Your point on sector efficiency is the reason we no longer like NLOS installs. Yes you may gain few customer with little less effort but in long run it hurts. We try to install 40 to 50 feet push-up poles and get better line of sight.
Tushar > On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:44 PM, George Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com> wrote: > > That's great that it works. I'm sure the Telrad stuff and other gear like it > is excellent. For me, it's too expensive. Every way I run the numbers, I'm > looking at 16-18 months for break-even. And that's not including all of the > extra stuff required for a large scale deployment. > > If I can't get 25-30 users per sector, the site is too small to deploy it. If > I'm running a bunch of NLOS customers (which we would since we're about 55% > 900MHz), lots of low modulation users really sucks for sector capacity. And > those NLOS shots, like Ken says, will they continue to work? When the trees > are soaked, covered in ice, etc., does it go to shit and I have to listen to > customers bitching because they were getting 20+Mbps and now get <5Mbps? > Which again is a hit on sector efficiency. > >> On 6/13/2015 8:48 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >> One thing I experienced with 3.65 GHz WiMAX was an install that turned out >> to work only because of signal bouncing off the tall tree leaves, and >> stopped working in November when the leaves went away. We should have been >> suspicious when aligning for best signal actually had the CPE pointed up at >> about a 30 degree angle. >> >> I have seen something similar with 900 MHz. >> >> >> From: TJ Trout >> Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 8:15 PM >> To: af@afmug.com >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Do you want to see this stuff here? >> >> How does LTE penetrate hills? This is the second or third "through a hill" >> story in the last week? >> >>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Patrick Leary <patrick.le...@telrad.com> >>> wrote: >>> RSRP, it is a measurement. It is a truer number than RSSI, which is only an >>> estimate (so I'm told). As Ken said, basically add 30 to get an idea of the >>> RSSI value. >>> >>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID >>> On Jun 13, 2015 5:36 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Yeah... something like that. Notice that is -108 CINR, not RSSI, like the >>> numbers we're all used to. >>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: >>>> I think Patrick said to add 30 dB to Telrad signal numbers because they >>>> were “per subcarrier” or something? >>>> >>>> From: Colin Stanners >>>> Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 4:17 PM >>>> To: af@afmug.com >>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Do you want to see this stuff here? >>>> >>>> Patrick, I haven't been following Telrad but that's too incredible - I >>>> can't see how -108, which is below the noise floor for any reasonable >>>> channel bandwidth (20mhz+?) could get any reasonable speed, much less >>>> those. >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Patrick Leary <patrick.le...@telrad.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Should I resist sharing this sort of thing? If it's out of line, let me >>>>> know Chuck. >>>>> >>>>> <mime-attachment.png> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: telrad-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:telrad-boun...@wispa.org] On >>>>> Behalf Of Steve Discher >>>>> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 7:51 PM >>>>> To: tel...@wispa.org >>>>> Subject: [Telrad] Another Telrad success story >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not to flood the list with these but Zirkel is having great results. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ************************************************************************************ >>>>> >>>>> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by >>>>> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & >>>>> computer viruses. >>>>> >>>>> ************************************************************************************ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ************************************************************************************ >>>>> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by >>>>> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & >>>>> computer viruses. >>>>> ************************************************************************************ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ************************************************************************************ >>> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by >>> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer >>> viruses. >>> ************************************************************************************ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ************************************************************************************ >>> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by >>> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer >>> viruses. >>> ************************************************************************************ >
