Any idea what the latency is on these?
On Saturday, September 20, 2014, Matt Jenkins via Af
<af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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.
