They don't like to hand over ownership On Jun 9, 2016 10:00 AM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thats why I said subsidized. For that volume of subsidized cellular data > nodes the cost per unit (hardware, and service) can be negotiated. Use ptp, > ptmp to interconnect the low hanging fruit, cellular to handle the problem > children(where service exists), data bank to offset extended consumption. > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> For over 600 Wells, 50 pump stations, 15 boosters, 25 storm systems, 400 >> lift stations and 8 wastewater plants? >> On Jun 9, 2016 9:13 AM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Really, if its subsidized, depending on the actual current and realistic >>> near term future bandwidth demands, a primarily bulk cellular data with on >>> demand ptp and ptmp solution for gap fillers might be well worth looking >>> into. Review the entire infrastructure and build some data banking >>> locations to aggregate any non real time demand to off peak syncronization >>> locations. >>> >>> owning a network is always ideal when conditions are ideal, but from the >>> sounds of it, thats just not the case >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> I would recommend 11GHz for ptp...I would test the Cambium and Ubiquiti >>>> 900 since antennas are in place...but I am thinking of LTE MuMimo solutions >>>> as well.. with all the tanks they have I would reduce long links to >>>> closest one...right now most shoot to one tank....the original 1993 design >>>> is obsolete >>>> On Jun 9, 2016 8:07 AM, "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Maybe 4.9 GHz LOS links between towers, and Cambium PMP450i and >>>>> PTP450i in 900 MHz for the NLOS links? >>>>> >>>>> As long as they stick with cameras that have reasonable BW >>>>> requirements. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> >>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 09, 2016 8:52 AM >>>>> *To:* Animal Farm <af@afmug.com> >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] If it was you... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 4.9 is not a good option due to existing public safety links on both >>>>> sides of border. The new PLCs from Allen Bradley are IP based as well >>>>> other gear they are now using. Also heard they are considering cameras at >>>>> Wells not just boosters and wastewater. >>>>> On Jun 9, 2016 7:43 AM, "Cameron Crum" <cc...@wispmon.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> If they have to have the data throughput then I'd tell them to go >>>>>> with 4.9 and leave the unlicensed guys alone. But, do they really need >>>>>> it? >>>>>> Is this like using a backhoe to dig a fence post hole? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Cassidy B. Larson <c...@infowest.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Make sure the big ‘ol wall people want ends up blocking the RF? lol >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 8, 2016, at 9:49 PM, Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While working at Storm Water site today, one of the water Co. SCADA >>>>>>> guys came by... he discussed that they are looking at WiMax and also >>>>>>> 4.9GHz >>>>>>> to replace existing licensed 900mhz network for our 600 locations. They >>>>>>> are using MDS SD9 radios for MAS and LEDR for ptp.... they want to move >>>>>>> up >>>>>>> to faster Ethernet based radios.... I listened and offered no >>>>>>> comments....I >>>>>>> was not about to tell them about WiMAX or that our sister city has over >>>>>>> 200 >>>>>>> 4.9GHz links in operation since 2010...I have ideas of what I would >>>>>>> do...Some background.... .many remote links are NLOS...easy to do with >>>>>>> their existing 5 Watt licensed radios and APs on 150 Ft elevated tanks >>>>>>> or >>>>>>> mountain. ptp links are easy for most of east and lower valley because >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> tanks available and mountain locations....let's see what you gurus >>>>>>> suggest....we are on border and it is very noisy in all bands. I mean >>>>>>> all >>>>>>> bands >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >> > > > -- > 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. >
