The other issue is that this gear was originally intended for the licensed market. This was the case with wimax, and it didn't handle interference gracefully at all. As I haven't used LTE, I'm not sure if it is any better, but I imagine not much. When I first started using the 320, I thought something was wrong with the gear - it turns out it is just insanely sensitive to interference.
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014, Rory Conaway via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > The general path is either a chipset based CPE based on something like a > handset chipset (not the best idea since it locks down a lot of things and > the PHY layer really sucks for high-interference environments), FPGA or > other hardware based SDR client and then move to a chipset to get the > second generation cost down once the PHY layer is written the way you want > it. I thought White Space vendors were going to pursue that path for > example. LTE is a lot harder since there is a lot more work that has to be > done on the PHY layer. LTE is the best option but proprietary LTE with > various techniques, some of which are no-brainers, some of which are going > to require serious out-the-box ideas, would give LTE the best chance when > it moves from rural to urban. > > > > Rory > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] *On Behalf Of *Ken > Hohhof via Af > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 05, 2014 6:44 AM > *To:* [email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Telrad LTE vs 450 3.65GHZ > > > > Exactly, can they do proprietary CPE? > > > > *From:* Jason McKemie via Af > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 05, 2014 12:18 AM > > *To:* [email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Telrad LTE vs 450 3.65GHZ > > > > The latency is in the standard, so they would have to deviate from it. > Being SDR, I suppose they theoretically could, I just haven't seen it > happen yet. Presumably the CPE are built around a standards based chipset, > so it would probably mean an increase in price for those as well. > > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Rory Conaway via Af <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > Why do you say the latency would be significantly higher? That’s > manufacturer dependent since they aren’t locked to the full cellular PHY. > > > > Rory > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] *On Behalf Of *Jason > McKemie via Af > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 04, 2014 8:55 PM > *To:* [email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Telrad LTE vs 450 3.65GHZ > > > > The 450 is going to smoke the Telrad from a latency standpoint. This is a > big downside to this gear IMO. If someone would optimize LTE for use in a > fixed environment you could possibly get better latency, but I'm not seeing > that happening. > > > > On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Matt via Af <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > Is anyone looking at both these options? Pros and cons of one vs > other? Throughput, Sync, Interference, spectrum efficiency, cost etc? > > What I really wander is can you bond two non adjacent 10MHZ channels > with Telrad to make a 20MHZ channel? I know you cannot with 450 and > it might become very useful down the road. Right now with 450 and a > perfect connection on a 20MHZ channel we can do around 80Mbps > downstream per sector. With a 10MHZ channel and not so perfect > connections that is really getting cut back. > > Also, right now we can do ABAB quite easily with 450 gear. With LTE > can we do AAAA where spectrum is scarce? > > > > >
