its got to be turned down in april we are converting everything, we missed the deadline about signing up to be grandfathered before we even knew about it, besides the grandfathering isnt likely to give any authority
I dont know if theyll even tell us how to report unauthorized transmitters, and even if we get a mechanism I have to question whether theyll enforce anything on behalf of a nobody operator like us On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 9:42 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > Good point. > > We have a tower with old Alvarion Wimax gear on it. We know we'll have > to replace it with something that talks to the SAS, but it's a tough pill > to swallow. LTE is expensive and a new Wimax product would be a dead end, > but it's almost 100% nLOS so we basically have to pick between those two > flavors of crap sandwich. > > We basically decided on LTE and it'll get done, but I could imagine people > in that circumstance operating out of compliance for awhile because they > can't pay for the replacement. There's also going to be *somebody* out > there who hasn't been paying attention and has no idea that their hardware > is going to become illegal. > > -Adam > > > > On 8/21/2019 10:28 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > > Not really SAS per se, but the fact that at some date, legacy Part 90 > equipment that can’t be certified under Part 96 is supposed to be > decommissioned. That means WiMAX stuff like PMP320 as well as Ubiquiti M > series and AF3x. > > > > I think it’s a bit naïve though to assume this will “eliminate” that gear > like waving a magic wand. Yes, responsible network operators will replace > a lot of it with CBRS equipment or something else, but it’s not just going > to turn into pumpkins at midnight because the FCC wishes it. We have some > grandfathered backhauls with AF3x and even some Rockets and Powerbridges, > those won’t be going CBRS, probably 11 GHz where possible. > > > > > > *From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf > Of *Steve Jones > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 21, 2019 8:54 AM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> <af@af.afmug.com> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65 > > > > Sas is suppposed to eliminate the rogue ubnt gear. Im assuming there is > recourse if there is an illegal operator, but as far as i know, that path > is not clearly defined > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 8:43 AM Paul McCall <pa...@pdmnet.net> wrote: > > Great feedback everyone. Kinda what I figured though. No special sauce > added on the MU-Mimo part of the 450 APs that overcome tree penetration > issues. We have had good luck with the 320s for the most part, but they > are only ¾ baked as a system , and far from being future proof, capacity > wise. > > > > The 3.65 band in general makes they choice a bit tentative. Meaning you > can spend a bunch of money on LTE gear and have a $ 150 UBNT device start > interfering with you, with little recourse. Ouch. No 2.5ghz band > available in my area. > > > > And, In Florida our ROI sheet has to account for more equipment damage > that most, so its not an easy call. > > > > Paul > > > > > > *From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11:36 AM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65 > > > > We are at decision time on what to do with the 320/ubnt 3ghz, same boat on > decisions. LTE is a brand new horse to us, but the historic issues of > interference frighten my more than walking in on my wife with another man > when she should be doing laundry, I need clean work shirts. We had done > some base testing with baicells and we considering the trigger pull, but we > have the 450 out, and its performed as well or better than expected, this > is not i or m but it was considered, by us to be a drop in replacement for > the wimax, and ePMP to pick up the LOS UBNT junk. > > Ive been trying to find out what SAS is actually doing real world, but I > dont know that the trial operators are allowed to speak of it without > ending up in a lake with concrete shoes. If SAS solves all the worlds woes > regarding interference, its a cost no brainer to deploy the crap out of > baicells, take the range hit, and fill the gaps with microcells where > required. > > but, 450, being the horse it is, works, and works well, even in the > interference we have. Its drop in for us on the wimax because we were very > careful on EIRP to not push our luck. we may take a 1x hit here and there, > but offloading the LOS customers to EPMP will make up for that. May still > require the occasional non standard solution for the customers that just > dont work on anything other than the wimax, solely because it connected at > such a crummy level. We should have addressed them historically anyway > though. > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:17 AM Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: > > Probably not applicable to PMP320, but with the Purewave basestations, I’m > convinced many operators were setting them to max xmt power ignoring FCC > limits on EIRP. That of course didn’t help upstream, and the CPE was > fairly anemic. But downstream, I think that was part of the “magic”. > > > > I think with CBRS there is the potential of increased EIRP over what we > are allowed under Part 90. Given the huge power consumption of the 3.6 GHz > PMP450m, I have to suspect it has the power amps to take advantage of > higher EIRP, not sure about the regular 450 AP. If I remember correctly > though, it doesn’t have as many antenna beams as the 5 GHz 450m. And given > the size, weight and power consumption, we have sites I doubt we could > deploy 4 sectors. > > > > > > *From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of *Colin Stanners > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:50 AM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65 > > > > I agree on the PMP320's impressive tree penetration. We moved some sites > from PMP320 to PMP450... with the added gain of the PMP450 reflector dish > (8+11dBi vs the PMP320's 14dBi) I expected it to make up for the PMP450's > lower transmit power, and as a result have "similar" final signal levels. > In the end, some customers heavily in trees "lost" up to 10dB of signal and > required moving their mounts etc. So the WiMAX / flat-panel-in-NLOS magic > seems to have been adding around 10dB. > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:58 AM Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Quite the opposite for us. PMP320 could burn through trees! > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:30 AM Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: > > WiMAX had little to no magical power against trees when we deployed it. > Trees apparently are hype resistant. YMMV. > > > > *From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of *Paul McCall > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:22 AM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> > *Subject:* [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65 > > > > We were told recently by Cambium that their Medusa product in 3.65 > competes favorable with LTE competitors. We ONLY need it for tree > penetration challenged customers. > > > > I have a healthy skepticism on 3.65 Medusa being able to magically work > better that standard 2.4 Ghz penetration, seeing the regular 450SM in 3.65 > performed as expected compared to a 2.4 Ghz 450SM, meaning not as well. > Seeing that LTE or Wimax far exceeds normal 2.4 Ghz gear, expecting 3.65 in > 450 series (even Medusa) is a strong leap of faith. > > > > We are open minded but skeptical of these recent claims. We are not happy > with the LTE options available ATM, having field tested Baicells and Bliniq > for a while now. > > > > Paul > > > > > > *Paul McCall, President * > > *Florida Broadband / PDMNet* > > *658 Old Dixie Highway* > > *Vero Beach, FL 32962* > > *772-564-6800* > > > > -- > 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
