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 <http://www.royell.net>
*From:*Paul McCall <mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net>
*Sent:*Thursday, June 04, 2015 8:30 AM
*To:*af@afmug.com <mailto: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] *On Behalf Of *Ben Royer
*Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:11 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto: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 <http://www.royell.net>
*From:*Paul McCall <mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net>
*Sent:*Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:40 PM
*To:*af@afmug.com <mailto: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] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:37 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto: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 <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
*Sent:*Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM
*To:*af@afmug.com <mailto: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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
