So what are people using to replace their 3.65 WiMAX equipment like Cambium 320 and Purewave/Mercury? Is Bai Cells the answer? In any case, it seems like a forklift upgrade. I would like to say some other frequency band, but what? If not 900 MHz, it seems there is no unlicensed band that can do what we need.
My original trip down the WiMAX rabbit hole was actually intended to be a preliminary step toward licensed 2.5 GHz, until I found out that was not feasible for us. But now I’ve got a lonely Purewave basestation that I don’t want to add customers to, I don’t think the latest Mercury help, and I don’t know what to do with the existing customers. Some are LOS so maybe the NLOS subs just need to go bye-bye? We are using Cambium 450 in 3.65 GHz and it is working out great for us as a 2.4 GHz replacement, but only for LOS or through a tree or two. Can’t afford low modulation clients <4X. From: That One Guy /sarcasm Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 2:43 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 320 Revisited one of the documents i was reading said 20% throughput loss from extended range, thats what i was asking about real word experience from, 320 documentation across the board was always questionable. I would love to not use it, but 320 was the (dont start the penetration argument) only thing at distance we could pick customers up through foliage to get them off 2.4fhss, even 900mhz wouldnt work, I assumed it was wimax and multipath that allowed it to happen On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Eric Muehleisen <[email protected]> wrote: See attached link budget sheet. Back in the day, 5%-8% capacity loss was the number thrown around with extended range enabled. IMO, disable extended range and deny those distance subs. You'll increase your overall capacity as a result. On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:05 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <[email protected]> wrote: at 10mhz we get 40 eirp correct? Anyone using the extended range know how much real world sector capacity loss we have? is the aggregate with loss on 10mhz going to be less than the throughput at 7mhz? On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Eric Muehleisen <[email protected]> wrote: Yes, but there is an extended range config parameter that overcomes that limitation. On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:24 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <[email protected]> wrote: at 10 mhz isnt the max distance dramatically limited over 7mhz? On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Eric Muehleisen <[email protected]> wrote: We do it like this... A = 3655 B = 3682 C = 3669 D = 3695 It'll give you at least 1mhz separation between sectors (which is required). On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Paul McCall <[email protected]> wrote: Can the Cambium 320 radios operate in ABCD fashion (10 Mhz channels using covering from 3650 to 3700) with 4 Cambium sectors? I know AABB with splitters is common and we did some that way, but we had to remove splitters to get extra gain in some areas. I seem to recall there was some “edge issues” or something like that?? We always lock the customer down to a given frequency/basestation, for what that’s worth. Paul Paul McCall, President PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc. 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800 [email protected] www.pdmnet.com www.floridabroadband.com -- 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. -- 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.
