Re: [AFMUG] site monitor base 3 availability?

[can...@believewireless.net]

Glad I'm not the only one.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 3:43 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
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] UV Resistant Label Machine

[Ken Hohhof]

I also end up cursing at it because the printing on the labels is light or 
skips.  Then I put in a new roll of labels and it’s fine for awhile.

 

Apparently the labels have a shelf life once the package is opened.  I don’t 
know if it’s temperature or they dry out or what.  I should try taking the roll 
out between uses and putting it in a Ziploc bag or something.  Maybe if you use 
yours a lot and go through labels faster this is not a problem.

 

It’s a bit frustrating because the Brother TZ labels are also thermal transfer 
and they don’t exhibit this problem at all.

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:57 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] UV Resistant Label Machine

 

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 mailto:lhan...@enc-tech.com> > 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

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

[dave]

We R starting to see some real world impressive results with just the 
pmp450i CBRS radios on a 20Mhz channels
This guy is nearLOS about 2.5 miles of some tree and pointing into edge 
of panel



   Current Results Status

Stats for LUID: 65   Test Duration: 10   Pkt Length: 1714   Test 
Direction Bi-Directional


*Link Test without Bridging*
Data
Channel
PriorityDownlinkUplink  Aggregate   Packet Transmit 
Packet Receive
Actual  Actual
Low 	50.01 Mbps 	32.97 Mbps 	82.98 Mbps,  6008 pps 	23887 (2388 pps) 
36207 (3620 pps)




*Efficiency*
DownlinkUplink
Efficiency  Fragments
count   Efficiency  Fragments
count
Actual  Missed  Actual  Missed
99% 984301  740999% 647582  3593


Link Test ran on 15:20:50 02/27/2020 UTC

*Currently transmitting at:*
8X/6X MIMO-B



Current Contention Mode Status: No Piggyback of data in contention

On 2/25/20 3:59 PM, Matt Mangriotis via AF wrote:


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 mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> 
*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 mailto: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

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

[Josh Baird]

Do you have numbers for this same customer pre-CBRS?

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:26 AM dave  wrote:

> We R starting to see some real world impressive results with just the
> pmp450i CBRS radios on a 20Mhz channels
> This guy is nearLOS about 2.5 miles of some tree and pointing into edge of
> panel
>
> Current Results Status
> Stats for LUID: 65   Test Duration: 10   Pkt Length: 1714   Test Direction
> Bi-Directional
>
> *Link Test without Bridging*
> Data
> Channel
> Priority Downlink Uplink Aggregate Packet Transmit Packet Receive
> Actual Actual
> Low 50.01 Mbps 32.97 Mbps 82.98 Mbps,  6008 pps 23887 (2388 pps) 36207 (3620
> pps)
>
> *Efficiency*
> Downlink Uplink
> Efficiency Fragments
> count Efficiency Fragments
> count
> Actual Missed Actual Missed
> 99% 984301 7409 99% 647582 3593
> Link Test ran on 15:20:50 02/27/2020 UTC
>
> *Currently transmitting at:*
> 8X/6X MIMO-B
>
> Current Contention Mode Status: No Piggyback of data in contention
>
> On 2/25/20 3:59 PM, Matt Mangriotis via AF wrote:
>
> 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 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

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

[Eric Muehleisen]

Still in winter. I'd like to see how it performs when the leaves are full
in May.

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:26 AM dave  wrote:

> We R starting to see some real world impressive results with just the
> pmp450i CBRS radios on a 20Mhz channels
> This guy is nearLOS about 2.5 miles of some tree and pointing into edge of
> panel
>
> Current Results Status
> Stats for LUID: 65   Test Duration: 10   Pkt Length: 1714   Test Direction
> Bi-Directional
>
> *Link Test without Bridging*
> Data
> Channel
> Priority Downlink Uplink Aggregate Packet Transmit Packet Receive
> Actual Actual
> Low 50.01 Mbps 32.97 Mbps 82.98 Mbps,  6008 pps 23887 (2388 pps) 36207 (3620
> pps)
>
> *Efficiency*
> Downlink Uplink
> Efficiency Fragments
> count Efficiency Fragments
> count
> Actual Missed Actual Missed
> 99% 984301 7409 99% 647582 3593
> Link Test ran on 15:20:50 02/27/2020 UTC
>
> *Currently transmitting at:*
> 8X/6X MIMO-B
>
> Current Contention Mode Status: No Piggyback of data in contention
>
> On 2/25/20 3:59 PM, Matt Mangriotis via AF wrote:
>
> 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 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 on

[AFMUG] OT Fleet Management

[chuck]

Before I recreate the wheel, I thought I would ask:
Any recommendations on fleet management software.

I probably have 50+ vehicles and machines that all need regular oil and filter 
changes etc.  
I am starting to create forms and may make a database but perhaps there is a 
low cost solution already invented.  

Some of the stuff I looked at is pretty expensive.  $4 per vehicle or more.-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE

[George Skorup]

About 70. Regularly hits 100Mbps DL. 20MHz channel. Surprisingly only 3 or
4 SMs worse than 6X MIMO-B downlink.

450m is definitely worth the cost where you have the density. And it's a
night/day difference especially when you upgrade from regular ol 450 APs.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:38 PM Josh Baird  wrote:

> 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 <
> 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 
> 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

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

[Ken Hohhof]

For years there has been enthusiasm for the idea that 3.5 GHz is suitable for 
NLOS propagation in a way that doesn’t apply to other mid band spectrum like 
2.4, 2.5 or 5 GHz.  Initially is wasn’t clear what type of NLOS people meant – 
urban clutter or foliage – but I think it’s pretty clear people are talking 
about foliage.

 

Why do people expect this?  Is it the frequency, or the protocol like WiMAX and 
now LTE?  Or no theoretical basis, just it works don’t ask why?

 

I can think of several possible explanations, not sure if any of these are why 
people associate 3.65 GHz LTE with NLOS.

 

- 3.65 GHz somehow is absorbed less by foliage than other mid band frequencies

- some feature of the LTE protocol that overcomes NLOS

- LTE equipment has more sensitive receivers

- 3.65 GHz has less interference due to being semi licensed

- some combination of receiver sensitivity and lack of interference

- none of the above but LTE equipment is just made better

 

Maybe it’s real world experience with no theoretical basis.  But I always like 
to know why something works, or doesn’t.  You’d prefer that the reason it works 
isn’t some temporary anomaly.  Like service is really good at this new 
restaurant, because nobody knows about it yet.

 

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Eric Muehleisen
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 10:29 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE

 

Still in winter. I'd like to see how it performs when the leaves are full in 
May.

 

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:26 AM dave mailto:dmilho...@wletc.com> > wrote:

We R starting to see some real world impressive results with just the pmp450i 
CBRS radios on a 20Mhz channels 
This guy is nearLOS about 2.5 miles of some tree and pointing into edge of 
panel 


Current Results Status   


Stats for LUID: 65   Test Duration: 10   Pkt Length: 1714   Test Direction 
Bi-Directional

Link Test without Bridging


Data
Channel
Priority

Downlink

Uplink

Aggregate

Packet Transmit

Packet Receive


Actual

Actual


Low

50.01 Mbps

32.97 Mbps

82.98 Mbps,  6008 pps

23887 (2388 pps)

36207 (3620 pps)



Efficiency


Downlink

Uplink


Efficiency

Fragments
count

Efficiency

Fragments
count


Actual

Missed

Actual

Missed


99%

984301

7409

99%

647582

3593


Link Test ran on 15:20:50 02/27/2020 UTC 

Currently transmitting at: 


8X/6X MIMO-B



Current Contention Mode Status: No Piggyback of data in contention 




On 2/25/20 3:59 PM, Matt Mangriotis via AF wrote:

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

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

[Mathew Howard]

In reality, I think it's a combination of all of those, with the exception
of "3.65 GHz somehow is absorbed less by foliage than other mid band
frequencies", which I've never seen any evidence for in the real world.
Plus the fact that we're allowed to use quite a bit higher EIRP than 2.4ghz
or 5ghz... even under the old rules, there was about a 6db advantage.

My experience has always been that if you compare similar radios (Ubiquiti,
450, etc.), on a NLOS path in 3.65ghz with 2.4ghz and 5ghz you get pretty
much exactly the results you'd expect... the signal levels are somewhere
between what you'd get on 2.4ghz and 5ghz, but when you add in the higher
EIRP, and the fact that noise levels are typically a lot lower, it usually
works better than 2.4ghz anyway. When you're dealing with LTE (or even
wimax), some extra magic gets added in that makes it work better at low
signal levels.

I'm pretty sure that if you have a 2.5ghz license, and you're using
basically the same LTE radios as in the 3.5ghz band, you're going to have
much better NLOS results.

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:04 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> For years there has been enthusiasm for the idea that 3.5 GHz is suitable
> for NLOS propagation in a way that doesn’t apply to other mid band spectrum
> like 2.4, 2.5 or 5 GHz.  Initially is wasn’t clear what type of NLOS people
> meant – urban clutter or foliage – but I think it’s pretty clear people are
> talking about foliage.
>
>
>
> Why do people expect this?  Is it the frequency, or the protocol like
> WiMAX and now LTE?  Or no theoretical basis, just it works don’t ask why?
>
>
>
> I can think of several possible explanations, not sure if any of these are
> why people associate 3.65 GHz LTE with NLOS.
>
>
>
> - 3.65 GHz somehow is absorbed less by foliage than other mid band
> frequencies
>
> - some feature of the LTE protocol that overcomes NLOS
>
> - LTE equipment has more sensitive receivers
>
> - 3.65 GHz has less interference due to being semi licensed
>
> - some combination of receiver sensitivity and lack of interference
>
> - none of the above but LTE equipment is just made better
>
>
>
> Maybe it’s real world experience with no theoretical basis.  But I always
> like to know why something works, or doesn’t.  You’d prefer that the reason
> it works isn’t some temporary anomaly.  Like service is really good at this
> new restaurant, because nobody knows about it yet.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Eric Muehleisen
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2020 10:29 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE
>
>
>
> Still in winter. I'd like to see how it performs when the leaves are full
> in May.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:26 AM dave  wrote:
>
> We R starting to see some real world impressive results with just the
> pmp450i CBRS radios on a 20Mhz channels
> This guy is nearLOS about 2.5 miles of some tree and pointing into edge of
> panel
> Current Results Status
>
> Stats for LUID: 65   Test Duration: 10   Pkt Length: 1714   Test Direction
> Bi-Directional
>
> *Link Test without Bridging*
>
>
>
> *DataChannelPriority*
>
> *Downlink*
>
> *Uplink*
>
> *Aggregate*
>
> *Packet Transmit*
>
> *Packet Receive*
>
> *Actual*
>
> *Actual*
>
> Low
>
> 50.01 Mbps
>
> 32.97 Mbps
>
> 82.98 Mbps,  6008 pps
>
> 23887 (2388 pps)
>
> 36207 (3620 pps)
>
>
>
> *Efficiency*
>
> *Downlink*
>
> *Uplink*
>
> *Efficiency*
>
>
> *Fragmentscount*
>
> *Efficiency*
>
>
> *Fragmentscount*
>
> *Actual*
>
> *Missed*
>
> *Actual*
>
> *Missed*
>
> 99%
>
> 984301
>
> 7409
>
> 99%
>
> 647582
>
> 3593
>
>
> Link Test ran on 15:20:50 02/27/2020 UTC
>
> *Currently transmitting at:*
>
> 8X/6X MIMO-B
>
>
>
> Current Contention Mode Status: No Piggyback of data in contention
>
>
> On 2/25/20 3:59 PM, Matt Mangriotis via AF wrote:
>
> 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 

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

[Mark Radabaugh]

Lots of wishful thinking combined with a little bit of LTE magic.  5 on your 
list would be my vote - receiver sensitivity and lack of interference.

You left out the other adder - running at illegal power output levels at the 
base station for the NN licenses.

LTE certainly has significantly better receiver sensitivity than our normal 
solutions -  but it comes at a pretty high cost in throughput.So yeah, you 
can run NLOS in 3.65 and it works as long as the noise floor stays low and you 
don’t care much about the overall capacity of the base station.

Under CBRS running at even higher power levels makes it push through into NLOS 
a bit more, but the noise floor overall is also going to come up so it may be 
something of a wash in the end.

Mark

> On Feb 27, 2020, at 12:03 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
> 
> For years there has been enthusiasm for the idea that 3.5 GHz is suitable for 
> NLOS propagation in a way that doesn’t apply to other mid band spectrum like 
> 2.4, 2.5 or 5 GHz.  Initially is wasn’t clear what type of NLOS people meant 
> – urban clutter or foliage – but I think it’s pretty clear people are talking 
> about foliage.
>  
> Why do people expect this?  Is it the frequency, or the protocol like WiMAX 
> and now LTE?  Or no theoretical basis, just it works don’t ask why?
>  
> I can think of several possible explanations, not sure if any of these are 
> why people associate 3.65 GHz LTE with NLOS.
>  
> - 3.65 GHz somehow is absorbed less by foliage than other mid band frequencies
> - some feature of the LTE protocol that overcomes NLOS
> - LTE equipment has more sensitive receivers
> - 3.65 GHz has less interference due to being semi licensed
> - some combination of receiver sensitivity and lack of interference
> - none of the above but LTE equipment is just made better
>  
> Maybe it’s real world experience with no theoretical basis.  But I always 
> like to know why something works, or doesn’t.  You’d prefer that the reason 
> it works isn’t some temporary anomaly.  Like service is really good at this 
> new restaurant, because nobody knows about it yet.
>  
>  
>  
> From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf 
> Of Eric Muehleisen
> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 10:29 AM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group  >
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE
>  
> Still in winter. I'd like to see how it performs when the leaves are full in 
> May.
>  
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:26 AM dave  > wrote:
> We R starting to see some real world impressive results with just the pmp450i 
> CBRS radios on a 20Mhz channels 
> This guy is nearLOS about 2.5 miles of some tree and pointing into edge of 
> panel 
> 
> Current Results Status
> 
> Stats for LUID: 65   Test Duration: 10   Pkt Length: 1714   Test Direction 
> Bi-Directional
> 
> Link Test without Bridging
> Data
> Channel
> Priority
> Downlink
> Uplink
> Aggregate
> Packet Transmit
> Packet Receive
> Actual
> Actual
> Low
> 50.01 Mbps
> 32.97 Mbps
> 82.98 Mbps,  6008 pps
> 23887 (2388 pps)
> 36207 (3620 pps)
> 
> 
> Efficiency
> Downlink
> Uplink
> Efficiency
> Fragments
> count
> Efficiency
> Fragments
> count
> Actual
> Missed
> Actual
> Missed
> 99%
> 984301
> 7409
> 99%
> 647582
> 3593
> 
> Link Test ran on 15:20:50 02/27/2020 UTC 
> 
> Currently transmitting at:
> 8X/6X MIMO-B
> 
> 
> Current Contention Mode Status: No Piggyback of data in contention 
> 
> 
> On 2/25/20 3:59 PM, Matt Mangriotis via AF wrote:
>> 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 

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

[Brian Webster]

A lot of the initial hype was based on the signal levels the links were 
reporting from the CPE. What people didn’t realize was that the signal being 
reported was for the pilot carrier and not the full bandwidth signal. The 
difference is about 30 dB. So when a CPE was connecting at say -70 the 
reporting device was saying about -100. A lot of operators got excited thinking 
they could install customers down to -100 rather than -70 because they were 
getting great speed tests at the reported signal level. That is where everyone 
thought the NLOS for LTE was going to be better than what they have been using. 
Then reality set in about that 30 dB difference and as such the NLOS 
improvement hoped for was not as significant as first thought. As I recall the 
Baicells devices had that difference, not sure if all LTE CPE had the same 
issue.

 

Thank you,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

 

From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 12:29 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE

 

Lots of wishful thinking combined with a little bit of LTE magic.  5 on your 
list would be my vote - receiver sensitivity and lack of interference.

 

You left out the other adder - running at illegal power output levels at the 
base station for the NN licenses.

 

LTE certainly has significantly better receiver sensitivity than our normal 
solutions -  but it comes at a pretty high cost in throughput.So yeah, you 
can run NLOS in 3.65 and it works as long as the noise floor stays low and you 
don’t care much about the overall capacity of the base station.

 

Under CBRS running at even higher power levels makes it push through into NLOS 
a bit more, but the noise floor overall is also going to come up so it may be 
something of a wash in the end.

 

Mark

 

On Feb 27, 2020, at 12:03 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

 

For years there has been enthusiasm for the idea that 3.5 GHz is suitable for 
NLOS propagation in a way that doesn’t apply to other mid band spectrum like 
2.4, 2.5 or 5 GHz.  Initially is wasn’t clear what type of NLOS people meant – 
urban clutter or foliage – but I think it’s pretty clear people are talking 
about foliage.

 

Why do people expect this?  Is it the frequency, or the protocol like WiMAX and 
now LTE?  Or no theoretical basis, just it works don’t ask why?

 

I can think of several possible explanations, not sure if any of these are why 
people associate 3.65 GHz LTE with NLOS.

 

- 3.65 GHz somehow is absorbed less by foliage than other mid band frequencies

- some feature of the LTE protocol that overcomes NLOS

- LTE equipment has more sensitive receivers

- 3.65 GHz has less interference due to being semi licensed

- some combination of receiver sensitivity and lack of interference

- none of the above but LTE equipment is just made better

 

Maybe it’s real world experience with no theoretical basis.  But I always like 
to know why something works, or doesn’t.  You’d prefer that the reason it works 
isn’t some temporary anomaly.  Like service is really good at this new 
restaurant, because nobody knows about it yet.

 

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Eric Muehleisen
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 10:29 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE

 

Still in winter. I'd like to see how it performs when the leaves are full in 
May.

 

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:26 AM dave  wrote:

We R starting to see some real world impressive results with just the pmp450i 
CBRS radios on a 20Mhz channels 
This guy is nearLOS about 2.5 miles of some tree and pointing into edge of 
panel 


Current Results Status   


Stats for LUID: 65   Test Duration: 10   Pkt Length: 1714   Test Direction 
Bi-Directional

Link Test without Bridging


Data
Channel
Priority

Downlink

Uplink

Aggregate

Packet Transmit

Packet Receive


Actual

Actual


Low

50.01 Mbps

32.97 Mbps

82.98 Mbps,  6008 pps

23887 (2388 pps)

36207 (3620 pps)



Efficiency


Downlink

Uplink


Efficiency

Fragments
count

Efficiency

Fragments
count


Actual

Missed

Actual

Missed


99%

984301

7409

99%

647582

3593


Link Test ran on 15:20:50 02/27/2020 UTC 

Currently transmitting at:


8X/6X MIMO-B



Current Contention Mode Status: No Piggyback of data in contention 




On 2/25/20 3:59 PM, Matt Mangriotis via AF wrote:

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 devic

Re: [AFMUG] OT Fleet Management

[Brian Webster]

Here are a few places to start:

https://blog.capterra.com/the-6-best-free-and-open-source-fleet-management-s
oftware-programs/

 

 

Thank you,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

 

From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 11:52 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] OT Fleet Management

 

Before I recreate the wheel, I thought I would ask:

Any recommendations on fleet management software.

 

I probably have 50+ vehicles and machines that all need regular oil and
filter changes etc.  

I am starting to create forms and may make a database but perhaps there is a
low cost solution already invented.  

 

Some of the stuff I looked at is pretty expensive.  $4 per vehicle or more.

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

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

[Mathew Howard]

Yeah, Baicells CPE report signal in RSRP, rather than RSSI like most of the
radios WISPs are used to, and I think that's pretty much standard for LTE
radios, in general.

You can get away with low signal levels when there's no noise and no load
on the AP, so it seems great when you put your first few customers on it...
once you have 20 customers with lousy signals on an AP and a few
competitors using the band, then it's suddenly not so great anymore. I
don't know how many times I've seen somebody put up a new LTE eNB and post
something like "getting 80 meg through 4 miles of trees!!!" ...yeah, but
wait until a few people are actually using it.

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:43 AM Brian Webster 
wrote:

> A lot of the initial hype was based on the signal levels the links were
> reporting from the CPE. What people didn’t realize was that the signal
> being reported was for the pilot carrier and not the full bandwidth signal.
> The difference is about 30 dB. So when a CPE was connecting at say -70 the
> reporting device was saying about -100. A lot of operators got excited
> thinking they could install customers down to -100 rather than -70 because
> they were getting great speed tests at the reported signal level. That is
> where everyone thought the NLOS for LTE was going to be better than what
> they have been using. Then reality set in about that 30 dB difference and
> as such the NLOS improvement hoped for was not as significant as first
> thought. As I recall the Baicells devices had that difference, not sure if
> all LTE CPE had the same issue.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Brian Webster
>
> www.wirelessmapping.com
>
>
>
> *From:* AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mark Radabaugh
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2020 12:29 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE
>
>
>
> Lots of wishful thinking combined with a little bit of LTE magic.  5 on
> your list would be my vote - receiver sensitivity and lack of interference.
>
>
>
> You left out the other adder - running at illegal power output levels at
> the base station for the NN licenses.
>
>
>
> LTE certainly has significantly better receiver sensitivity than our
> normal solutions -  but it comes at a pretty high cost in throughput.So
> yeah, you can run NLOS in 3.65 and it works as long as the noise floor
> stays low and you don’t care much about the overall capacity of the base
> station.
>
>
>
> Under CBRS running at even higher power levels makes it push through into
> NLOS a bit more, but the noise floor overall is also going to come up so it
> may be something of a wash in the end.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On Feb 27, 2020, at 12:03 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>
>
> For years there has been enthusiasm for the idea that 3.5 GHz is suitable
> for NLOS propagation in a way that doesn’t apply to other mid band spectrum
> like 2.4, 2.5 or 5 GHz.  Initially is wasn’t clear what type of NLOS people
> meant – urban clutter or foliage – but I think it’s pretty clear people are
> talking about foliage.
>
>
>
> Why do people expect this?  Is it the frequency, or the protocol like
> WiMAX and now LTE?  Or no theoretical basis, just it works don’t ask why?
>
>
>
> I can think of several possible explanations, not sure if any of these are
> why people associate 3.65 GHz LTE with NLOS.
>
>
>
> - 3.65 GHz somehow is absorbed less by foliage than other mid band
> frequencies
>
> - some feature of the LTE protocol that overcomes NLOS
>
> - LTE equipment has more sensitive receivers
>
> - 3.65 GHz has less interference due to being semi licensed
>
> - some combination of receiver sensitivity and lack of interference
>
> - none of the above but LTE equipment is just made better
>
>
>
> Maybe it’s real world experience with no theoretical basis.  But I always
> like to know why something works, or doesn’t.  You’d prefer that the reason
> it works isn’t some temporary anomaly.  Like service is really good at this
> new restaurant, because nobody knows about it yet.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Eric Muehleisen
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2020 10:29 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE
>
>
>
> Still in winter. I'd like to see how it performs when the leaves are full
> in May.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:26 AM dave  wrote:
>
> We R starting to see some real world impressive results with just the
> pmp450i CBRS radios on a 20Mhz channels
> This guy is nearLOS about 2.5 miles of some tree and pointing into edge of
> panel
> Current Results Status
>
> Stats for LUID: 65   Test Duration: 10   Pkt Length: 1714   Test Direction
> Bi-Directional
>
> *Link Test without Bridging*
>
>
>
> *DataChannelPriority*
>
> *Downlink*
>
> *Uplink*
>
> *Aggregate*
>
> *Packet Transmit*
>
> *Packet Receive*
>
> *Actual*
>
> *Actual*
>
> Low
>
> 50.01 Mbps
>
> 32.97 Mbps
>
> 82.98 Mbps,  6008 pps
>
> 23887 (2388 pps)
>
> 36207 (3620 pps)
>
>
>
> *Eff

[AFMUG] 450m 365 sync

[Shayne Lebrun]

What are the various options for providing sync to a 3.65 450M?  

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

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

[Robert Andrews]

TANSTAFAL  Specially in RF

On 02/27/2020 10:05 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Yeah, Baicells CPE report signal in RSRP, rather than RSSI like most of 
the radios WISPs are used to, and I think that's pretty much standard 
for LTE radios, in general.


You can get away with low signal levels when there's no noise and no 
load on the AP, so it seems great when you put your first few customers 
on it... once you have 20 customers with lousy signals on an AP and a 
few competitors using the band, then it's suddenly not so great anymore. 
I don't know how many times I've seen somebody put up a new LTE eNB and 
post something like "getting 80 meg through 4 miles of trees!!!" 
...yeah, but wait until a few people are actually using it.


On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:43 AM Brian Webster > wrote:


A lot of the initial hype was based on the signal levels the links
were reporting from the CPE. What people didn’t realize was that the
signal being reported was for the pilot carrier and not the full
bandwidth signal. The difference is about 30 dB. So when a CPE was
connecting at say -70 the reporting device was saying about -100. A
lot of operators got excited thinking they could install customers
down to -100 rather than -70 because they were getting great speed
tests at the reported signal level. That is where everyone thought
the NLOS for LTE was going to be better than what they have been
using. Then reality set in about that 30 dB difference and as such
the NLOS improvement hoped for was not as significant as first
thought. As I recall the Baicells devices had that difference, not
sure if all LTE CPE had the same issue.

__ __

Thank you,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com 

__ __

*From:*AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Mark Radabaugh
*Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2020 12:29 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE

__ __

Lots of wishful thinking combined with a little bit of LTE magic.  5
on your list would be my vote - receiver sensitivity and lack of
interference.

__ __

You left out the other adder - running at illegal power output
levels at the base station for the NN licenses.

__ __

LTE certainly has significantly better receiver sensitivity than our
normal solutions -  but it comes at a pretty high cost in
throughput.So yeah, you can run NLOS in 3.65 and it works as
long as the noise floor stays low and you don’t care much about the
overall capacity of the base station.

__ __

Under CBRS running at even higher power levels makes it push through
into NLOS a bit more, but the noise floor overall is also going to
come up so it may be something of a wash in the end.

__ __

Mark

__ __

On Feb 27, 2020, at 12:03 PM, Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:

__ __

For years there has been enthusiasm for the idea that 3.5 GHz is
suitable for NLOS propagation in a way that doesn’t apply to
other mid band spectrum like 2.4, 2.5 or 5 GHz.  Initially is
wasn’t clear what type of NLOS people meant – urban clutter or
foliage – but I think it’s pretty clear people are talking about
foliage.



Why do people expect this?  Is it the frequency, or the protocol
like WiMAX and now LTE?  Or no theoretical basis, just it works
don’t ask why?



I can think of several possible explanations, not sure if any of
these are why people associate 3.65 GHz LTE with NLOS.



- 3.65 GHz somehow is absorbed less by foliage than other mid
band frequencies

- some feature of the LTE protocol that overcomes NLOS

- LTE equipment has more sensitive receivers

- 3.65 GHz has less interference due to being semi licensed

- some combination of receiver sensitivity and lack of
interference

- none of the above but LTE equipment is just made better



Maybe it’s real world experience with no theoretical basis.  But
I always like to know why something works, or doesn’t.  You’d
prefer that the reason it works isn’t some temporary anomaly. 
Like service is really good at this new restaurant, because

nobody knows about it yet.







*From:*AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>>*On Behalf Of*Eric Muehleisen
*Sent:*Thursday, February 27, 2020 10:29 AM
*To:*AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE



Still in winter. 

Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] 450m 365 sync

[Matt Mangriotis via AF]

Shayne - There's a discussion on this topic here: 
https://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/PMP-450/450M-3Ghz-Power-options-sync-options/td-p/98000

Summary: CMM5 (for timing only, as the radio is DC-powered) or cnPulse 
(connecting the AUX port).

The PacketFlux devices are also being used (as they support "CambiumSync" as 
well).

Matt

From: AF  On Behalf Of Shayne Lebrun
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 12:09 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: [ External ] [AFMUG] 450m 365 sync

What are the various options for providing sync to a 3.65 450M?
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] 450m 365 sync

[Sean Heskett]

We use the PacketFlux rack injector - great product and easy to use for
lots of different equipment types.

We ripped out all of our CMM5s because honestly they are a PITA and a very
clunky solution.

-Sean


On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:09 AM Shayne Lebrun 
wrote:

> What are the various options for providing sync to a 3.65 450M?
>
> --
> 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] 450m 365 sync

[Josh Baird]

Was it the CMM5 that was basically a big metal box with a tiny Raspberry Pi
in it?

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 2:21 PM Sean Heskett  wrote:

> We use the PacketFlux rack injector - great product and easy to use for
> lots of different equipment types.
>
> We ripped out all of our CMM5s because honestly they are a PITA and a very
> clunky solution.
>
> -Sean
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:09 AM Shayne Lebrun 
> wrote:
>
>> What are the various options for providing sync to a 3.65 450M?
>>
>> --
>> 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

[Steve Jones]

I was glad that we put up ubnt around the same time as the 320. It quickly
forced me to understand there was zero sauce to the band, outside it being
clean at the time. the ubnt offered no "penetration" as would be expected.
the 320, wimax offered better penetration, but not 900mhz penetration,
where the frequency had the penetration characteristic. I was told, whether
true or not, that wimax made use of multipath, made enough sense for me not
to learn much about what wimax did on any technical level. so 320
penetrated, ubnt didnt, but in the presence of interference, 320 would
effectively die, whereas the ubnt could still hobble, probably due to the
higher rx power levels as LOS.
The 450 initially was about the same as the ubnt, then they released the 1x
firmware, and that gave us the penetration.
One of the biggest problems i see is people talking about LOS, nLOS, NLOS,
and thinking that all three have the same performance. I take the
throughput hits into account when im talking about any of them.

Its like fsk 900, 30 miles, 4mbps, NLOS. thats where i learned about commas
meaning OR, not AND

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:04 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> For years there has been enthusiasm for the idea that 3.5 GHz is suitable
> for NLOS propagation in a way that doesn’t apply to other mid band spectrum
> like 2.4, 2.5 or 5 GHz.  Initially is wasn’t clear what type of NLOS people
> meant – urban clutter or foliage – but I think it’s pretty clear people are
> talking about foliage.
>
>
>
> Why do people expect this?  Is it the frequency, or the protocol like
> WiMAX and now LTE?  Or no theoretical basis, just it works don’t ask why?
>
>
>
> I can think of several possible explanations, not sure if any of these are
> why people associate 3.65 GHz LTE with NLOS.
>
>
>
> - 3.65 GHz somehow is absorbed less by foliage than other mid band
> frequencies
>
> - some feature of the LTE protocol that overcomes NLOS
>
> - LTE equipment has more sensitive receivers
>
> - 3.65 GHz has less interference due to being semi licensed
>
> - some combination of receiver sensitivity and lack of interference
>
> - none of the above but LTE equipment is just made better
>
>
>
> Maybe it’s real world experience with no theoretical basis.  But I always
> like to know why something works, or doesn’t.  You’d prefer that the reason
> it works isn’t some temporary anomaly.  Like service is really good at this
> new restaurant, because nobody knows about it yet.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Eric Muehleisen
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2020 10:29 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE
>
>
>
> Still in winter. I'd like to see how it performs when the leaves are full
> in May.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:26 AM dave  wrote:
>
> We R starting to see some real world impressive results with just the
> pmp450i CBRS radios on a 20Mhz channels
> This guy is nearLOS about 2.5 miles of some tree and pointing into edge of
> panel
> Current Results Status
>
> Stats for LUID: 65   Test Duration: 10   Pkt Length: 1714   Test Direction
> Bi-Directional
>
> *Link Test without Bridging*
>
>
>
> *DataChannelPriority*
>
> *Downlink*
>
> *Uplink*
>
> *Aggregate*
>
> *Packet Transmit*
>
> *Packet Receive*
>
> *Actual*
>
> *Actual*
>
> Low
>
> 50.01 Mbps
>
> 32.97 Mbps
>
> 82.98 Mbps,  6008 pps
>
> 23887 (2388 pps)
>
> 36207 (3620 pps)
>
>
>
> *Efficiency*
>
> *Downlink*
>
> *Uplink*
>
> *Efficiency*
>
>
> *Fragmentscount*
>
> *Efficiency*
>
>
> *Fragmentscount*
>
> *Actual*
>
> *Missed*
>
> *Actual*
>
> *Missed*
>
> 99%
>
> 984301
>
> 7409
>
> 99%
>
> 647582
>
> 3593
>
>
> Link Test ran on 15:20:50 02/27/2020 UTC
>
> *Currently transmitting at:*
>
> 8X/6X MIMO-B
>
>
>
> Current Contention Mode Status: No Piggyback of data in contention
>
>
> On 2/25/20 3:59 PM, Matt Mangriotis via AF wrote:
>
> 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 

Re: [AFMUG] 450m 365 sync

[Steve Jones]

CMM Micro was pretty cool. We dropped the coin for a few CMM4 (still have
one NIB) and were sorely disappointed in what a shitshow it was of cobbled
components at crazy high cost, half web interface, half CLI, and IIRC there
was java involved too. I wont even look at a CMM5

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 1:26 PM Josh Baird  wrote:

> Was it the CMM5 that was basically a big metal box with a tiny Raspberry
> Pi in it?
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 2:21 PM Sean Heskett  wrote:
>
>> We use the PacketFlux rack injector - great product and easy to use for
>> lots of different equipment types.
>>
>> We ripped out all of our CMM5s because honestly they are a PITA and a
>> very clunky solution.
>>
>> -Sean
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:09 AM Shayne Lebrun 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What are the various options for providing sync to a 3.65 450M?
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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] 450m 365 sync

[Josh Baird]

Yes, the CMM4 was horrible.  We still have a few as well.

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 2:38 PM Steve Jones 
wrote:

> CMM Micro was pretty cool. We dropped the coin for a few CMM4 (still have
> one NIB) and were sorely disappointed in what a shitshow it was of cobbled
> components at crazy high cost, half web interface, half CLI, and IIRC there
> was java involved too. I wont even look at a CMM5
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 1:26 PM Josh Baird  wrote:
>
>> Was it the CMM5 that was basically a big metal box with a tiny Raspberry
>> Pi in it?
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 2:21 PM Sean Heskett  wrote:
>>
>>> We use the PacketFlux rack injector - great product and easy to use for
>>> lots of different equipment types.
>>>
>>> We ripped out all of our CMM5s because honestly they are a PITA and a
>>> very clunky solution.
>>>
>>> -Sean
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:09 AM Shayne Lebrun 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 What are the various options for providing sync to a 3.65 450M?

 --
 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] 450m 365 sync

[Sean Heskett]

CMM5 is worse than the CMM4.

and yes the control board for the CMM5 is a Pi

-sean


On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 12:44 PM Josh Baird  wrote:

> Yes, the CMM4 was horrible.  We still have a few as well.
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 2:38 PM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> CMM Micro was pretty cool. We dropped the coin for a few CMM4 (still have
>> one NIB) and were sorely disappointed in what a shitshow it was of cobbled
>> components at crazy high cost, half web interface, half CLI, and IIRC there
>> was java involved too. I wont even look at a CMM5
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 1:26 PM Josh Baird  wrote:
>>
>>> Was it the CMM5 that was basically a big metal box with a tiny Raspberry
>>> Pi in it?
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 2:21 PM Sean Heskett  wrote:
>>>
 We use the PacketFlux rack injector - great product and easy to use for
 lots of different equipment types.

 We ripped out all of our CMM5s because honestly they are a PITA and a
 very clunky solution.

 -Sean


 On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:09 AM Shayne Lebrun <
 sleb...@corebroadband.ca> wrote:

> What are the various options for providing sync to a 3.65 450M?
>
> --
> 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] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE

[chuck]

WiMax was originally promised to do 70 Mbps to 70 subscribers at 70 miles.  I 
think those commas were misinterpreted.  

From: Steve Jones 
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 12:34 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE

I was glad that we put up ubnt around the same time as the 320. It quickly 
forced me to understand there was zero sauce to the band, outside it being 
clean at the time. the ubnt offered no "penetration" as would be expected. the 
320, wimax offered better penetration, but not 900mhz penetration, where the 
frequency had the penetration characteristic. I was told, whether true or not, 
that wimax made use of multipath, made enough sense for me not to learn much 
about what wimax did on any technical level. so 320 penetrated, ubnt didnt, but 
in the presence of interference, 320 would effectively die, whereas the ubnt 
could still hobble, probably due to the higher rx power levels as LOS. 
The 450 initially was about the same as the ubnt, then they released the 1x 
firmware, and that gave us the penetration.
One of the biggest problems i see is people talking about LOS, nLOS, NLOS, and 
thinking that all three have the same performance. I take the throughput hits 
into account when im talking about any of them.

Its like fsk 900, 30 miles, 4mbps, NLOS. thats where i learned about commas 
meaning OR, not AND

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:04 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

  For years there has been enthusiasm for the idea that 3.5 GHz is suitable for 
NLOS propagation in a way that doesn’t apply to other mid band spectrum like 
2.4, 2.5 or 5 GHz.  Initially is wasn’t clear what type of NLOS people meant – 
urban clutter or foliage – but I think it’s pretty clear people are talking 
about foliage.



  Why do people expect this?  Is it the frequency, or the protocol like WiMAX 
and now LTE?  Or no theoretical basis, just it works don’t ask why?



  I can think of several possible explanations, not sure if any of these are 
why people associate 3.65 GHz LTE with NLOS.



  - 3.65 GHz somehow is absorbed less by foliage than other mid band frequencies

  - some feature of the LTE protocol that overcomes NLOS

  - LTE equipment has more sensitive receivers

  - 3.65 GHz has less interference due to being semi licensed

  - some combination of receiver sensitivity and lack of interference

  - none of the above but LTE equipment is just made better



  Maybe it’s real world experience with no theoretical basis.  But I always 
like to know why something works, or doesn’t.  You’d prefer that the reason it 
works isn’t some temporary anomaly.  Like service is really good at this new 
restaurant, because nobody knows about it yet.







  From: AF  On Behalf Of Eric Muehleisen
  Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 10:29 AM
  To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE



  Still in winter. I'd like to see how it performs when the leaves are full in 
May.



  On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:26 AM dave  wrote:

  We R starting to see some real world impressive results with just the pmp450i 
CBRS radios on a 20Mhz channels 
  This guy is nearLOS about 2.5 miles of some tree and pointing into edge of 
panel 

  Current Results Status
  Stats for LUID: 65   Test Duration: 10   Pkt Length: 1714   Test Direction 
Bi-Directional

  Link Test without Bridging

Data
Channel
Priority
   Downlink
   Uplink
   Aggregate
   Packet Transmit
   Packet Receive
   
Actual
   Actual
   
Low
   50.01 Mbps
   32.97 Mbps
   82.98 Mbps,  6008 pps
   23887 (2388 pps)
   36207 (3620 pps)
   



  Efficiency

Downlink
   Uplink
   
Efficiency
   Fragments
count
   Efficiency
   Fragments
count
   
Actual
   Missed
   Actual
   Missed
   
99%
   984301
   7409
   99%
   647582
   3593
   


  Link Test ran on 15:20:50 02/27/2020 UTC 

  Currently transmitting at: 

8X/6X MIMO-B
   



  Current Contention Mode Status: No Piggyback of data in contention 




  On 2/25/20 3:59 PM, Matt Mangriotis via AF wrote:

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). Ho

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

[Adam Moffett]

I've been told the attenuation from foliage in 3.5ghz is going to be 
about 15db per 100m.  Obviously that really depends on what 
/specifically/ is in the way, but I think that figure lines up with my 
observations in the field.  It means you can get through trees at a 
steep angle to a high tower, or you can penetrate a wind break or the 
trees lining a suburban street.  You're not literally going to get 
through a forest whether it's LTE or Wimax or anything else.


I believe LTE does have some "magic" to it.  The channel space is 
divided into small subcarriers and the time slots are divided into (I 
think) 125us chunks.  The intersection of one time slice and one 
subcarrier is a resource block.  The UE/CPE sends back Channel Quality 
Indicators (CQI) telling the eNB/Base Station the quality of the 
resource blocks it's receiving.  Then the Base Station can consider 
who's able to receive a resource block before allocating them and 
thereby not waste airtime on resource blocks you won't get and then 
consequently it can waste less airtime on retransmits.  You'll see this 
as better jitter and packet loss compared to another product in the same 
location.


When you have trees in the way you'll get attenuation no matter which 
product you use, but LTE seems to give you a more consistent outcome 
with nLOS than other stuff does.  It's an /incremental/ improvement over 
Wimax in that regard, and the top end of performance is a lot higher 
than Wimax so a UE with good signal could actually impress you.


That LTE "magic" is definitely a part of the puzzle, along with the 
power, noise, etc that you mention.  To reiterate, it's an /incremental 
/improvement over Wimax.  If Wimax didn't work at a site, LTE won't 
either.  We had a some places where Wimax was on the bleeding edge (like 
-85 to -90 RSSI) and LTE didn't work at all, so we actually lost a 
handful of customers in the transition from Wimax.  This was worth it in 
the long run because at sites where Wimax had a good signal, LTE was 
betterand frankly you didn't want those CPE with garbage signals 
anyway.


If you believed all the hype from a guy who's name rhymed with "bleary" 
then you were probably disappointed with LTE, but if you go in 
understanding what you'll get then I think you'll find it's a useful 
tool to have.


As an aside, I'm glad to see Ericsson and Cambium getting into this 
space and I'm hoping the competition will raise the bar for quality.  
Frankly, quality has been the biggest problem with the existing players 
in LTE for WISPs.


-Adam


On 2/27/2020 12:03 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:


For years there has been enthusiasm for the idea that 3.5 GHz is 
suitable for NLOS propagation in a way that doesn’t apply to other mid 
band spectrum like 2.4, 2.5 or 5 GHz.  Initially is wasn’t clear what 
type of NLOS people meant – urban clutter or foliage – but I think 
it’s pretty clear people are talking about foliage.


Why do people expect this?  Is it the frequency, or the protocol like 
WiMAX and now LTE?  Or no theoretical basis, just it works don’t ask why?


I can think of several possible explanations, not sure if any of these 
are why people associate 3.65 GHz LTE with NLOS.


- 3.65 GHz somehow is absorbed less by foliage than other mid band 
frequencies


- some feature of the LTE protocol that overcomes NLOS

- LTE equipment has more sensitive receivers

- 3.65 GHz has less interference due to being semi licensed

- some combination of receiver sensitivity and lack of interference

- none of the above but LTE equipment is just made better

Maybe it’s real world experience with no theoretical basis.  But I 
always like to know why something works, or doesn’t.  You’d prefer 
that the reason it works isn’t some temporary anomaly.  Like service 
is really good at this new restaurant, because nobody knows about it yet.


*From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Eric Muehleisen
*Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2020 10:29 AM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE

Still in winter. I'd like to see how it performs when the leaves are 
full in May.


On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:26 AM dave > wrote:


We R starting to see some real world impressive results with just the 
pmp450i CBRS radios on a 20Mhz channels
This guy is nearLOS about 2.5 miles of some tree and pointing into 
edge of panel



Current Results Status

Stats for LUID: 65   Test Duration: 10   Pkt Length: 1714   Test 
Direction Bi-Directional


*Link Test without Bridging*

*Data
Channel
Priority*



*Downlink*



*Uplink*



*Aggregate*



*Packet Transmit*



*Packet Receive*

*Actual*



*Actual*

Low



50.01 Mbps



32.97 Mbps



82.98 Mbps,  6008 pps



23887 (2388 pps)



36207 (3620 pps)



*Efficiency*

*Downlink*



*Uplink*

*Efficiency*



*Fragments
count*



*Efficiency*

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

[Steve Jones]

Im really wanting to see what ericson does. I read a white paper on one of
their carrier product tests it was crazy, through some trees, some dirt
over some water, like 4 miles or something and they were doing something
like 70mbps in a small channel. The system has the cpe directing the base
station to manipulate the subcarriers and beam form for its best
performance. Got way over my head, but was really cool considering there is
nothing in our toolbox i would even have rolled a truck to test that path.
I dont know how much of that tech they could price down to our market
though.

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020, 3:53 PM Adam Moffett  wrote:

> I've been told the attenuation from foliage in 3.5ghz is going to be about
> 15db per 100m.  Obviously that really depends on what *specifically* is
> in the way, but I think that figure lines up with my observations in the
> field.  It means you can get through trees at a steep angle to a high
> tower, or you can penetrate a wind break or the trees lining a suburban
> street.  You're not literally going to get through a forest whether it's
> LTE or Wimax or anything else.
>
> I believe LTE does have some "magic" to it.  The channel space is divided
> into small subcarriers and the time slots are divided into (I think) 125us
> chunks.  The intersection of one time slice and one subcarrier is a
> resource block.  The UE/CPE sends back Channel Quality Indicators (CQI)
> telling the eNB/Base Station the quality of the resource blocks it's
> receiving.  Then the Base Station can consider who's able to receive a
> resource block before allocating them and thereby not waste airtime on
> resource blocks you won't get and then consequently it can waste less
> airtime on retransmits.  You'll see this as better jitter and packet loss
> compared to another product in the same location.
>
> When you have trees in the way you'll get attenuation no matter which
> product you use, but LTE seems to give you a more consistent outcome with
> nLOS than other stuff does.  It's an *incremental* improvement over Wimax
> in that regard, and the top end of performance is a lot higher than Wimax
> so a UE with good signal could actually impress you.
>
> That LTE "magic" is definitely a part of the puzzle, along with the power,
> noise, etc that you mention.  To reiterate, it's an *incremental *improvement
> over Wimax.  If Wimax didn't work at a site, LTE won't either.  We had a
> some places where Wimax was on the bleeding edge (like -85 to -90 RSSI) and
> LTE didn't work at all, so we actually lost a handful of customers in the
> transition from Wimax.  This was worth it in the long run because at sites
> where Wimax had a good signal, LTE was betterand frankly you didn't
> want those CPE with garbage signals anyway.
>
> If you believed all the hype from a guy who's name rhymed with "bleary"
> then you were probably disappointed with LTE, but if you go in
> understanding what you'll get then I think you'll find it's a useful tool
> to have.
>
> As an aside, I'm glad to see Ericsson and Cambium getting into this space
> and I'm hoping the competition will raise the bar for quality.  Frankly,
> quality has been the biggest problem with the existing players in LTE for
> WISPs.
>
> -Adam
>
>
> On 2/27/2020 12:03 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>
> For years there has been enthusiasm for the idea that 3.5 GHz is suitable
> for NLOS propagation in a way that doesn’t apply to other mid band spectrum
> like 2.4, 2.5 or 5 GHz.  Initially is wasn’t clear what type of NLOS people
> meant – urban clutter or foliage – but I think it’s pretty clear people are
> talking about foliage.
>
>
>
> Why do people expect this?  Is it the frequency, or the protocol like
> WiMAX and now LTE?  Or no theoretical basis, just it works don’t ask why?
>
>
>
> I can think of several possible explanations, not sure if any of these are
> why people associate 3.65 GHz LTE with NLOS.
>
>
>
> - 3.65 GHz somehow is absorbed less by foliage than other mid band
> frequencies
>
> - some feature of the LTE protocol that overcomes NLOS
>
> - LTE equipment has more sensitive receivers
>
> - 3.65 GHz has less interference due to being semi licensed
>
> - some combination of receiver sensitivity and lack of interference
>
> - none of the above but LTE equipment is just made better
>
>
>
> Maybe it’s real world experience with no theoretical basis.  But I always
> like to know why something works, or doesn’t.  You’d prefer that the reason
> it works isn’t some temporary anomaly.  Like service is really good at this
> new restaurant, because nobody knows about it yet.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF   *On Behalf
> Of *Eric Muehleisen
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2020 10:29 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group  
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE
>
>
>
> Still in winter. I'd like to see how it performs when the leaves are full
> in May.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:26 AM dave  wrote:
>
> We R starting to see some real worl

[AFMUG] Sali Lake City steak place

[Jaime Solorza]

What name and address of the Road something place ewe guys go to? My lil
brother the EE is there with other EEs .
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Sali Lake City steak place

[Cassidy B. Larson]

Rodizio?



> On Feb 27, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Jaime Solorza  wrote:
> 
> What name and address of the Road something place ewe guys go to? My lil 
> brother the EE is there with other EEs .
> -- 
> 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] Sali Lake City steak place

[Jaime Solorza]

Yep . thanks I found it but I think they are going to Spencers

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020, 5:53 PM Cassidy B. Larson  wrote:

> Rodizio?
>
>
>
> On Feb 27, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Jaime Solorza 
> wrote:
>
> What name and address of the Road something place ewe guys go to? My lil
> brother the EE is there with other EEs .
> --
> 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] 450m 365 sync

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

We typically recommend one of the following options from our product line:

1) For sites with room for a rackmount device, a RackInjector with a PDU
card and a Cambium Sync Card.   This will provide Power via the PDU card to
the unit, and sync via the cambium sync card.   You'll need a syncbox
basic.   If you don't want to power it this way, you can also skip the PDU
card.

2) For smaller sites the equivalent combination of a sitemonitor, a
PowerInjector Plus Cambium Sync, a 5 channel PDU expansion module, and a
syncbox basic.

3) If you want just a receiver you can plug into the device, andother
option is a syncbox Junior Aux port plugged into the aux port on the uGPS.
  This will do 4 radios, and doesn't get involved with power at all.

4) Some combination of #2 or #3.

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:09 AM Shayne Lebrun 
wrote:

> What are the various options for providing sync to a 3.65 450M?
> --
> 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] Sali Lake City steak place

[Lewis Bergman]

That's a good one.

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020, 7:28 PM Jaime Solorza 
wrote:

> Yep . thanks I found it but I think they are going to Spencers
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020, 5:53 PM Cassidy B. Larson  wrote:
>
>> Rodizio?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 27, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Jaime Solorza 
>> wrote:
>>
>> What name and address of the Road something place ewe guys go to? My lil
>> brother the EE is there with other EEs .
>> --
>> 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] Sali Lake City steak place

[Bill Prince]

  
  
Not exactly a "steak" place, but most assuredly a "meat" place.

bp



On 2/27/2020 4:52 PM, Cassidy B. Larson
  wrote:


  
  Rodizio?
  

  

  
  

  On Feb 27, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Jaime Solorza 
wrote:
  
  
What name and address of the Road
  something place ewe guys go to? My lil brother the EE is
  there with other EEs .
-- 
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

[Jason McKemie]

Holy crap, I must be way out of the loop, but I never saw anything on this
list about "bleary's" situation. I just googled it, that is nuts.

On Thursday, February 27, 2020, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> I've been told the attenuation from foliage in 3.5ghz is going to be about
> 15db per 100m.  Obviously that really depends on what *specifically* is
> in the way, but I think that figure lines up with my observations in the
> field.  It means you can get through trees at a steep angle to a high
> tower, or you can penetrate a wind break or the trees lining a suburban
> street.  You're not literally going to get through a forest whether it's
> LTE or Wimax or anything else.
>
> I believe LTE does have some "magic" to it.  The channel space is divided
> into small subcarriers and the time slots are divided into (I think) 125us
> chunks.  The intersection of one time slice and one subcarrier is a
> resource block.  The UE/CPE sends back Channel Quality Indicators (CQI)
> telling the eNB/Base Station the quality of the resource blocks it's
> receiving.  Then the Base Station can consider who's able to receive a
> resource block before allocating them and thereby not waste airtime on
> resource blocks you won't get and then consequently it can waste less
> airtime on retransmits.  You'll see this as better jitter and packet loss
> compared to another product in the same location.
>
> When you have trees in the way you'll get attenuation no matter which
> product you use, but LTE seems to give you a more consistent outcome with
> nLOS than other stuff does.  It's an *incremental* improvement over Wimax
> in that regard, and the top end of performance is a lot higher than Wimax
> so a UE with good signal could actually impress you.
>
> That LTE "magic" is definitely a part of the puzzle, along with the power,
> noise, etc that you mention.  To reiterate, it's an *incremental *improvement
> over Wimax.  If Wimax didn't work at a site, LTE won't either.  We had a
> some places where Wimax was on the bleeding edge (like -85 to -90 RSSI) and
> LTE didn't work at all, so we actually lost a handful of customers in the
> transition from Wimax.  This was worth it in the long run because at sites
> where Wimax had a good signal, LTE was betterand frankly you didn't
> want those CPE with garbage signals anyway.
>
> If you believed all the hype from a guy who's name rhymed with "bleary"
> then you were probably disappointed with LTE, but if you go in
> understanding what you'll get then I think you'll find it's a useful tool
> to have.
>
> As an aside, I'm glad to see Ericsson and Cambium getting into this space
> and I'm hoping the competition will raise the bar for quality.  Frankly,
> quality has been the biggest problem with the existing players in LTE for
> WISPs.
>
> -Adam
>
>
> On 2/27/2020 12:03 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>
> For years there has been enthusiasm for the idea that 3.5 GHz is suitable
> for NLOS propagation in a way that doesn’t apply to other mid band spectrum
> like 2.4, 2.5 or 5 GHz.  Initially is wasn’t clear what type of NLOS people
> meant – urban clutter or foliage – but I think it’s pretty clear people are
> talking about foliage.
>
>
>
> Why do people expect this?  Is it the frequency, or the protocol like
> WiMAX and now LTE?  Or no theoretical basis, just it works don’t ask why?
>
>
>
> I can think of several possible explanations, not sure if any of these are
> why people associate 3.65 GHz LTE with NLOS.
>
>
>
> - 3.65 GHz somehow is absorbed less by foliage than other mid band
> frequencies
>
> - some feature of the LTE protocol that overcomes NLOS
>
> - LTE equipment has more sensitive receivers
>
> - 3.65 GHz has less interference due to being semi licensed
>
> - some combination of receiver sensitivity and lack of interference
>
> - none of the above but LTE equipment is just made better
>
>
>
> Maybe it’s real world experience with no theoretical basis.  But I always
> like to know why something works, or doesn’t.  You’d prefer that the reason
> it works isn’t some temporary anomaly.  Like service is really good at this
> new restaurant, because nobody knows about it yet.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF   *On Behalf
> Of *Eric Muehleisen
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2020 10:29 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group  
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE
>
>
>
> Still in winter. I'd like to see how it performs when the leaves are full
> in May.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:26 AM dave  wrote:
>
> We R starting to see some real world impressive results with just the
> pmp450i CBRS radios on a 20Mhz channels
> This guy is nearLOS about 2.5 miles of some tree and pointing into edge of
> panel
> Current Results Status
>
> Stats for LUID: 65   Test Duration: 10   Pkt Length: 1714   Test Direction
> Bi-Directional
>
> *Link Test without Bridging*
>
>
>
> *Data Channel Priority*
>
> *Downlink*
>
> *Uplink*
>
> *Aggregate*
>
> *Packet Transmit*
>
> *Packet Receive*
>
> *Actua