Undoubtedly true guys, but same thing. Assuming this table comes
through, it's showing you the bottom mod levels on LTE at 10mhz channel
size. So yeah, in theory we could hook up somebody at -100 and it would
"work", but you'd be spending a lot of money to not get much capacity.
SCADA might "work" for George's internet customers in the same sense
that scraping the bottom on LTE would "work".
Modulation and Coding SchemeMax troughtput [Mbps]SINR (dB)Receiver
Sensitivity (dBm)Minimum by DL/UL splitRequired SINR at Cell Edge (dB)DL
MCSUL MCSDLULDLULDLULDLUL0-QPSK0-QPSK0.91 Mbps0.25 Mbps-1.2 dB-1.0
dB-6.7 dB-3.3 dB-106.1 dBm-102.3 dBm1-QPSK1-QPSK1.18 Mbps0.32 Mbps0.0
dB0.1 dB-5.6 dB-2.4 dB-105.1 dBm-101.4 dBm2-QPSK2-QPSK1.45 Mbps0.40
Mbps0.7 dB0.7 dB-4.8 dB-1.6 dB-104.3 dBm-100.6 dBm3-QPSK3-QPSK1.87
Mbps0.51 Mbps1.7 dB1.7 dB-3.8 dB-0.5 dB-103.3 dBm-99.5
dBm4-QPSK4-QPSK2.38 Mbps0.65 Mbps2.7 dB2.8 dB-2.8 dB0.4 dB-102.2
dBm-98.5 dBm5-QPSK5-QPSK2.88 Mbps0.79 Mbps3.6 dB3.5 dB-1.7 dB1.3
dB-101.1 dBm-97.7 dBm6-QPSK6-QPSK3.38 Mbps0.93 Mbps4.6 dB4.2 dB-0.7
dB2.2 dB-100.2 dBm-96.7 dBm7-QPSK7-QPSK4.07 Mbps1.12 Mbps5.6 dB5.3 dB0.6
dB3.4 dB-98.9 dBm-95.6 dBm8-QPSK8-QPSK4.57 Mbps1.25 Mbps6.5 dB6.0 dB1.5
dB4.2 dB-97.9 dBm-94.7 dBm9-QPSK9-QPSK5.24 Mbps1.44 Mbps7.6 dB6.9 dB2.5
dB5.6 dB-97.0 dBm-93.3 dBm10-16QAM10-QPSK5.24 Mbps1.58 Mbps7.7 dB7.6
dB2.5 dB6.2 dB-97.0 dBm-92.7 dBm
------ Original Message ------
From: "Colin Stanners" <cstann...@gmail.com>
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Sent: 9/25/2016 12:11:30 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
Some SCADA systems run at like 115kbaud with -103db receive sensitivity
in a 1mhz channel... that will survive a lot.
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Jaime Solorza
<losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:
Depends on the system.. SCADA type radios have no problem with
trees...
On Sep 24, 2016 7:22 PM, "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:
Might be worth a shot I guess. Depends how strong your 900 is coming
in.
Attenuation is attenuation though...whether it's LTE or something
else. If the path literally passes through a mile of trees then I'm
surprised even 900 works.
------ Original Message ------
From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/24/2016 3:45:44 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't
hear those shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered
itself.
The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a
mile or more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, not
only due to power levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it
actually does "work" (meaning horrible mod levels) and he'll want to
run with it. So we'll get what, a couple Mbps out of a sector.
Sounds a lot like 900 FSK. Sounds a lot like 900 450i with a
horrible noise floor. So we gain nothing and spent a ton of money.
Great idea. And we won't end up getting all of the customers off of
the 900 anyway, that I'm sure.
On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
In Wimax it's 4x4....I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well,
but I think feature was released only a month or so ago. We have a
few places with split sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2.
From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can
hang on to a crummy signal longer than Wimax. It was explained to
me that Wimax puts the synchronization data in the pre-amble which
has to be received on every subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data
interspersed among the subcarriers, so where your weak wimax CPE
sometimes cuts in an out, an LTE CPE in the same conditions can
stay connected. It also has lower mod levels that let it operate
right down to the noise floor. And at least in theory you'll get
more throughput than you get in the same conditions on Wimax.
I have the same reservations as you about the low mod levels thing.
Just because they work doesn't mean you want them. We're not
intentionally installing anything weaker than a -80 RSSI right now,
so we really ought to be ok on that front.
-Adam
------ Original Message ------
From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 11:23:57 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
Well, let me ask this. Are you doing 2x2 or 4x4 on the Telrad?
Obviously 4x4 would give a slight advantage.
My whole thing is, OK, it might work through a shit ton of trees.
Linked up and able to move some traffic is one thing. But a whole
bunch of low modulation customers on a sector is not worth the
investment. LTE, Wimax, 450i 900.. whatever it may be.
I know of a Telrad installation where they couldn't make it work.
Turned out to be interference. They had some guys from Israel come
"fix" it. I won't say any names, but I now see what they did to
get it working. It's in the 3.5 band.. because I can see them on
my 450's spectrum analyzer. From multiple sectors on multiple
towers, so I know what direction it's coming from. And I have no
doubt they're running it over powered.
Welp, we have a BaiCells demo kit, so we'll see what happens.
On 9/23/2016 9:52 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
We've had Telrad Compact 1000's for around 2.5 years, but they're
running Wimax firmware because we were replacing older 16e
installations. We have a number of sites now that have entirely
dual mode CPE so we're about to pull the trigger on LTE. We're
installing four LTE base stations next week on brand new sites,
and assuming those go well we'll upgrade some existing Wimax
sites.
So yeah, within the next few weeks I'll know more. I'll
definitely report back.
It's interesting that you phrase it as "if it works at all." The
issue with Wimax has never been it "working", it's just that it
comes with a lot of quirks and it sucks at administration and
troubleshooting. I'm speaking of Wimax in general here, not
Telrad specifically....and I've used Wimax from three different
vendors now. I have no fear about LTE working. I am afraid it
will turn out to be cut from the same cloth as Wimax.
------ Original Message ------
From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 8:04:34 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
Aren't you doing Telrad? Please let us know if it works at all.
On 9/23/2016 4:05 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
I'll let you know in a few weeks.
------ Original Message ------
From: ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 5:01:02 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
I wonder what LTE would do with the same RSSI.
From:Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 2:46 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
Oh I also have somebody with a -88 who gets about half that.
900 was the last ditch effort for both of these.
With wimax from the same tower we got a big fat nothing at
both locations.
------ Original Message ------
From: "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 4:44:21 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
On the other end of the quality spectrum:
Link Test with Bridging
VCDownlinkUplinkAggregatePacket TransmitPacket
ReceiveActualActual196.07 Mbps1.32 Mbps7.39 Mbps, 474 pps821
(410 pps)128(64 pps)
That's a -85 on a 5mhz channel. On any wider channel I lose
this guy.
------ Original Message ------
From: "Dave" <dmilho...@wletc.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 4:17:36 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
This is from one of ours
Current Results StatusStats for LUID: 3 Test Duration: 5
Pkt Length: 1714 Test Direction Bi-Directional
RF Link Test
VCDownlinkUplinkAggregatePacket TransmitPacket
ReceiveActualActual1926.13 Mbps6.78 Mbps32.92 Mbps, 2367
pps2389 (477 pps)9450(1890 pps)
Efficiency
DownlinkUplinkEfficiencyFragments
countEfficiencyFragments
countActualExpectedActualExpected100%25525425525478%8412466231
Link Test ran on 03:59:48 01/09/2011 UTC
Currently transmitting at:VC 19 Rate 8X/8X MIMO-B
On 09/23/2016 03:12 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
We're looking at doing a forklift on a couple of 900 MHz
FSK APs. What are real world throughput numbers that any of
you pioneers are getting? We would probably want to do 10
MHz channels at first, and I would hope that we could get >
15 Mbps in download, but maybe I'm being too conservative?
The places we are looking at do not have Smart Meter
issues.
--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
--
