are you getting the connectorized performance gains within fcc eirp? Ive come to find a good majority of field test results are invalid solely because the tests are not performed legally
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Paul McCall <pa...@pdmnet.net> wrote: > On the SM side, we did not try connectorized 3.65 450 SMs. > > > > In our past experience with 320s, the SMCs used with a KP Performance 3.65 > feedhorn reflector got less results at times for NLOS shots then a standard > SM. It was explained to me that is because it’s not a “need more power, > burn through trees issue”… it’s a “don’t narrow the beam so much than the > wimax can’t work around the tree elements” issue. > > > > Our testing exposure was rather limited and we stopped when others on the > list confirmed they had similar results. > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ben Royer > *Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:18 AM > > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using > > > > Paul, > > > > Thanks for the response. More specifically I’m interested in the SM side > of the test, as we too are using the Cambium Antennas at the AP. However, > at the SM side, I’d recommend a NLOS test using a connectorized radio with > a higher gain antenna. We’ve seen some initial NLOS tests where 450 out > performs the 320. > > > > Thank you, > Ben Royer, Operations Manager > Royell Communications, Inc. > 217-965-3699 www.royell.net > > > > *From:* Paul McCall <pa...@pdmnet.net> > > *Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2015 8:30 AM > > *To:* af@afmug.com > > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using > > > > Ben, > > > > The testing was based on using the standard Cambium antenna, respectively, > for both platforms. > > > > Paul > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On > Behalf Of *Ben Royer > *Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:11 AM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using > > > > What antenna are you using in your testing of the 450 vs. 320 NLOS? I’m > just curious because this is an interesting report, as we have a network of > around 2,500 320 customers, and we are in the same position of looking for > that next great thing. > > > > Thank you, > Ben Royer, Operations Manager > Royell Communications, Inc. > 217-965-3699 www.royell.net > > > > *From:* Paul McCall <pa...@pdmnet.net> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:40 PM > > *To:* af@afmug.com > > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using > > > > But, if you are using 320 for NLOS solutions, the 450 trade up means > you’re going to lose customers since the 450 doesn’t do nearly as good a > job as the 320 > > > > Paul > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On > Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:37 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using > > > > Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on? Kind of a 3650 MHz > cash-for-clunkers program. > > > > *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 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> 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 office > > 772-473-0352 cell > > www.pdmnet.com > > 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. > > > ------------------------------ > > avast! Antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>: Outbound message > clean. > > Virus Database (VPS): 150604-0, 06/04/2015 > Tested on: 6/4/2015 8:10:34 AM > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2015 AVAST Software. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > avast! Antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>: Outbound message > clean. > > Virus Database (VPS): 150604-0, 06/04/2015 > Tested on: 6/4/2015 10:17:58 AM > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2015 AVAST Software. > > > -- 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.
