Wimax. 60ms ish. Not great but not bad... Jon Langeler Michwave Technologies, Inc.
> On Sep 20, 2014, at 10:13 PM, Jason McKemie via Af <af@afmug.com> wrote: > > 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.
