I believe that is correct, I'm not currently using that product either though.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af <af@afmug.com> wrote: > Isn't the latency on ePmP something like 20-30ish? > > Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer > SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com > On 09/20/2014 11:14 PM, Jason McKemie via Af wrote: > > That latency is a bit of a bummer though. I wasn't aware what the latency > on the LTE stuff was, 30 is still pretty high IMO. > > On Saturday, September 20, 2014, Matt Jenkins via Af <af@afmug.com> wrote: > >> I don't know how much you know about LTE vs WiMAX, but as a fixed >> operator there aren't many advantages to LTE. The biggest LTE advantage is >> 20mhz channels, which are unlikely in TVWS. You do get a bit of reduced >> latency (30ms), but by sacrificing link stability features. Also LTE adds a >> LOT of backend systems that are not needed for WiMAX. I personally would >> rather have TVWS in WiMAX over LTE for now. >> >> I see TVWS as a residential only service for those customers who have no >> other option. >> >> We have 900 Canopy FSK deployed on a 100ft tower here: 39.172642 >> -120.832321. Back when our noise floor was -90ish (6 years ago) we >> successfully installed 3 customers in the attached polygon. The three that >> were installed were all tree installs at least 120ft up, the rest didn't >> even connect. We have over 100 service requests we have mapped and >> attempted installs on at least half. We are hoping a few TVWS APs will let >> us provide service to those people. Once we try it, we will know for sure. >> >> Matthew Jenkins >> SmarterBroadbandmatt@sbbinc.net530.272.4000 >> >> On 09/20/2014 08:04 PM, Jason McKemie via Af wrote: >> >> Ah, that sucks, I was thinking it was LTE-based. >> >> On Saturday, September 20, 2014, Jon Langeler via Af <af@afmug.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> >
