On Nov 8, 2020, at 4:11 PM, Jeremy Grip <g...@nbnworks.net> wrote:
I wonder what things would look like if I had 20 customers/sector and
connected a few clients down to -80 (rssi).
*From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
*Sent:* Sunday, November 08, 2020 4:00 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
What people are saying is the -100 RSRP is equivalent of -70 RSSI. It
sounds impressive when you hear that LTE will work at -100, but in
reality, it's roughly the same as something else working at -70,
which really isn't impressive.
The supposed magical nlos qualities of LTE really aren't all that
useful unless you intend to run very lightly loaded sectors, since
modulation levels are still going to suffer at low signal levels
(working and working well are two different things). CBRS does have a
significant EIRP advantage over the other bands though, but I suspect
that on a real world network, 450 is almost always going to work
better, and you're certainly going to have a lot fewer headaches to
deal with.
On Sun, Nov 8, 2020, 1:22 PM Jeremy Grip <g...@nbnworks.net
<mailto:g...@nbnworks.net>> wrote:
Thanks, Brian. I’m modeling with around 45dBm EIRP in a 20mHz
channel for, say, an Airspan 1030; my understanding of the FCC
EIRP limit. The radio should be able to push 33dBm into a KPP
15dBi sector. Very confused by the report That we achieve full
mod at -100 RSRP. Are you saying that the pilot signal goes out
at like 75dBm just at the center frequency of the channel, and
reporting that the system is capable of full mod at a real -70dBm
EIRP?
Having trouble finding those MCS tables for…Airspan? Baicells?
Jeremy Grip
North Branch Networks
*From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com
<mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *Brian Webster
*Sent:* Sunday, November 08, 2020 1:36 PM
*To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <af@af.afmug.com
<mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
Remember RSRP values are going to be 30 db stronger than the
signal you will actually need to deliver bandwidth. While it’s
easy to get excited when you see something working and the device
says the signal level is say -100, that is the narrow pilot
signal level the device is reporting which is about 30 db
stronger than the full width channel you are using to deliver
throughput. Modeling in RMD for the -100 signal is not what you
want to do. Model signal levels like you normally would for other
bands.
If you look at the MCS tables for these devices you will notice
that the signal levels needed to deliver speed are more like what
you are accustomed to.
Thank you,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com <http://www.wirelessmapping.com>
*From:*AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com
<mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>] *On Behalf Of *Matt Hoppes
*Sent:* Sunday, November 8, 2020 12:44 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
*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
<mailto: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
<mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
*Sent:* Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
*To:* af@af.afmug.com <mailto: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> <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 <af-boun...@af.afmug.com>
<mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of
*Trey Scarborough
*Sent:* Sunday, September 13, 2020 4:43 PM
*To:* af@af.afmug.com <mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1100+Wayne+St+Suite+1337+Troy,+OH+45373?entry=gmail&source=g>
Suite 1337
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1100+Wayne+St+Suite+1337+Troy,+OH+45373?entry=gmail&source=g>
Troy, OH 45373
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1100+Wayne+St+Suite+1337+Troy,+OH+45373?entry=gmail&source=g>
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:54 PM
Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
<mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
<mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/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 <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/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
