What is the CPE cost on the Runcom gear? On Saturday, September 20, 2014, Matt Jenkins via Af <af@afmug.com> wrote:
> You don't need WiMAX/LTE voodoo for TVWS. Sure there are some advantages > but there are also disadvantages. What you do need is a tight enough > spectral mask and the TX power. > > Runcom already had a WiMAX product that operated from 700mhz to 5ghz built > on an SDR designed to use 5mhz or 6mhz channels and supported channel > bonding. They were able to modify their existing product to work within > TVWS frequencies. Using 5mhz channels (or 10mhz for channel bonding) they > were able to meet the spectral mask requirements for TVWS. Their product > already had a call home feature for a central management system. I wouldn't > be surprised if they leveraged most of that design to work with the > database. They didn't have to bring an entirely new product to market. > > One of the other major consideration is TX power. Fixed stations can > transmit 30dbm and have a 6db antenna (36db EIRP). There isn't a lot of > antenna gain available without getting very large. So radios need to have > very high TX power built in. If Cambium were to build a 450 product they > would need to reevaluate their stance on TX power. I would want to see a > radio with at least 28db of TX power available. > > 900mhz, even in clean spectrum, still doesn't provide the coverage a lot > of this county needs to reach the rural areas. TVWS can go as low as > 470mhz. Even the upper channels around 600mhz have significantly more > foliage penetration than that of 900mhz. > > I would like to see a DSSS product whereby an AP can TX on two or four > combined channels and RX on a different single channel. > > > > Matthew Jenkins > SmarterBroadband > m...@sbbinc.net > 530.272.4000 > > On 09/20/2014 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: > >> I’m not sure why TVWS has to be based on WiMAX or LTE. Seems to me you >> need 4 things: >> - comply with the spectral mask including guardbands >> - work with the spectrum database >> - bond non-adjacent 6 MHz channels (preferably more than 2) >> - connectorized for an external antenna >> It will be interesting how close the FCC rules for 3550-3650 follow >> TVWS. If they are similar, and Cambium modifies their 3650 version of >> PMP450, that might be the critical mass for them to look at a TVWS >> version. That assumes they could meet the spectrum mask and do channel >> bonding. I don’t think there’s any obvious reason to an outsider why that >> would not be possible. >> I know, you’re going to say that you need the WiMAX/LTE voodoo. But do >> you? If you are just trying to go through trees, and you can operate at a >> frequency where the trees become translucent to RF, isn’t that enough >> voodoo? We’re not trying to do mobile voice+data with call handoffs and >> multipath from urban clutter. Let’s face it, if 900 MHz had enough >> spectrum for wider channels and wasn’t all polluted from FHSS mesh stuff >> like smartgrid, it would be fine without any magical supersauce from the >> cellular world. >> Maybe I’m wrong about the spectral mask, if the adjacent channel >> interference requirement is too tight to meet with DSP techniques alone. >> But with an SDR platform you’d certainly have an advantage over trying to >> do it with a WiFi chipset. Maybe Ubiquiti’s airPrism technology is an >> attempt to move in that direction, although that seems to be on the rcv >> side. >> *From:* Mike Hammett via Af <mailto:af@afmug.com> >> *Sent:* Saturday, September 20, 2014 2:11 PM >> *To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium >> It's not great, but not as bad as you think. Only the NE most portion of >> your network doesn't have at least two channels available. That's all >> Runcom needs. >> >> It's not significantly more expensive than the PMP platform and delivers >> more (throughput and range) than PMP in 900. >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+ >> IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin. >> com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From: *"George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af" <af@afmug.com> >> *To: *af@afmug.com >> *Sent: *Friday, September 19, 2014 8:27:15 PM >> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium >> >> Don't you still have to get an experimental license for TVWS at this >> point? Part of the problem here is that we're too close to the Chicago >> metro broadcast area. There were no usable channels the last time I >> looked at one of the databases. Even in the more rural parts of our >> network farther away from Chicago, maybe there's a chance, but it would >> be too much investment for too little gains. Current cost of the >> available gear, and future gear probably won't be any cheaper. Plus the >> HAAT restrictions. >> >> If you can use it, great! I hope you do, and make lots of money at it. >> Seriously. But I have a genuine fear that the FCC, who has been throwing >> loads of poo at us recently, will change their minds and sunset our >> access to the spectrum while it's being auctioned behind our backs at >> the same time they control our transmitters via database. We'll see how >> the 3550-3700 thing goes. >> >> On 9/19/2014 7:35 PM, Matt Jenkins via Af wrote: >> > You think TVWS is dead? I am curious why. >> > >> > I feel it's a hope on the next hill over not a dream on the distant >> > horizon. >> > >> > We are going to trial the Runcom Wimax product ASAP in TVWS. For us, a >> > lot of our area isn't even serviceable with 900mhz (assuming clean >> > spectrum). Customer's less than a mile away would have too many trees >> > for 900 to connect. Yes, even when that 900 was installed 150ft up a >> > tree. >> > >> > TVWS has the chance to reach lots of those who don't have access to >> > broadband or even cell service. For many people a 2mbps/256kbps is way >> > better than satellite. They can VPN, game, and VOIP. They might not be >> > able to stream high def all day but they can get satellite TV for >> > that. Its the trade off for living so rural. >> > >> > For the past 6 months we have been deploying Telrad WiMAX in 3.65 and >> > it's coverage and performance has been phenomenal. I am really excited >> > to see what WiMAX applied to TVWS from Runcom can do. There has been >> > talk about how the FSK is still a thriving product. In perfect >> > conditions FSK provides 14mbps aggregate throughput. Runcom is >> > estimating 15-20mbps aggregate throughput in average conditions. You >> > also get 2 APs per Base Station with a built in ASN or use a gateway. >> > >
