It’s not he ability to hold modulation through multipath changes. UBNT doesn’t have this.
LTE does this but at the expense of lower modulations. Think 80 down and 6 up max for the sector. 450 is blowing that out of the water. 150 down and 60 up on the sector. Completely obscured. We have customers installed to 450i 3ghz through forests. Rocking 80 meg down. We won’t deploy another tower without it. > On Nov 8, 2020, at 2:01 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: > > > I would not recommend Cambium 450 / CBRS if your main goal is foliage > penetration in a densely forested town. It won’t magically penetrate dense > foliage, and you may even have problems with a strong signal through just 1 > or 2 trees when the branches blow in the wind. > > I am skeptical of the LTE claims but have no first hand knowledge. > > From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes > Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:44 AM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors > > -100 would be full modulation on LTE. That being said please consider Cambium > 450 - you’ll save yourself a ton of headache in the short and long run and > have a better experience. > > > On Nov 8, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Grip <g...@nbnworks.net> wrote: > > > 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 <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 <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 Scarborough > VP Engineering > 3DS Communications LLC > p: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
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
