Pop-up/telescoping masts are cheap but a horrible idea in the long run. You can spend a lot of time raising them at first install, and any swap/upgrade attempt is a big long job even if unsuccessful. Vulnerable to wind, guy wires need to be tensioned occasionally, can't check for LOS from the top, etc. I've spent many many low-return hours installing pop-ups in my early days and since then I've managed to take most of those down by making it clear to customers that we won't put dishes on pop-ups (as they seem to get misaimed easily in the wind) so if customers are in a forest and want to upgrade off 900mhz they need to buy a tower. Luckily most can be upgraded with a house-bracketed tower, not paying a few grand for a DMX.
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Paul McCall <pa...@pdmnet.net> wrote: > Push up poles in Florida is a nightmare waiting to happen. We learned > that the hard way. Even with guy wires. And, a pain to service. Kinda > fits your description of NLOS customers below. > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Tushar Patel > *Sent:* Saturday, June 13, 2015 11:52 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Do you want to see this stuff here? > > > > 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 <t...@voltbb.com> > > *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 <cstann...@gmail.com> > > *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. > > ************************************************************************************ > > > > > >
