I made SCADA comment regarding 900MHz performance only... Not for Internet data usage per se. Some SCADA systems do connect to Internet but it is typically monitoring, alarming or maintenance,... Not for watching NetFleece... Many Are upgrading to 5GHz for more bandwidth and camera surveillance... I have several clients doing this on small scale. EPWU has over 800 sites now using MDS licensed and unlicensed 900 so a change is coming but it's going to be combination of 11Ghz and 5Ghz I am told.
On Sep 25, 2016 2:00 PM, "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's the whole sector. You definitely don't want anybody at QPSK, and IMO > you don't actually want customers who can't get 64QAM. Anybody running > QPSK would be an unhappy customer and he'd weaken the whole sector. > > The point of the chart was this: I said earlier, "even 900 doesn't work > with a mile of forest in the way". People responded, "but SCADA at > 115kbps!". My rebuttal is that crappy speeds are already an option, but > they don't count as "working" if you're selling internet access. > > I'm not sure about the SNR question. > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com> > To: af@afmug.com > Sent: 9/25/2016 3:30:43 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers? > > > Something that always seems fuzzy with WIMAX and now LTE is whether you > can have a bunch of subscribers all getting that throughput simultaneously, > or if that’s the entire sector capacity. If the entire sector capacity is > 0.91 Mbps download shared over however many customers you need to make that > basestation profitable, then it’s silly to talk about an MCS0 link. In > fact, even the MCS10 numbers from that chart wouldn’t really be useful for > fixed broadband service. For best effort connectivity from a mobile > client, maybe it’s acceptable. > > > > The other thing is I remember one vendor saying their SNR numbers were per > subcarrier or something, and you had to add a fudge factor of something > like 10 dB to do an apples-to-apples comparison with the non LTE world. > Not sure if that applies here. > > > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett > *Sent:* Sunday, September 25, 2016 2:02 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers? > > > > I dunno, but the chart says it theoretically works at an SINR of -6.7db > > Seems insane. > > > > At the other end of the chart at MCS28 you're getting 42.46mbps x > 6.61mbps.....and that's supposed to work with 24 SINR. > > > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > > From: "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com> > > To: af@afmug.com > > Sent: 9/25/2016 12:17:14 PM > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers? > > > > What is 0-QPSK? CW? > > > > *From:* Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> > > *Sent:* Sunday, September 25, 2016 5:09 AM > > *To:* af@afmug.com ; af@afmug.com > > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers? > > > > 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 Scheme > > Max troughtput [Mbps] > > SINR (dB) > > Receiver Sensitivity (dBm) > > Minimum by DL/UL split > > Required SINR at Cell Edge (dB) > > DL MCS > > UL MCS > > DL > > UL > > DL > > UL > > DL > > UL > > DL > > UL > > 0-QPSK > > 0-QPSK > > 0.91 Mbps > > 0.25 Mbps > > -1.2 dB > > -1.0 dB > > -6.7 dB > > -3.3 dB > > -106.1 dBm > > -102.3 dBm > > 1-QPSK > > 1-QPSK > > 1.18 Mbps > > 0.32 Mbps > > 0.0 dB > > 0.1 dB > > -5.6 dB > > -2.4 dB > > -105.1 dBm > > -101.4 dBm > > 2-QPSK > > 2-QPSK > > 1.45 Mbps > > 0.40 Mbps > > 0.7 dB > > 0.7 dB > > -4.8 dB > > -1.6 dB > > -104.3 dBm > > -100.6 dBm > > 3-QPSK > > 3-QPSK > > 1.87 Mbps > > 0.51 Mbps > > 1.7 dB > > 1.7 dB > > -3.8 dB > > -0.5 dB > > -103.3 dBm > > -99.5 dBm > > 4-QPSK > > 4-QPSK > > 2.38 Mbps > > 0.65 Mbps > > 2.7 dB > > 2.8 dB > > -2.8 dB > > 0.4 dB > > -102.2 dBm > > -98.5 dBm > > 5-QPSK > > 5-QPSK > > 2.88 Mbps > > 0.79 Mbps > > 3.6 dB > > 3.5 dB > > -1.7 dB > > 1.3 dB > > -101.1 dBm > > -97.7 dBm > > 6-QPSK > > 6-QPSK > > 3.38 Mbps > > 0.93 Mbps > > 4.6 dB > > 4.2 dB > > -0.7 dB > > 2.2 dB > > -100.2 dBm > > -96.7 dBm > > 7-QPSK > > 7-QPSK > > 4.07 Mbps > > 1.12 Mbps > > 5.6 dB > > 5.3 dB > > 0.6 dB > > 3.4 dB > > -98.9 dBm > > -95.6 dBm > > 8-QPSK > > 8-QPSK > > 4.57 Mbps > > 1.25 Mbps > > 6.5 dB > > 6.0 dB > > 1.5 dB > > 4.2 dB > > -97.9 dBm > > -94.7 dBm > > 9-QPSK > > 9-QPSK > > 5.24 Mbps > > 1.44 Mbps > > 7.6 dB > > 6.9 dB > > 2.5 dB > > 5.6 dB > > -97.0 dBm > > -93.3 dBm > > 10-16QAM > > 10-QPSK > > 5.24 Mbps > > 1.58 Mbps > > 7.7 dB > > 7.6 dB > > 2.5 dB > > 6.2 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 <dmmoff...@gmail.com> > > *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* > > VC > > Downlink > > Uplink > > Aggregate > > Packet Transmit > > Packet Receive > > Actual > > Actual > > 19 > > 6.07 Mbps > > 1.32 Mbps > > 7.39 Mbps, 474 pps > > 821 (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> > > ...
