Like everything with 900, you probably have to just try it. What's clearer is that if most of your FSK subs are at 2X, then moving to 450i will probably net you a big capacity increase, you will be back in the real broadband business.
But with a marginal signal level and lots of interference, it's hard to predict. It will give you some extra tools, like 5, 7 and 10 MHz channel widths. And my (limited) experience was yes we got better throughput and fewer losses of registration. You do have to realize that with a 17 dBi CPE antenna and probably running full xmt power, you are probably over the 36 dBm EIRP limit by at least 6 dB in the upstream direction. So do you use the KP 17.5 dBi yagi but tell the SM it only has a 10 or 12 dBi antenna? From your numbers, I think you're going to have to. Unless you have one of those situations where a wider beam to illuminate more foliage would actually perform better. It you're going to try it, now's the time with the promotion. -----Original Message----- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jay Weekley Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:34 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers? I'm curious how the conversion from the legacy 900 gear to the 450i is. For example, if we have a customer with a -75 with a 17 db yagi on the old stuff but is having problems due to interference will we be able to salvage them with the 450i 900 gear? Dave wrote: > George, > Myself and another ISP here in Arkansas have been using the new 450i > 900 gear and for what its worth we have been amazed at some of the > penetration and numbers we able to see. > Using KP sectors and yagis is the ticket. > We have been able to increase marginal shots in upwards of 10+ points > or more. > > The only gotcha I have with the stuff is the number of clients that > can be sustained on an AP. > Which all revolves around Frame Utilization. We have been ok with > about 20 subs with a 5x5 sustained rate package. > I am sure you could squeeze more by tweaking the sustained and burst. > I used the Capacity planner cambium has for this and it was really > close for what we see. > Yes, even through some pine > > > On 09/24/2016 02:45 PM, George Skorup wrote: >> 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 <mailto:geo...@cbcast.com>> >>> To: af@afmug.com <mailto: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 >>>>> <mailto:geo...@cbcast.com>> >>>>> To: af@afmug.com <mailto: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 <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com> >>>>>>> To: af@afmug.com <mailto: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 <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 2:46 PM >>>>>>>> *To:* af@afmug.com <mailto: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 >>>>>>>> <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> >>>>>>>> To: af@afmug.com <mailto: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 >>>>>>>>> <mailto:dmilho...@wletc.com>> >>>>>>>>> To: af@afmug.com <mailto: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 Status >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Stats for LUID: 3 Test Duration: 5 Pkt Length: 1714 Test >>>>>>>>>> Direction Bi-Directional >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *RF Link Test* >>>>>>>>>> VC Downlink Uplink Aggregate Packet Transmit >>>>>>>>>> Packet Receive >>>>>>>>>> Actual Actual >>>>>>>>>> 19 26.13 Mbps 6.78 Mbps 32.92 Mbps, 2367 pps 2389 >>>>>>>>>> (477 >>>>>>>>>> pps) 9450(1890 pps) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Efficiency* >>>>>>>>>> Downlink Uplink >>>>>>>>>> Efficiency Fragments >>>>>>>>>> count Efficiency Fragments >>>>>>>>>> count >>>>>>>>>> Actual Expected Actual Expected >>>>>>>>>> 100% 255254 255254 78% 84124 66231 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>> >> > > --
