Do easy to be cynical about nlos claims. We have heard so many over the years.
From: David Coudron
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:50 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
I will provide more detail when back in front of a computer but we tested a few
different things. We ended up doing Blinq Networks for a few reasons. The
nonLOS was pretty impressive. More to come....
Get Outlook for iOS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> on behalf of Jeremy Grip <g...@nbnworks.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:37:30 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <af@af.afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE for
my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage penetration.
What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in CBRS
3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a rough
equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a -100dBm
signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe he’s being a
little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?
And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various
platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or
Airspan stuff?
From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal. When
I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still a
hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license with
the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.
And yeah that's how ALL wireless works. At the moment in time when the AP is
talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps. At the
moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the capacity is
300Mbps. The average capacity over time is going to be a function of how much
time is spent talking to each station at each rate. If you literally had one
at 1Mbps and one at 300Mbps and both were allocated equal airtime then your
capacity would be 150.5Mbps. It's true that a 5Mbps UE won't make the capacity
of the eNB 5Mbps, but it is true that while the channel is being used to talk
to that UE, the channel is only running at 5Mbps. My point was, if someone is
testing with a single UE and happy that they're getting 5Mbps, then they're
forgetting that they won't actually get 5Mbps when there are other UE operating
at the same time, and that the weak connections they install are weakening
efficiency of the whole sector. I know you know this, I think you're just
misinterpreting what I said.
On 9/14/2020 8:39 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
Hold on. 30dBm is well within legal power for CBRS.
Also a station connected getting 5 megabits is not dragging the entire sector
down to 5 megabits. That’s not how LTE works.
On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Adam Moffett mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com wrote:
Attenuation in 3.5ghz is on average 15db per 100meters of foliage. I got
that number from a Telrad engineer, and it seemed to hold up experimentally.
Whether it's Wimax, LTE, etc, there's no reason that would be different.
LTE can connect with almost nothing for a signal. So a person testing with
a single base station and a single UE might run around and say "wow I've got 5
megs here and No LOS!", but I think they forget that the entire base station's
capacity is 5meg when it's talking to that single UE at 5mbps. It's impressive
that it worked, but is that actually useful as a fixed ISP?
Another thing I noticed is that Telrad could turn the Tx Power all the way
to +30dbm, and people were actually doing it, and Telrad support seemed to be
encouraging them to do it. At a training session someone in Telrad support
told me, "Adam, if you're worried about the legal EIRP limit then you're the
only one worried about it." So if you're 8-10db stronger than the legally
operating product, and you can technically connect with a signal too weak for
the other product, that certainly makes people feel like there's better
penetration.
There may also be some "magic" in how LTE allocates resource blocks and
gets feedback from the UE's (CQI) on which resource blocks are working best for
each unit, but I think that's a matter of getting the most value possible out
of a trashy signal. If you're a fixed operator building for capacity and
performance then you hopefully won't be installing with a trashy signal anyway.
My biggest issue of all is that all of the WISP priced LTE stuff is clunky
and buggy. Frankly, that was true of WiMax too. It seemed like Telrad's
bridging modes never quite worked right for example. You were better off
building an L2 tunnel on your own box behind the UE.
-Adam
On 9/14/2020 12:19 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
Ever since I got bamboozled into deploying a WiMax basestation, I have
been skeptical of tree penetration hype.
We have been deploying Cambium 450 in 3.5 GHz / CBRS and it’s great, but
it doesn’t “penetrate” trees. OK, an SM within a mile can go through 1 or 2
trees, depending on the size/density/type of tree. And with the usual caveat
that trees near the customer are more problematic than trees in the middle of
the path.
Some people say otherwise, but there were all sorts of glowing
testimonials for the WiMax equipment as well.
Maybe LTE has magic properties. I doubt it, but I haven’t tried it, I
don’t want to repeat the WiMax fiasco. So I could be wrong. But when I’m
wrong, usually it’s because I wasn’t pessimistic enough and things are even
worse than I feared. Only on rare occasions do I expect a lion behind the door
and there’s a beautiful lady. Usually there’s 2 lions.
Certainly turning on CBRS made all our 3.5 GHz Cambium stuff work better,
we got several dB higher xmt power, and usually cleaner spectrum. But the
cleaner spectrum thing is only true until other operators fire up their stuff
in 3550-3650. Even if you get a PAL, it’s not like nobody can use that
frequency in the whole county. The interference at the edge of your PAL
protection zone should be below some level that the SAS uses when authorizing
nearby operators to transmit. But that level isn’t -99 dBm.
LTE gear may be designed with better receiver sensitivity, that will help
if the noise floor is really really low. On the other hand, does most LTE gear
use the highest allowed EIRP? What about the CPE? That was another problem
with the WiMax stuff, the CPE was 3rd party stuff that typically had kind of
wimpy xmt power and not particularly high antenna gain. Maybe that’s not true
of LTE gear, I haven’t looked into it. But pull out a Cambium 3 GHz 450b
high-gain SM spec sheet and compare to the LTE CPE.
From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com On Behalf Of Trey Scarborough
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 4:43 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
Has anyone done a comparison or know of a whitepaper between LTE and
Cambium? I am mainly looking at tree penetration or lower DB signals to actual
throughput comparison. I have been told that LTE gets a little better tree
penetration but if that is at a low rate that really doesn't help any.
On 9/12/2020 10:03 AM, Darin Steffl wrote:
It comes down to complexity. Ericsson, Nokia, etc are all cellular
brands and to run and manage those complex LTE networks, you need full time
engineers to manage, debug, and optimize things.
Cambium is so easy, in comparison, there's very little extra learning
to do in order to get it running great. Ericsson LTE probably would require
months of training and needing to hire someone just to run the gear or hire
expensive consultants to do it for you.
On Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 9:49 AM Kurt Fankhauser
<lists.wavel...@gmail.com> wrote:
450m is the only way to do, especially if your already using the 450
platform in other parts of your network, there is an operator in my area with
the Ericson system and they had a ton of issues with getting it up and running,
not even sure if they ever got it all resolved.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:00 PM Sean Heskett <af...@zirkel.us> wrote:
Yup what josh said lol.
We tried the LTE thing and glad we switch to 450m...much easier.
-Sean
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 4:43 PM Josh Luthman
<j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
Having done one LTE vendor and 450m the only mistake I made was
not buying the 450m sooner.
Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:54 PM Adam Moffett
<dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:
And yeah, 450m might be expensive, but so is all the LTE stuff.
You'll max out the legal EIRP with 450m, and get 8x8 MIMO. I
think
part of the magic with LTE is that it will connect with
ridiculously
low signal, but on a fixed system you probably won't really
want the
trashy signals anyway.
Cambium also has LTE for whatever it's worth. The CBRS version
is supposed to be available relatively soon (though I forget
precisely when).
I don't know if I state it as "fewer issues since there is no
EPC", but definitely fewer complexities and fewer things to
worry
about. The connection from eNB to EPC has to be pristine,
and the EPC comes with its own set of new terminology and new
concepts to figure out.
On 9/11/2020 4:06 PM, Darin Steffl
wrote:
I have seen lots to people doing 450M in CBRS
stating coverage is nearly the same as LTE but way better
speeds
and triple the aggregate capacity due to mu-mimo.
Way fewer issues too since there is no EPC. Just
straight layer 2 with no bullshit.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 2:39 PM
David Coudron <david.coud...@advantenon.com>
wrote:
We are looking at a new area to
expand out network that has a lot more tree cover than
our current footprint. We are thinking with the
combination of CBRS and LTE, that we might be able to
offer better coverage than with traditional fixed
wireless options. We have started conversations with
the following vendors, wondering if anyone has any hands
on experience with any of them and what their
impressions were:
Blinq
Airspan
Baicells
Ericsson
The Ericsson equipment is in a class
by itself price wise, but the others are similarly
priced, and somewhere around double the price of PMP 450
stuff. Normally we would add more tower sites for
better coverage, but this project will need to be done
before the end of the year and building towers isn’t an
option. We have good enough spread on the towers that
we think we can do this with PMP 450 APs, but are
thinking we’d get even better coverage out of LTE. Any
opinions on the reliability and the manageability of the
four vendors above? Sorry for such an open ended
question, but not sure what to ask to be more
specific. We know that we will have the LTE stuff to
deal with like access to an EPC and so on, so not so
much worried about that as more the manufacturers
themselves. Baicells concerns us as they may get
lumped in with Huawei.
Thoughts?
Regards,
David Coudron
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- Trey ScarboroughVP Engineering3DS Communications LLCp:9729741539
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
