This is based on conversations with Richard Barnhart who understand this probably as good as anyone. He did help develop the standards and SAS requirements.
Just saying that while it's possible for the SAS to do that now, if more users show up than there are channels there is no first in protections. Make your business plans accordingly. Thank you, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com -----Original Message----- From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 11:18 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group; Tyson Burris Subject: Re: [AFMUG] T-Mobile PALs and CBRS GAA What equipment are you using? If 450 make sure you use Frame Type 2 for LTE Coexxistence. Then contact your SAS who will promptly kick T-Mobile off of part of the GAA and allow both of you to coexist nicely. On 7/25/21 6:24 AM, Tyson Burris wrote: > Good morning AF Geeks- > > Someone help me understand this better. Several questions below. > > We operate in six counties in Indiana. Some rural some not so much. > > In our main county (johnson) we are starting to get interference even > when we are connected to the SAS. > > While we cannot prove anything yet, each tower we are seeing this on > recently had new T-Mobile equipment deployed. > > I reached out to our attorney, Steve Coran, this week and asked him to > pulled the county PAL winners. Listed here: > > PAL winners for Johnson County, IN: > > XF Wireless Investment, LLC (Comcast) -- 20 MHz > > Actel, LLC (CenturyLink) -- 20 MHz > > Wetterhorn Wireless L.L.C. (DISH) 30 MHz > > -Century Link has zero cell services of any kind in our county and > currently not deploying in fixed wireless. > > -Comcast floats off Verizon > > -Dish also has zero cell services of any kind in our count > > So what we ended up with is PAL winners who have nothing to offer > locally yet unless subleasing. > > Questions are: > > is T-Mobile subleasing PALs from any of these three? > > Is T-Mobile illegally just rotating PALs anywhere they want in the > country instead of just local counties? > > Anyway to clearly isolate the offending carrier sucking up so much > spectrum and causing all the interference? > > Another member brought up T-Mobile as a possible offender. Did any data > come from that? > > What time of the day do the SAS databases sync with each other and does > this force other carriers to cut back on total GAA share nicely? > > Has anyone found the other SAS providers to be better then GOOGLE. > Starting to think their system is worthless or inaccurate. Truth is I > think this whole concept of spectrum sharing is poorly handled and not > fully tested on 3g. > > If a carrier is on the same tower, how will that affect sync? I ask > because we found some very interesting work arounds and results with > upload when we started playing with sync settings ie distance, frame, > channel. > > If the customer SM is moved from one spot to another or from a roof to a > post how badly does this affect the calculations on the SAS side? > > Things we have discovered: > > * Even when we find noise floors on spectrum analysis in a reasonable > range and move to the cleaner channel on the SAS the interference > still trashes the uplinks. > * In some cases the SAS is blocking the cleanest of channels which > could be PAL related. > * In some cases customer SMs going off other unaffected sites > nearby may get knocked offline by the new noise. > * In some cases we have had to drop off the SAS and found switching to > other regulatory has allowed us to switch to cleaner channels and > stabilized subs. (which is exactly what we shouldnt be doing) > * We have a ton of 450m units going on towers as both new and > upgrades. I am concerned that the more urban areas will struggle > with capacity since we have to break this up across multiple sectors. > > History and Equipment: > > Again this seems very isolated to our more urban deployments which have > historically been awesome in the 50Mhz channels prior to CBRS turn ups. > > Our more rural areas are not seeing this issue at all. > > All three locations have very specific and brand new T-Mobile equipment > so this has been our assumption of the cause without such proof. > > Equipment on these commercial towers has been no more then two 450i APs > with KP 120 sectors (pending 450m upgrades). > > *Tyson Burris, President** > **Internet Communications Inc.** > **739 Commerce Dr.** > **Franklin, IN 46131** > *** > *Office #**317-738-0320 * > *Cell/Direct #**317-412-1540 * > *Online: **www.surfici.net* > > ICI > > *What can ICI do for you?* > > > *Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP > Cameras - Fiber - Towers - Infrastructure.* > ** > *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the* > *addressee shown. It contains information that is* > *confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,* > *dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by* > *unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly* > *prohibited.* > > -- 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
