I'd probably buy that.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 12/18/2015 9:23 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
So yesterday I did some tweaking on the sync parameters and was able
to get better results. I'll put the details in a second post, but I
wanted to update the grim picture I painted the other day.
As initially set up, I was only getting 1X MIMO-A, even on a 5 MHz
channel and after trying a bunch of frequencies, and the SMs would not
reliably stay registered.
After tweaking the sync parameters and channel, I was able to get one
sub to 4X MIMO-B and the other to 2X MIMO-B, and increase the channel
width to 7 MHz. They have stayed registered now for 18 hours and
while the speed varies a bit they hold 4X and 2X. Here are linktest
results I just ran:
subscriber #1
2 miles with a few bare trees and apparently some multipath issues
2X MIMO-B
8.6M down, 4.4M up, 13.0M aggregate
subscriber #2
8 miles with 2 lines of trees and a house in the path
4X MIMO-B
14.6M down, 4.6M up, 19.3M aggregate
The AP and subscriber #1 have bad interference across the band,
interference is not as bad at subscriber #2.
These numbers may not look great compared to 100M aggregate capacity,
but they are around a 6 times improvement over what we had with FSK.
I'm sure we would see better results at another site with less
interference, in fact I have another tower where we can run 2X FSK but
4M aggregate just isn't enough capacity.
