<RANT>
With the near-universal grousing about the lack of spectrum, why aren't
there any initiatives toward find more/better ways to share spectrum?
AKA if we could only get along...
</RANT>
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 6/3/2015 2:37 PM, Paul McCall wrote:
Interesting. I agree with the dream of having someone re-write the
firmware to interface 320 stuff with the FCC database. Probably just a
dream though.
On the 450, you mention being able to sync with customers down the
road. The way I understand it, there is no standard being proposed
that would make that happen… if you have 5 other people with like or
unlike platforms playing in “your” RF space, they can still have the
same frequency contention challenges that you have now. Its just
that they would be restricted from competing with the known higher
priority users in the database.
I was curious to see what the consensus is on 320 use moving forward
for those that have found it to be the only way to service certain
NLOS customers.
The considerations seem to be…
1)Replace with 450 series gear at 3.65 and loose some of the customers
that were tough NLOS problems that the 320 series solved.
(if your were using the 320 only because it was a cleaner freq. band
(3.65), then the 450 seems to make sense for that.
2)Replace with Telrad gear at 3.65 (pricey) and sell off their old 320
series for whatever they can get.
3)Deploy MORE 320 gear because it is working well and solves the
specific problem. BW limited but works pretty well (*some might
debate that)
*At this moment, can you add ANY new 3.65 AP locations (from any
manufacturer) or forced to wait until the “next” thing comes to play
with the FCC rules?*
*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy
/sarcasm
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:09 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have
a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware
load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320
APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with
telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy.
The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an
intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we
can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites.
We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us
up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease
side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good
links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out.
I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able
to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the
potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to
sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me,
especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using
gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access
to the purse strings.
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall <pa...@pdmnet.net
<mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net>> wrote:
I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320
series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series
3.65 product?
Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just
adding SMs to what you already have?
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 <mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net>
--
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your
team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
