Agreed on wimax....it's amazing how bad it can be in interference
scenarios that I *know* would work fine with Canopy.
Now Ken is going to spank me when I say this, but it does work pretty
good NLOS compared to Canopy (sans interference). When you have that
-84 through a wad of trees with Canopy you get re-regs, whereas the
wimax seems to keep humming along just as mediocre as ever.
I haven't used the LTE firmware yet, but I can let you know.
I'm assuming LTE does not address the interference sensitivity of
wimax, since it was also designed for use in licensed bands? I was
amazed at how easily the 320 I had deployed fell flat on its face due
to light interference - not very helpful for my confidence in the
technology.
On Tuesday, February 17, 2015, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com
<mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:
LTE is the light at the end of my tunnel right now, bro....don't
ruin the magic.
I don't know about "hasn't yet been tested". The LTE firmware is
basically beta, but it's said to be functional. Functional enough
that they offered to let me run it anyway. I might still take
them up on the offer, but for their sake and mine I hope it blows
my mind with how awesome it is.
The only smoke and mirrors I'm aware of is that whenever they tell
you about the awesome-sauce they have, they're definitely talking
about LTE and the near future. What they have right now is not
the Corvette they're trying to sell you. What they have now is
equally quirky as the 320, but 10x harder to use. It does have 4
antenna ports and if you want to, you can run two base stations
out of one unit, using two different channels and two BSID's. So
you do get two base stations for the price of two base stations.
Or the four antenna ports give you antenna diversity at the base
station....which they say gives you a little more margin in the
upload direction. They claim better performance, but I can't
point to any of the Compact base stations and say, "ah, this one
is doing more than a 320 could have."
It's a good thing I'm not in sales. I would be terrible at it.
It's not a bad product, it's just not the awesome product I would
like it to be.
I was all about the Telrad koolaid until I sat in on a webinar
and saw the plethora of smoke and mirrors. Im concerned when a
company has a product with attached promises of greatness based
on standards based technology that hasnt yet been tested on their
own hardware and the promises have the caveat of no longer being
standards based. But I do like the promises of the magic they
will have like being able to use what would have been
interference from another AP in the system as usable client
signal, however im not sure how much IP likes traversing to
isolated sites at once.
I really hate not having any ethernet stats or control on the
320, I never understood that being locked out
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Adam Moffett
<dmmoff...@gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dmmoff...@gmail.com');>> wrote:
Did they promise you it's going to get better?
Buying Wimax feels like buying a Chevy Cobalt for the price
of a Corvette, based on the promise that they're delivering
the Corvette next year.
Moto never delivered the Corvette.� Alvarion/Telrad still
says the Corvette is coming.
I would have to check the MIB for the basestation, that was
not something I ever tried to graph.� The CPE was generic
Gemtek and Greenpacket stuff, so no, very little remote
monitoring capability.
�
I dread every time I have to log into the Purewave GUI and
do anything, it is so cumbersome.� I guess actually the
Greenpacket GUI is easy to use, just lacking in functionality.
�
�
*From:* Adam Moffett
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dmmoff...@gmail.com');>
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 17, 2015 9:44 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320SMs Gathering ethernet Error stats
�
Did any of your Purewave stuff give you ethernet error counters?
So much for 4G stuff being �carrier class�.� Or maybe
in that world, CPE is customer-owned-equipment and not the
responsibility of the network operator to monitor.
�
�
*From:* Adam Moffett
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dmmoff...@gmail.com');>
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 17, 2015 9:12 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320SMs Gathering ethernet Error stats
�
If you figure it out, let me know.� It's one of my
biggest pet peeves about the 320.
I'm sad to report that none of the Telrad CPE to seem to
have it either.....so maybe a Gemtek chipset limitation?
Is there an OID to gather Ethernet errors from the 320SMs
in either bridge and/or NAT mode?
�
Paul
�
Paul McCall, Pres.
PDMNet / Florida Broadband
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800 <tel:772-564-6800> office
772-473-0352 <tel:772-473-0352> cell
www.pdmnet.com <http://www.pdmnet.com/>
pa...@pdmnet.net
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pa...@pdmnet.net');>
�
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember
that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you.
Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a
reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance
manual, 1925
