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 <dmmoff...@gmail.com> 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 better....and 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 <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf > Of *Eric Muehleisen > *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2020 10:29 AM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> <af@af.afmug.com> > *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 <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 <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf > Of *Ken Hohhof > *Sent:* Monday, February 24, 2020 7:06 PM > *To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <af@af.afmug.com> > <af@af.afmug.com> > *Subject:* [ External ] Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE > > > > You should probably talk to someone at Cambium, unless someone here has > already done that. There was talk 1-2 years ago about 450m is software > defined so maybe they could use it as a remote radio head with their > cnRanger LTE BaseBand Unit (BBU). It has been pretty quiet since then, but > I haven’t been able to make it to the shows. > > > > Without an update directly from the horse’s mouth like Matt at Cambium, or > some kind of announcement, I wouldn’t hold my breath. Back in 2018 it was > in the realm of “it would be nice”. That’s pretty tentative. Plus you’d > still have to buy the BBU and new CPE, so it doesn’t sound like a huge > savings anyway, still 2/3 of a forklift upgrade. I mean, if it turned out > that the 3 GHz cnRanger RRH was literally a 450m, that would probably be > the best case, but how likely do you think that is? > > > > This is just my personal speculation, if it’s an important part of a > decision you’re making now, you probably need to get hold of your Cambium > regional sales manager, or the 450 or cnRanger product manager. If you’re > going to WISPAmerica, you can probably do it there. > > > > > > *From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of *Jason McKemie > *Sent:* Monday, February 24, 2020 6:03 PM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE > > > > So the 450M is supposed to be LTE upgradable? > > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 3:45 PM Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Something aboit the medusa top can be used with cnranger potentially with > a fiber run and a software update > > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 3:38 PM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In my opinion, 450 is better than Baicells or Telrad LTE at everything > except NLOS performance. > > ....Except that NLOS performance is so useful that one can be tempted to > ignore all of the other features of the 450. I do understand that tradeoff > because I've had to make it myself. > > > > On 2/24/2020 4:30 PM, David Williamson wrote: > > 450 3.65Ghz vs. Baicells 3.65Ghz LTE = no comparison. All but one of the > 450 APs are already removed from our network. I am just trying to > determine if the SMs will be usable on Cambium LTE once they roll it out, > or if it will require a completely different SM. > > > David > > > > *From:* AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com <af-boun...@af.afmug.com>] *On > Behalf Of *Jason McKemie > *Sent:* Monday, February 24, 2020 4:28 PM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE > > > > Why are you getting rid of 3.65 Cambium in favor of LTE? > > On Monday, February 24, 2020, David Williamson < > dwilliam...@customcomputersva.com> wrote: > > Will the Cambium 3.65 LTE have a completely new SM or will it use the > existing 450SM's? Trying to determine if I should keep our 450SM's or just > go ahead and sell them to one of our secondary market distributors along > with our 450 AP's. > > Thanks! > > David Williamson > > > -----Original Message----- > From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 1:57 PM > To: af@af.afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE > > I think I heard next quarter for the 3.5. > > On 2/24/2020 1:48 PM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists wrote: > > 3.5 isn’t available yet. > > > > I believe that 2.5 can be purchased. > > > > Jeff Broadwick > > CTIconnect > > 312-205-2519 Office > > 574-220-7826 Cell > > jbroadw...@cticonnect.com > > > >> On Feb 24, 2020, at 12:44 PM, Avatar Davis <acd...@mail.harvard.edu> > wrote: > >> > >> Does anyone have experience with Cambium LTE? I am highly dissatisfied > with my current manufacturer and was wondering if anyone had experience > using/demoing their product line. Cambium products seem consistently good > in my experience. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> AF mailing list > >> AF@af.afmug.com > >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cb86add20912747adc42b08d7b98f079e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637181896280372524&sdata=sDEJMwg%2FrUeE9YW6GqIDR1XzERRWkE%2F6XePPnWoPmRg%3D&reserved=0> > > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cb86add20912747adc42b08d7b98f079e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637181896280382518&sdata=pP5xMGSatWmczFjAPjC1wEXnNEcBOceklsDEIeHxs6c%3D&reserved=0> > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cb86add20912747adc42b08d7b98f079e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637181896280382518&sdata=pP5xMGSatWmczFjAPjC1wEXnNEcBOceklsDEIeHxs6c%3D&reserved=0> > > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cb86add20912747adc42b08d7b98f079e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637181896280392515&sdata=%2BbZTwYPdzPsYWDRGoWDCC16Kx5oRKh7VKuFLS8xZ%2Bek%3D&reserved=0> > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cb86add20912747adc42b08d7b98f079e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637181896280392515&sdata=%2BbZTwYPdzPsYWDRGoWDCC16Kx5oRKh7VKuFLS8xZ%2Bek%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > > -- > 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
