radios, but I
 think they're all capable of delivering a full gig in each direction 
 at the
 same time.

 If you don't want cheap, but don't want to deal with 80ghz
 licensing (which is pretty cheap and simple, but it is another thing 
 that
 has to be done), then Siklu 60ghz would probably be a good option. Or 
 you
 could just stick with AF24HD, which will certainly do the job, but
 considering what they cost, it makes more sense to me to just go with 
 80ghz
 at that distance. You could also go with Mimosa B24 for 24ghz, but 
 they're
 half duplex radios, and I don't think that they can handle a full 2gbps
 aggregate.


 On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:09 AM dave  wrote:

> I guess it depends on the 9s you want.
> Cheaper is not always better for consistency.
>
>
>
> On 2/24/20 8:36 AM, Josh Baird wr

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

[Chris Fabien]

So sounds like consensus is we can continue to operate under the NN license
until 10/24/2022?
I do have these AP locations registered and will double check power is
within limits.
Thanks
Chris


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 10:32 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

> I would very much second that statement - make sure you are following all
> the rules for 90z going forward.
>
> Mark
>
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:25 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
>
> Yeah, but tricky part is going to be stuff that's still operating legally
> under an unexpired license that the SAS can't manage. I think it would be
> wise to make sure everything is properly registered and you're not doing
> anything questionable if you plan to keep operating under the old rules
> much beyond April.
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:17 AM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> I was told when I asked about examples being made that hopefully SAS will
>> sort things out on its own. If it goes outside of SAS being able to manage
>> an issue, such all illegal operators, particularly when more sensing
>> capability comes into play with SAS 2.0, you do not want to be the guy who
>> gets nailed. Apparently this iteration of the SAS modality is an entry run
>> for a much larger spectrum management, as is the cowboy days are over
>> moving forward
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:54 AM Mathew Howard 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, I agree, they probably will make an example out of a few
>>> operators. But I don't see any reason why they'd bother with somebody who
>>> still has a valid license. They'll probably go after some guys that are
>>> blatantly running some old Ubiquiti or WiMax gear after their license
>>> expires.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:56 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>>

 > On Feb 25, 2020, at 5:20 PM, Mathew Howard 
 wrote:
 >
 > 

 > I would assume that if a CBRS operator puts up gear that you're
 interfering with, it's going to be handled pretty much the same way it was
 under the old rules (in other words, work it out with eachother, or shut up
 and live with it)... there's a reason that they made 3650-3700 GAA only.
 >

 I would expect the FCC to make an example of a couple of operators who
 continue to operate 90z equipment illegally after the license expires.   We
 all have too much to lose here if the operators are not running legally and
 the mobile industry starts another attempt to push everyone out that isn’t
 a mobile carrier.

 Mark


 --
 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
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

[Mark Radabaugh]

It 10/24/2022 is what your license says then yes, that is correct.

Mark

> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:37 AM, Chris Fabien  wrote:
> 
> So sounds like consensus is we can continue to operate under the NN license 
> until 10/24/2022? 
> I do have these AP locations registered and will double check power is within 
> limits. 
> Thanks
> Chris
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 10:32 AM Mark Radabaugh  > wrote:
> I would very much second that statement - make sure you are following all the 
> rules for 90z going forward.
> 
> Mark
> 
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:25 AM, Mathew Howard > > wrote:
>> 
>> Yeah, but tricky part is going to be stuff that's still operating legally 
>> under an unexpired license that the SAS can't manage. I think it would be 
>> wise to make sure everything is properly registered and you're not doing 
>> anything questionable if you plan to keep operating under the old rules much 
>> beyond April.
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:17 AM Steve Jones > > wrote:
>> I was told when I asked about examples being made that hopefully SAS will 
>> sort things out on its own. If it goes outside of SAS being able to manage 
>> an issue, such all illegal operators, particularly when more sensing 
>> capability comes into play with SAS 2.0, you do not want to be the guy who 
>> gets nailed. Apparently this iteration of the SAS modality is an entry run 
>> for a much larger spectrum management, as is the cowboy days are over moving 
>> forward
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:54 AM Mathew Howard > > wrote:
>> Yeah, I agree, they probably will make an example out of a few operators. 
>> But I don't see any reason why they'd bother with somebody who still has a 
>> valid license. They'll probably go after some guys that are blatantly 
>> running some old Ubiquiti or WiMax gear after their license expires.
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:56 AM Mark Radabaugh > > wrote:
>> 
>> > On Feb 25, 2020, at 5:20 PM, Mathew Howard > > > wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> 
>> > I would assume that if a CBRS operator puts up gear that you're 
>> > interfering with, it's going to be handled pretty much the same way it was 
>> > under the old rules (in other words, work it out with eachother, or shut 
>> > up and live with it)... there's a reason that they made 3650-3700 GAA only.
>> > 
>> 
>> I would expect the FCC to make an example of a couple of operators who 
>> continue to operate 90z equipment illegally after the license expires.   We 
>> all have too much to lose here if the operators are not running legally and 
>> the mobile industry starts another attempt to push everyone out that isn’t a 
>> mobile carrier.
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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 
> 
> -- 
> 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

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

[Steve Jones]

I always wished the FCC, or better yet, WISPA would offer a network audit
service. Just to come in and verify compliance. Tier one is just looking at
your configs, doesnt cost a huge amount, tier 2 they actually do EIRP
verification and all that in the field for a bigger price. Id rather pay
some outfit a couple grand than the FCC a whole lot more. I know the FCC
normally issues a cease order before a fine if you have an honest mistake,
but at some point it will just be a fine. People in the past have said "I
can take a look", thats all fine and good, so can I. But can you certify it?

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:41 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

> It 10/24/2022 is what your license says then yes, that is correct.
>
> Mark
>
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:37 AM, Chris Fabien  wrote:
>
> So sounds like consensus is we can continue to operate under the NN
> license until 10/24/2022?
> I do have these AP locations registered and will double check power is
> within limits.
> Thanks
> Chris
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 10:32 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>
>> I would very much second that statement - make sure you are following all
>> the rules for 90z going forward.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:25 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, but tricky part is going to be stuff that's still operating legally
>> under an unexpired license that the SAS can't manage. I think it would be
>> wise to make sure everything is properly registered and you're not doing
>> anything questionable if you plan to keep operating under the old rules
>> much beyond April.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:17 AM Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I was told when I asked about examples being made that hopefully SAS
>>> will sort things out on its own. If it goes outside of SAS being able to
>>> manage an issue, such all illegal operators, particularly when more sensing
>>> capability comes into play with SAS 2.0, you do not want to be the guy who
>>> gets nailed. Apparently this iteration of the SAS modality is an entry run
>>> for a much larger spectrum management, as is the cowboy days are over
>>> moving forward
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:54 AM Mathew Howard 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Yeah, I agree, they probably will make an example out of a few
 operators. But I don't see any reason why they'd bother with somebody who
 still has a valid license. They'll probably go after some guys that are
 blatantly running some old Ubiquiti or WiMax gear after their license
 expires.

 On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:56 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

>
> > On Feb 25, 2020, at 5:20 PM, Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
> >
> > 
>
> > I would assume that if a CBRS operator puts up gear that you're
> interfering with, it's going to be handled pretty much the same way it was
> under the old rules (in other words, work it out with eachother, or shut 
> up
> and live with it)... there's a reason that they made 3650-3700 GAA only.
> >
>
> I would expect the FCC to make an example of a couple of operators who
> continue to operate 90z equipment illegally after the license expires.   
> We
> all have too much to lose here if the operators are not running legally 
> and
> the mobile industry starts another attempt to push everyone out that isn’t
> a mobile carrier.
>
> Mark
>
>
> --
> 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
>>
> --
> 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

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

[Mathew Howard]

If you're intending to keep operating that long, I would make sure all the
CPE locations are registered too.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:38 AM Chris Fabien  wrote:

> So sounds like consensus is we can continue to operate under the NN
> license until 10/24/2022?
> I do have these AP locations registered and will double check power is
> within limits.
> Thanks
> Chris
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 10:32 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>
>> I would very much second that statement - make sure you are following all
>> the rules for 90z going forward.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:25 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, but tricky part is going to be stuff that's still operating legally
>> under an unexpired license that the SAS can't manage. I think it would be
>> wise to make sure everything is properly registered and you're not doing
>> anything questionable if you plan to keep operating under the old rules
>> much beyond April.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:17 AM Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I was told when I asked about examples being made that hopefully SAS
>>> will sort things out on its own. If it goes outside of SAS being able to
>>> manage an issue, such all illegal operators, particularly when more sensing
>>> capability comes into play with SAS 2.0, you do not want to be the guy who
>>> gets nailed. Apparently this iteration of the SAS modality is an entry run
>>> for a much larger spectrum management, as is the cowboy days are over
>>> moving forward
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:54 AM Mathew Howard 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Yeah, I agree, they probably will make an example out of a few
 operators. But I don't see any reason why they'd bother with somebody who
 still has a valid license. They'll probably go after some guys that are
 blatantly running some old Ubiquiti or WiMax gear after their license
 expires.

 On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:56 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

>
> > On Feb 25, 2020, at 5:20 PM, Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
> >
> > 
>
> > I would assume that if a CBRS operator puts up gear that you're
> interfering with, it's going to be handled pretty much the same way it was
> under the old rules (in other words, work it out with eachother, or shut 
> up
> and live with it)... there's a reason that they made 3650-3700 GAA only.
> >
>
> I would expect the FCC to make an example of a couple of operators who
> continue to operate 90z equipment illegally after the license expires.   
> We
> all have too much to lose here if the operators are not running legally 
> and
> the mobile industry starts another attempt to push everyone out that isn’t
> a mobile carrier.
>
> Mark
>
>
> --
> 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
>>
> --
> 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

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

[Ken Hohhof]

SM locations were also supposed to be registered.

 

Good luck registering locations at this late date though.  The applications 
will be accepted but are likely to get stuck in “Pending”.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Chris Fabien
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:38 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

 

So sounds like consensus is we can continue to operate under the NN license 
until 10/24/2022? 

I do have these AP locations registered and will double check power is within 
limits. 

Thanks

Chris

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 10:32 AM Mark Radabaugh mailto:m...@amplex.net> > wrote:

I would very much second that statement - make sure you are following all the 
rules for 90z going forward.

 

Mark





On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:25 AM, Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Yeah, but tricky part is going to be stuff that's still operating legally under 
an unexpired license that the SAS can't manage. I think it would be wise to 
make sure everything is properly registered and you're not doing anything 
questionable if you plan to keep operating under the old rules much beyond 
April.

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:17 AM Steve Jones mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I was told when I asked about examples being made that hopefully SAS will sort 
things out on its own. If it goes outside of SAS being able to manage an issue, 
such all illegal operators, particularly when more sensing capability comes 
into play with SAS 2.0, you do not want to be the guy who gets nailed. 
Apparently this iteration of the SAS modality is an entry run for a much larger 
spectrum management, as is the cowboy days are over moving forward

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:54 AM Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Yeah, I agree, they probably will make an example out of a few operators. But I 
don't see any reason why they'd bother with somebody who still has a valid 
license. They'll probably go after some guys that are blatantly running some 
old Ubiquiti or WiMax gear after their license expires.

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:56 AM Mark Radabaugh mailto:m...@amplex.net> > wrote:


> On Feb 25, 2020, at 5:20 PM, Mathew Howard   > wrote:
> 
> 

> I would assume that if a CBRS operator puts up gear that you're interfering 
> with, it's going to be handled pretty much the same way it was under the old 
> rules (in other words, work it out with eachother, or shut up and live with 
> it)... there's a reason that they made 3650-3700 GAA only.
> 

I would expect the FCC to make an example of a couple of operators who continue 
to operate 90z equipment illegally after the license expires.   We all have too 
much to lose here if the operators are not running legally and the mobile 
industry starts another attempt to push everyone out that isn’t a mobile 
carrier.

Mark


-- 
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

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Corona-fu (was UBNT stock)

[Ken Hohhof]

Saw this book cited on a website:

https://psandman.com/media/RespondingtoCommunityOutrage.pdf

 

Interesting reading (and free).

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of castarritt .
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:09 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Corona-fu (was UBNT stock)

 

My respirator is rated to stop 95% of one petahertz.

 

 

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:32 PM Matt Hoppes mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> > wrote:

Make sure you change your RF Filters. 


On Feb 25, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Steve Jones mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote:

if corona virus hits the internet, it wont be able to survive the filth

 

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 1:18 PM Colin Stanners mailto:cstann...@gmail.com> > wrote:

If the coronavirus somehow becomes able to spread via the internet, humanity is 
done for.

 

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:19 AM Robert mailto:i...@avantwireless.com> > wrote:

Sorry, the cruise ship resulted in them changing it to aerosolized in 
propagation...

On 2/25/20 8:02 AM, Bill Prince wrote:

Recirculating air would not be a vector, as it's been established this virus is 
not airborne, except by physical droplets. It's all about what/who you touch or 
get over-spray from nearby coughs and sneezes.

 

bp

 

On 2/24/2020 7:57 PM, Robert wrote:

Very similar to an Commercial airliner with 80 percent recirculation...

On 2/24/20 8:17 AM, Bill Prince wrote:

A cruise ship is like a 5,000 seat petri dish.

bp

 

On 2/23/2020 11:05 AM, Robert wrote:

Hmmm, I don't think they used trench/squat toilets on the cruise ship, I'm 
pretty sure they don't use them in S. Korea and a severe case percentage of 20% 
and confirmed death rate _by WHO_ of 2% vs .1 percent for flu is apples and 
oranges.   But you keep telling yourself what makes you feel safe.   Keep 
drinking the koolaid while the long storage food supplies are bought up.( 
check on Amazon what's still available vs. sold out ).   Let's see what the 
numbers are in S. Korea NEXT Sunday. and see what modern medicine can do.   

On 2/23/20 10:19 AM, Bill Prince wrote:

[TINHATOFF]

It still after several weeks looks way overblown. It's beginning to look like 
the trench/squat toilets common in China (and not most other places) is the 
major disease vector.

Total cases in the US is only 35 individuals, and ZERO deaths.

Contrast this to the latest US-only flu data 
 , with 29 million infections and 
16,000 deaths. I think we are paying attention to the wrong things  (so what's 
new about that?).

[/TINHATOFF]

bp

 

On 2/23/2020 9:40 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Experts are starting to say it’s time to prepare for a pandemic, and that 
containment didn’t fail, containment was hopeless from the start.  More 
communicable than SARS, more deadly than seasonal flu.  Still remains to be 
seen how it plays out in countries with better (and worse) healthcare systems 
than China, but it’s gonna spread worldwide.  Masks, thermometers and 
quarantine don’t seem to be magic bullets.  Buy lots of hand soap, and stay off 
cruise ships.

 

https://www.vox.com/2020/2/23/21149327/coronavirus-pandemic-meaning-italy

 

 

From: AF    On Behalf 
Of Colin Stanners
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2020 12:58 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group   
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Corona-fu (was UBNT stock)

 

 It seems that America's enemies know that the best way to have 
America's economy crumble is to let the Trump rallies go on fully unimpeded. 


 

A kill rate of 2% seems small as statistic, but that's still a few thousand 
currently dead, including many medical staff, who are being mourned by their 
friends and families. It's likely that the number of people killed by 
coronavirus will surpass that of the 9/11 attacks shortly.

 

Most frightening is that with its virulence, if uncontrolled it could infect or 
have infected millions or much more, then suddenly that 2% dead becomes 
unimaginable.

 

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 11:55 PM Steve Jones mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote:

You dont think releasing something as hyped up as kungflu at a major public 
gathering, especially a trump rally wouldnt be a major terror success? CNN and 
MSNBC would be advertising for the terrorists 24/7. By the time they were done 
with it, it could have killed zero people, and everyone would still be hid out 
in their house listening to their propaganda. Our economy would crumble

 

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 9:14 PM Bill Prince mailto:part15...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Not for me. So far it has mostly been meh.

 

bp

 

On 2/22/2020 6:48 PM, Steve Jones wrote:

As a terror weapon it would be perfect

 

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 8:11 PM Bill Prince mailto:part15...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Kill rate is far too low to be considered a bio-weapon. Kill rate needs to be 
over 30%.

 

bp

 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com  
http://af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

[Adam Moffett]

Interesting idea.


On 2/26/2020 10:45 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
I always wished the FCC, or better yet, WISPA would offer a network 
audit service. Just to come in and verify compliance. Tier one is just 
looking at your configs, doesnt cost a huge amount, tier 2 they 
actually do EIRP verification and all that in the field for a bigger 
price. Id rather pay some outfit a couple grand than the FCC a whole 
lot more. I know the FCC normally issues a cease order before a fine 
if you have an honest mistake, but at some point it will just be a 
fine. People in the past have said "I can take a look", thats all fine 
and good, so can I. But can you certify it?


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:41 AM Mark Radabaugh > wrote:


It 10/24/2022 is what your license says then yes, that is correct.

Mark


On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:37 AM, Chris Fabien mailto:ch...@lakenetmi.com>> wrote:

So sounds like consensus is we can continue to operate under the
NN license until 10/24/2022?
I do have these AP locations registered and will double check
power is within limits.
Thanks
Chris


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 10:32 AM Mark Radabaugh mailto:m...@amplex.net>> wrote:

I would very much second that statement - make sure you are
following all the rules for 90z going forward.

Mark


On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:25 AM, Mathew Howard
mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Yeah, but tricky part is going to be stuff that's still
operating legally under an unexpired license that the SAS
can't manage. I think it would be wise to make sure
everything is properly registered and you're not doing
anything questionable if you plan to keep operating under
the old rules much beyond April.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:17 AM Steve Jones
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I was told when I asked about examples being made that
hopefully SAS will sort things out on its own. If it
goes outside of SAS being able to manage an issue, such
all illegal operators, particularly when more sensing
capability comes into play with SAS 2.0, you do not want
to be the guy who gets nailed. Apparently this iteration
of the SAS modality is an entry run for a much larger
spectrum management, as is the cowboy days are over
moving forward

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:54 AM Mathew Howard
mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Yeah, I agree, they probably will make an example
out of a few operators. But I don't see any reason
why they'd bother with somebody who still has a
valid license. They'll probably go after some guys
that are blatantly running some old Ubiquiti or
WiMax gear after their license expires.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:56 AM Mark Radabaugh
mailto:m...@amplex.net>> wrote:


> On Feb 25, 2020, at 5:20 PM, Mathew Howard
mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> 

> I would assume that if a CBRS operator puts up
gear that you're interfering with, it's going to
be handled pretty much the same way it was under
the old rules (in other words, work it out with
eachother, or shut up and live with it)...
there's a reason that they made 3650-3700 GAA only.
>

I would expect the FCC to make an example of a
couple of operators who continue to operate 90z
equipment illegally after the license expires. 
 We all have too much to lose here if the
operators are not running legally and the mobile
industry starts another attempt to push everyone
out that isn’t a mobile carrier.

Mark


-- 
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.afm

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

[Mathew Howard]

It seems to me, that just about anybody with the proper knowledge could
start a service like that... you'd basically just have to be willing/able
to take on the liability for any FCC fines that somebody got on a system
that you certified.

One downside to the FCC doing it, is that I think a lot of people would be
hesitant to invite the FCC to look at their stuff. WISPA could certainly do
it though... heck, they could make it a requirement for membership and
clean up the whole industry a lot.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:47 AM Steve Jones 
wrote:

> I always wished the FCC, or better yet, WISPA would offer a network audit
> service. Just to come in and verify compliance. Tier one is just looking at
> your configs, doesnt cost a huge amount, tier 2 they actually do EIRP
> verification and all that in the field for a bigger price. Id rather pay
> some outfit a couple grand than the FCC a whole lot more. I know the FCC
> normally issues a cease order before a fine if you have an honest mistake,
> but at some point it will just be a fine. People in the past have said "I
> can take a look", thats all fine and good, so can I. But can you certify it?
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:41 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>
>> It 10/24/2022 is what your license says then yes, that is correct.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:37 AM, Chris Fabien  wrote:
>>
>> So sounds like consensus is we can continue to operate under the NN
>> license until 10/24/2022?
>> I do have these AP locations registered and will double check power is
>> within limits.
>> Thanks
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 10:32 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>
>>> I would very much second that statement - make sure you are following
>>> all the rules for 90z going forward.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:25 AM, Mathew Howard 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, but tricky part is going to be stuff that's still operating
>>> legally under an unexpired license that the SAS can't manage. I think it
>>> would be wise to make sure everything is properly registered and you're not
>>> doing anything questionable if you plan to keep operating under the old
>>> rules much beyond April.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:17 AM Steve Jones 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I was told when I asked about examples being made that hopefully SAS
 will sort things out on its own. If it goes outside of SAS being able to
 manage an issue, such all illegal operators, particularly when more sensing
 capability comes into play with SAS 2.0, you do not want to be the guy who
 gets nailed. Apparently this iteration of the SAS modality is an entry run
 for a much larger spectrum management, as is the cowboy days are over
 moving forward

 On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:54 AM Mathew Howard 
 wrote:

> Yeah, I agree, they probably will make an example out of a few
> operators. But I don't see any reason why they'd bother with somebody who
> still has a valid license. They'll probably go after some guys that are
> blatantly running some old Ubiquiti or WiMax gear after their license
> expires.
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:56 AM Mark Radabaugh 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Feb 25, 2020, at 5:20 PM, Mathew Howard 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > 
>>
>> > I would assume that if a CBRS operator puts up gear that you're
>> interfering with, it's going to be handled pretty much the same way it 
>> was
>> under the old rules (in other words, work it out with eachother, or shut 
>> up
>> and live with it)... there's a reason that they made 3650-3700 GAA only.
>> >
>>
>> I would expect the FCC to make an example of a couple of operators
>> who continue to operate 90z equipment illegally after the license 
>> expires.
>>  We all have too much to lose here if the operators are not running 
>> legally
>> and the mobile industry starts another attempt to push everyone out that
>> isn’t a mobile carrier.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>>
>> --
>> 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_

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

[Adam Moffett]

Quite the opposite.  You don't know what the customer did before you got 
there and after you left.  And even a "small" mistake could be a $50,000 
problem.  A consultant would be crazy to accept liability for FCC fines, 
quite the opposite:  You'd want them to sign an agreement indemnifying 
you from any liability for FCC fines.



On 2/26/2020 11:20 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
It seems to me, that just about anybody with the proper knowledge 
could start a service like that... you'd basically just have to be 
willing/able to take on the liability for any FCC fines that somebody 
got on a system that you certified.


One downside to the FCC doing it, is that I think a lot of people 
would be hesitant to invite the FCC to look at their stuff. WISPA 
could certainly do it though... heck, they could make it a requirement 
for membership and clean up the whole industry a lot.


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:47 AM Steve Jones > wrote:


I always wished the FCC, or better yet, WISPA would offer a
network audit service. Just to come in and verify compliance. Tier
one is just looking at your configs, doesnt cost a huge amount,
tier 2 they actually do EIRP verification and all that in the
field for a bigger price. Id rather pay some outfit a couple grand
than the FCC a whole lot more. I know the FCC normally issues a
cease order before a fine if you have an honest mistake, but at
some point it will just be a fine. People in the past have said "I
can take a look", thats all fine and good, so can I. But can you
certify it?

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:41 AM Mark Radabaugh mailto:m...@amplex.net>> wrote:

It 10/24/2022 is what your license says then yes, that is
correct.

Mark


On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:37 AM, Chris Fabien
mailto:ch...@lakenetmi.com>> wrote:

So sounds like consensus is we can continue to operate under
the NN license until 10/24/2022?
I do have these AP locations registered and will double check
power is within limits.
Thanks
Chris


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 10:32 AM Mark Radabaugh
mailto:m...@amplex.net>> wrote:

I would very much second that statement - make sure you
are following all the rules for 90z going forward.

Mark


On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:25 AM, Mathew Howard
mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Yeah, but tricky part is going to be stuff that's still
operating legally under an unexpired license that the
SAS can't manage. I think it would be wise to make sure
everything is properly registered and you're not doing
anything questionable if you plan to keep operating
under the old rules much beyond April.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:17 AM Steve Jones
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I was told when I asked about examples being made
that hopefully SAS will sort things out on its own.
If it goes outside of SAS being able to manage an
issue, such all illegal operators, particularly when
more sensing capability comes into play with SAS
2.0, you do not want to be the guy who gets nailed.
Apparently this iteration of the SAS modality is an
entry run for a much larger spectrum management, as
is the cowboy days are over moving forward

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:54 AM Mathew Howard
mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Yeah, I agree, they probably will make an
example out of a few operators. But I don't see
any reason why they'd bother with somebody who
still has a valid license. They'll probably go
after some guys that are blatantly running some
old Ubiquiti or WiMax gear after their license
expires.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:56 AM Mark Radabaugh
mailto:m...@amplex.net>> wrote:


> On Feb 25, 2020, at 5:20 PM, Mathew Howard
mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> 

> I would assume that if a CBRS operator
puts up gear that you're interfering with,
it's going to be handled pretty much the
same way it was under the old rules (in
other words, work it out with eachother, or
shut up and live with it)... there's a
reason that they made 3650-3700 GAA only.
>

I would expect the FCC to make an example of

Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE

[Mark Radabaugh]

30Mhz at +49dBm versus 20Mhz at +40dBm.Some of the improvement in airtime 
obviously comes from the wider channel size but the bigger change was the 
higher power and quieter spectrum moving everyone into 6x/8x modulation.

Mark

> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
> 
> What's the actual TX power in that case before and after? I thought the 
> number I had heard for CBRS was 47db EIRP in a 20mhz channel... although I 
> have no idea where that number came from, so it could very well be wrong .
> 
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mark Radabaugh  > wrote:
> Way more than 5db, 10dB is more realistic.   This is a typical customer off a 
> 450m 3.65 CBRS AP running at full power:
> 
> 
> 
> Even more interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> This shows frame utilization of the 450m before and after the switch to CBRS. 
>   The higher power and cleaner spectrum greatly increased the modulation of 
> the customers resulting in greatly reduced airtime utilization.  
> 
> Mark
> 
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Mathew Howard > > wrote:
>> 
>> It's a 5-6db increase, if I remember correctly, so that could certainly be 
>> enough to make the difference in a lot of cases.
>> 
>> Of course there's also the fact that half of the people running Baicells 
>> radios with sectors are probably already running (illegally) at that power 
>> level anyway...
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:50 AM Mike Hammett > > wrote:
>> Is the CBRS power that much higher where a 450 at CBRS power makes up for 
>> the lack of nLOS capability as compared to LTE on NN?
>> 
>> Obviously LTE at CBRS power would be that much better, but maybe it's a good 
>> fit where people need just a little more nLOS capability than 450 provides 
>> and the extra power gets that for them.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>   
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>   
>>  
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> From: "Matt Mangriotis via AF" mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
>> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > >
>> Cc: "Matt Mangriotis" > >
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 3:59:25 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re:  Cambium LTE
>> 
>> 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 mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On 
>> Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
>> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 7:06 PM
>> To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' > >
>> 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 

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

[Ken Hohhof]

You’d need to dedicate an employee to go with them and identify all the 
equipment, log into it, etc.  And then you’d have to decide if you want to 
audit all the bullshit paperwork stuff like did someone affix new FCC labels to 
Ubiquiti equipment after a firmware update or just stick the labels in a drawer.

 

I suspect you’d accomplish the same thing if some company supplied a checklist 
for your employees to go through.

 

Or had a meeting with you in a conference room to review your own procedures 
and clear up misconceptions about what is required, without actually giving 
your network a colonoscopy.

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 10:20 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

 

It seems to me, that just about anybody with the proper knowledge could start a 
service like that... you'd basically just have to be willing/able to take on 
the liability for any FCC fines that somebody got on a system that you 
certified.

 

One downside to the FCC doing it, is that I think a lot of people would be 
hesitant to invite the FCC to look at their stuff. WISPA could certainly do it 
though... heck, they could make it a requirement for membership and clean up 
the whole industry a lot.

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:47 AM Steve Jones mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I always wished the FCC, or better yet, WISPA would offer a network audit 
service. Just to come in and verify compliance. Tier one is just looking at 
your configs, doesnt cost a huge amount, tier 2 they actually do EIRP 
verification and all that in the field for a bigger price. Id rather pay some 
outfit a couple grand than the FCC a whole lot more. I know the FCC normally 
issues a cease order before a fine if you have an honest mistake, but at some 
point it will just be a fine. People in the past have said "I can take a look", 
thats all fine and good, so can I. But can you certify it?

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:41 AM Mark Radabaugh mailto:m...@amplex.net> > wrote:

It 10/24/2022 is what your license says then yes, that is correct.

 

Mark





On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:37 AM, Chris Fabien mailto:ch...@lakenetmi.com> > wrote:

 

So sounds like consensus is we can continue to operate under the NN license 
until 10/24/2022? 

I do have these AP locations registered and will double check power is within 
limits. 

Thanks

Chris

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 10:32 AM Mark Radabaugh mailto:m...@amplex.net> > wrote:

I would very much second that statement - make sure you are following all the 
rules for 90z going forward.

 

Mark





On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:25 AM, Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Yeah, but tricky part is going to be stuff that's still operating legally under 
an unexpired license that the SAS can't manage. I think it would be wise to 
make sure everything is properly registered and you're not doing anything 
questionable if you plan to keep operating under the old rules much beyond 
April.

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:17 AM Steve Jones mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I was told when I asked about examples being made that hopefully SAS will sort 
things out on its own. If it goes outside of SAS being able to manage an issue, 
such all illegal operators, particularly when more sensing capability comes 
into play with SAS 2.0, you do not want to be the guy who gets nailed. 
Apparently this iteration of the SAS modality is an entry run for a much larger 
spectrum management, as is the cowboy days are over moving forward

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:54 AM Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Yeah, I agree, they probably will make an example out of a few operators. But I 
don't see any reason why they'd bother with somebody who still has a valid 
license. They'll probably go after some guys that are blatantly running some 
old Ubiquiti or WiMax gear after their license expires.

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:56 AM Mark Radabaugh mailto:m...@amplex.net> > wrote:


> On Feb 25, 2020, at 5:20 PM, Mathew Howard   > wrote:
> 
> 

> I would assume that if a CBRS operator puts up gear that you're interfering 
> with, it's going to be handled pretty much the same way it was under the old 
> rules (in other words, work it out with eachother, or shut up and live with 
> it)... there's a reason that they made 3650-3700 GAA only.
> 

I would expect the FCC to make an example of a couple of operators who continue 
to operate 90z equipment illegally after the license expires.   We all have too 
much to lose here if the operators are not running legally and the mobile 
industry starts another attempt to push everyone out that isn’t a mobile 
carrier.

Mark


-- 
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/

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

[Mark Radabaugh]

There have been discussion at the WISPA board level regarding having a 
for-profit entity that could do things like this.  There were not a lot of good 
ideas presented as to what the ‘for profit’ version of the organization would 
do that wouldn’t end up stepping on the toes of the vendor and consultant 
members though.   If you have good suggestions as to what the ‘for profit’ 
version should like like the organization is certainly interested in hearing 
them.   Any revenue and or profit that WISPA can make helps to cover overhead 
costs and keep dues down - as long as it doesn’t result in a boycott by vendors.

Mark

> On Feb 26, 2020, at 11:20 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
> 
> It seems to me, that just about anybody with the proper knowledge could start 
> a service like that... you'd basically just have to be willing/able to take 
> on the liability for any FCC fines that somebody got on a system that you 
> certified.
> 
> One downside to the FCC doing it, is that I think a lot of people would be 
> hesitant to invite the FCC to look at their stuff. WISPA could certainly do 
> it though... heck, they could make it a requirement for membership and clean 
> up the whole industry a lot.
> 
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:47 AM Steve Jones  > wrote:
> I always wished the FCC, or better yet, WISPA would offer a network audit 
> service. Just to come in and verify compliance. Tier one is just looking at 
> your configs, doesnt cost a huge amount, tier 2 they actually do EIRP 
> verification and all that in the field for a bigger price. Id rather pay some 
> outfit a couple grand than the FCC a whole lot more. I know the FCC normally 
> issues a cease order before a fine if you have an honest mistake, but at some 
> point it will just be a fine. People in the past have said "I can take a 
> look", thats all fine and good, so can I. But can you certify it?
> 
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:41 AM Mark Radabaugh  > wrote:
> It 10/24/2022 is what your license says then yes, that is correct.
> 
> Mark
> 
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:37 AM, Chris Fabien > > wrote:
>> 
>> So sounds like consensus is we can continue to operate under the NN license 
>> until 10/24/2022? 
>> I do have these AP locations registered and will double check power is 
>> within limits. 
>> Thanks
>> Chris
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 10:32 AM Mark Radabaugh > > wrote:
>> I would very much second that statement - make sure you are following all 
>> the rules for 90z going forward.
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:25 AM, Mathew Howard >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Yeah, but tricky part is going to be stuff that's still operating legally 
>>> under an unexpired license that the SAS can't manage. I think it would be 
>>> wise to make sure everything is properly registered and you're not doing 
>>> anything questionable if you plan to keep operating under the old rules 
>>> much beyond April.
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:17 AM Steve Jones >> > wrote:
>>> I was told when I asked about examples being made that hopefully SAS will 
>>> sort things out on its own. If it goes outside of SAS being able to manage 
>>> an issue, such all illegal operators, particularly when more sensing 
>>> capability comes into play with SAS 2.0, you do not want to be the guy who 
>>> gets nailed. Apparently this iteration of the SAS modality is an entry run 
>>> for a much larger spectrum management, as is the cowboy days are over 
>>> moving forward
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:54 AM Mathew Howard >> > wrote:
>>> Yeah, I agree, they probably will make an example out of a few operators. 
>>> But I don't see any reason why they'd bother with somebody who still has a 
>>> valid license. They'll probably go after some guys that are blatantly 
>>> running some old Ubiquiti or WiMax gear after their license expires.
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:56 AM Mark Radabaugh >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> > On Feb 25, 2020, at 5:20 PM, Mathew Howard >> > > wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> 
>>> > I would assume that if a CBRS operator puts up gear that you're 
>>> > interfering with, it's going to be handled pretty much the same way it 
>>> > was under the old rules (in other words, work it out with eachother, or 
>>> > shut up and live with it)... there's a reason that they made 3650-3700 
>>> > GAA only.
>>> > 
>>> 
>>> I would expect the FCC to make an example of a couple of operators who 
>>> continue to operate 90z equipment illegally after the license expires.   We 
>>> all have too much to lose here if the operators are not running legally and 
>>> the mobile industry starts another attempt to push everyone out that isn’t 
>>> a mobile carrier.
>>> 
>>> Mark
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com 

Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

[Kurt Fankhauser]

for $5,000 the Aviat 80ghz solution is actually cheaper than AF24HD and 10x
the throughput!

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:36 AM Mathew Howard  wrote:

> Good to know. That's an incredibly good deal... definitely what I'd go
> with. You'll probably be paying at least that for a 1Gbps link from any of
> the other manufacturers.
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:20 AM Darin Steffl 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes I ran into the same thing with the web store showing a higher cost.
>>
>> Just reach out to Ken and he'll quote you the pricing I'm talking about.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 9:05 AM Josh Baird  wrote:
>>
>>> It may be WISPA member pricing.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:02 AM Mathew Howard 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Is there some kind of special pricing or something? I logged into my
 Aviat account, and it's looking more like $7k for a link to me.

 On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:05 AM Josh Baird  wrote:

> Yes - this is the WTM4800.
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:53 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> That is an insane value proposition over the AF24HD.
>>
>> Which specific radio, the 10G single band 4800?
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Darin Steffl" 
>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, February 25, 2020 9:29:10 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex
>>
>> The best deal right now is Aviat 10Gbps full duplex for about $5k
>> with dishes and everything.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:24 PM Sean Heskett  wrote:
>>
>>> Good choice Lewis!
>>>
>>> We have a dozen of them and they are rock solid and fast!  Been
>>> really amazed during rain events (heavy mountain downpours) that they 
>>> keep
>>> on keepin on!!
>>>
>>> -Sean
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Lewis Bergman <
>>> lewis.berg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Thanks everyone. I think we'll give the 80G Siklu a shot.

 On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mathew Howard <
 mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:

> At that distance, rain fade shouldn't be a problem with 60ghz, so
> it really comes down to hardware reliability, and budget, and specific
> requirements.
>
> If the project isn't cost sensitive, and you want the best you can
> get, then just go with 80ghz... there basically is no cheap junk for 
> that
> band, so just pick your favorite vendor and buy what they have.
> If you do want to go cheap, then there are a few things to
> consider. Ignitenet an Ubiquiti (although I don't think their radios 
> are
> actually shipping yet), have an extra channel at the top end of the 
> band
> that can get a bit better range, which the Mikrotiks can't (legally) 
> use...
> but that's not really going to make a lot of difference at that 
> distance
> anyway. Ignitenet is the only one with an SFP port, if that matters, 
> and
> they also have a radio that's capable of 2.5gbps, instead of only 
> 1gpbs...
> they're also the most expensive of the cheap options. Mikrotik uses a 
> beam
> forming antenna, so they're about 10x easier to aim then the 
> Ignitenets
> (I believe Ubiquiti does as well, but I haven't used their radios 
> yet).
>
> None of the cheap 60ghz radios are true full duplex radios, but I
> think they're all capable of delivering a full gig in each direction 
> at the
> same time.
>
> If you don't want cheap, but don't want to deal with 80ghz
> licensing (which is pretty cheap and simple, but it is another thing 
> that
> has to be done), then Siklu 60ghz would probably be a good option. Or 
> you
> could just stick with AF24HD, which will certainly do the job, but
> considering what they cost, it makes more sense to me to just go with 
> 80ghz
> at that distance. You could also go with Mimosa B24 for 24ghz, but 
> they're
> half duplex radios, and I don't think that 

Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

[Mike Hammett]

and has optical interfaces and.. and... and... 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Kurt Fankhauser"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 10:59:05 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex 


for $5,000 the Aviat 80ghz solution is actually cheaper than AF24HD and 10x the 
throughput! 


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:36 AM Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 



Good to know. That's an incredibly good deal... definitely what I'd go with. 
You'll probably be paying at least that for a 1Gbps link from any of the other 
manufacturers. 



On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:20 AM Darin Steffl < darin.ste...@mnwifi.com > wrote: 



Yes I ran into the same thing with the web store showing a higher cost. 


Just reach out to Ken and he'll quote you the pricing I'm talking about. 


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 9:05 AM Josh Baird < joshba...@gmail.com > wrote: 



It may be WISPA member pricing. 


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:02 AM Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 



Is there some kind of special pricing or something? I logged into my Aviat 
account, and it's looking more like $7k for a link to me. 



On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:05 AM Josh Baird < joshba...@gmail.com > wrote: 



Yes - this is the WTM4800. 


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:53 AM Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




That is an insane value proposition over the AF24HD. 


Which specific radio, the 10G single band 4800? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Darin Steffl" < darin.ste...@mnwifi.com > 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > 
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 9:29:10 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex 


The best deal right now is Aviat 10Gbps full duplex for about $5k with dishes 
and everything. 


On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:24 PM Sean Heskett < af...@zirkel.us > wrote: 




Good choice Lewis! 


We have a dozen of them and they are rock solid and fast! Been really amazed 
during rain events (heavy mountain downpours) that they keep on keepin on!! 


-Sean 





On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Lewis Bergman < lewis.berg...@gmail.com > 
wrote: 



Thanks everyone. I think we'll give the 80G Siklu a shot. 


On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 




At that distance, rain fade shouldn't be a problem with 60ghz, so it really 
comes down to hardware reliability, and budget, and specific requirements. 



If the project isn't cost sensitive, and you want the best you can get, then 
just go with 80ghz... there basically is no cheap junk for that band, so just 
pick your favorite vendor and buy what they have. 

If you do want to go cheap, then there are a few things to consider. Ignitenet 
an Ubiquiti (although I don't think their radios are actually shipping yet), 
have an extra channel at the top end of the band that can get a bit better 
range, which the Mikrotiks can't (legally) use... but that's not really going 
to make a lot of difference at that distance anyway. Ignitenet is the only one 
with an SFP port, if that matters, and they also have a radio that's capable of 
2.5gbps, instead of only 1gpbs... they're also the most expensive of the cheap 
options. Mikrotik uses a beam forming antenna, so they're about 10x easier 
to aim then the Ignitenets (I believe Ubiquiti does as well, but I haven't used 
their radios yet). 



None of the cheap 60ghz radios are true full duplex radios, but I think they're 
all capable of delivering a full gig in each direction at the same time. 


If you don't want cheap, but don't want to deal with 80ghz licensing (which is 
pretty cheap and simple, but it is another thing that has to be done), then 
Siklu 60ghz would probably be a good option. Or you could just stick with 
AF24HD, which will certainly do the job, but considering what they cost, it 
makes more sense to me to just go with 80ghz at that distance. You could also 
go with Mimosa B24 for 24ghz, but they're half duplex radios, and I don't think 
that they can handle a full 2gbps aggregate. 





On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:09 AM dave < dmilho...@wletc.com > wrote: 



I guess it depends on the 9s you want. 
Cheaper is not always better for consistency. 





On 2/24/20 8:36 AM, Josh Baird wrote: 



No way I would consider AF24HD for this. You can get 80ghz links for less that 
do MUCH more throughput (10Gbps). 


Vendors in this space include Bridgewave, Siklu and Aviat. Aviat probably gives 
you the best bang for your buck. Cambium has a new mmWave product, but I don't 
know anything about it. 



Josh 


On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 9:31 AM dave < dmilho...@wletc.com > wrote: 



Not sure which product mentioned but the PTP550 unlicensed will take all of 
your 5g spectrum and 
there is the ptp850E 




On 2/24/20 8

Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

[chuck]

Is the range equivalent?

From: Kurt Fankhauser 
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:59 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

for $5,000 the Aviat 80ghz solution is actually cheaper than AF24HD and 10x the 
throughput! 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:36 AM Mathew Howard  wrote:

  Good to know. That's an incredibly good deal... definitely what I'd go with. 
You'll probably be paying at least that for a 1Gbps link from any of the other 
manufacturers.


  On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:20 AM Darin Steffl  wrote:

Yes I ran into the same thing with the web store showing a higher cost. 

Just reach out to Ken and he'll quote you the pricing I'm talking about. 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 9:05 AM Josh Baird  wrote:

  It may be WISPA member pricing.

  On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:02 AM Mathew Howard  
wrote:

Is there some kind of special pricing or something? I logged into my 
Aviat account, and it's looking more like $7k for a link to me.


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:05 AM Josh Baird  wrote:

  Yes - this is the WTM4800.

  On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:53 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:

That is an insane value proposition over the AF24HD. 

Which specific radio, the 10G single band 4800?




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP








From: "Darin Steffl" 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 9:29:10 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex


The best deal right now is Aviat 10Gbps full duplex for about $5k 
with dishes and everything. 

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:24 PM Sean Heskett  wrote:

  Good choice Lewis!

  We have a dozen of them and they are rock solid and fast!  Been 
really amazed during rain events (heavy mountain downpours) that they keep on 
keepin on!!

  -Sean


  On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Lewis Bergman 
 wrote:

Thanks everyone. I think we'll give the 80G Siklu a shot.

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mathew Howard 
 wrote:

  At that distance, rain fade shouldn't be a problem with 
60ghz, so it really comes down to hardware reliability, and budget, and 
specific requirements. 


  If the project isn't cost sensitive, and you want the best 
you can get, then just go with 80ghz... there basically is no cheap junk for 
that band, so just pick your favorite vendor and buy what they have. 

  If you do want to go cheap, then there are a few things to 
consider. Ignitenet an Ubiquiti (although I don't think their radios are 
actually shipping yet), have an extra channel at the top end of the band that 
can get a bit better range, which the Mikrotiks can't (legally) use... but 
that's not really going to make a lot of difference at that distance anyway. 
Ignitenet is the only one with an SFP port, if that matters, and they also have 
a radio that's capable of 2.5gbps, instead of only 1gpbs... they're also the 
most expensive of the cheap options. Mikrotik uses a beam forming antenna, so 
they're about 10x easier to aim then the Ignitenets (I believe Ubiquiti 
does as well, but I haven't used their radios yet). 


  None of the cheap 60ghz radios are true full duplex radios, 
but I think they're all capable of delivering a full gig in each direction at 
the same time.

  If you don't want cheap, but don't want to deal with 80ghz 
licensing (which is pretty cheap and simple, but it is another thing that has 
to be done), then Siklu 60ghz would probably be a good option. Or you could 
just stick with AF24HD, which will certainly do the job, but considering what 
they cost, it makes more sense to me to just go with 80ghz at that distance. 
You could also go with Mimosa B24 for 24ghz, but they're half duplex radios, 
and I don't think that they can handle a full 2gbps aggregate.



  On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:09 AM dave  
wrote:

I guess it depends on the 9s you want. 
Cheaper is not always better for consistency. 





On 2/24/20 8:36 AM, Josh Baird wrote:

  No way I would consider AF24HD for this.  You can get 
80ghz links for less that do MUCH more throughput (10Gbps). 

  Vendors in this space include Bridgewave, Siklu and 
Aviat.  Aviat probably gives you the best bang for your buck.  Cambium has a 
new mmWave product, but I don't know anything about it.


  Josh

  On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 9:31 AM dave 
 wrote:

Not sure which product mention

Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

[Mike Hammett]

Depends on rain. 


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bmu3Tsbj1RqtBfEGay5UarPMLK4_NF3WdtxH0WtxDjQ/edit?usp=sharing
 





- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: ch...@wbmfg.com 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 11:08:52 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex 




Is the range equivalent? 




From: Kurt Fankhauser 
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:59 AM 
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex 


for $5,000 the Aviat 80ghz solution is actually cheaper than AF24HD and 10x the 
throughput! 


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:36 AM Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 



Good to know. That's an incredibly good deal... definitely what I'd go with. 
You'll probably be paying at least that for a 1Gbps link from any of the other 
manufacturers. 



On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:20 AM Darin Steffl < darin.ste...@mnwifi.com > wrote: 



Yes I ran into the same thing with the web store showing a higher cost. 

Just reach out to Ken and he'll quote you the pricing I'm talking about. 


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 9:05 AM Josh Baird < joshba...@gmail.com > wrote: 



It may be WISPA member pricing. 


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:02 AM Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 



Is there some kind of special pricing or something? I logged into my Aviat 
account, and it's looking more like $7k for a link to me. 



On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:05 AM Josh Baird < joshba...@gmail.com > wrote: 



Yes - this is the WTM4800. 


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:53 AM Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




That is an insane value proposition over the AF24HD. 

Which specific radio, the 10G single band 4800? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Darin Steffl" < darin.ste...@mnwifi.com > 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > 
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 9:29:10 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex 


The best deal right now is Aviat 10Gbps full duplex for about $5k with dishes 
and everything. 


On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:24 PM Sean Heskett < af...@zirkel.us > wrote: 




Good choice Lewis! 

We have a dozen of them and they are rock solid and fast! Been really amazed 
during rain events (heavy mountain downpours) that they keep on keepin on!! 

-Sean 




On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Lewis Bergman < lewis.berg...@gmail.com > 
wrote: 



Thanks everyone. I think we'll give the 80G Siklu a shot. 


On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 




At that distance, rain fade shouldn't be a problem with 60ghz, so it really 
comes down to hardware reliability, and budget, and specific requirements. 


If the project isn't cost sensitive, and you want the best you can get, then 
just go with 80ghz... there basically is no cheap junk for that band, so just 
pick your favorite vendor and buy what they have. 

If you do want to go cheap, then there are a few things to consider. Ignitenet 
an Ubiquiti (although I don't think their radios are actually shipping yet), 
have an extra channel at the top end of the band that can get a bit better 
range, which the Mikrotiks can't (legally) use... but that's not really going 
to make a lot of difference at that distance anyway. Ignitenet is the only one 
with an SFP port, if that matters, and they also have a radio that's capable of 
2.5gbps, instead of only 1gpbs... they're also the most expensive of the cheap 
options. Mikrotik uses a beam forming antenna, so they're about 10x easier 
to aim then the Ignitenets (I believe Ubiquiti does as well, but I haven't used 
their radios yet). 


None of the cheap 60ghz radios are true full duplex radios, but I think they're 
all capable of delivering a full gig in each direction at the same time. 

If you don't want cheap, but don't want to deal with 80ghz licensing (which is 
pretty cheap and simple, but it is another thing that has to be done), then 
Siklu 60ghz would probably be a good option. Or you could just stick with 
AF24HD, which will certainly do the job, but considering what they cost, it 
makes more sense to me to just go with 80ghz at that distance. You could also 
go with Mimosa B24 for 24ghz, but they're half duplex radios, and I don't think 
that they can handle a full 2gbps aggregate. 




On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:09 AM dave < dmilho...@wletc.com > wrote: 



I guess it depends on the 9s you want. 
Cheaper is not always better for consistency. 





On 2/24/20 8:36 AM, Josh Baird wrote: 



No way I would consider AF24HD for this. You can get 80ghz links for less that 
do MUCH more throughput (10Gbps). 

Vendors in this space include Bridgewave, Siklu and Aviat. Aviat probably gives 
you the best bang for your buck. Cambium has a new mmWave product, but

Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

[Bill Prince]

  
  
I don't think so. In moderate rain zones the AF24HD can go 2
  miles, and maybe some change. I'm not sure how far you can go on
  80 GHz, but I'm pretty sure it isn't that far.


bp



On 2/26/2020 9:08 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com
  wrote:


  
  

  Is the range equivalent?
  

   
  
From: Kurt Fankhauser 
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:59 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users
Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full
  Duplex
  

 
  
  
for $5,000 the Aviat 80ghz solution is
  actually cheaper than AF24HD and 10x the throughput! 
 

  On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at
10:36 AM Mathew Howard 
wrote:
  
  
Good to know. That's an incredibly good
  deal... definitely what I'd go with. You'll probably
  be paying at least that for a 1Gbps link from any of
  the other manufacturers.

 

  On Wed, Feb 26, 2020
at 9:20 AM Darin Steffl 
wrote:
  
  
Yes I ran into the same thing with the web
  store showing a higher cost.
   
  Just reach out to Ken and he'll quote you the
pricing I'm talking about. 

 

  On Wed, Feb 26,
2020, 9:05 AM Josh Baird 
wrote:
  
  
It may be WISPA member pricing.
 

  On Wed, Feb
26, 2020 at 10:02 AM Mathew Howard 
wrote:
  
  
Is there some kind of special
  pricing or something? I logged into my
  Aviat account, and it's looking more like
  $7k for a link to me.

 

  On Wed,
Feb 26, 2020 at 8:05 AM Josh Baird 
wrote:
  
  
Yes - this is the
  WTM4800.
 

  On
Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:53 AM Mike
Hammett 
wrote:
  
  

  That is an
insane value proposition over
the AF24HD.
 
Which specific radio, the
  10G single band 4800?
  
  

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent
  Computing Solutions

Midwest
  Internet Exchange

The
  Brothers WISP

  
  

  
  
  From: "Darin
Steffl" 
To: "AnimalFarm
Microwave Users Group" 
Sent: Tuesday,
  

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

[Steve Jones]

It would be like any certification, paperwork documents what, specifically
was certified, the mechanism and testing methodologies used, equipment used
for testing, environment it was tested in. Base it off the FCC hardware
certification.
Indemnification for the operator against faulty testing procedure,
indemnification for the certifier for putting hands in the cookie jar. Its
not a novel concept.
Ala cart testing. from free self audit checklist to remote review all the
way up to meters in front of antenna with az/el/coordinate, etc.
It wouldnt be cheap, but it would be cheaper than a fine
The process would have to be something that gives value, not something like
a A+ BBB rating that you can just buy. It gives the operator something to
present to entities when trying to gain access, like municipalities. Maybe
in the long run it gets you a leg up on funding requests.
Its not stepping on vendor toes, because vendors dont currently offer it.
Its a niche market with high liability for a vendor who doesnt want to be
thorough. Maybe thats all WISPAS role is, certifying the certifier.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:51 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

> There have been discussion at the WISPA board level regarding having a
> for-profit entity that could do things like this.  There were not a lot of
> good ideas presented as to what the ‘for profit’ version of the
> organization would do that wouldn’t end up stepping on the toes of the
> vendor and consultant members though.   If you have good suggestions as to
> what the ‘for profit’ version should like like the organization is
> certainly interested in hearing them.   Any revenue and or profit that
> WISPA can make helps to cover overhead costs and keep dues down - as long
> as it doesn’t result in a boycott by vendors.
>
> Mark
>
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 11:20 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
>
> It seems to me, that just about anybody with the proper knowledge could
> start a service like that... you'd basically just have to be willing/able
> to take on the liability for any FCC fines that somebody got on a system
> that you certified.
>
> One downside to the FCC doing it, is that I think a lot of people would be
> hesitant to invite the FCC to look at their stuff. WISPA could certainly do
> it though... heck, they could make it a requirement for membership and
> clean up the whole industry a lot.
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:47 AM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> I always wished the FCC, or better yet, WISPA would offer a network audit
>> service. Just to come in and verify compliance. Tier one is just looking at
>> your configs, doesnt cost a huge amount, tier 2 they actually do EIRP
>> verification and all that in the field for a bigger price. Id rather pay
>> some outfit a couple grand than the FCC a whole lot more. I know the FCC
>> normally issues a cease order before a fine if you have an honest mistake,
>> but at some point it will just be a fine. People in the past have said "I
>> can take a look", thats all fine and good, so can I. But can you certify it?
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:41 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>
>>> It 10/24/2022 is what your license says then yes, that is correct.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:37 AM, Chris Fabien  wrote:
>>>
>>> So sounds like consensus is we can continue to operate under the NN
>>> license until 10/24/2022?
>>> I do have these AP locations registered and will double check power is
>>> within limits.
>>> Thanks
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 10:32 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>>
 I would very much second that statement - make sure you are following
 all the rules for 90z going forward.

 Mark

 On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:25 AM, Mathew Howard 
 wrote:

 Yeah, but tricky part is going to be stuff that's still operating
 legally under an unexpired license that the SAS can't manage. I think it
 would be wise to make sure everything is properly registered and you're not
 doing anything questionable if you plan to keep operating under the old
 rules much beyond April.

 On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:17 AM Steve Jones 
 wrote:

> I was told when I asked about examples being made that hopefully SAS
> will sort things out on its own. If it goes outside of SAS being able to
> manage an issue, such all illegal operators, particularly when more 
> sensing
> capability comes into play with SAS 2.0, you do not want to be the guy who
> gets nailed. Apparently this iteration of the SAS modality is an entry run
> for a much larger spectrum management, as is the cowboy days are over
> moving forward
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:54 AM Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I agree, they probably will make an example out of a few
>> operators. But I don't see any reason why they'd bother with somebody who
>> still has a valid license. They'll probably go after some guys that are
>> blatantly running some old U

Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

[Josh Baird]

Depends on dish size and rain zone.. there are folks who definitely have
2mi 80ghz links.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:12 PM Bill Prince  wrote:

> I don't think so. In moderate rain zones the AF24HD can go 2 miles, and
> maybe some change. I'm not sure how far you can go on 80 GHz, but I'm
> pretty sure it isn't that far.
>
>
> bp
> 
>
>
> On 2/26/2020 9:08 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
>
> Is the range equivalent?
>
> *From:* Kurt Fankhauser
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:59 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex
>
> for $5,000 the Aviat 80ghz solution is actually cheaper than AF24HD and
> 10x the throughput!
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:36 AM Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
>> Good to know. That's an incredibly good deal... definitely what I'd go
>> with. You'll probably be paying at least that for a 1Gbps link from any of
>> the other manufacturers.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:20 AM Darin Steffl 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes I ran into the same thing with the web store showing a higher cost.
>>>
>>> Just reach out to Ken and he'll quote you the pricing I'm talking about.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 9:05 AM Josh Baird  wrote:
>>>
 It may be WISPA member pricing.

 On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:02 AM Mathew Howard 
 wrote:

> Is there some kind of special pricing or something? I logged into my
> Aviat account, and it's looking more like $7k for a link to me.
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:05 AM Josh Baird 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes - this is the WTM4800.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:53 AM Mike Hammett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That is an insane value proposition over the AF24HD.
>>>
>>> Which specific radio, the 10G single band 4800?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Darin Steffl" 
>>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, February 25, 2020 9:29:10 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex
>>>
>>> The best deal right now is Aviat 10Gbps full duplex for about $5k
>>> with dishes and everything.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:24 PM Sean Heskett  wrote:
>>>
 Good choice Lewis!

 We have a dozen of them and they are rock solid and fast!  Been
 really amazed during rain events (heavy mountain downpours) that they 
 keep
 on keepin on!!

 -Sean


 On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Lewis Bergman <
 lewis.berg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks everyone. I think we'll give the 80G Siklu a shot.
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mathew Howard <
> mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> At that distance, rain fade shouldn't be a problem with 60ghz, so
>> it really comes down to hardware reliability, and budget, and 
>> specific
>> requirements.
>>
>> If the project isn't cost sensitive, and you want the best you
>> can get, then just go with 80ghz... there basically is no cheap junk 
>> for
>> that band, so just pick your favorite vendor and buy what they have.
>> If you do want to go cheap, then there are a few things to
>> consider. Ignitenet an Ubiquiti (although I don't think their radios 
>> are
>> actually shipping yet), have an extra channel at the top end of the 
>> band
>> that can get a bit better range, which the Mikrotiks can't (legally) 
>> use...
>> but that's not really going to make a lot of difference at that 
>> distance
>> anyway. Ignitenet is the only one with an SFP port, if that matters, 
>> and
>> they also have a radio that's capable of 2.5gbps, instead of only 
>> 1gpbs...
>> they're also the most expensive of the cheap options. Mikrotik uses 
>> a beam
>> forming antenna, so they're about 10x easier to aim then the 
>> Ignitenets
>> (I believe Ubiquiti does as well, but I haven't used their radios 
>> yet).
>>
>> None of the cheap 60ghz radios are true full

Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE

[Adam Moffett]

Hah...

At a vendor provided training course the instructor made a big deal out 
of the fact that you could turn the Tx power up to +30dbm.  I brought up 
the NN license 1Watt/Mhz limit with him and he said "Adam if you're 
worrying about the EIRP limit, then you're the only one."


At the time, I /was/ actually shocked.

On 2/26/2020 10:30 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:


I’m shocked, shocked …

A black and white photo of a person Description automatically generated

*From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:14 AM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE

It's a 5-6db increase, if I remember correctly, so that could 
certainly be enough to make the difference in a lot of cases.


Of course there's also the fact that half of the people running 
Baicells radios with sectors are probably already running (illegally) 
at that power level anyway...


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:50 AM Mike Hammett > wrote:


Is the CBRS power that much higher where a 450 at CBRS power makes
up for the lack of nLOS capability as compared to LTE on NN?

Obviously LTE at CBRS power would be that much better, but maybe
it's a good fit where people need just a little more nLOS
capability than 450 provides and the extra power gets that for them.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 







*From: *"Matt Mangriotis via AF" mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Cc: *"Matt Mangriotis" mailto:matt.mangrio...@cambiumnetworks.com>>
*Sent: *Tuesday, February 25, 2020 3:59:25 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re:  Cambium LTE

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 mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof
*Sent:* Monday, February 24, 2020 7:06 PM
*To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' mailto: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 mea

Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

[Mike Hammett]

The longest near me is around 15 miles. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Josh Baird"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 11:16:59 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex 


Depends on dish size and rain zone.. there are folks who definitely have 2mi 
80ghz links. 


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:12 PM Bill Prince < part15...@gmail.com > wrote: 




I don't think so. In moderate rain zones the AF24HD can go 2 miles, and maybe 
some change. I'm not sure how far you can go on 80 GHz, but I'm pretty sure it 
isn't that far. 

bp
 
On 2/26/2020 9:08 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: 





Is the range equivalent? 




From: Kurt Fankhauser 
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:59 AM 
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex 


for $5,000 the Aviat 80ghz solution is actually cheaper than AF24HD and 10x the 
throughput! 


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:36 AM Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 



Good to know. That's an incredibly good deal... definitely what I'd go with. 
You'll probably be paying at least that for a 1Gbps link from any of the other 
manufacturers. 



On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:20 AM Darin Steffl < darin.ste...@mnwifi.com > wrote: 



Yes I ran into the same thing with the web store showing a higher cost. 

Just reach out to Ken and he'll quote you the pricing I'm talking about. 


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 9:05 AM Josh Baird < joshba...@gmail.com > wrote: 



It may be WISPA member pricing. 


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:02 AM Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 



Is there some kind of special pricing or something? I logged into my Aviat 
account, and it's looking more like $7k for a link to me. 



On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:05 AM Josh Baird < joshba...@gmail.com > wrote: 



Yes - this is the WTM4800. 


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:53 AM Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




That is an insane value proposition over the AF24HD. 

Which specific radio, the 10G single band 4800? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Darin Steffl" < darin.ste...@mnwifi.com > 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > 
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 9:29:10 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex 


The best deal right now is Aviat 10Gbps full duplex for about $5k with dishes 
and everything. 


On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:24 PM Sean Heskett < af...@zirkel.us > wrote: 




Good choice Lewis! 

We have a dozen of them and they are rock solid and fast! Been really amazed 
during rain events (heavy mountain downpours) that they keep on keepin on!! 

-Sean 




On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Lewis Bergman < lewis.berg...@gmail.com > 
wrote: 



Thanks everyone. I think we'll give the 80G Siklu a shot. 


On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 




At that distance, rain fade shouldn't be a problem with 60ghz, so it really 
comes down to hardware reliability, and budget, and specific requirements. 


If the project isn't cost sensitive, and you want the best you can get, then 
just go with 80ghz... there basically is no cheap junk for that band, so just 
pick your favorite vendor and buy what they have. 

If you do want to go cheap, then there are a few things to consider. Ignitenet 
an Ubiquiti (although I don't think their radios are actually shipping yet), 
have an extra channel at the top end of the band that can get a bit better 
range, which the Mikrotiks can't (legally) use... but that's not really going 
to make a lot of difference at that distance anyway. Ignitenet is the only one 
with an SFP port, if that matters, and they also have a radio that's capable of 
2.5gbps, instead of only 1gpbs... they're also the most expensive of the cheap 
options. Mikrotik uses a beam forming antenna, so they're about 10x easier 
to aim then the Ignitenets (I believe Ubiquiti does as well, but I haven't used 
their radios yet). 


None of the cheap 60ghz radios are true full duplex radios, but I think they're 
all capable of delivering a full gig in each direction at the same time. 

If you don't want cheap, but don't want to deal with 80ghz licensing (which is 
pretty cheap and simple, but it is another thing that has to be done), then 
Siklu 60ghz would probably be a good option. Or you could just stick with 
AF24HD, which will certainly do the job, but considering what they cost, it 
makes more sense to me to just go with 80ghz at that distance. You could also 
go with Mimosa B24 for 24ghz, but they're half duplex radios, and I don't think 
that they can handle a full 2gbps aggregate. 




On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:09 AM dave < dmilho...@wletc.com > wrote: 



I guess it depends on the 9s you want. 
Cheaper is not always better for consist

Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

[Cassidy B. Larson]

I have an AF24HD going 9.5 miles, linking at 700M+ both ways.   Bounces between 
9X and 10X 

I also have a Siklu 80GHz with 2ft dishes going 3+ miles with 10G capacity. 


> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:11 AM, Bill Prince  wrote:
> 
> I don't think so. In moderate rain zones the AF24HD can go 2 miles, and maybe 
> some change. I'm not sure how far you can go on 80 GHz, but I'm pretty sure 
> it isn't that far.
> 
> 
> 
> bp
> 
> 
> On 2/26/2020 9:08 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com  wrote:
>> Is the range equivalent?
>>  
>> From: Kurt Fankhauser <>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:59 AM
>> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <>
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex
>>  
>> for $5,000 the Aviat 80ghz solution is actually cheaper than AF24HD and 10x 
>> the throughput!
>>  
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:36 AM Mathew Howard > 
>> wrote:
>> Good to know. That's an incredibly good deal... definitely what I'd go with. 
>> You'll probably be paying at least that for a 1Gbps link from any of the 
>> other manufacturers.
>>  
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:20 AM Darin Steffl > 
>> wrote:
>> Yes I ran into the same thing with the web store showing a higher cost.
>>  
>> Just reach out to Ken and he'll quote you the pricing I'm talking about.
>>  
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 9:05 AM Josh Baird > wrote:
>> It may be WISPA member pricing.
>>  
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:02 AM Mathew Howard > 
>> wrote:
>> Is there some kind of special pricing or something? I logged into my Aviat 
>> account, and it's looking more like $7k for a link to me.
>>  
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:05 AM Josh Baird > wrote:
>> Yes - this is the WTM4800.
>>  
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:53 AM Mike Hammett > wrote:
>> That is an insane value proposition over the AF24HD.
>>  
>> Which specific radio, the 10G single band 4800?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>   
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>   
>>  
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> From: "Darin Steffl" >
>> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" >
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 9:29:10 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex
>> 
>> The best deal right now is Aviat 10Gbps full duplex for about $5k with 
>> dishes and everything.
>>  
>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:24 PM Sean Heskett > wrote:
>> Good choice Lewis!
>>  
>> We have a dozen of them and they are rock solid and fast!  Been really 
>> amazed during rain events (heavy mountain downpours) that they keep on 
>> keepin on!!
>>  
>> -Sean
>>  
>>  
>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Lewis Bergman > 
>> wrote:
>> Thanks everyone. I think we'll give the 80G Siklu a shot.
>>  
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mathew Howard > 
>> wrote:
>> At that distance, rain fade shouldn't be a problem with 60ghz, so it really 
>> comes down to hardware reliability, and budget, and specific requirements. 
>>  
>> If the project isn't cost sensitive, and you want the best you can get, then 
>> just go with 80ghz... there basically is no cheap junk for that band, so 
>> just pick your favorite vendor and buy what they have. 
>> If you do want to go cheap, then there are a few things to consider. 
>> Ignitenet an Ubiquiti (although I don't think their radios are actually 
>> shipping yet), have an extra channel at the top end of the band that can get 
>> a bit better range, which the Mikrotiks can't (legally) use... but that's 
>> not really going to make a lot of difference at that distance anyway. 
>> Ignitenet is the only one with an SFP port, if that matters, and they also 
>> have a radio that's capable of 2.5gbps, instead of only 1gpbs... they're 
>> also the most expensive of the cheap options. Mikrotik uses a beam forming 
>> antenna, so they're about 10x easier to aim then the Ignitenets (I 
>> believe Ubiquiti does as well, but I haven't used their radios yet). 
>>  
>> None of the cheap 60ghz radios are true full duplex radios, but I think 
>> they're all capable of delivering a full gig in each direction at the same 
>> time.
>>  
>> If you don't want cheap, but don't want to deal with 80ghz licensing (which 
>> is pretty cheap and simple, but it is another thing that has to be done), 
>> then Siklu 60ghz would probably be a good option. Or you could just stick 
>> with AF24HD, which will certainly do the job, but considering what they 
>> cost, it makes more sense to me to just go with 80ghz at that distance. You 
>> could also go with

Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

[Ken Hohhof]

My recollection is that WISPs who have tried 24 GHz even at 2 miles have been 
frustrated with the performance when it rains.  Maybe it depends on your 
definition of moderate rain zone.

 

I think part of the problem with rain fade is that it doesn’t get 6 dB worse at 
twice the distance, it doubles (unless the link is long enough that it never 
rains over the entire linke).

 

So if you have 40 dB fades at 1 mile, you’ll have 80 dB fades at 2 miles.  
You’re not going to make that up with xmt power or antenna size.

 

But speaking of transmit power, that’s another problem at 24 GHz, the 
regulatory EIRP limit is quite low.

 

We tend to talk like it’s all about which equipment vendor is better.  Is 
Ubiquiti better than Aviat?  But a lot of it is physics and regulatory.  And 
maybe climate change.  It reminds me of winter tires.  You can pay twice as 
much, but the performance on ice might only be 10% better.  There’s only so 
much you can do vs. laws of physics.  And states outlawing studded tires 
because they tear up the roads.

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 11:12 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

 

I don't think so. In moderate rain zones the AF24HD can go 2 miles, and maybe 
some change. I'm not sure how far you can go on 80 GHz, but I'm pretty sure it 
isn't that far.

 

bp

 

On 2/26/2020 9:08 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com   wrote:

Is the range equivalent?

 

From: Kurt Fankhauser 

Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:59 AM

To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

 

for $5,000 the Aviat 80ghz solution is actually cheaper than AF24HD and 10x the 
throughput! 

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:36 AM Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Good to know. That's an incredibly good deal... definitely what I'd go with. 
You'll probably be paying at least that for a 1Gbps link from any of the other 
manufacturers.

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:20 AM Darin Steffl mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> > wrote:

Yes I ran into the same thing with the web store showing a higher cost. 

 

Just reach out to Ken and he'll quote you the pricing I'm talking about. 

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 9:05 AM Josh Baird mailto:joshba...@gmail.com> > wrote:

It may be WISPA member pricing.

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:02 AM Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Is there some kind of special pricing or something? I logged into my Aviat 
account, and it's looking more like $7k for a link to me.

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:05 AM Josh Baird mailto:joshba...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Yes - this is the WTM4800.

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:53 AM Mike Hammett mailto:af...@ics-il.net> > wrote:

That is an insane value proposition over the AF24HD. 

 

Which specific radio, the 10G single band 4800?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions  
   
  
  
 
Midwest Internet Exchange  
   
  
 
The Brothers WISP  
   
 





  _  


From: "Darin Steffl" mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> >
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 9:29:10 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

The best deal right now is Aviat 10Gbps full duplex for about $5k with dishes 
and everything. 

 

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:24 PM Sean Heskett mailto:af...@zirkel.us> > wrote:

Good choice Lewis!

 

We have a dozen of them and they are rock solid and fast!  Been really amazed 
during rain events (heavy mountain downpours) that they keep on keepin on!!

 

-Sean

 

 

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Lewis Bergman mailto:lewis.berg...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Thanks everyone. I think we'll give the 80G Siklu a shot.

 

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com> > wrote:

At that distance, rain fade shouldn't be a problem with 60ghz, so it really 
comes down to hardware reliability, and budget, and specific requirements. 

 

If the project isn't cost sensitive, and you want the best you can get, then 
just go with 80ghz... there basically is no cheap junk for that band, so just 
pick your favorite vendor and buy what they have. 

If you do want to go cheap, then there are a few things to consider. Ignitenet 
an Ubiquiti (although I don't think their radios are actually shipping yet), 
have an extra channel at the top end of the band that can get a bit better 
range, which the Mikroti

Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

[Darin Steffl]

Comparing distance of 24 and 80ghz is somewhat pointless. Both will drop in
heavy rains even at short distances. I have a AF24 and siklu 80ghz link
under a half mile that have dropped in a heavy rain before.

Both will link up 5+ miles and work great until there is rain. Backups are
important when working in these bands.

They'll both run full capacity 99% of the time or more so just plan for a
lower capacity backup link for that other 1% of the time.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 11:22 AM Cassidy B. Larson  wrote:

> I have an AF24HD going 9.5 miles, linking at 700M+ both ways.   Bounces
> between 9X and 10X
>
> I also have a Siklu 80GHz with 2ft dishes going 3+ miles with 10G
> capacity.
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:11 AM, Bill Prince  wrote:
>
> I don't think so. In moderate rain zones the AF24HD can go 2 miles, and
> maybe some change. I'm not sure how far you can go on 80 GHz, but I'm
> pretty sure it isn't that far.
>
>
> bp
> 
>
>
> On 2/26/2020 9:08 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
>
> Is the range equivalent?
>
> *From:* Kurt Fankhauser
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:59 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex
>
> for $5,000 the Aviat 80ghz solution is actually cheaper than AF24HD and
> 10x the throughput!
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:36 AM Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
>> Good to know. That's an incredibly good deal... definitely what I'd go
>> with. You'll probably be paying at least that for a 1Gbps link from any of
>> the other manufacturers.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:20 AM Darin Steffl 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes I ran into the same thing with the web store showing a higher cost.
>>>
>>> Just reach out to Ken and he'll quote you the pricing I'm talking about.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 9:05 AM Josh Baird  wrote:
>>>
 It may be WISPA member pricing.

 On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:02 AM Mathew Howard 
 wrote:

> Is there some kind of special pricing or something? I logged into my
> Aviat account, and it's looking more like $7k for a link to me.
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:05 AM Josh Baird 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes - this is the WTM4800.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:53 AM Mike Hammett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That is an insane value proposition over the AF24HD.
>>>
>>> Which specific radio, the 10G single band 4800?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Darin Steffl" 
>>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, February 25, 2020 9:29:10 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex
>>>
>>> The best deal right now is Aviat 10Gbps full duplex for about $5k
>>> with dishes and everything.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:24 PM Sean Heskett  wrote:
>>>
 Good choice Lewis!

 We have a dozen of them and they are rock solid and fast!  Been
 really amazed during rain events (heavy mountain downpours) that they 
 keep
 on keepin on!!

 -Sean


 On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Lewis Bergman <
 lewis.berg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks everyone. I think we'll give the 80G Siklu a shot.
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mathew Howard <
> mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> At that distance, rain fade shouldn't be a problem with 60ghz, so
>> it really comes down to hardware reliability, and budget, and 
>> specific
>> requirements.
>>
>> If the project isn't cost sensitive, and you want the best you
>> can get, then just go with 80ghz... there basically is no cheap junk 
>> for
>> that band, so just pick your favorite vendor and buy what they have.
>> If you do want to go cheap, then there are a few things to
>> consider. Ignitenet an Ubiquiti (although I don't think their radios 
>> are
>> actually shipping yet), have an extra channel at the top end of the 
>> band
>> that can get a bit better range, which the Mikrotiks can't (legally) 
>> use...
>> but that's not really going to m

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

[Ken Hohhof]

So kind of like WinnForum did with CBRS?  They are not a TPA or a SAS vendor, 
but they decide the qualifications and then certify them?

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 11:14 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

 

It would be like any certification, paperwork documents what, specifically was 
certified, the mechanism and testing methodologies used, equipment used for 
testing, environment it was tested in. Base it off the FCC hardware 
certification.

Indemnification for the operator against faulty testing procedure, 
indemnification for the certifier for putting hands in the cookie jar. Its not 
a novel concept. 

Ala cart testing. from free self audit checklist to remote review all the way 
up to meters in front of antenna with az/el/coordinate, etc.

It wouldnt be cheap, but it would be cheaper than a fine

The process would have to be something that gives value, not something like a 
A+ BBB rating that you can just buy. It gives the operator something to present 
to entities when trying to gain access, like municipalities. Maybe in the long 
run it gets you a leg up on funding requests.

Its not stepping on vendor toes, because vendors dont currently offer it. Its a 
niche market with high liability for a vendor who doesnt want to be thorough. 
Maybe thats all WISPAS role is, certifying the certifier.

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:51 AM Mark Radabaugh mailto:m...@amplex.net> > wrote:

There have been discussion at the WISPA board level regarding having a 
for-profit entity that could do things like this.  There were not a lot of good 
ideas presented as to what the ‘for profit’ version of the organization would 
do that wouldn’t end up stepping on the toes of the vendor and consultant 
members though.   If you have good suggestions as to what the ‘for profit’ 
version should like like the organization is certainly interested in hearing 
them.   Any revenue and or profit that WISPA can make helps to cover overhead 
costs and keep dues down - as long as it doesn’t result in a boycott by vendors.

 

Mark





On Feb 26, 2020, at 11:20 AM, Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

It seems to me, that just about anybody with the proper knowledge could start a 
service like that... you'd basically just have to be willing/able to take on 
the liability for any FCC fines that somebody got on a system that you 
certified.

 

One downside to the FCC doing it, is that I think a lot of people would be 
hesitant to invite the FCC to look at their stuff. WISPA could certainly do it 
though... heck, they could make it a requirement for membership and clean up 
the whole industry a lot.

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:47 AM Steve Jones mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I always wished the FCC, or better yet, WISPA would offer a network audit 
service. Just to come in and verify compliance. Tier one is just looking at 
your configs, doesnt cost a huge amount, tier 2 they actually do EIRP 
verification and all that in the field for a bigger price. Id rather pay some 
outfit a couple grand than the FCC a whole lot more. I know the FCC normally 
issues a cease order before a fine if you have an honest mistake, but at some 
point it will just be a fine. People in the past have said "I can take a look", 
thats all fine and good, so can I. But can you certify it?

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:41 AM Mark Radabaugh mailto:m...@amplex.net> > wrote:

It 10/24/2022 is what your license says then yes, that is correct.

 

Mark





On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:37 AM, Chris Fabien mailto:ch...@lakenetmi.com> > wrote:

 

So sounds like consensus is we can continue to operate under the NN license 
until 10/24/2022? 

I do have these AP locations registered and will double check power is within 
limits. 

Thanks

Chris

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 10:32 AM Mark Radabaugh mailto:m...@amplex.net> > wrote:

I would very much second that statement - make sure you are following all the 
rules for 90z going forward.

 

Mark





On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:25 AM, Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Yeah, but tricky part is going to be stuff that's still operating legally under 
an unexpired license that the SAS can't manage. I think it would be wise to 
make sure everything is properly registered and you're not doing anything 
questionable if you plan to keep operating under the old rules much beyond 
April.

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:17 AM Steve Jones mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I was told when I asked about examples being made that hopefully SAS will sort 
things out on its own. If it goes outside of SAS being able to manage an issue, 
such all illegal operators, particularly when more sensing capability comes 
into play with SAS 2.0, you do not want to be the guy who gets nailed. 
Apparently this iteration of the SAS modality is an entry run for a much larger 
spectrum management, as is the cowb

Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

[Mike Hammett]

https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp/posts/1152763711515746 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: ch...@wbmfg.com 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 11:08:52 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex 




Is the range equivalent? 




From: Kurt Fankhauser 
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:59 AM 
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex 


for $5,000 the Aviat 80ghz solution is actually cheaper than AF24HD and 10x the 
throughput! 


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:36 AM Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 



Good to know. That's an incredibly good deal... definitely what I'd go with. 
You'll probably be paying at least that for a 1Gbps link from any of the other 
manufacturers. 



On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:20 AM Darin Steffl < darin.ste...@mnwifi.com > wrote: 



Yes I ran into the same thing with the web store showing a higher cost. 

Just reach out to Ken and he'll quote you the pricing I'm talking about. 


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 9:05 AM Josh Baird < joshba...@gmail.com > wrote: 



It may be WISPA member pricing. 


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:02 AM Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 



Is there some kind of special pricing or something? I logged into my Aviat 
account, and it's looking more like $7k for a link to me. 



On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:05 AM Josh Baird < joshba...@gmail.com > wrote: 



Yes - this is the WTM4800. 


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:53 AM Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




That is an insane value proposition over the AF24HD. 

Which specific radio, the 10G single band 4800? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Darin Steffl" < darin.ste...@mnwifi.com > 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > 
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 9:29:10 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex 


The best deal right now is Aviat 10Gbps full duplex for about $5k with dishes 
and everything. 


On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:24 PM Sean Heskett < af...@zirkel.us > wrote: 




Good choice Lewis! 

We have a dozen of them and they are rock solid and fast! Been really amazed 
during rain events (heavy mountain downpours) that they keep on keepin on!! 

-Sean 




On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Lewis Bergman < lewis.berg...@gmail.com > 
wrote: 



Thanks everyone. I think we'll give the 80G Siklu a shot. 


On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 




At that distance, rain fade shouldn't be a problem with 60ghz, so it really 
comes down to hardware reliability, and budget, and specific requirements. 


If the project isn't cost sensitive, and you want the best you can get, then 
just go with 80ghz... there basically is no cheap junk for that band, so just 
pick your favorite vendor and buy what they have. 

If you do want to go cheap, then there are a few things to consider. Ignitenet 
an Ubiquiti (although I don't think their radios are actually shipping yet), 
have an extra channel at the top end of the band that can get a bit better 
range, which the Mikrotiks can't (legally) use... but that's not really going 
to make a lot of difference at that distance anyway. Ignitenet is the only one 
with an SFP port, if that matters, and they also have a radio that's capable of 
2.5gbps, instead of only 1gpbs... they're also the most expensive of the cheap 
options. Mikrotik uses a beam forming antenna, so they're about 10x easier 
to aim then the Ignitenets (I believe Ubiquiti does as well, but I haven't used 
their radios yet). 


None of the cheap 60ghz radios are true full duplex radios, but I think they're 
all capable of delivering a full gig in each direction at the same time. 

If you don't want cheap, but don't want to deal with 80ghz licensing (which is 
pretty cheap and simple, but it is another thing that has to be done), then 
Siklu 60ghz would probably be a good option. Or you could just stick with 
AF24HD, which will certainly do the job, but considering what they cost, it 
makes more sense to me to just go with 80ghz at that distance. You could also 
go with Mimosa B24 for 24ghz, but they're half duplex radios, and I don't think 
that they can handle a full 2gbps aggregate. 




On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:09 AM dave < dmilho...@wletc.com > wrote: 



I guess it depends on the 9s you want. 
Cheaper is not always better for consistency. 





On 2/24/20 8:36 AM, Josh Baird wrote: 



No way I would consider AF24HD for this. You can get 80ghz links for less that 
do MUCH more throughput (10Gbps). 

Vendors in this space include Bridgewave, Siklu and Aviat. Aviat probably gives 
you the best bang for your buck. Cambium has a new mmWave product, but I don't 
know anything about it. 


Josh 


On Mon, Feb 24

Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

[Dennis Burgess via AF]

Or  for 300 bucks you can run a MikroTik 60GHz link.
http://www.linktechs.net/productcart/pc/showsearchresults.asp?pageStyle=H&resultCnt=&exact=1&keyword=wireless+wire+dish
 will work quite well at .6km.  We have a .2 km link, snow rain, it just stays 
up.


[LTI-Full_175px]
Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE, MTCSE, HE IPv6 Sage, Cambium ePMP Certified
Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
Office: 314-735-0270  Website: 
http://www.linktechs.net
Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com

From: AF  On Behalf Of Darin Steffl
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 9:29 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

The best deal right now is Aviat 10Gbps full duplex for about $5k with dishes 
and everything.

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:24 PM Sean Heskett 
mailto:af...@zirkel.us>> wrote:
Good choice Lewis!

We have a dozen of them and they are rock solid and fast!  Been really amazed 
during rain events (heavy mountain downpours) that they keep on keepin on!!

-Sean


On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Lewis Bergman 
mailto:lewis.berg...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks everyone. I think we'll give the 80G Siklu a shot.

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mathew Howard 
mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:
At that distance, rain fade shouldn't be a problem with 60ghz, so it really 
comes down to hardware reliability, and budget, and specific requirements.

If the project isn't cost sensitive, and you want the best you can get, then 
just go with 80ghz... there basically is no cheap junk for that band, so just 
pick your favorite vendor and buy what they have.
If you do want to go cheap, then there are a few things to consider. Ignitenet 
an Ubiquiti (although I don't think their radios are actually shipping yet), 
have an extra channel at the top end of the band that can get a bit better 
range, which the Mikrotiks can't (legally) use... but that's not really going 
to make a lot of difference at that distance anyway. Ignitenet is the only one 
with an SFP port, if that matters, and they also have a radio that's capable of 
2.5gbps, instead of only 1gpbs... they're also the most expensive of the cheap 
options. Mikrotik uses a beam forming antenna, so they're about 10x easier 
to aim then the Ignitenets (I believe Ubiquiti does as well, but I haven't used 
their radios yet).

None of the cheap 60ghz radios are true full duplex radios, but I think they're 
all capable of delivering a full gig in each direction at the same time.

If you don't want cheap, but don't want to deal with 80ghz licensing (which is 
pretty cheap and simple, but it is another thing that has to be done), then 
Siklu 60ghz would probably be a good option. Or you could just stick with 
AF24HD, which will certainly do the job, but considering what they cost, it 
makes more sense to me to just go with 80ghz at that distance. You could also 
go with Mimosa B24 for 24ghz, but they're half duplex radios, and I don't think 
that they can handle a full 2gbps aggregate.


On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:09 AM dave 
mailto:dmilho...@wletc.com>> wrote:
I guess it depends on the 9s you want.
Cheaper is not always better for consistency.


[cid:image002.jpg@01D5EC98.A2007220]
On 2/24/20 8:36 AM, Josh Baird wrote:
No way I would consider AF24HD for this.  You can get 80ghz links for less that 
do MUCH more throughput (10Gbps).

Vendors in this space include Bridgewave, Siklu and Aviat.  Aviat probably 
gives you the best bang for your buck.  Cambium has a new mmWave product, but I 
don't know anything about it.

Josh

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 9:31 AM dave 
mailto:dmilho...@wletc.com>> wrote:
Not sure which product mentioned but the PTP550 unlicensed will take all of 
your 5g spectrum and
there is the ptp850E

[cid:image002.jpg@01D5EC98.A2007220]
On 2/24/20 8:27 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
What are the current recommendations for something like this. I see Cambium has 
something that looks like it will work but their product selector returns no 
matches .

Ubiquiti has the 24HD.

Anything else I should be aware of?
--
Lewis Bergman


--
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


--
Lewis Bergman
325-439-0533 Cell
--
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

[AFMUG] site monitor base 3 availability?

[Steve Jones]

Its getting at the end of February, what are we looking at in availability
of these bad boys?
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

[AFMUG] OT: we now have a corollary to Florida man...

[Bill Prince]

The Florida woman.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-woman-accused-zipping-boyfriend-suitcase-leaving-him-die-n1143356


--

bp



--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

[AFMUG] OT bluetooth nav

[chuck]

Anyone know how location tracking of cell phones indoors works?  I believe it 
is based on bluetooth. Works inside airports.  I see Amazon using something 
similar for their cashless grocery store.  -- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE

[Josh Luthman]

So you're running this CBRS with the open spectrum, right?  Have you seen
any issues in the 2 weeks?

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:45 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

> 30Mhz at +49dBm versus 20Mhz at +40dBm.Some of the improvement in
> airtime obviously comes from the wider channel size but the bigger change
> was the higher power and quieter spectrum moving everyone into 6x/8x
> modulation.
>
> Mark
>
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
>
> What's the actual TX power in that case before and after? I thought the
> number I had heard for CBRS was 47db EIRP in a 20mhz channel... although I
> have no idea where that number came from, so it could very well be wrong .
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>
>> Way more than 5db, 10dB is more realistic.   This is a typical customer
>> off a 450m 3.65 CBRS AP running at full power:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Even more interesting:
>>
>> 
>>
>> This shows frame utilization of the 450m before and after the switch to
>> CBRS.   The higher power and cleaner spectrum greatly increased the
>> modulation of the customers resulting in greatly reduced airtime
>> utilization.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
>>
>> It's a 5-6db increase, if I remember correctly, so that could certainly
>> be enough to make the difference in a lot of cases.
>>
>> Of course there's also the fact that half of the people running Baicells
>> radios with sectors are probably already running (illegally) at that power
>> level anyway...
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:50 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>
>>> Is the CBRS power that much higher where a 450 at CBRS power makes up
>>> for the lack of nLOS capability as compared to LTE on NN?
>>>
>>> Obviously LTE at CBRS power would be that much better, but maybe it's a
>>> good fit where people need just a little more nLOS capability than 450
>>> provides and the extra power gets that for them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Matt Mangriotis via AF" 
>>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>>> *Cc: *"Matt Mangriotis" 
>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, February 25, 2020 3:59:25 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re:  Cambium LTE
>>>
>>> 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  *On Behalf Of * Ken Hohhof
>>> *Sent:* Monday, February 24, 2020 7:06 PM
>>> *To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
>>> *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 may

Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

[Kurt Fankhauser]

the original post was for a .6km range, thats pretty short, im sure 80ghz
would do well on that range

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:12 PM Bill Prince  wrote:

> I don't think so. In moderate rain zones the AF24HD can go 2 miles, and
> maybe some change. I'm not sure how far you can go on 80 GHz, but I'm
> pretty sure it isn't that far.
>
>
> bp
> 
>
>
> On 2/26/2020 9:08 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
>
> Is the range equivalent?
>
> *From:* Kurt Fankhauser
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:59 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex
>
> for $5,000 the Aviat 80ghz solution is actually cheaper than AF24HD and
> 10x the throughput!
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:36 AM Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
>> Good to know. That's an incredibly good deal... definitely what I'd go
>> with. You'll probably be paying at least that for a 1Gbps link from any of
>> the other manufacturers.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:20 AM Darin Steffl 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes I ran into the same thing with the web store showing a higher cost.
>>>
>>> Just reach out to Ken and he'll quote you the pricing I'm talking about.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 9:05 AM Josh Baird  wrote:
>>>
 It may be WISPA member pricing.

 On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:02 AM Mathew Howard 
 wrote:

> Is there some kind of special pricing or something? I logged into my
> Aviat account, and it's looking more like $7k for a link to me.
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:05 AM Josh Baird 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes - this is the WTM4800.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:53 AM Mike Hammett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That is an insane value proposition over the AF24HD.
>>>
>>> Which specific radio, the 10G single band 4800?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Darin Steffl" 
>>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, February 25, 2020 9:29:10 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex
>>>
>>> The best deal right now is Aviat 10Gbps full duplex for about $5k
>>> with dishes and everything.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:24 PM Sean Heskett  wrote:
>>>
 Good choice Lewis!

 We have a dozen of them and they are rock solid and fast!  Been
 really amazed during rain events (heavy mountain downpours) that they 
 keep
 on keepin on!!

 -Sean


 On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Lewis Bergman <
 lewis.berg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks everyone. I think we'll give the 80G Siklu a shot.
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mathew Howard <
> mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> At that distance, rain fade shouldn't be a problem with 60ghz, so
>> it really comes down to hardware reliability, and budget, and 
>> specific
>> requirements.
>>
>> If the project isn't cost sensitive, and you want the best you
>> can get, then just go with 80ghz... there basically is no cheap junk 
>> for
>> that band, so just pick your favorite vendor and buy what they have.
>> If you do want to go cheap, then there are a few things to
>> consider. Ignitenet an Ubiquiti (although I don't think their radios 
>> are
>> actually shipping yet), have an extra channel at the top end of the 
>> band
>> that can get a bit better range, which the Mikrotiks can't (legally) 
>> use...
>> but that's not really going to make a lot of difference at that 
>> distance
>> anyway. Ignitenet is the only one with an SFP port, if that matters, 
>> and
>> they also have a radio that's capable of 2.5gbps, instead of only 
>> 1gpbs...
>> they're also the most expensive of the cheap options. Mikrotik uses 
>> a beam
>> forming antenna, so they're about 10x easier to aim then the 
>> Ignitenets
>> (I believe Ubiquiti does as well, but I haven't used their radios 
>> yet).
>>
>> None of the cheap 60ghz radios a

Re: [AFMUG] OT bluetooth nav

[chuck]

LocusLabs seems to have products for airports but they don’t describe their 
technology.
Perhaps it is nothing more than a bunch of receivers with Doppler antennas on 
them triangulating signals.  

From: ch...@wbmfg.com 
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 10:46 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Subject: OT bluetooth nav

Anyone know how location tracking of cell phones indoors works?  I believe it 
is based on bluetooth. Works inside airports.  I see Amazon using something 
similar for their cashless grocery store.  -- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT bluetooth nav

[chuck]

Seems like signal strength and beamforming antennas scanning for your cell 
phone gets it within 1 meter.  

From: ch...@wbmfg.com 
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 10:50 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Subject: Re: OT bluetooth nav

LocusLabs seems to have products for airports but they don’t describe their 
technology.
Perhaps it is nothing more than a bunch of receivers with Doppler antennas on 
them triangulating signals.  

From: ch...@wbmfg.com 
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 10:46 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Subject: OT bluetooth nav

Anyone know how location tracking of cell phones indoors works?  I believe it 
is based on bluetooth. Works inside airports.  I see Amazon using something 
similar for their cashless grocery store.  -- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

[Mathew Howard]

True, but then any certification you did wouldn't mean much. The only way I
see that you can make a certification actually mean something is if it
gives them so level of guarantee that they won't get fined.

Although, I guess if it's a certification that comes from an organization
with enough credibility that everyone can assume they actually do know what
they're talking about (WISPA being the obvious one), then it could mean
something without accepting any liability.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:41 AM Adam Moffett  wrote:

> Quite the opposite.  You don't know what the customer did before you got
> there and after you left.  And even a "small" mistake could be a $50,000
> problem.  A consultant would be crazy to accept liability for FCC fines,
> quite the opposite:  You'd want them to sign an agreement indemnifying you
> from any liability for FCC fines.
>
>
> On 2/26/2020 11:20 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>
> It seems to me, that just about anybody with the proper knowledge could
> start a service like that... you'd basically just have to be willing/able
> to take on the liability for any FCC fines that somebody got on a system
> that you certified.
>
> One downside to the FCC doing it, is that I think a lot of people would be
> hesitant to invite the FCC to look at their stuff. WISPA could certainly do
> it though... heck, they could make it a requirement for membership and
> clean up the whole industry a lot.
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:47 AM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> I always wished the FCC, or better yet, WISPA would offer a network audit
>> service. Just to come in and verify compliance. Tier one is just looking at
>> your configs, doesnt cost a huge amount, tier 2 they actually do EIRP
>> verification and all that in the field for a bigger price. Id rather pay
>> some outfit a couple grand than the FCC a whole lot more. I know the FCC
>> normally issues a cease order before a fine if you have an honest mistake,
>> but at some point it will just be a fine. People in the past have said "I
>> can take a look", thats all fine and good, so can I. But can you certify it?
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:41 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>
>>> It 10/24/2022 is what your license says then yes, that is correct.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:37 AM, Chris Fabien  wrote:
>>>
>>> So sounds like consensus is we can continue to operate under the NN
>>> license until 10/24/2022?
>>> I do have these AP locations registered and will double check power is
>>> within limits.
>>> Thanks
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 10:32 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>>
 I would very much second that statement - make sure you are following
 all the rules for 90z going forward.

 Mark

 On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:25 AM, Mathew Howard 
 wrote:

 Yeah, but tricky part is going to be stuff that's still operating
 legally under an unexpired license that the SAS can't manage. I think it
 would be wise to make sure everything is properly registered and you're not
 doing anything questionable if you plan to keep operating under the old
 rules much beyond April.

 On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:17 AM Steve Jones 
 wrote:

> I was told when I asked about examples being made that hopefully SAS
> will sort things out on its own. If it goes outside of SAS being able to
> manage an issue, such all illegal operators, particularly when more 
> sensing
> capability comes into play with SAS 2.0, you do not want to be the guy who
> gets nailed. Apparently this iteration of the SAS modality is an entry run
> for a much larger spectrum management, as is the cowboy days are over
> moving forward
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:54 AM Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I agree, they probably will make an example out of a few
>> operators. But I don't see any reason why they'd bother with somebody who
>> still has a valid license. They'll probably go after some guys that are
>> blatantly running some old Ubiquiti or WiMax gear after their license
>> expires.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:56 AM Mark Radabaugh 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > On Feb 25, 2020, at 5:20 PM, Mathew Howard 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 
>>>
>>> > I would assume that if a CBRS operator puts up gear that you're
>>> interfering with, it's going to be handled pretty much the same way it 
>>> was
>>> under the old rules (in other words, work it out with eachother, or 
>>> shut up
>>> and live with it)... there's a reason that they made 3650-3700 GAA only.
>>> >
>>>
>>> I would expect the FCC to make an example of a couple of operators
>>> who continue to operate 90z equipment illegally after the license 
>>> expires.
>>>  We all have too much to lose here if the operators are not running 
>>> legally
>>> and the mobile industry starts another attempt to push everyo

Re: [AFMUG] site monitor base 3 availability?

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

Very close.   I can't give you an exact date right this second, as there
are too many moving parts which all have to come together.  I'm going
through and doing all the validation work at this point and cleaning up
anything I find.   I'm guessing the week or two after WISPAMERICA at this
point but it could slide another couple weeks as a result of the challenges
in obtaining raw materials right now.

I ended up spending a couple of months back in November/December figuring
out that the SNMP code that we've been using for years (including in the
RackInjector) wasn't going to work for the SiteMonitor 3.  And then trying
and then giving up on a couple of alternative SNMP stacks.  After the
holidays, I ended up writing an SNMP stack from scratch and that triggered
some other code changes since there were some architecture decisions I made
to attempt to get around the shortcomings in the original SNMP stack which
weren't valid anymore.  Made things a lot nicer/easier, but it was work
getting it there.   February has been all about getting the work done I
expected to be doing in November and December.

At this point it's mostly about doing the final release process and then
doing integration with the Automatic Test.   Once that is done and I've
100% verified that the board design I have is good, we'll order production
boards. There is a chance that I'll end up having to do an additional
(minor) board revision during this process.  Normally if that happens, I'll
typically order 10 or so of the new design to verify I didn't screw
something up in the process of fixing whatever was broken, but in this
case, I'll increase the order to whatever is pre-ordered so I can at least
get those out.

Of course like anything with a schedule the crap could hit the fan and this
schedule goes out the window.

I will be doing a walkthough of the new devices in the PacketFlux session
on thursday afternoon.


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:39 AM Steve Jones 
wrote:

> Its getting at the end of February, what are we looking at in availability
> of these bad boys?
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>


-- 
- Forrest
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] site monitor base 3 availability?

[Steve Jones]

youre killin me smalls
good work though, im pretty excited about this, i dont get excited much
when im sober

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:08 PM Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> Very close.   I can't give you an exact date right this second, as there
> are too many moving parts which all have to come together.  I'm going
> through and doing all the validation work at this point and cleaning up
> anything I find.   I'm guessing the week or two after WISPAMERICA at this
> point but it could slide another couple weeks as a result of the challenges
> in obtaining raw materials right now.
>
> I ended up spending a couple of months back in November/December figuring
> out that the SNMP code that we've been using for years (including in the
> RackInjector) wasn't going to work for the SiteMonitor 3.  And then trying
> and then giving up on a couple of alternative SNMP stacks.  After the
> holidays, I ended up writing an SNMP stack from scratch and that triggered
> some other code changes since there were some architecture decisions I made
> to attempt to get around the shortcomings in the original SNMP stack which
> weren't valid anymore.  Made things a lot nicer/easier, but it was work
> getting it there.   February has been all about getting the work done I
> expected to be doing in November and December.
>
> At this point it's mostly about doing the final release process and then
> doing integration with the Automatic Test.   Once that is done and I've
> 100% verified that the board design I have is good, we'll order production
> boards. There is a chance that I'll end up having to do an additional
> (minor) board revision during this process.  Normally if that happens, I'll
> typically order 10 or so of the new design to verify I didn't screw
> something up in the process of fixing whatever was broken, but in this
> case, I'll increase the order to whatever is pre-ordered so I can at least
> get those out.
>
> Of course like anything with a schedule the crap could hit the fan and
> this schedule goes out the window.
>
> I will be doing a walkthough of the new devices in the PacketFlux session
> on thursday afternoon.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:39 AM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> Its getting at the end of February, what are we looking at in
>> availability of these bad boys?
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
>
> --
> - Forrest
> --
> 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

Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

[Mathew Howard]

Anything that's more than ~1 mile is going to drop (at least occasionally,
unless it never rains) with either 80ghz or 24ghz, and realistically, if a
storm takes down an 80ghz link it's going to take down a 24ghz link to...
it might only be down 5 minutes instead of 6 minutes, but it's still going
to go down.

If we ignore rain fade, then 80ghz actually should have significantly
better range than 24ghz, because the allowed EIRP is so much higher.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:27 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> My recollection is that WISPs who have tried 24 GHz even at 2 miles have
> been frustrated with the performance when it rains.  Maybe it depends on
> your definition of moderate rain zone.
>
>
>
> I think part of the problem with rain fade is that it doesn’t get 6 dB
> worse at twice the distance, it doubles (unless the link is long enough
> that it never rains over the entire linke).
>
>
>
> So if you have 40 dB fades at 1 mile, you’ll have 80 dB fades at 2 miles.
> You’re not going to make that up with xmt power or antenna size.
>
>
>
> But speaking of transmit power, that’s another problem at 24 GHz, the
> regulatory EIRP limit is quite low.
>
>
>
> We tend to talk like it’s all about which equipment vendor is better.  Is
> Ubiquiti better than Aviat?  But a lot of it is physics and regulatory.
> And maybe climate change.  It reminds me of winter tires.  You can pay
> twice as much, but the performance on ice might only be 10% better.
> There’s only so much you can do vs. laws of physics.  And states outlawing
> studded tires because they tear up the roads.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Bill Prince
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2020 11:12 AM
> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex
>
>
>
> I don't think so. In moderate rain zones the AF24HD can go 2 miles, and
> maybe some change. I'm not sure how far you can go on 80 GHz, but I'm
> pretty sure it isn't that far.
>
>
>
> bp
>
> 
>
>
>
> On 2/26/2020 9:08 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
>
> Is the range equivalent?
>
>
>
> *From:* Kurt Fankhauser
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:59 AM
>
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex
>
>
>
> for $5,000 the Aviat 80ghz solution is actually cheaper than AF24HD and
> 10x the throughput!
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:36 AM Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
> Good to know. That's an incredibly good deal... definitely what I'd go
> with. You'll probably be paying at least that for a 1Gbps link from any of
> the other manufacturers.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:20 AM Darin Steffl 
> wrote:
>
> Yes I ran into the same thing with the web store showing a higher cost.
>
>
>
> Just reach out to Ken and he'll quote you the pricing I'm talking about.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 9:05 AM Josh Baird  wrote:
>
> It may be WISPA member pricing.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:02 AM Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
> Is there some kind of special pricing or something? I logged into my Aviat
> account, and it's looking more like $7k for a link to me.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:05 AM Josh Baird  wrote:
>
> Yes - this is the WTM4800.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:53 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
> That is an insane value proposition over the AF24HD.
>
>
>
> Which specific radio, the 10G single band 4800?
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
>
> *From: *"Darin Steffl" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, February 25, 2020 9:29:10 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex
>
> The best deal right now is Aviat 10Gbps full duplex for about $5k with
> dishes and everything.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:24 PM Sean Heskett  wrote:
>
> Good choice Lewis!
>
>
>
> We have a dozen of them and they are rock solid and fast!  Been really
> amazed during rain events (heavy mountain downpours) that they keep on
> keepin on!!
>
>
>
> -Sean
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Lewis Bergman 
> wrote:
>
> Thanks everyone. I think we'll give the 80G Siklu a shot.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
> At that distance, rain fade shouldn't be a problem with 60ghz, so it
> really comes down to hardware reliability, and budget, and specific
> requirements.
>
>
>
> If the project isn't cost sensitive, and you want the best you can ge

[AFMUG] Coronavirus face ID mask

[Ken Hohhof]

https://twitter.com/djbaskin/status/1228798382598000640

 

Or maybe Face ID algorithms can still recognize you with a mask on?

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

[Steve Jones]

If you were certified, and you received a fine, then whoever did the
certification absolutely should be the one accountable. Thats the entire
purpose, ensuring you are compliant. Its no different the your CPI in CBRS

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:02 PM Mathew Howard  wrote:

> True, but then any certification you did wouldn't mean much. The only way
> I see that you can make a certification actually mean something is if it
> gives them so level of guarantee that they won't get fined.
>
> Although, I guess if it's a certification that comes from an organization
> with enough credibility that everyone can assume they actually do know what
> they're talking about (WISPA being the obvious one), then it could mean
> something without accepting any liability.
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:41 AM Adam Moffett  wrote:
>
>> Quite the opposite.  You don't know what the customer did before you got
>> there and after you left.  And even a "small" mistake could be a $50,000
>> problem.  A consultant would be crazy to accept liability for FCC fines,
>> quite the opposite:  You'd want them to sign an agreement indemnifying you
>> from any liability for FCC fines.
>>
>>
>> On 2/26/2020 11:20 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>
>> It seems to me, that just about anybody with the proper knowledge could
>> start a service like that... you'd basically just have to be willing/able
>> to take on the liability for any FCC fines that somebody got on a system
>> that you certified.
>>
>> One downside to the FCC doing it, is that I think a lot of people would
>> be hesitant to invite the FCC to look at their stuff. WISPA could certainly
>> do it though... heck, they could make it a requirement for membership and
>> clean up the whole industry a lot.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:47 AM Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I always wished the FCC, or better yet, WISPA would offer a network
>>> audit service. Just to come in and verify compliance. Tier one is just
>>> looking at your configs, doesnt cost a huge amount, tier 2 they actually do
>>> EIRP verification and all that in the field for a bigger price. Id rather
>>> pay some outfit a couple grand than the FCC a whole lot more. I know the
>>> FCC normally issues a cease order before a fine if you have an honest
>>> mistake, but at some point it will just be a fine. People in the past have
>>> said "I can take a look", thats all fine and good, so can I. But can you
>>> certify it?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:41 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>>
 It 10/24/2022 is what your license says then yes, that is correct.

 Mark

 On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:37 AM, Chris Fabien  wrote:

 So sounds like consensus is we can continue to operate under the NN
 license until 10/24/2022?
 I do have these AP locations registered and will double check power is
 within limits.
 Thanks
 Chris


 On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 10:32 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

> I would very much second that statement - make sure you are following
> all the rules for 90z going forward.
>
> Mark
>
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:25 AM, Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
> Yeah, but tricky part is going to be stuff that's still operating
> legally under an unexpired license that the SAS can't manage. I think it
> would be wise to make sure everything is properly registered and you're 
> not
> doing anything questionable if you plan to keep operating under the old
> rules much beyond April.
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:17 AM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> I was told when I asked about examples being made that hopefully SAS
>> will sort things out on its own. If it goes outside of SAS being able to
>> manage an issue, such all illegal operators, particularly when more 
>> sensing
>> capability comes into play with SAS 2.0, you do not want to be the guy 
>> who
>> gets nailed. Apparently this iteration of the SAS modality is an entry 
>> run
>> for a much larger spectrum management, as is the cowboy days are over
>> moving forward
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:54 AM Mathew Howard 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, I agree, they probably will make an example out of a few
>>> operators. But I don't see any reason why they'd bother with somebody 
>>> who
>>> still has a valid license. They'll probably go after some guys that are
>>> blatantly running some old Ubiquiti or WiMax gear after their license
>>> expires.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:56 AM Mark Radabaugh 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 > On Feb 25, 2020, at 5:20 PM, Mathew Howard 
 wrote:
 >
 > 

 > I would assume that if a CBRS operator puts up gear that you're
 interfering with, it's going to be handled pretty much the same way it 
 was
 under the old rules (in other words, work it out with eachother, or 
 shut up
>

Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE

[Mathew Howard]

To be fair, if you were running at 30mhz under part 90, you should be able
to do something like +44dBm... of course that's generally not going to be
realistic in 3650-3700mhz, and it is in CBRS (for now anyway).

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:45 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

> 30Mhz at +49dBm versus 20Mhz at +40dBm.Some of the improvement in
> airtime obviously comes from the wider channel size but the bigger change
> was the higher power and quieter spectrum moving everyone into 6x/8x
> modulation.
>
> Mark
>
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
>
> What's the actual TX power in that case before and after? I thought the
> number I had heard for CBRS was 47db EIRP in a 20mhz channel... although I
> have no idea where that number came from, so it could very well be wrong .
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>
>> Way more than 5db, 10dB is more realistic.   This is a typical customer
>> off a 450m 3.65 CBRS AP running at full power:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Even more interesting:
>>
>> 
>>
>> This shows frame utilization of the 450m before and after the switch to
>> CBRS.   The higher power and cleaner spectrum greatly increased the
>> modulation of the customers resulting in greatly reduced airtime
>> utilization.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
>>
>> It's a 5-6db increase, if I remember correctly, so that could certainly
>> be enough to make the difference in a lot of cases.
>>
>> Of course there's also the fact that half of the people running Baicells
>> radios with sectors are probably already running (illegally) at that power
>> level anyway...
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:50 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>
>>> Is the CBRS power that much higher where a 450 at CBRS power makes up
>>> for the lack of nLOS capability as compared to LTE on NN?
>>>
>>> Obviously LTE at CBRS power would be that much better, but maybe it's a
>>> good fit where people need just a little more nLOS capability than 450
>>> provides and the extra power gets that for them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Matt Mangriotis via AF" 
>>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>>> *Cc: *"Matt Mangriotis" 
>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, February 25, 2020 3:59:25 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re:  Cambium LTE
>>>
>>> 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  *On Behalf Of * Ken Hohhof
>>> *Sent:* Monday, February 24, 2020 7:06 PM
>>> *To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
>>> *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
>>> 

Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

[Bill Prince]

  
  
In this area, 24 GHz works reliably at 2 to 2-1/2 miles. We have
  several links at these distances for years now, and they just stay
  up. One of them faded out this year; not from rain, but when one
  end of the link had the radome covered with a couple inches of
  snow/ice. The snow/ice would have killed other frequencies as
  well. Thankfully, this doesn't happen very often; it's the first
  time it happened in over 5 years.

We also, for some time, had a 24 GHz link at 9+ miles. It did
  fade, but was surprisingly reliable. I'm not advocating for such a
  link (and we replaced this one some time ago), but rain is widely
  variable in different regions. I would advise differently for
  someone in Illinois (for example).

bp



On 2/26/2020 10:14 AM, Mathew Howard
  wrote:


  
  
Anything that's more than ~1 mile is going to drop (at
  least occasionally, unless it never rains) with either 80ghz
  or 24ghz, and realistically, if a storm takes down an 80ghz
  link it's going to take down a 24ghz link to... it might only
  be down 5 minutes instead of 6 minutes, but it's still going
  to go down. 



If we ignore rain fade, then 80ghz actually should have
  significantly better range than 24ghz, because the allowed
  EIRP is so much higher.

  
  
  
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:27
  AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:


  

  My recollection is that WISPs who
have tried 24 GHz even at 2 miles have been frustrated
with the performance when it rains.  Maybe it depends on
your definition of moderate rain zone.
   
  I think part of the problem with rain
fade is that it doesn’t get 6 dB worse at twice the
distance, it doubles (unless the link is long enough
that it never rains over the entire linke).
   
  So if you have 40 dB fades at 1 mile,
you’ll have 80 dB fades at 2 miles.  You’re not going to
make that up with xmt power or antenna size.
   
  But speaking of transmit power,
that’s another problem at 24 GHz, the regulatory EIRP
limit is quite low.
   
  We tend to talk like it’s all about
which equipment vendor is better.  Is Ubiquiti better
than Aviat?  But a lot of it is physics and regulatory. 
And maybe climate change.  It reminds me of winter
tires.  You can pay twice as much, but the performance
on ice might only be 10% better.  There’s only so much
you can do vs. laws of physics.  And states outlawing
studded tires because they tear up the roads.
   
   
  

  From: AF 
On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 11:12 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full
Duplex

  
   
  I don't think so. In moderate rain zones the AF24HD can
go 2 miles, and maybe some change. I'm not sure how far
you can go on 80 GHz, but I'm pretty sure it isn't that
far.
   
  bp
  
   
  
On 2/26/2020 9:08 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
  
  

  

  Is the
  range equivalent?


  

   


  
From:
Kurt Fankhauser 
  
  
Sent:
Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:59 AM
  
  
To:
AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
  
  
Subject:
Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full
Duplex
  

  
  
 
  


  

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 NN License Expiry

[Mathew Howard]

I agree, but the only way for that to work is going to be lots and lots of
documentation, so that when the customer does change something after the
fact and gets fined, you can go back and say "that wasn't that way when it
was certified".

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:19 PM Steve Jones 
wrote:

> If you were certified, and you received a fine, then whoever did the
> certification absolutely should be the one accountable. Thats the entire
> purpose, ensuring you are compliant. Its no different the your CPI in CBRS
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:02 PM Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
>> True, but then any certification you did wouldn't mean much. The only way
>> I see that you can make a certification actually mean something is if it
>> gives them so level of guarantee that they won't get fined.
>>
>> Although, I guess if it's a certification that comes from an organization
>> with enough credibility that everyone can assume they actually do know what
>> they're talking about (WISPA being the obvious one), then it could mean
>> something without accepting any liability.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:41 AM Adam Moffett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Quite the opposite.  You don't know what the customer did before you got
>>> there and after you left.  And even a "small" mistake could be a $50,000
>>> problem.  A consultant would be crazy to accept liability for FCC fines,
>>> quite the opposite:  You'd want them to sign an agreement indemnifying you
>>> from any liability for FCC fines.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/26/2020 11:20 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>>
>>> It seems to me, that just about anybody with the proper knowledge could
>>> start a service like that... you'd basically just have to be willing/able
>>> to take on the liability for any FCC fines that somebody got on a system
>>> that you certified.
>>>
>>> One downside to the FCC doing it, is that I think a lot of people would
>>> be hesitant to invite the FCC to look at their stuff. WISPA could certainly
>>> do it though... heck, they could make it a requirement for membership and
>>> clean up the whole industry a lot.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:47 AM Steve Jones 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I always wished the FCC, or better yet, WISPA would offer a network
 audit service. Just to come in and verify compliance. Tier one is just
 looking at your configs, doesnt cost a huge amount, tier 2 they actually do
 EIRP verification and all that in the field for a bigger price. Id rather
 pay some outfit a couple grand than the FCC a whole lot more. I know the
 FCC normally issues a cease order before a fine if you have an honest
 mistake, but at some point it will just be a fine. People in the past have
 said "I can take a look", thats all fine and good, so can I. But can you
 certify it?

 On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:41 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

> It 10/24/2022 is what your license says then yes, that is correct.
>
> Mark
>
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:37 AM, Chris Fabien 
> wrote:
>
> So sounds like consensus is we can continue to operate under the NN
> license until 10/24/2022?
> I do have these AP locations registered and will double check power is
> within limits.
> Thanks
> Chris
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 10:32 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>
>> I would very much second that statement - make sure you are following
>> all the rules for 90z going forward.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:25 AM, Mathew Howard 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, but tricky part is going to be stuff that's still operating
>> legally under an unexpired license that the SAS can't manage. I think it
>> would be wise to make sure everything is properly registered and you're 
>> not
>> doing anything questionable if you plan to keep operating under the old
>> rules much beyond April.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:17 AM Steve Jones <
>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I was told when I asked about examples being made that hopefully SAS
>>> will sort things out on its own. If it goes outside of SAS being able to
>>> manage an issue, such all illegal operators, particularly when more 
>>> sensing
>>> capability comes into play with SAS 2.0, you do not want to be the guy 
>>> who
>>> gets nailed. Apparently this iteration of the SAS modality is an entry 
>>> run
>>> for a much larger spectrum management, as is the cowboy days are over
>>> moving forward
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:54 AM Mathew Howard 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Yeah, I agree, they probably will make an example out of a few
 operators. But I don't see any reason why they'd bother with somebody 
 who
 still has a valid license. They'll probably go after some guys that are
 blatantly running some old Ubiquiti or WiMax gear after their license
 expires.

 On W

Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE

[Mark Radabaugh]

Not too many.  

A few bugs in the beta code for the AP’s, nothing really a show stopper.   SM 
upload rate limit when in NAT mode appears to be broken, but works properly in 
bridge mode.   We are seeing AP’s rebooting somewhat randomly on the beta code 
when NOT running in CBRS - i.e. they have the beta code loaded but are not 
switched to CBRS operation yet.   I don’t think we have seen any crash reboots 
on the AP’s with beta code that ARE running in CBRS mode though.  

Grants / SAS / CNMaestro don’t seem to have many issues.   Things are still a 
bit klunky and having to deal with CPAS more often that I would expect is a 
nuisance but it’s functional.

Mark

> On Feb 26, 2020, at 12:48 PM, Josh Luthman  
> wrote:
> 
> So you're running this CBRS with the open spectrum, right?  Have you seen any 
> issues in the 2 weeks?
> 
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:45 AM Mark Radabaugh  > wrote:
> 30Mhz at +49dBm versus 20Mhz at +40dBm.Some of the improvement in airtime 
> obviously comes from the wider channel size but the bigger change was the 
> higher power and quieter spectrum moving everyone into 6x/8x modulation.
> 
> Mark
> 
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Mathew Howard > > wrote:
>> 
>> What's the actual TX power in that case before and after? I thought the 
>> number I had heard for CBRS was 47db EIRP in a 20mhz channel... although I 
>> have no idea where that number came from, so it could very well be wrong .
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mark Radabaugh > > wrote:
>> Way more than 5db, 10dB is more realistic.   This is a typical customer off 
>> a 450m 3.65 CBRS AP running at full power:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Even more interesting:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> This shows frame utilization of the 450m before and after the switch to 
>> CBRS.   The higher power and cleaner spectrum greatly increased the 
>> modulation of the customers resulting in greatly reduced airtime 
>> utilization.  
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Mathew Howard >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> It's a 5-6db increase, if I remember correctly, so that could certainly be 
>>> enough to make the difference in a lot of cases.
>>> 
>>> Of course there's also the fact that half of the people running Baicells 
>>> radios with sectors are probably already running (illegally) at that power 
>>> level anyway...
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:50 AM Mike Hammett >> > wrote:
>>> Is the CBRS power that much higher where a 450 at CBRS power makes up for 
>>> the lack of nLOS capability as compared to LTE on NN?
>>> 
>>> Obviously LTE at CBRS power would be that much better, but maybe it's a 
>>> good fit where people need just a little more nLOS capability than 450 
>>> provides and the extra power gets that for them.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>>   
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>>   
>>>  
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> From: "Matt Mangriotis via AF" mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
>>> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" >> >
>>> Cc: "Matt Mangriotis" >> >
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 3:59:25 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re:  Cambium LTE
>>> 
>>> 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 les

Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE

[David Coudron]

Things have been fairly klunky for us as well.   We see issues with the sync 
between the AP and cnMaestro getting broken every once in awhile.   Basically, 
you have to make changes to information and wait for a day before changing 
again, or it seems to mess things up.   Even simple changes like editing the 
name of the AP cause a complete re-register, which was a surprise to us.   
Unfortunately the Cambium support group doesn’t know anything about cnMaestro’s 
CBRS, so there is really no help available that we have been able to find.   
The support line points us at the RTMs, but not sure that is going to work 
well.   No word from them yet.

The higher transmit power has helped some of our poorer links quite a bit, so 
that is definitely a plus.

Regards,

David Coudron

From: AF  On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 12:43 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE

Not too many.

A few bugs in the beta code for the AP’s, nothing really a show stopper.   SM 
upload rate limit when in NAT mode appears to be broken, but works properly in 
bridge mode.   We are seeing AP’s rebooting somewhat randomly on the beta code 
when NOT running in CBRS - i.e. they have the beta code loaded but are not 
switched to CBRS operation yet.   I don’t think we have seen any crash reboots 
on the AP’s with beta code that ARE running in CBRS mode though.

Grants / SAS / CNMaestro don’t seem to have many issues.   Things are still a 
bit klunky and having to deal with CPAS more often that I would expect is a 
nuisance but it’s functional.

Mark


On Feb 26, 2020, at 12:48 PM, Josh Luthman 
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:

So you're running this CBRS with the open spectrum, right?  Have you seen any 
issues in the 2 weeks?

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:45 AM Mark Radabaugh 
mailto:m...@amplex.net>> wrote:
30Mhz at +49dBm versus 20Mhz at +40dBm.Some of the improvement in airtime 
obviously comes from the wider channel size but the bigger change was the 
higher power and quieter spectrum moving everyone into 6x/8x modulation.

Mark


On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Mathew Howard 
mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:

What's the actual TX power in that case before and after? I thought the number 
I had heard for CBRS was 47db EIRP in a 20mhz channel... although I have no 
idea where that number came from, so it could very well be wrong .

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mark Radabaugh 
mailto:m...@amplex.net>> wrote:
Way more than 5db, 10dB is more realistic.   This is a typical customer off a 
450m 3.65 CBRS AP running at full power:



Even more interesting:



This shows frame utilization of the 450m before and after the switch to CBRS.   
The higher power and cleaner spectrum greatly increased the modulation of the 
customers resulting in greatly reduced airtime utilization.

Mark


On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Mathew Howard 
mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:

It's a 5-6db increase, if I remember correctly, so that could certainly be 
enough to make the difference in a lot of cases.

Of course there's also the fact that half of the people running Baicells radios 
with sectors are probably already running (illegally) at that power level 
anyway...

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:50 AM Mike Hammett 
mailto:af...@ics-il.net>> wrote:
Is the CBRS power that much higher where a 450 at CBRS power makes up for the 
lack of nLOS capability as compared to LTE on NN?

Obviously LTE at CBRS power would be that much better, but maybe it's a good 
fit where people need just a little more nLOS capability than 450 provides and 
the extra power gets that for them.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
Midwest Internet Exchange
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
The Brothers WISP
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]




From: "Matt Mangriotis via AF" mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
Cc: "Matt Mangriotis" 
mailto:matt.mangrio...@cambiumnetworks.com>>
S

Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE

[Mark Radabaugh]

Is the usual corporate insanity Cambium RIF’ed some of the Regional Technical 
Managers (RTM’s) after missing financial targets and getting trashed by Wall 
Street.  Not exactly a fantastic plan during a major transition for a lot of 
customers where the would have bene very useful in taking the load off the CBRS 
engineering team.   Public companies, ug.

Mark

> On Feb 26, 2020, at 1:49 PM, David Coudron  
> wrote:
> 
> Things have been fairly klunky for us as well.   We see issues with the sync 
> between the AP and cnMaestro getting broken every once in awhile.   
> Basically, you have to make changes to information and wait for a day before 
> changing again, or it seems to mess things up.   Even simple changes like 
> editing the name of the AP cause a complete re-register, which was a surprise 
> to us.   Unfortunately the Cambium support group doesn’t know anything about 
> cnMaestro’s CBRS, so there is really no help available that we have been able 
> to find.   The support line points us at the RTMs, but not sure that is going 
> to work well.   No word from them yet.
>  
> The higher transmit power has helped some of our poorer links quite a bit, so 
> that is definitely a plus.  
>  
> Regards,
>  
> David Coudron
>  
> From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf 
> Of Mark Radabaugh
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 12:43 PM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group  >
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE
>  
> Not too many.  
>  
> A few bugs in the beta code for the AP’s, nothing really a show stopper.   SM 
> upload rate limit when in NAT mode appears to be broken, but works properly 
> in bridge mode.   We are seeing AP’s rebooting somewhat randomly on the beta 
> code when NOT running in CBRS - i.e. they have the beta code loaded but are 
> not switched to CBRS operation yet.   I don’t think we have seen any crash 
> reboots on the AP’s with beta code that ARE running in CBRS mode though.  
>  
> Grants / SAS / CNMaestro don’t seem to have many issues.   Things are still a 
> bit klunky and having to deal with CPAS more often that I would expect is a 
> nuisance but it’s functional.
>  
> Mark
> 
> 
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 12:48 PM, Josh Luthman  > wrote:
>  
> So you're running this CBRS with the open spectrum, right?  Have you seen any 
> issues in the 2 weeks?
>  
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>  
>  
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:45 AM Mark Radabaugh  > wrote:
> 30Mhz at +49dBm versus 20Mhz at +40dBm.Some of the improvement in airtime 
> obviously comes from the wider channel size but the bigger change was the 
> higher power and quieter spectrum moving everyone into 6x/8x modulation.
>  
> Mark
> 
> 
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Mathew Howard  > wrote:
>  
> What's the actual TX power in that case before and after? I thought the 
> number I had heard for CBRS was 47db EIRP in a 20mhz channel... although I 
> have no idea where that number came from, so it could very well be wrong .
>  
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mark Radabaugh  > wrote:
> Way more than 5db, 10dB is more realistic.   This is a typical customer off a 
> 450m 3.65 CBRS AP running at full power:
>  
> 
>  
> Even more interesting:
>  
> 
>  
> This shows frame utilization of the 450m before and after the switch to CBRS. 
>   The higher power and cleaner spectrum greatly increased the modulation of 
> the customers resulting in greatly reduced airtime utilization.  
>  
> Mark
> 
> 
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Mathew Howard  > wrote:
>  
> It's a 5-6db increase, if I remember correctly, so that could certainly be 
> enough to make the difference in a lot of cases.
>  
> Of course there's also the fact that half of the people running Baicells 
> radios with sectors are probably already running (illegally) at that power 
> level anyway...
>  
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:50 AM Mike Hammett  > wrote:
> Is the CBRS power that much higher where a 450 at CBRS power makes up for the 
> lack of nLOS capability as compared to LTE on NN?
>  
> Obviously LTE at CBRS power would be that much better, but maybe it's a good 
> fit where people need just a little more nLOS capability than 450 provides 
> and the extra power gets that for them.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>   
>  
>  
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>   
>  
> 
> The Brothers 

Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE

[Mark Radabaugh]

wow… was typing that too fast.   “where they would have been very useful in 
taking the load off"

> On Feb 26, 2020, at 2:00 PM, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
> 
> Is the usual corporate insanity Cambium RIF’ed some of the Regional Technical 
> Managers (RTM’s) after missing financial targets and getting trashed by Wall 
> Street.  Not exactly a fantastic plan during a major transition for a lot of 
> customers where the would have bene very useful in taking the load off the 
> CBRS engineering team.   Public companies, ug.
> 
> Mark
> 
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 1:49 PM, David Coudron > > wrote:
>> 
>> Things have been fairly klunky for us as well.   We see issues with the sync 
>> between the AP and cnMaestro getting broken every once in awhile.   
>> Basically, you have to make changes to information and wait for a day before 
>> changing again, or it seems to mess things up.   Even simple changes like 
>> editing the name of the AP cause a complete re-register, which was a 
>> surprise to us.   Unfortunately the Cambium support group doesn’t know 
>> anything about cnMaestro’s CBRS, so there is really no help available that 
>> we have been able to find.   The support line points us at the RTMs, but not 
>> sure that is going to work well.   No word from them yet.
>>  
>> The higher transmit power has helped some of our poorer links quite a bit, 
>> so that is definitely a plus.  
>>  
>> Regards,
>>  
>> David Coudron
>>  
>> From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On 
>> Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 12:43 PM
>> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group > >
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE
>>  
>> Not too many.  
>>  
>> A few bugs in the beta code for the AP’s, nothing really a show stopper.   
>> SM upload rate limit when in NAT mode appears to be broken, but works 
>> properly in bridge mode.   We are seeing AP’s rebooting somewhat randomly on 
>> the beta code when NOT running in CBRS - i.e. they have the beta code loaded 
>> but are not switched to CBRS operation yet.   I don’t think we have seen any 
>> crash reboots on the AP’s with beta code that ARE running in CBRS mode 
>> though.  
>>  
>> Grants / SAS / CNMaestro don’t seem to have many issues.   Things are still 
>> a bit klunky and having to deal with CPAS more often that I would expect is 
>> a nuisance but it’s functional.
>>  
>> Mark
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 12:48 PM, Josh Luthman > > wrote:
>>  
>> So you're running this CBRS with the open spectrum, right?  Have you seen 
>> any issues in the 2 weeks?
>>  
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>  
>>  
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:45 AM Mark Radabaugh > > wrote:
>> 30Mhz at +49dBm versus 20Mhz at +40dBm.Some of the improvement in 
>> airtime obviously comes from the wider channel size but the bigger change 
>> was the higher power and quieter spectrum moving everyone into 6x/8x 
>> modulation.
>>  
>> Mark
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Mathew Howard > > wrote:
>>  
>> What's the actual TX power in that case before and after? I thought the 
>> number I had heard for CBRS was 47db EIRP in a 20mhz channel... although I 
>> have no idea where that number came from, so it could very well be wrong .
>>  
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mark Radabaugh > > wrote:
>> Way more than 5db, 10dB is more realistic.   This is a typical customer off 
>> a 450m 3.65 CBRS AP running at full power:
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> Even more interesting:
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> This shows frame utilization of the 450m before and after the switch to 
>> CBRS.   The higher power and cleaner spectrum greatly increased the 
>> modulation of the customers resulting in greatly reduced airtime 
>> utilization.  
>>  
>> Mark
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Mathew Howard > > wrote:
>>  
>> It's a 5-6db increase, if I remember correctly, so that could certainly be 
>> enough to make the difference in a lot of cases.
>>  
>> Of course there's also the fact that half of the people running Baicells 
>> radios with sectors are probably already running (illegally) at that power 
>> level anyway...
>>  
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:50 AM Mike Hammett > > wrote:
>> Is the CBRS power that much higher where a 450 at CBRS power makes up for 
>> the lack of nLOS capability as compared to LTE on NN?
>>  
>> Obviously LTE at CBRS power would be that much better, but maybe it's a good 
>> fit where people need just a little more nLOS capability than 450 provides 
>> and the extra power gets that for them.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>   
>> 

Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE

[Steve Jones]

In their defense, they were very clear about the impact of changes in
cnmaestro to the grants during the cbrs training. I dont know if that is
stressed in the online training or not

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:50 PM David Coudron 
wrote:

> Things have been fairly klunky for us as well.   We see issues with the
> sync between the AP and cnMaestro getting broken every once in awhile.
> Basically, you have to make changes to information and wait for a day
> before changing again, or it seems to mess things up.   Even simple changes
> like editing the name of the AP cause a complete re-register, which was a
> surprise to us.   Unfortunately the Cambium support group doesn’t know
> anything about cnMaestro’s CBRS, so there is really no help available that
> we have been able to find.   The support line points us at the RTMs, but
> not sure that is going to work well.   No word from them yet.
>
>
>
> The higher transmit power has helped some of our poorer links quite a bit,
> so that is definitely a plus.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> David Coudron
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of * Mark Radabaugh
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2020 12:43 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE
>
>
>
> Not too many.
>
>
>
> A few bugs in the beta code for the AP’s, nothing really a show stopper.
> SM upload rate limit when in NAT mode appears to be broken, but works
> properly in bridge mode.   We are seeing AP’s rebooting somewhat randomly
> on the beta code when NOT running in CBRS - i.e. they have the beta code
> loaded but are not switched to CBRS operation yet.   I don’t think we have
> seen any crash reboots on the AP’s with beta code that ARE running in CBRS
> mode though.
>
>
>
> Grants / SAS / CNMaestro don’t seem to have many issues.   Things are
> still a bit klunky and having to deal with CPAS more often that I would
> expect is a nuisance but it’s functional.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 12:48 PM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> So you're running this CBRS with the open spectrum, right?  Have you seen
> any issues in the 2 weeks?
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:45 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>
> 30Mhz at +49dBm versus 20Mhz at +40dBm.Some of the improvement in
> airtime obviously comes from the wider channel size but the bigger change
> was the higher power and quieter spectrum moving everyone into 6x/8x
> modulation.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
>
>
>
> What's the actual TX power in that case before and after? I thought the
> number I had heard for CBRS was 47db EIRP in a 20mhz channel... although I
> have no idea where that number came from, so it could very well be wrong .
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>
> Way more than 5db, 10dB is more realistic.   This is a typical customer
> off a 450m 3.65 CBRS AP running at full power:
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Even more interesting:
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> This shows frame utilization of the 450m before and after the switch to
> CBRS.   The higher power and cleaner spectrum greatly increased the
> modulation of the customers resulting in greatly reduced airtime
> utilization.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
>
>
>
> It's a 5-6db increase, if I remember correctly, so that could certainly be
> enough to make the difference in a lot of cases.
>
>
>
> Of course there's also the fact that half of the people running Baicells
> radios with sectors are probably already running (illegally) at that power
> level anyway...
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:50 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
> Is the CBRS power that much higher where a 450 at CBRS power makes up for
> the lack of nLOS capability as compared to LTE on NN?
>
>
>
> Obviously LTE at CBRS power would be that much better, but maybe it's a
> good fit where people need just a little more nLOS capability than 450
> provides and the extra power gets that for them.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
>
> *From: *"Matt Mangriotis via AF" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Cc: *"Matt Mangriotis" 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, February 25, 2020 3:59:25 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re:  Cambium LTE
>
> I comple

Re: [AFMUG] Coronavirus face ID mask

[Lewis Bergman]

creepy

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:19 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> https://twitter.com/djbaskin/status/1228798382598000640
>
>
>
> Or maybe Face ID algorithms can still recognize you with a mask on?
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>


-- 
Lewis Bergman
325-439-0533 Cell
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE

[Jason McKemie]

What APs are you using 450M, or 450i as well? I'm wondering if the 450i can
do the same power output.

On Wednesday, February 26, 2020, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

> Not too many.
>
> A few bugs in the beta code for the AP’s, nothing really a show stopper.
> SM upload rate limit when in NAT mode appears to be broken, but works
> properly in bridge mode.   We are seeing AP’s rebooting somewhat randomly
> on the beta code when NOT running in CBRS - i.e. they have the beta code
> loaded but are not switched to CBRS operation yet.   I don’t think we have
> seen any crash reboots on the AP’s with beta code that ARE running in CBRS
> mode though.
>
> Grants / SAS / CNMaestro don’t seem to have many issues.   Things are
> still a bit klunky and having to deal with CPAS more often that I would
> expect is a nuisance but it’s functional.
>
> Mark
>
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 12:48 PM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
> So you're running this CBRS with the open spectrum, right?  Have you seen
> any issues in the 2 weeks?
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> 
> Suite 1337
> 
> Troy, OH 45373
> 
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:45 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>
>> 30Mhz at +49dBm versus 20Mhz at +40dBm.Some of the improvement in
>> airtime obviously comes from the wider channel size but the bigger change
>> was the higher power and quieter spectrum moving everyone into 6x/8x
>> modulation.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
>>
>> What's the actual TX power in that case before and after? I thought the
>> number I had heard for CBRS was 47db EIRP in a 20mhz channel... although I
>> have no idea where that number came from, so it could very well be wrong .
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>
>>> Way more than 5db, 10dB is more realistic.   This is a typical customer
>>> off a 450m 3.65 CBRS AP running at full power:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> Even more interesting:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> This shows frame utilization of the 450m before and after the switch to
>>> CBRS.   The higher power and cleaner spectrum greatly increased the
>>> modulation of the customers resulting in greatly reduced airtime
>>> utilization.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Mathew Howard 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's a 5-6db increase, if I remember correctly, so that could certainly
>>> be enough to make the difference in a lot of cases.
>>>
>>> Of course there's also the fact that half of the people running Baicells
>>> radios with sectors are probably already running (illegally) at that power
>>> level anyway...
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:50 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>>
 Is the CBRS power that much higher where a 450 at CBRS power makes up
 for the lack of nLOS capability as compared to LTE on NN?

 Obviously LTE at CBRS power would be that much better, but maybe it's a
 good fit where people need just a little more nLOS capability than 450
 provides and the extra power gets that for them.



 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions 
 
 
 
 
 Midwest Internet Exchange 
 
 
 
 The Brothers WISP 
 


 
 --
 *From: *"Matt Mangriotis via AF" 
 *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
 *Cc: *"Matt Mangriotis" 
 *Sent: *Tuesday, February 25, 2020 3:59:25 PM
 *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re:  Cambium LTE

 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

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE

[Mark Radabaugh]

Both 450i and 450m can run in CBRS.   Only the Medusa can go to high power.

Mark

> On Feb 26, 2020, at 2:51 PM, Jason McKemie  
> wrote:
> 
> What APs are you using 450M, or 450i as well? I'm wondering if the 450i can 
> do the same power output.
> 
> On Wednesday, February 26, 2020, Mark Radabaugh  > wrote:
> Not too many.  
> 
> A few bugs in the beta code for the AP’s, nothing really a show stopper.   SM 
> upload rate limit when in NAT mode appears to be broken, but works properly 
> in bridge mode.   We are seeing AP’s rebooting somewhat randomly on the beta 
> code when NOT running in CBRS - i.e. they have the beta code loaded but are 
> not switched to CBRS operation yet.   I don’t think we have seen any crash 
> reboots on the AP’s with beta code that ARE running in CBRS mode though.  
> 
> Grants / SAS / CNMaestro don’t seem to have many issues.   Things are still a 
> bit klunky and having to deal with CPAS more often that I would expect is a 
> nuisance but it’s functional.
> 
> Mark
> 
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 12:48 PM, Josh Luthman > > wrote:
>> 
>> So you're running this CBRS with the open spectrum, right?  Have you seen 
>> any issues in the 2 weeks?
>> 
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St 
>> 
>> Suite 1337 
>> 
>> Troy, OH 45373 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:45 AM Mark Radabaugh > > wrote:
>> 30Mhz at +49dBm versus 20Mhz at +40dBm.Some of the improvement in 
>> airtime obviously comes from the wider channel size but the bigger change 
>> was the higher power and quieter spectrum moving everyone into 6x/8x 
>> modulation.
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Mathew Howard >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> What's the actual TX power in that case before and after? I thought the 
>>> number I had heard for CBRS was 47db EIRP in a 20mhz channel... although I 
>>> have no idea where that number came from, so it could very well be wrong .
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mark Radabaugh >> > wrote:
>>> Way more than 5db, 10dB is more realistic.   This is a typical customer off 
>>> a 450m 3.65 CBRS AP running at full power:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Even more interesting:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This shows frame utilization of the 450m before and after the switch to 
>>> CBRS.   The higher power and cleaner spectrum greatly increased the 
>>> modulation of the customers resulting in greatly reduced airtime 
>>> utilization.  
>>> 
>>> Mark
>>> 
 On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Mathew Howard >>> > wrote:
 
 It's a 5-6db increase, if I remember correctly, so that could certainly be 
 enough to make the difference in a lot of cases.
 
 Of course there's also the fact that half of the people running Baicells 
 radios with sectors are probably already running (illegally) at that power 
 level anyway...
 
 On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:50 AM Mike Hammett >>> > wrote:
 Is the CBRS power that much higher where a 450 at CBRS power makes up for 
 the lack of nLOS capability as compared to LTE on NN?
 
 Obviously LTE at CBRS power would be that much better, but maybe it's a 
 good fit where people need just a little more nLOS capability than 450 
 provides and the extra power gets that for them.
 
 
 
 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions 
   
  
  
 
 Midwest Internet Exchange 
   
  
 
 The Brothers WISP 
  
 
 
  
 From: "Matt Mangriotis via AF" mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
 To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" >>> >
 Cc: "Matt Mangriotis" >>> >
 Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 3:59:25 PM
 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re:  Cambium LTE
 
 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 int

Re: [AFMUG] site monitor base 3 availability?

[chuck]

“February has been all about getting the work done I expected to be doing in 
November and December.  “

Put that on my tombstone.  

From: Forrest Christian (List Account) 
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 11:07 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] site monitor base 3 availability?

Very close.   I can't give you an exact date right this second, as there are 
too many moving parts which all have to come together.  I'm going through and 
doing all the validation work at this point and cleaning up anything I find.   
I'm guessing the week or two after WISPAMERICA at this point but it could slide 
another couple weeks as a result of the challenges in obtaining raw materials 
right now. 
  
I ended up spending a couple of months back in November/December figuring out 
that the SNMP code that we've been using for years (including in the 
RackInjector) wasn't going to work for the SiteMonitor 3.  And then trying and 
then giving up on a couple of alternative SNMP stacks.  After the holidays, I 
ended up writing an SNMP stack from scratch and that triggered some other code 
changes since there were some architecture decisions I made to attempt to get 
around the shortcomings in the original SNMP stack which weren't valid anymore. 
 Made things a lot nicer/easier, but it was work getting it there.   February 
has been all about getting the work done I expected to be doing in November and 
December.   

At this point it's mostly about doing the final release process and then doing 
integration with the Automatic Test.   Once that is done and I've 100% verified 
that the board design I have is good, we'll order production boards. There is a 
chance that I'll end up having to do an additional (minor) board revision 
during this process.  Normally if that happens, I'll typically order 10 or so 
of the new design to verify I didn't screw something up in the process of 
fixing whatever was broken, but in this case, I'll increase the order to 
whatever is pre-ordered so I can at least get those out.

Of course like anything with a schedule the crap could hit the fan and this 
schedule goes out the window.

I will be doing a walkthough of the new devices in the PacketFlux session on 
thursday afternoon.


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:39 AM Steve Jones  wrote:

  Its getting at the end of February, what are we looking at in availability of 
these bad boys?
  -- 
  AF mailing list
  AF@af.afmug.com
  http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com



-- 

- Forrest



-- 
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

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE

[Steve Jones]

we are taking the power hit on the 450i for most of our APs for the
pricebreak. we have 20 some APs to replace in the next month or so, so that
kind of forces that. Im looking forward to there we have the Medusas along
with the Is to see what the performance differences are

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:58 PM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

> Both 450i and 450m can run in CBRS.   Only the Medusa can go to high power.
>
> Mark
>
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 2:51 PM, Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>
> What APs are you using 450M, or 450i as well? I'm wondering if the 450i
> can do the same power output.
>
> On Wednesday, February 26, 2020, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>
>> Not too many.
>>
>> A few bugs in the beta code for the AP’s, nothing really a show stopper.
>>   SM upload rate limit when in NAT mode appears to be broken, but works
>> properly in bridge mode.   We are seeing AP’s rebooting somewhat randomly
>> on the beta code when NOT running in CBRS - i.e. they have the beta code
>> loaded but are not switched to CBRS operation yet.   I don’t think we have
>> seen any crash reboots on the AP’s with beta code that ARE running in CBRS
>> mode though.
>>
>> Grants / SAS / CNMaestro don’t seem to have many issues.   Things are
>> still a bit klunky and having to deal with CPAS more often that I would
>> expect is a nuisance but it’s functional.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 12:48 PM, Josh Luthman 
>> wrote:
>>
>> So you're running this CBRS with the open spectrum, right?  Have you seen
>> any issues in the 2 weeks?
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> 
>> Suite 1337
>> 
>> Troy, OH 45373
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:45 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>
>>> 30Mhz at +49dBm versus 20Mhz at +40dBm.Some of the improvement in
>>> airtime obviously comes from the wider channel size but the bigger change
>>> was the higher power and quieter spectrum moving everyone into 6x/8x
>>> modulation.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Mathew Howard 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> What's the actual TX power in that case before and after? I thought the
>>> number I had heard for CBRS was 47db EIRP in a 20mhz channel... although I
>>> have no idea where that number came from, so it could very well be wrong .
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>>
 Way more than 5db, 10dB is more realistic.   This is a typical customer
 off a 450m 3.65 CBRS AP running at full power:

 

 Even more interesting:

 

 This shows frame utilization of the 450m before and after the switch to
 CBRS.   The higher power and cleaner spectrum greatly increased the
 modulation of the customers resulting in greatly reduced airtime
 utilization.

 Mark

 On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Mathew Howard 
 wrote:

 It's a 5-6db increase, if I remember correctly, so that could certainly
 be enough to make the difference in a lot of cases.

 Of course there's also the fact that half of the people running
 Baicells radios with sectors are probably already running (illegally) at
 that power level anyway...

 On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:50 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Is the CBRS power that much higher where a 450 at CBRS power makes up
> for the lack of nLOS capability as compared to LTE on NN?
>
> Obviously LTE at CBRS power would be that much better, but maybe it's
> a good fit where people need just a little more nLOS capability than 450
> provides and the extra power gets that for them.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Matt Mangriotis via AF" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Cc: *"Matt Mangriotis" 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, February 25, 2020 3:59:25 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re:  Cambium LTE
>
> I completely understand your skepticism Ken. However, Cambium did
> design the

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE

[Josh Baird]

What are you replacing?  PMP320?

> On Feb 26, 2020, at 3:52 PM, Steve Jones  wrote:
> 
> 
> we are taking the power hit on the 450i for most of our APs for the 
> pricebreak. we have 20 some APs to replace in the next month or so, so that 
> kind of forces that. Im looking forward to there we have the Medusas along 
> with the Is to see what the performance differences are
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:58 PM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>> Both 450i and 450m can run in CBRS.   Only the Medusa can go to high power.
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 2:51 PM, Jason McKemie 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> What APs are you using 450M, or 450i as well? I'm wondering if the 450i can 
>>> do the same power output.
>>> 
 On Wednesday, February 26, 2020, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
 Not too many.  
 
 A few bugs in the beta code for the AP’s, nothing really a show stopper.   
 SM upload rate limit when in NAT mode appears to be broken, but works 
 properly in bridge mode.   We are seeing AP’s rebooting somewhat randomly 
 on the beta code when NOT running in CBRS - i.e. they have the beta code 
 loaded but are not switched to CBRS operation yet.   I don’t think we have 
 seen any crash reboots on the AP’s with beta code that ARE running in CBRS 
 mode though.  
 
 Grants / SAS / CNMaestro don’t seem to have many issues.   Things are 
 still a bit klunky and having to deal with CPAS more often that I would 
 expect is a nuisance but it’s functional.
 
 Mark
 
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 12:48 PM, Josh Luthman  
> wrote:
> 
> So you're running this CBRS with the open spectrum, right?  Have you seen 
> any issues in the 2 weeks?
> 
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:45 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>> 30Mhz at +49dBm versus 20Mhz at +40dBm.Some of the improvement in 
>> airtime obviously comes from the wider channel size but the bigger 
>> change was the higher power and quieter spectrum moving everyone into 
>> 6x/8x modulation.
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Mathew Howard  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> What's the actual TX power in that case before and after? I thought the 
>>> number I had heard for CBRS was 47db EIRP in a 20mhz channel... 
>>> although I have no idea where that number came from, so it could very 
>>> well be wrong .
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
 Way more than 5db, 10dB is more realistic.   This is a typical 
 customer off a 450m 3.65 CBRS AP running at full power:
 
 
 
 Even more interesting:
 
 
 
 This shows frame utilization of the 450m before and after the switch 
 to CBRS.   The higher power and cleaner spectrum greatly increased the 
 modulation of the customers resulting in greatly reduced airtime 
 utilization.  
 
 Mark
 
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Mathew Howard  
> wrote:
> 
> It's a 5-6db increase, if I remember correctly, so that could 
> certainly be enough to make the difference in a lot of cases.
> 
> Of course there's also the fact that half of the people running 
> Baicells radios with sectors are probably already running (illegally) 
> at that power level anyway...
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:50 AM Mike Hammett  
>> wrote:
>> Is the CBRS power that much higher where a 450 at CBRS power makes 
>> up for the lack of nLOS capability as compared to LTE on NN?
>> 
>> Obviously LTE at CBRS power would be that much better, but maybe 
>> it's a good fit where people need just a little more nLOS capability 
>> than 450 provides and the extra power gets that for them.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: "Matt Mangriotis via AF" 
>> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>> Cc: "Matt Mangriotis" 
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 3:59:25 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re:  Cambium LTE
>> 
>> 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.
>>>

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE

[Steve Jones]

mostly 320, you need some? i got the 320s, even have 4 NIB APs ill let you
have cheap lol

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 3:13 PM Josh Baird  wrote:

> What are you replacing?  PMP320?
>
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 3:52 PM, Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
> 
> we are taking the power hit on the 450i for most of our APs for the
> pricebreak. we have 20 some APs to replace in the next month or so, so that
> kind of forces that. Im looking forward to there we have the Medusas along
> with the Is to see what the performance differences are
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:58 PM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>
>> Both 450i and 450m can run in CBRS.   Only the Medusa can go to high
>> power.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 2:51 PM, Jason McKemie <
>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>>
>> What APs are you using 450M, or 450i as well? I'm wondering if the 450i
>> can do the same power output.
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 26, 2020, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>
>>> Not too many.
>>>
>>> A few bugs in the beta code for the AP’s, nothing really a show stopper.
>>>   SM upload rate limit when in NAT mode appears to be broken, but works
>>> properly in bridge mode.   We are seeing AP’s rebooting somewhat randomly
>>> on the beta code when NOT running in CBRS - i.e. they have the beta code
>>> loaded but are not switched to CBRS operation yet.   I don’t think we have
>>> seen any crash reboots on the AP’s with beta code that ARE running in CBRS
>>> mode though.
>>>
>>> Grants / SAS / CNMaestro don’t seem to have many issues.   Things are
>>> still a bit klunky and having to deal with CPAS more often that I would
>>> expect is a nuisance but it’s functional.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 12:48 PM, Josh Luthman 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> So you're running this CBRS with the open spectrum, right?  Have you
>>> seen any issues in the 2 weeks?
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> 
>>> Suite 1337
>>> 
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:45 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>>
 30Mhz at +49dBm versus 20Mhz at +40dBm.Some of the improvement in
 airtime obviously comes from the wider channel size but the bigger change
 was the higher power and quieter spectrum moving everyone into 6x/8x
 modulation.

 Mark

 On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Mathew Howard 
 wrote:

 What's the actual TX power in that case before and after? I thought the
 number I had heard for CBRS was 47db EIRP in a 20mhz channel... although I
 have no idea where that number came from, so it could very well be wrong .

 On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

> Way more than 5db, 10dB is more realistic.   This is a typical
> customer off a 450m 3.65 CBRS AP running at full power:
>
> 
>
> Even more interesting:
>
> 
>
> This shows frame utilization of the 450m before and after the switch
> to CBRS.   The higher power and cleaner spectrum greatly increased the
> modulation of the customers resulting in greatly reduced airtime
> utilization.
>
> Mark
>
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
> It's a 5-6db increase, if I remember correctly, so that could
> certainly be enough to make the difference in a lot of cases.
>
> Of course there's also the fact that half of the people running
> Baicells radios with sectors are probably already running (illegally) at
> that power level anyway...
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:50 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> Is the CBRS power that much higher where a 450 at CBRS power makes up
>> for the lack of nLOS capability as compared to LTE on NN?
>>
>> Obviously LTE at CBRS power would be that much better, but maybe it's
>> a good fit where people need just a little more nLOS capability than 450
>> provides and the extra power gets that for them.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE

[Ken Hohhof]

There is also the power consumption issue with the 3 GHz 450m.  Spec sheet says 
140W typical.  That’s a lot, 560 watts for 4 sectors.  Especially at sites 
where I only have a 360 watt power supply and 1000 watt-hours of batteries.  
The 5 GHz 450m I think is less than half the power consumption.  Presumably the 
difference is the power amps.

 

Under Part 90 it would have been even more painful to deploy Medusas, since we 
couldn’t even use the higher xmt power.  All my 3 GHz 450 APs were deployed 
over a year ago.  With all the uncertainty over where CBRS was going, whether 
the mobile guys would totally take it away from us, and whether we would have 
to do a forklift upgrade of the Cambium equipment, we really dialed back 
deployment the past 1-2 years.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Josh Baird
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 3:13 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE

 

What are you replacing?  PMP320?





On Feb 26, 2020, at 3:52 PM, Steve Jones mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote:



we are taking the power hit on the 450i for most of our APs for the pricebreak. 
we have 20 some APs to replace in the next month or so, so that kind of forces 
that. Im looking forward to there we have the Medusas along with the Is to see 
what the performance differences are

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:58 PM Mark Radabaugh mailto:m...@amplex.net> > wrote:

Both 450i and 450m can run in CBRS.   Only the Medusa can go to high power.

 

Mark





On Feb 26, 2020, at 2:51 PM, Jason McKemie mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> > wrote:

 

What APs are you using 450M, or 450i as well? I'm wondering if the 450i can do 
the same power output.

On Wednesday, February 26, 2020, Mark Radabaugh mailto:m...@amplex.net> > wrote:

Not too many.  

 

A few bugs in the beta code for the AP’s, nothing really a show stopper.   SM 
upload rate limit when in NAT mode appears to be broken, but works properly in 
bridge mode.   We are seeing AP’s rebooting somewhat randomly on the beta code 
when NOT running in CBRS - i.e. they have the beta code loaded but are not 
switched to CBRS operation yet.   I don’t think we have seen any crash reboots 
on the AP’s with beta code that ARE running in CBRS mode though.  

 

Grants / SAS / CNMaestro don’t seem to have many issues.   Things are still a 
bit klunky and having to deal with CPAS more often that I would expect is a 
nuisance but it’s functional.

 

Mark





On Feb 26, 2020, at 12:48 PM, Josh Luthman mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> > wrote:

 

So you're running this CBRS with the open spectrum, right?  Have you seen any 
issues in the 2 weeks?


 

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St 

 
Suite 1337 

 
Troy, OH 45373 

 

 

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:45 AM Mark Radabaugh mailto:m...@amplex.net> > wrote:

30Mhz at +49dBm versus 20Mhz at +40dBm.Some of the improvement in airtime 
obviously comes from the wider channel size but the bigger change was the 
higher power and quieter spectrum moving everyone into 6x/8x modulation.

 

Mark





On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

What's the actual TX power in that case before and after? I thought the number 
I had heard for CBRS was 47db EIRP in a 20mhz channel... although I have no 
idea where that number came from, so it could very well be wrong . 

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mark Radabaugh mailto:m...@amplex.net> > wrote:

Way more than 5db, 10dB is more realistic.   This is a typical customer off a 
450m 3.65 CBRS AP running at full power:

 



 

Even more interesting:

 



 

This shows frame utilization of the 450m before and after the switch to CBRS.   
The higher power and cleaner spectrum greatly increased the modulation of the 
customers resulting in greatly reduced airtime utilization.  

 

Mark





On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

It's a 5-6db increase, if I remember correctly, so that could certainly be 
enough to make the difference in a lot of cases.

 

Of course there's also the fact that half of the people running Baicells radios 
with sectors are probably already running (illegally) at that power level 
anyway...

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:50 AM Mike Hammett mailto:af...@ics-il.net> > wrote:

Is the CBRS power that much higher where a 450 at CBRS power makes up for the 
lack of nLOS capability as compared to LTE on NN?

 

Obviously LTE at CBRS power would be that much better, but maybe it's a good 
fit where people need just a little more nLOS capability than 450 provides and 
the extra power gets that for them.



-
Mike

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE

[Josh Baird]

Haha, I’m good thanks.  Was going to say we have a shit ton of it that you’re 
welcome to.

You are finding the 450i with CBRS acceptable for some of the nLOS stuff?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 26, 2020, at 4:33 PM, Steve Jones  wrote:
> 
> 
> mostly 320, you need some? i got the 320s, even have 4 NIB APs ill let you 
> have cheap lol
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 3:13 PM Josh Baird  wrote:
>> What are you replacing?  PMP320?
>> 
 On Feb 26, 2020, at 3:52 PM, Steve Jones  wrote:
 
>>> 
>>> we are taking the power hit on the 450i for most of our APs for the 
>>> pricebreak. we have 20 some APs to replace in the next month or so, so that 
>>> kind of forces that. Im looking forward to there we have the Medusas along 
>>> with the Is to see what the performance differences are
>>> 
 On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:58 PM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
 Both 450i and 450m can run in CBRS.   Only the Medusa can go to high power.
 
 Mark
 
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 2:51 PM, Jason McKemie 
>  wrote:
> 
> What APs are you using 450M, or 450i as well? I'm wondering if the 450i 
> can do the same power output.
> 
>> On Wednesday, February 26, 2020, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>> Not too many.  
>> 
>> A few bugs in the beta code for the AP’s, nothing really a show stopper. 
>>   SM upload rate limit when in NAT mode appears to be broken, but works 
>> properly in bridge mode.   We are seeing AP’s rebooting somewhat 
>> randomly on the beta code when NOT running in CBRS - i.e. they have the 
>> beta code loaded but are not switched to CBRS operation yet.   I don’t 
>> think we have seen any crash reboots on the AP’s with beta code that ARE 
>> running in CBRS mode though.  
>> 
>> Grants / SAS / CNMaestro don’t seem to have many issues.   Things are 
>> still a bit klunky and having to deal with CPAS more often that I would 
>> expect is a nuisance but it’s functional.
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 12:48 PM, Josh Luthman 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> So you're running this CBRS with the open spectrum, right?  Have you 
>>> seen any issues in the 2 weeks?
>>> 
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>> 
>>> 
 On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:45 AM Mark Radabaugh  
 wrote:
 30Mhz at +49dBm versus 20Mhz at +40dBm.Some of the improvement in 
 airtime obviously comes from the wider channel size but the bigger 
 change was the higher power and quieter spectrum moving everyone into 
 6x/8x modulation.
 
 Mark
 
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Mathew Howard  
> wrote:
> 
> What's the actual TX power in that case before and after? I thought 
> the number I had heard for CBRS was 47db EIRP in a 20mhz channel... 
> although I have no idea where that number came from, so it could very 
> well be wrong .
> 
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mark Radabaugh  
> wrote:
>> Way more than 5db, 10dB is more realistic.   This is a typical 
>> customer off a 450m 3.65 CBRS AP running at full power:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Even more interesting:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> This shows frame utilization of the 450m before and after the switch 
>> to CBRS.   The higher power and cleaner spectrum greatly increased 
>> the modulation of the customers resulting in greatly reduced airtime 
>> utilization.  
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Mathew Howard  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> It's a 5-6db increase, if I remember correctly, so that could 
>>> certainly be enough to make the difference in a lot of cases.
>>> 
>>> Of course there's also the fact that half of the people running 
>>> Baicells radios with sectors are probably already running 
>>> (illegally) at that power level anyway...
>>> 
 On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:50 AM Mike Hammett  
 wrote:
 Is the CBRS power that much higher where a 450 at CBRS power makes 
 up for the lack of nLOS capability as compared to LTE on NN?
 
 Obviously LTE at CBRS power would be that much better, but maybe 
 it's a good fit where people need just a little more nLOS 
 capability than 450 provides and the extra power gets that for 
 them.
 
 
 
 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 
 Midwest Internet Exchange
 
 The Brothers WISP
 
 
 
 
 

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE

[George Skorup]

Better put on your rectifier pants
[image: image.png]

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 3:33 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> There is also the power consumption issue with the 3 GHz 450m.  Spec sheet
> says 140W typical.  That’s a lot, 560 watts for 4 sectors.  Especially at
> sites where I only have a 360 watt power supply and 1000 watt-hours of
> batteries.  The 5 GHz 450m I think is less than half the power
> consumption.  Presumably the difference is the power amps.
>
>
>
> Under Part 90 it would have been even more painful to deploy Medusas,
> since we couldn’t even use the higher xmt power.  All my 3 GHz 450 APs were
> deployed over a year ago.  With all the uncertainty over where CBRS was
> going, whether the mobile guys would totally take it away from us, and
> whether we would have to do a forklift upgrade of the Cambium equipment, we
> really dialed back deployment the past 1-2 years.
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Josh Baird
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2020 3:13 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE
>
>
>
> What are you replacing?  PMP320?
>
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 3:52 PM, Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
> 
>
> we are taking the power hit on the 450i for most of our APs for the
> pricebreak. we have 20 some APs to replace in the next month or so, so that
> kind of forces that. Im looking forward to there we have the Medusas along
> with the Is to see what the performance differences are
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:58 PM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>
> Both 450i and 450m can run in CBRS.   Only the Medusa can go to high power.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 2:51 PM, Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> What APs are you using 450M, or 450i as well? I'm wondering if the 450i
> can do the same power output.
>
> On Wednesday, February 26, 2020, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>
> Not too many.
>
>
>
> A few bugs in the beta code for the AP’s, nothing really a show stopper.
> SM upload rate limit when in NAT mode appears to be broken, but works
> properly in bridge mode.   We are seeing AP’s rebooting somewhat randomly
> on the beta code when NOT running in CBRS - i.e. they have the beta code
> loaded but are not switched to CBRS operation yet.   I don’t think we have
> seen any crash reboots on the AP’s with beta code that ARE running in CBRS
> mode though.
>
>
>
> Grants / SAS / CNMaestro don’t seem to have many issues.   Things are
> still a bit klunky and having to deal with CPAS more often that I would
> expect is a nuisance but it’s functional.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 12:48 PM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> So you're running this CBRS with the open spectrum, right?  Have you seen
> any issues in the 2 weeks?
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> 
> Suite 1337
> 
> Troy, OH 45373
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:45 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>
> 30Mhz at +49dBm versus 20Mhz at +40dBm.Some of the improvement in
> airtime obviously comes from the wider channel size but the bigger change
> was the higher power and quieter spectrum moving everyone into 6x/8x
> modulation.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
>
>
>
> What's the actual TX power in that case before and after? I thought the
> number I had heard for CBRS was 47db EIRP in a 20mhz channel... although I
> have no idea where that number came from, so it could very well be wrong .
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>
> Way more than 5db, 10dB is more realistic.   This is a typical customer
> off a 450m 3.65 CBRS AP running at full power:
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Even more interesting:
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> This shows frame utilization of the 450m before and after the switch to
> CBRS.   The higher power and cleaner spectrum greatly increased the
> modulation of the customers resulting in greatly reduced airtime
> utilization.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
>
>
>
> It's a 5-6db increase, if I remember correctly, so that could certainly be
> enough to make the difference in a lot of cases.
>
>
>
> Of course there's also the fact that half of the people running Baicells
> radios with sectors are probably already running (illegally) at that power
> level anyway...
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:50 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
> Is the CBRS power that much higher where a 450 at CBRS power makes up for
> the lack of nLOS capability as compared to LTE on NN?
>
>
>
> Obviously LTE at CBRS power would be that much better, but maybe it's a
> good fit where people need just a little more nLOS capability than 450
> provides and the extra 

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE

[Steve Jones]

Not on cnmaestro beta so we arent running it yet, we only have a minimal
450 deployment, but its good enough for the girls we go with. We will be
rolling it all out these next couple months. We migrated everything we
could the last few months to EPMP to keep the initial 450 costs down. EPMP,
as it turns out is crazy good

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 4:04 PM Josh Baird  wrote:

> Haha, I’m good thanks.  Was going to say we have a shit ton of it that
> you’re welcome to.
>
> You are finding the 450i with CBRS acceptable for some of the nLOS stuff?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 4:33 PM, Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
> 
> mostly 320, you need some? i got the 320s, even have 4 NIB APs ill let you
> have cheap lol
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 3:13 PM Josh Baird  wrote:
>
>> What are you replacing?  PMP320?
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 3:52 PM, Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> we are taking the power hit on the 450i for most of our APs for the
>> pricebreak. we have 20 some APs to replace in the next month or so, so that
>> kind of forces that. Im looking forward to there we have the Medusas along
>> with the Is to see what the performance differences are
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:58 PM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>
>>> Both 450i and 450m can run in CBRS.   Only the Medusa can go to high
>>> power.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 2:51 PM, Jason McKemie <
>>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> What APs are you using 450M, or 450i as well? I'm wondering if the 450i
>>> can do the same power output.
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 26, 2020, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>>
 Not too many.

 A few bugs in the beta code for the AP’s, nothing really a show
 stopper.   SM upload rate limit when in NAT mode appears to be broken, but
 works properly in bridge mode.   We are seeing AP’s rebooting somewhat
 randomly on the beta code when NOT running in CBRS - i.e. they have the
 beta code loaded but are not switched to CBRS operation yet.   I don’t
 think we have seen any crash reboots on the AP’s with beta code that ARE
 running in CBRS mode though.

 Grants / SAS / CNMaestro don’t seem to have many issues.   Things are
 still a bit klunky and having to deal with CPAS more often that I would
 expect is a nuisance but it’s functional.

 Mark

 On Feb 26, 2020, at 12:48 PM, Josh Luthman 
 wrote:

 So you're running this CBRS with the open spectrum, right?  Have you
 seen any issues in the 2 weeks?

 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 
 Suite 1337
 
 Troy, OH 45373
 


 On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:45 AM Mark Radabaugh 
 wrote:

> 30Mhz at +49dBm versus 20Mhz at +40dBm.Some of the improvement in
> airtime obviously comes from the wider channel size but the bigger change
> was the higher power and quieter spectrum moving everyone into 6x/8x
> modulation.
>
> Mark
>
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
> What's the actual TX power in that case before and after? I thought
> the number I had heard for CBRS was 47db EIRP in a 20mhz channel...
> although I have no idea where that number came from, so it could very well
> be wrong .
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mark Radabaugh 
> wrote:
>
>> Way more than 5db, 10dB is more realistic.   This is a typical
>> customer off a 450m 3.65 CBRS AP running at full power:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Even more interesting:
>>
>> 
>>
>> This shows frame utilization of the 450m before and after the switch
>> to CBRS.   The higher power and cleaner spectrum greatly increased the
>> modulation of the customers resulting in greatly reduced airtime
>> utilization.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Mathew Howard 
>> wrote:
>>
>> It's a 5-6db increase, if I remember correctly, so that could
>> certainly be enough to make the difference in a lot of cases.
>>
>> Of course there's also the fact that half of the people running
>> Baicells radios with sectors are probably already running (illegally) at
>> that power level anyway...
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:50 AM Mike Hammett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Is the CBRS power that much higher where a 450 at CBRS power makes
>>> up for the lack of nLOS capability as compared to LTE on NN?
>>>
>>> Obviously LTE at CBRS power would be that much better, but maybe
>>> it's a good fit where people need just a little more nLOS capability 
>>> than

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE

[Steve Jones]

is that the packetflux interface?

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 4:05 PM George Skorup 
wrote:

> Better put on your rectifier pants
> [image: image.png]
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 3:33 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> There is also the power consumption issue with the 3 GHz 450m.  Spec
>> sheet says 140W typical.  That’s a lot, 560 watts for 4 sectors.
>> Especially at sites where I only have a 360 watt power supply and 1000
>> watt-hours of batteries.  The 5 GHz 450m I think is less than half the
>> power consumption.  Presumably the difference is the power amps.
>>
>>
>>
>> Under Part 90 it would have been even more painful to deploy Medusas,
>> since we couldn’t even use the higher xmt power.  All my 3 GHz 450 APs were
>> deployed over a year ago.  With all the uncertainty over where CBRS was
>> going, whether the mobile guys would totally take it away from us, and
>> whether we would have to do a forklift upgrade of the Cambium equipment, we
>> really dialed back deployment the past 1-2 years.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Josh Baird
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2020 3:13 PM
>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE
>>
>>
>>
>> What are you replacing?  PMP320?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 3:52 PM, Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> we are taking the power hit on the 450i for most of our APs for the
>> pricebreak. we have 20 some APs to replace in the next month or so, so that
>> kind of forces that. Im looking forward to there we have the Medusas along
>> with the Is to see what the performance differences are
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:58 PM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>
>> Both 450i and 450m can run in CBRS.   Only the Medusa can go to high
>> power.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 2:51 PM, Jason McKemie <
>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> What APs are you using 450M, or 450i as well? I'm wondering if the 450i
>> can do the same power output.
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 26, 2020, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>
>> Not too many.
>>
>>
>>
>> A few bugs in the beta code for the AP’s, nothing really a show stopper.
>>   SM upload rate limit when in NAT mode appears to be broken, but works
>> properly in bridge mode.   We are seeing AP’s rebooting somewhat randomly
>> on the beta code when NOT running in CBRS - i.e. they have the beta code
>> loaded but are not switched to CBRS operation yet.   I don’t think we have
>> seen any crash reboots on the AP’s with beta code that ARE running in CBRS
>> mode though.
>>
>>
>>
>> Grants / SAS / CNMaestro don’t seem to have many issues.   Things are
>> still a bit klunky and having to deal with CPAS more often that I would
>> expect is a nuisance but it’s functional.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 12:48 PM, Josh Luthman 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> So you're running this CBRS with the open spectrum, right?  Have you seen
>> any issues in the 2 weeks?
>>
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> 
>> Suite 1337
>> 
>> Troy, OH 45373
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:45 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>
>> 30Mhz at +49dBm versus 20Mhz at +40dBm.Some of the improvement in
>> airtime obviously comes from the wider channel size but the bigger change
>> was the higher power and quieter spectrum moving everyone into 6x/8x
>> modulation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> What's the actual TX power in that case before and after? I thought the
>> number I had heard for CBRS was 47db EIRP in a 20mhz channel... although I
>> have no idea where that number came from, so it could very well be wrong .
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>
>> Way more than 5db, 10dB is more realistic.   This is a typical customer
>> off a 450m 3.65 CBRS AP running at full power:
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> Even more interesting:
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> This shows frame utilization of the 450m before and after the switch to
>> CBRS.   The higher power and cleaner spectrum greatly increased the
>> modulation of the customers resulting in greatly reduced airtime
>> utilization.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> It's a 5-6db increase, if I remember correctly, so that could certainly
>> be enough to make the difference in a lot of cases.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course there's also the fact that half of the people running Baicells
>> radios with sectors are probably already running (illegally) at that power
>> level anyway...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:50 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>
>> Is the CBRS power that much

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE

[George Skorup]

Yes, RackInjetor w/ PDU card.

There are, umm, a *lot* of SMs on that sector which is why it's pulling
125-140 watts. And man is that MU-MIMO puttin in work.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 4:09 PM Steve Jones 
wrote:

> is that the packetflux interface?
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 4:05 PM George Skorup 
> wrote:
>
>> Better put on your rectifier pants
>> [image: image.png]
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 3:33 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>
>>> There is also the power consumption issue with the 3 GHz 450m.  Spec
>>> sheet says 140W typical.  That’s a lot, 560 watts for 4 sectors.
>>> Especially at sites where I only have a 360 watt power supply and 1000
>>> watt-hours of batteries.  The 5 GHz 450m I think is less than half the
>>> power consumption.  Presumably the difference is the power amps.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Under Part 90 it would have been even more painful to deploy Medusas,
>>> since we couldn’t even use the higher xmt power.  All my 3 GHz 450 APs were
>>> deployed over a year ago.  With all the uncertainty over where CBRS was
>>> going, whether the mobile guys would totally take it away from us, and
>>> whether we would have to do a forklift upgrade of the Cambium equipment, we
>>> really dialed back deployment the past 1-2 years.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Josh Baird
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2020 3:13 PM
>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What are you replacing?  PMP320?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 3:52 PM, Steve Jones 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> we are taking the power hit on the 450i for most of our APs for the
>>> pricebreak. we have 20 some APs to replace in the next month or so, so that
>>> kind of forces that. Im looking forward to there we have the Medusas along
>>> with the Is to see what the performance differences are
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:58 PM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>>
>>> Both 450i and 450m can run in CBRS.   Only the Medusa can go to high
>>> power.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 2:51 PM, Jason McKemie <
>>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What APs are you using 450M, or 450i as well? I'm wondering if the 450i
>>> can do the same power output.
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 26, 2020, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>>
>>> Not too many.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A few bugs in the beta code for the AP’s, nothing really a show stopper.
>>>   SM upload rate limit when in NAT mode appears to be broken, but works
>>> properly in bridge mode.   We are seeing AP’s rebooting somewhat randomly
>>> on the beta code when NOT running in CBRS - i.e. they have the beta code
>>> loaded but are not switched to CBRS operation yet.   I don’t think we have
>>> seen any crash reboots on the AP’s with beta code that ARE running in CBRS
>>> mode though.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Grants / SAS / CNMaestro don’t seem to have many issues.   Things are
>>> still a bit klunky and having to deal with CPAS more often that I would
>>> expect is a nuisance but it’s functional.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 12:48 PM, Josh Luthman 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So you're running this CBRS with the open spectrum, right?  Have you
>>> seen any issues in the 2 weeks?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> 
>>> Suite 1337
>>> 
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:45 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>>
>>> 30Mhz at +49dBm versus 20Mhz at +40dBm.Some of the improvement in
>>> airtime obviously comes from the wider channel size but the bigger change
>>> was the higher power and quieter spectrum moving everyone into 6x/8x
>>> modulation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Mathew Howard 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What's the actual TX power in that case before and after? I thought the
>>> number I had heard for CBRS was 47db EIRP in a 20mhz channel... although I
>>> have no idea where that number came from, so it could very well be wrong .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>>
>>> Way more than 5db, 10dB is more realistic.   This is a typical customer
>>> off a 450m 3.65 CBRS AP running at full power:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Even more interesting:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This shows frame utilization of the 450m before and after the switch to
>>> CBRS.   The higher power and cleaner spectrum greatly increased the
>>> modulation of the customers resulting in greatly reduced airtime
>>> utilization.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Mathew Howard 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a 

Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

[Kurt Fankhauser]

in ohio BTW

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 5:34 PM Kurt Fankhauser 
wrote:

> i have a couple 3 mile AF24 links (non-hd) that have been up for 6
> months never dropped once and we have had some decent rainstorms
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:22 PM Bill Prince  wrote:
>
>> In this area, 24 GHz works reliably at 2 to 2-1/2 miles. We have several
>> links at these distances for years now, and they just stay up. One of them
>> faded out this year; not from rain, but when one end of the link had the
>> radome covered with a couple inches of snow/ice. The snow/ice would have
>> killed other frequencies as well. Thankfully, this doesn't happen very
>> often; it's the first time it happened in over 5 years.
>>
>> We also, for some time, had a 24 GHz link at 9+ miles. It did fade, but
>> was surprisingly reliable. I'm not advocating for such a link (and we
>> replaced this one some time ago), but rain is widely variable in different
>> regions. I would advise differently for someone in Illinois (for example).
>>
>> bp
>> 
>>
>>
>> On 2/26/2020 10:14 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>
>> Anything that's more than ~1 mile is going to drop (at least
>> occasionally, unless it never rains) with either 80ghz or 24ghz, and
>> realistically, if a storm takes down an 80ghz link it's going to take down
>> a 24ghz link to... it might only be down 5 minutes instead of 6 minutes,
>> but it's still going to go down.
>>
>> If we ignore rain fade, then 80ghz actually should have significantly
>> better range than 24ghz, because the allowed EIRP is so much higher.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:27 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>
>>> My recollection is that WISPs who have tried 24 GHz even at 2 miles have
>>> been frustrated with the performance when it rains.  Maybe it depends on
>>> your definition of moderate rain zone.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think part of the problem with rain fade is that it doesn’t get 6 dB
>>> worse at twice the distance, it doubles (unless the link is long enough
>>> that it never rains over the entire linke).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So if you have 40 dB fades at 1 mile, you’ll have 80 dB fades at 2
>>> miles.  You’re not going to make that up with xmt power or antenna size.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But speaking of transmit power, that’s another problem at 24 GHz, the
>>> regulatory EIRP limit is quite low.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We tend to talk like it’s all about which equipment vendor is better.
>>> Is Ubiquiti better than Aviat?  But a lot of it is physics and regulatory.
>>> And maybe climate change.  It reminds me of winter tires.  You can pay
>>> twice as much, but the performance on ice might only be 10% better.
>>> There’s only so much you can do vs. laws of physics.  And states outlawing
>>> studded tires because they tear up the roads.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Bill Prince
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2020 11:12 AM
>>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think so. In moderate rain zones the AF24HD can go 2 miles, and
>>> maybe some change. I'm not sure how far you can go on 80 GHz, but I'm
>>> pretty sure it isn't that far.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> bp
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/26/2020 9:08 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Is the range equivalent?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Kurt Fankhauser
>>>
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:59 AM
>>>
>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> for $5,000 the Aviat 80ghz solution is actually cheaper than AF24HD and
>>> 10x the throughput!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:36 AM Mathew Howard 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Good to know. That's an incredibly good deal... definitely what I'd go
>>> with. You'll probably be paying at least that for a 1Gbps link from any of
>>> the other manufacturers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:20 AM Darin Steffl 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes I ran into the same thing with the web store showing a higher cost.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just reach out to Ken and he'll quote you the pricing I'm talking about.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 9:05 AM Josh Baird  wrote:
>>>
>>> It may be WISPA member pricing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:02 AM Mathew Howard 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there some kind of special pricing or something? I logged into my
>>> Aviat account, and it's looking more like $7k for a link to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:05 AM Josh Baird  wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes - this is the WTM4800.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:53 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>>
>>> That is an insane value proposition over the AF24HD.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Which specific radio, the 10G single band 4800?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 

Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex

[Kurt Fankhauser]

i have a couple 3 mile AF24 links (non-hd) that have been up for 6
months never dropped once and we have had some decent rainstorms

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:22 PM Bill Prince  wrote:

> In this area, 24 GHz works reliably at 2 to 2-1/2 miles. We have several
> links at these distances for years now, and they just stay up. One of them
> faded out this year; not from rain, but when one end of the link had the
> radome covered with a couple inches of snow/ice. The snow/ice would have
> killed other frequencies as well. Thankfully, this doesn't happen very
> often; it's the first time it happened in over 5 years.
>
> We also, for some time, had a 24 GHz link at 9+ miles. It did fade, but
> was surprisingly reliable. I'm not advocating for such a link (and we
> replaced this one some time ago), but rain is widely variable in different
> regions. I would advise differently for someone in Illinois (for example).
>
> bp
> 
>
>
> On 2/26/2020 10:14 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>
> Anything that's more than ~1 mile is going to drop (at least occasionally,
> unless it never rains) with either 80ghz or 24ghz, and realistically, if a
> storm takes down an 80ghz link it's going to take down a 24ghz link to...
> it might only be down 5 minutes instead of 6 minutes, but it's still going
> to go down.
>
> If we ignore rain fade, then 80ghz actually should have significantly
> better range than 24ghz, because the allowed EIRP is so much higher.
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:27 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> My recollection is that WISPs who have tried 24 GHz even at 2 miles have
>> been frustrated with the performance when it rains.  Maybe it depends on
>> your definition of moderate rain zone.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think part of the problem with rain fade is that it doesn’t get 6 dB
>> worse at twice the distance, it doubles (unless the link is long enough
>> that it never rains over the entire linke).
>>
>>
>>
>> So if you have 40 dB fades at 1 mile, you’ll have 80 dB fades at 2
>> miles.  You’re not going to make that up with xmt power or antenna size.
>>
>>
>>
>> But speaking of transmit power, that’s another problem at 24 GHz, the
>> regulatory EIRP limit is quite low.
>>
>>
>>
>> We tend to talk like it’s all about which equipment vendor is better.  Is
>> Ubiquiti better than Aviat?  But a lot of it is physics and regulatory.
>> And maybe climate change.  It reminds me of winter tires.  You can pay
>> twice as much, but the performance on ice might only be 10% better.
>> There’s only so much you can do vs. laws of physics.  And states outlawing
>> studded tires because they tear up the roads.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Bill Prince
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2020 11:12 AM
>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think so. In moderate rain zones the AF24HD can go 2 miles, and
>> maybe some change. I'm not sure how far you can go on 80 GHz, but I'm
>> pretty sure it isn't that far.
>>
>>
>>
>> bp
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/26/2020 9:08 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
>>
>> Is the range equivalent?
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Kurt Fankhauser
>>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:59 AM
>>
>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] .6 KM shot with 1G Full Duplex
>>
>>
>>
>> for $5,000 the Aviat 80ghz solution is actually cheaper than AF24HD and
>> 10x the throughput!
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:36 AM Mathew Howard 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Good to know. That's an incredibly good deal... definitely what I'd go
>> with. You'll probably be paying at least that for a 1Gbps link from any of
>> the other manufacturers.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:20 AM Darin Steffl 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Yes I ran into the same thing with the web store showing a higher cost.
>>
>>
>>
>> Just reach out to Ken and he'll quote you the pricing I'm talking about.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 9:05 AM Josh Baird  wrote:
>>
>> It may be WISPA member pricing.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:02 AM Mathew Howard 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Is there some kind of special pricing or something? I logged into my
>> Aviat account, and it's looking more like $7k for a link to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:05 AM Josh Baird  wrote:
>>
>> Yes - this is the WTM4800.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:53 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>
>> That is an insane value proposition over the AF24HD.
>>
>>
>>
>> Which specific radio, the 10G single band 4800?
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 

[AFMUG] NTCA

[Matt Hoppes]

Is anyone here an NTCA member?

If so, have you taken advantage of their retirement and health insurance 
programs and if so how good are they?


--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE

[Josh Baird]

Do tell.  Number of SM's and throughput for the sector?!

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 5:22 PM George Skorup 
wrote:

> Yes, RackInjetor w/ PDU card.
>
> There are, umm, a *lot* of SMs on that sector which is why it's pulling
> 125-140 watts. And man is that MU-MIMO puttin in work.
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 4:09 PM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> is that the packetflux interface?
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 4:05 PM George Skorup 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Better put on your rectifier pants
>>> [image: image.png]
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 3:33 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>>
 There is also the power consumption issue with the 3 GHz 450m.  Spec
 sheet says 140W typical.  That’s a lot, 560 watts for 4 sectors.
 Especially at sites where I only have a 360 watt power supply and 1000
 watt-hours of batteries.  The 5 GHz 450m I think is less than half the
 power consumption.  Presumably the difference is the power amps.



 Under Part 90 it would have been even more painful to deploy Medusas,
 since we couldn’t even use the higher xmt power.  All my 3 GHz 450 APs were
 deployed over a year ago.  With all the uncertainty over where CBRS was
 going, whether the mobile guys would totally take it away from us, and
 whether we would have to do a forklift upgrade of the Cambium equipment, we
 really dialed back deployment the past 1-2 years.



 *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Josh Baird
 *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2020 3:13 PM
 *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE



 What are you replacing?  PMP320?



 On Feb 26, 2020, at 3:52 PM, Steve Jones 
 wrote:

 

 we are taking the power hit on the 450i for most of our APs for the
 pricebreak. we have 20 some APs to replace in the next month or so, so that
 kind of forces that. Im looking forward to there we have the Medusas along
 with the Is to see what the performance differences are



 On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:58 PM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

 Both 450i and 450m can run in CBRS.   Only the Medusa can go to high
 power.



 Mark



 On Feb 26, 2020, at 2:51 PM, Jason McKemie <
 j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:



 What APs are you using 450M, or 450i as well? I'm wondering if the 450i
 can do the same power output.

 On Wednesday, February 26, 2020, Mark Radabaugh 
 wrote:

 Not too many.



 A few bugs in the beta code for the AP’s, nothing really a show
 stopper.   SM upload rate limit when in NAT mode appears to be broken, but
 works properly in bridge mode.   We are seeing AP’s rebooting somewhat
 randomly on the beta code when NOT running in CBRS - i.e. they have the
 beta code loaded but are not switched to CBRS operation yet.   I don’t
 think we have seen any crash reboots on the AP’s with beta code that ARE
 running in CBRS mode though.



 Grants / SAS / CNMaestro don’t seem to have many issues.   Things are
 still a bit klunky and having to deal with CPAS more often that I would
 expect is a nuisance but it’s functional.



 Mark



 On Feb 26, 2020, at 12:48 PM, Josh Luthman 
 wrote:



 So you're running this CBRS with the open spectrum, right?  Have you
 seen any issues in the 2 weeks?



 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 
 Suite 1337
 
 Troy, OH 45373
 





 On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:45 AM Mark Radabaugh 
 wrote:

 30Mhz at +49dBm versus 20Mhz at +40dBm.Some of the improvement in
 airtime obviously comes from the wider channel size but the bigger change
 was the higher power and quieter spectrum moving everyone into 6x/8x
 modulation.



 Mark



 On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Mathew Howard 
 wrote:



 What's the actual TX power in that case before and after? I thought the
 number I had heard for CBRS was 47db EIRP in a 20mhz channel... although I
 have no idea where that number came from, so it could very well be wrong .



 On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

 Way more than 5db, 10dB is more realistic.   This is a typical customer
 off a 450m 3.65 CBRS AP running at full power:



 



 Even more interesting:



 



 This shows frame utilization of the 450m before

Re: [AFMUG] NTCA

[chuck]

I was.  I did.  It was good.  But if you have a decent number of employees, 
self insurance is a much better way to go.


-Original Message- 
From: Matt Hoppes

Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 4:01 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: [AFMUG] NTCA

Is anyone here an NTCA member?

If so, have you taken advantage of their retirement and health insurance
programs and if so how good are they?

--
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

Re: [AFMUG] site monitor base 3 availability?

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

Sounds like you follow the 90/90 rule of project schedules.   90% of the
work takes 90% of the time, the remaining 10% of the work takes the other
90%.

In my specific case, I had about a week set aside to do what I thought was
a couple days of SNMP work.   Basically just map everything to the correct
OIDs in the SNMPd system.   Then I discovered that I had too many OID's due
to a coded-in limit and a couple other things were getting in the way as
well.   This was week one.  The next 30 days was determined there was no
reasonable way to remove the limit from the existing code and make it
work.  Then there was the month of trying to make some other off the shelf
code work.  Oh and throw in a couple holidays for good measure.

I just wish I knew now how little time in comparison writing a stack from
scratch was going to be, although there's still work to be done for future
feature sets (write/sets, possible SNMPv3 support, etc.), it wasn't nearly
as painful as I thought it would be to get where I wanted to be, plus it's
a lot easier to use than the old one.



On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:43 PM  wrote:

> “February has been all about getting the work done I expected to be doing
> in November and December.  “
>
> Put that on my tombstone.
>
> *From:* Forrest Christian (List Account)
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2020 11:07 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] site monitor base 3 availability?
>
> Very close.   I can't give you an exact date right this second, as there
> are too many moving parts which all have to come together.  I'm going
> through and doing all the validation work at this point and cleaning up
> anything I find.   I'm guessing the week or two after WISPAMERICA at this
> point but it could slide another couple weeks as a result of the challenges
> in obtaining raw materials right now.
>
> I ended up spending a couple of months back in November/December figuring
> out that the SNMP code that we've been using for years (including in the
> RackInjector) wasn't going to work for the SiteMonitor 3.  And then trying
> and then giving up on a couple of alternative SNMP stacks.  After the
> holidays, I ended up writing an SNMP stack from scratch and that triggered
> some other code changes since there were some architecture decisions I made
> to attempt to get around the shortcomings in the original SNMP stack which
> weren't valid anymore.  Made things a lot nicer/easier, but it was work
> getting it there.   February has been all about getting the work done I
> expected to be doing in November and December.
>
> At this point it's mostly about doing the final release process and then
> doing integration with the Automatic Test.   Once that is done and I've
> 100% verified that the board design I have is good, we'll order production
> boards. There is a chance that I'll end up having to do an additional
> (minor) board revision during this process.  Normally if that happens, I'll
> typically order 10 or so of the new design to verify I didn't screw
> something up in the process of fixing whatever was broken, but in this
> case, I'll increase the order to whatever is pre-ordered so I can at least
> get those out.
>
> Of course like anything with a schedule the crap could hit the fan and
> this schedule goes out the window.
>
> I will be doing a walkthough of the new devices in the PacketFlux session
> on thursday afternoon.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:39 AM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> Its getting at the end of February, what are we looking at in
>> availability of these bad boys?
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
>
> --
> - Forrest
>
> --
> --
> 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
>


-- 
- Forrest
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] site monitor base 3 availability?

[Ken Hohhof]

I seem to remember this actual conversation.

 

Marketing:  I need the schedule.

Engineering:  Do you want the 50/50 date or the 90/10 date?

Marketing:  Give me the 50/10 date.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List Account)
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 8:57 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] site monitor base 3 availability?

 

Sounds like you follow the 90/90 rule of project schedules.   90% of the work 
takes 90% of the time, the remaining 10% of the work takes the other 90%.

 

In my specific case, I had about a week set aside to do what I thought was a 
couple days of SNMP work.   Basically just map everything to the correct OIDs 
in the SNMPd system.   Then I discovered that I had too many OID's due to a 
coded-in limit and a couple other things were getting in the way as well.   
This was week one.  The next 30 days was determined there was no reasonable way 
to remove the limit from the existing code and make it work.  Then there was 
the month of trying to make some other off the shelf code work.  Oh and throw 
in a couple holidays for good measure.

 

I just wish I knew now how little time in comparison writing a stack from 
scratch was going to be, although there's still work to be done for future 
feature sets (write/sets, possible SNMPv3 support, etc.), it wasn't nearly as 
painful as I thought it would be to get where I wanted to be, plus it's a lot 
easier to use than the old one.

 

 

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:43 PM mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com> > 
wrote:

“February has been all about getting the work done I expected to be doing in 
November and December.  “

 

Put that on my tombstone.  

 

From: Forrest Christian (List Account) 

Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 11:07 AM

To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] site monitor base 3 availability?

 

Very close.   I can't give you an exact date right this second, as there are 
too many moving parts which all have to come together.  I'm going through and 
doing all the validation work at this point and cleaning up anything I find.   
I'm guessing the week or two after WISPAMERICA at this point but it could slide 
another couple weeks as a result of the challenges in obtaining raw materials 
right now. 

  

I ended up spending a couple of months back in November/December figuring out 
that the SNMP code that we've been using for years (including in the 
RackInjector) wasn't going to work for the SiteMonitor 3.  And then trying and 
then giving up on a couple of alternative SNMP stacks.  After the holidays, I 
ended up writing an SNMP stack from scratch and that triggered some other code 
changes since there were some architecture decisions I made to attempt to get 
around the shortcomings in the original SNMP stack which weren't valid anymore. 
 Made things a lot nicer/easier, but it was work getting it there.   February 
has been all about getting the work done I expected to be doing in November and 
December.   

 

At this point it's mostly about doing the final release process and then doing 
integration with the Automatic Test.   Once that is done and I've 100% verified 
that the board design I have is good, we'll order production boards. There is a 
chance that I'll end up having to do an additional (minor) board revision 
during this process.  Normally if that happens, I'll typically order 10 or so 
of the new design to verify I didn't screw something up in the process of 
fixing whatever was broken, but in this case, I'll increase the order to 
whatever is pre-ordered so I can at least get those out.

 

Of course like anything with a schedule the crap could hit the fan and this 
schedule goes out the window.

 

I will be doing a walkthough of the new devices in the PacketFlux session on 
thursday afternoon.

 

 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:39 AM Steve Jones mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Its getting at the end of February, what are we looking at in availability of 
these bad boys?

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com  
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

 

 

-- 

- Forrest


  _  


-- 
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




 

-- 

- Forrest

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] UV Resistant Label Machine

[Jeremy]

I have used the Dymo Rhino for years.  The only issue that I have had with
it is it will die permanently if you leave it in the truck in the winter
and then try to use it while it is frozen.  We only label wires inside the
boxes.  I have seen them start to peel from heat after a few years, but
they are still completely legible.  I usually take a small strip of packing
tape and go around the label and then it stays forever.

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:44 AM Lincs_Chel  wrote:

> Hi Matt;
>
> I use either the 19mm (3/4in) and the 24mm (1in) sizes for the Dymo
> flexible series.  Depends how you want to wrap the cable.  But both sizes
> work well for CAT5 cable (outdoor, STP and UTP).
>
> The amount of info you wish to be printed will dictate the size.  I found
> the smaller fonts don't print well on the Dymo RHINO series.  For the
> Brother TZ tapes, the 24mm and 18mm are the equivalent sizes that work well
> with the CAT5 cables.
>
> If you wrap in portrait mode. Either size will work.  If you wrap in
> landscape mode, (need more characters to display), the 24mm will work
> better.  As it will fold around the cable (and possibly overlap) fully.
>
> In either case, the flexible series is better for the CAT5 cables.
>
> LH
>
> On 18/02/2020 10:30 AM, Matt wrote:
>
> I use the heat shrink stock for the rhinos. They are UV listed.
>>
>> http://www.dymo.com/en-US/ind-heat-shrink-tube-1-4-in
>>
>>
>>
> >>>Choose from 1/4", 3/8", 1/2", 3/4" and 1" label widths
>
> What size do you need for outdoor shielded cat-5?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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