That Sean,
Right now we are at the max that stays in sync. I could reconfigure
the FSK to allow more but would lose downlink % on the FSK and add
control slots. Its something we will address once snow starts to fly
and we have more office and less field time.
Its just nice to know we are not the only ones dealing with it.
*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Sean Heskett
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 27, 2016 8:34 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
I'd increase the control slots. On FSK the control slots are a
substantial hit since the aggregate of the sector is 4mbps but on the
450 the control slots are not that huge of a hit. I can't remember
how big they are but it's a cpl hundred Kb.
I'd try increasing them to the max that allows you to stay in sync
with your FSK network and see what happens.
-Sean
On Tuesday, September 27, 2016, Brandon Yuchasz
<li...@gogebicrange.net <mailto:li...@gogebicrange.net>> wrote:
In response to you and George. Yes I am on a 7mhx channel. Co located
with FSK. We froze the conversion for now from FSK to the 450i because
of the concerns we had with the uplink and control slots needed.
Obviously if we got rid of the FSK or did a lot of configuration
changes network wide on FSK we could add more control slots to as
George said to try and increase the ability of the SM to get its
download scheduled. When we hit peak times that’s exactly what we are
running into is the download isn’t always getting scheduled.
*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] *On Behalf Of
*Sean Heskett
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 27, 2016 3:47 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
what channel size are you using? if you are at 7mhz or 10mhz then the
utilization and throughput you mentioned is in line with what i would
expect. if you are on a 20mhz channel then something is wrong or your
noise environment is just bad.
what modulation rates are the SMs running? if you have a lot of 1X or
2X SMs then you'll drag down the whole AP
-Sean
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Brandon Yuchasz
<li...@gogebicrange.net
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','li...@gogebicrange.net');>> wrote:
Its good ( kinda) to see we are not the only ones that are running
into the frame utilization issues with the upload on to the AP. Once
we got to around 20sm we started to see the top of what we could do
with an AP. For those of you that are seeing noise at the AP side but
not at the SM side are you seeing >80% upload in your link tests? If
so are you finding the same load of around 20 SM to be the top where
you hit full frame utilization at peak times? I see our AP's moving
around 30mbps aggregated at peak times never more it seems to be
topped out.
-----Original Message-----
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] On Behalf Of
Ken Hohhof
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 12:44 AM
To: af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
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
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] On Behalf Of
Jay Weekley
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:34 PM
To: af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','geo...@cbcast.com');>
<mailto:geo...@cbcast.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','geo...@cbcast.com');>>>
>>> To: af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
<mailto:af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','geo...@cbcast.com');>
>>>>> <mailto:geo...@cbcast.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','geo...@cbcast.com');>>>
>>>>> To: af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
<mailto:af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ch...@wbmfg.com');>
<mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ch...@wbmfg.com');>>
>>>>>>> To: af@afmug.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> <mailto:af@afmug.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dmmoff...@gmail.com');>>
>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 2:46 PM
>>>>>>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> <mailto:af@afmug.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dmmoff...@gmail.com');>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dmmoff...@gmail.com');>>>
>>>>>>>> To: af@afmug.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> <mailto:af@afmug.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dmilho...@wletc.com');>
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:dmilho...@wletc.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dmilho...@wletc.com');>>>
>>>>>>>>> To: af@afmug.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> <mailto:af@afmug.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
> --
