Any idea what the latency is on these? On Saturday, September 20, 2014, Matt Jenkins via Af <af@afmug.com> wrote:
> Base Station is approx $6200. One Base Station can be more than one AP > (see attached) > > Matthew Jenkins > SmarterBroadband > m...@sbbinc.net > 530.272.4000 > > On 09/20/2014 06:13 PM, Paul McCall via Af wrote: > >> AP cost ? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet....@afmug.com] On Behalf Of >> Matt Jenkins via Af >> Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2014 8:44 PM >> To: af@afmug.com >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium >> >> I think its 350 each + Antenna. >> >> Matthew Jenkins >> SmarterBroadband >> m...@sbbinc.net >> 530.272.4000 >> >> On 09/20/2014 05:23 PM, Jason McKemie via Af wrote: >> >>> What is the CPE cost on the Runcom gear? >>> >>> On Saturday, September 20, 2014, Matt Jenkins via Af <af@afmug.com >>> <mailto: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/+IntelligentC >>> omputingSolutionsDeKalb><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. >>> >>> >>> >
