[AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

[Paul McCall]

We were told recently by Cambium that their Medusa product in 3.65 competes 
favorable with LTE competitors.  We ONLY need it for tree penetration 
challenged customers.

I have a healthy skepticism on 3.65 Medusa being able to magically work better 
that standard 2.4 Ghz penetration, seeing the regular 450SM in 3.65 performed 
as expected compared to a 2.4 Ghz 450SM, meaning not as well.  Seeing that LTE 
or Wimax far exceeds normal 2.4 Ghz gear, expecting 3.65 in 450 series (even 
Medusa) is a strong leap of faith.

We are open minded but skeptical of these recent claims.  We are not happy with 
the LTE options available ATM, having field tested Baicells and Bliniq for a 
while now.

Paul


Paul McCall, President
Florida Broadband / PDMNet
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

[Gino A. Villarini]

The only technical difference between the 450 and 450M in 3.65 that might help 
is mumimo in the uplink.  I don’t think it will be better than LTE though.

What you didn’t like about BlinQ?




Gino Villarini
Founder/President
@gvillarini
t: 787.273.4143 Ext. 204
m:
[https://image.ibb.co/ctQ7jU/aeronet-logo.png]<http://www.aeronetpr.com/>   
[https://image.ibb.co/noQeyp/inc500.png] <https://www.inc.com/profile/aeronet>  
[https://image.ibb.co/e4pBB9/fb-logo.png] <https://www.facebook.com/aeronetpr/> 
[https://image.ibb.co/nxuuW9/insta-logo.png] 
<https://www.instagram.com/aeronetpr/?hl=en>   
[https://image.ibb.co/jhSEW9/in-logo.png] 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/aeronet-broadband-corp> 
[https://image.ibb.co/dqqq4U/tw-logo.png] 
<https://twitter.com/AeroNetPR?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor>
[https://image.ibb.co/bAJcjU/yt-logo.png] 
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr2Q9WBrAYVm3Fn970Jd6VA>
www.aeronetpr.com<http://www.aeronetpr.com> | Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 
Guaynabo, PR 00968
From: AF  on behalf of Paul McCall 
Reply-To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Date: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 6:45 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

We were told recently by Cambium that their Medusa product in 3.65 competes 
favorable with LTE competitors.  We ONLY need it for tree penetration 
challenged customers.

I have a healthy skepticism on 3.65 Medusa being able to magically work better 
that standard 2.4 Ghz penetration, seeing the regular 450SM in 3.65 performed 
as expected compared to a 2.4 Ghz 450SM, meaning not as well.  Seeing that LTE 
or Wimax far exceeds normal 2.4 Ghz gear, expecting 3.65 in 450 series (even 
Medusa) is a strong leap of faith.

We are open minded but skeptical of these recent claims.  We are not happy with 
the LTE options available ATM, having field tested Baicells and Bliniq for a 
while now.

Paul


Paul McCall, President
Florida Broadband / PDMNet
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800

Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication from the sender is 
confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others 
authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the 
contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been 
automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service 
(SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human 
generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find 
out more visit the Mimecast website.
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

[Mark Radabaugh]

I think it’s mostly a matter of managing the expectations and what you want 
3.65 to do.Both platforms overall capacity are degraded by customers with 
poor signals.   LTE hangs on longer in low signal environments than 450. 
Cambium seems to do better in interference.   If you have a area with little 
noise (and not much potential for future noise) LTE might be better for you.  
Pay close attention to the modulation rates, signal level, and overall capacity 
of the AP.   Cambium is likely better in areas with more noise.

Mark

> On Aug 20, 2019, at 5:22 AM, Paul McCall  wrote:
> 
> We were told recently by Cambium that their Medusa product in 3.65 competes 
> favorable with LTE competitors.  We ONLY need it for tree penetration 
> challenged customers. 
>  
> I have a healthy skepticism on 3.65 Medusa being able to magically work 
> better that standard 2.4 Ghz penetration, seeing the regular 450SM in 3.65 
> performed as expected compared to a 2.4 Ghz 450SM, meaning not as well.  
> Seeing that LTE or Wimax far exceeds normal 2.4 Ghz gear, expecting 3.65 in 
> 450 series (even Medusa) is a strong leap of faith.
>  
> We are open minded but skeptical of these recent claims.  We are not happy 
> with the LTE options available ATM, having field tested Baicells and Bliniq 
> for a while now.
>  
> Paul
>  
>  
> Paul McCall, President 
> Florida Broadband / PDMNet
> 658 Old Dixie Highway
> Vero Beach, FL 32962
> 772-564-6800
>  
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com 
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
> 
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

[Ken Hohhof]

WiMAX had little to no magical power against trees when we deployed it.
Trees apparently are hype resistant.  YMMV.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Paul McCall
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:22 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

 

We were told recently by Cambium that their Medusa product in 3.65 competes
favorable with LTE competitors.  We ONLY need it for tree penetration
challenged customers.  

 

I have a healthy skepticism on 3.65 Medusa being able to magically work
better that standard 2.4 Ghz penetration, seeing the regular 450SM in 3.65
performed as expected compared to a 2.4 Ghz 450SM, meaning not as well.
Seeing that LTE or Wimax far exceeds normal 2.4 Ghz gear, expecting 3.65 in
450 series (even Medusa) is a strong leap of faith.

 

We are open minded but skeptical of these recent claims.  We are not happy
with the LTE options available ATM, having field tested Baicells and Bliniq
for a while now.

 

Paul

 

 

Paul McCall, President 

Florida Broadband / PDMNet

658 Old Dixie Highway

Vero Beach, FL 32962

772-564-6800

 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

[Josh Baird]

Quite the opposite for us.  PMP320 could burn through trees!

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:30 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> WiMAX had little to no magical power against trees when we deployed it.
> Trees apparently are hype resistant.  YMMV.
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Paul McCall
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:22 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65
>
>
>
> We were told recently by Cambium that their Medusa product in 3.65
> competes favorable with LTE competitors.  We ONLY need it for tree
> penetration challenged customers.
>
>
>
> I have a healthy skepticism on 3.65 Medusa being able to magically work
> better that standard 2.4 Ghz penetration, seeing the regular 450SM in 3.65
> performed as expected compared to a 2.4 Ghz 450SM, meaning not as well.
> Seeing that LTE or Wimax far exceeds normal 2.4 Ghz gear, expecting 3.65 in
> 450 series (even Medusa) is a strong leap of faith.
>
>
>
> We are open minded but skeptical of these recent claims.  We are not happy
> with the LTE options available ATM, having field tested Baicells and Bliniq
> for a while now.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> *Paul McCall, President *
>
> *Florida Broadband / PDMNet*
>
> *658 Old Dixie Highway*
>
> *Vero Beach, FL 32962*
>
> *772-564-6800*
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

[Eric Muehleisen]

+1

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:58 AM Josh Baird  wrote:

> Quite the opposite for us.  PMP320 could burn through trees!
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:30 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> WiMAX had little to no magical power against trees when we deployed it.
>> Trees apparently are hype resistant.  YMMV.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Paul McCall
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:22 AM
>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65
>>
>>
>>
>> We were told recently by Cambium that their Medusa product in 3.65
>> competes favorable with LTE competitors.  We ONLY need it for tree
>> penetration challenged customers.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have a healthy skepticism on 3.65 Medusa being able to magically work
>> better that standard 2.4 Ghz penetration, seeing the regular 450SM in 3.65
>> performed as expected compared to a 2.4 Ghz 450SM, meaning not as well.
>> Seeing that LTE or Wimax far exceeds normal 2.4 Ghz gear, expecting 3.65 in
>> 450 series (even Medusa) is a strong leap of faith.
>>
>>
>>
>> We are open minded but skeptical of these recent claims.  We are not
>> happy with the LTE options available ATM, having field tested Baicells and
>> Bliniq for a while now.
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Paul McCall, President *
>>
>> *Florida Broadband / PDMNet*
>>
>> *658 Old Dixie Highway*
>>
>> *Vero Beach, FL 32962*
>>
>> *772-564-6800*
>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

[Gino A. Villarini]

Have you looked into TVWS ?


Gino Villarini
Founder/President
@gvillarini
t: 787.273.4143 Ext. 204
m:
[https://image.ibb.co/ctQ7jU/aeronet-logo.png]<http://www.aeronetpr.com/>   
[https://image.ibb.co/noQeyp/inc500.png] <https://www.inc.com/profile/aeronet>  
[https://image.ibb.co/e4pBB9/fb-logo.png] <https://www.facebook.com/aeronetpr/> 
[https://image.ibb.co/nxuuW9/insta-logo.png] 
<https://www.instagram.com/aeronetpr/?hl=en>   
[https://image.ibb.co/jhSEW9/in-logo.png] 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/aeronet-broadband-corp> 
[https://image.ibb.co/dqqq4U/tw-logo.png] 
<https://twitter.com/AeroNetPR?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor>
[https://image.ibb.co/bAJcjU/yt-logo.png] 
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr2Q9WBrAYVm3Fn970Jd6VA>
www.aeronetpr.com<http://www.aeronetpr.com> | Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 
Guaynabo, PR 00968
From: AF  on behalf of Paul McCall 
Reply-To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Date: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 6:45 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

We were told recently by Cambium that their Medusa product in 3.65 competes 
favorable with LTE competitors.  We ONLY need it for tree penetration 
challenged customers.

I have a healthy skepticism on 3.65 Medusa being able to magically work better 
that standard 2.4 Ghz penetration, seeing the regular 450SM in 3.65 performed 
as expected compared to a 2.4 Ghz 450SM, meaning not as well.  Seeing that LTE 
or Wimax far exceeds normal 2.4 Ghz gear, expecting 3.65 in 450 series (even 
Medusa) is a strong leap of faith.

We are open minded but skeptical of these recent claims.  We are not happy with 
the LTE options available ATM, having field tested Baicells and Bliniq for a 
while now.

Paul


Paul McCall, President
Florida Broadband / PDMNet
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800

Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication from the sender is 
confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others 
authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the 
contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been 
automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service 
(SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human 
generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find 
out more visit the Mimecast website.
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

[Ken Hohhof]

The other thing we found with the WiMax stuff (we had Purewave not 320), it was 
(in our experience) pretty much a best effort system.  We couldn’t guarantee 
speed or latency, and we had to tell people no gaming or VoIP and your video 
might buffer.  And it was very limited in how many subscribers we could put on 
it, given that everybody wants to stream Netflix in the evening, plus now 
everybody is installing security cameras that stream to the cloud.  Essentially 
it could keep a connection up, but it was useless for all the things people use 
the Internet for these days.  It was like selling someone a car but telling 
them they couldn’t drive in the rain, they couldn’t go over 25 mph, and they 
couldn’t put a bunch of kids or groceries in it.  Useless.  I have always 
suspected TVWS would have the same issues, for different reasons, it just 
doesn’t seem to have enough capacity for residential broadband, maybe OK for 
industrial machine-machine.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:02 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

 

Have you looked into TVWS ? 

 

Gino Villarini 
Founder/President
@gvillarini
t: 787.273.4143 Ext. 204 
m: 


 <http://www.aeronetpr.com/> 

 <https://www.inc.com/profile/aeronet> 

 <https://www.facebook.com/aeronetpr/>  

 <https://www.instagram.com/aeronetpr/?hl=en>  

 <https://www.linkedin.com/company/aeronet-broadband-corp>  

 
<https://twitter.com/AeroNetPR?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor>
  

 <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr2Q9WBrAYVm3Fn970Jd6VA>  



 <http://www.aeronetpr.com> www.aeronetpr.com | Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 
Guaynabo, PR 00968

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > on behalf 
of Paul McCall mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net> >
Reply-To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Date: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 6:45 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Subject: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

 

We were told recently by Cambium that their Medusa product in 3.65 competes 
favorable with LTE competitors.  We ONLY need it for tree penetration 
challenged customers.  

 

I have a healthy skepticism on 3.65 Medusa being able to magically work better 
that standard 2.4 Ghz penetration, seeing the regular 450SM in 3.65 performed 
as expected compared to a 2.4 Ghz 450SM, meaning not as well.  Seeing that LTE 
or Wimax far exceeds normal 2.4 Ghz gear, expecting 3.65 in 450 series (even 
Medusa) is a strong leap of faith.

 

We are open minded but skeptical of these recent claims.  We are not happy with 
the LTE options available ATM, having field tested Baicells and Bliniq for a 
while now.

 

Paul

 

 

Paul McCall, President 

Florida Broadband / PDMNet

658 Old Dixie Highway

Vero Beach, FL 32962

772-564-6800

 

 

Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication from the sender is 
confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others 
authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the 
contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been 
automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service 
(SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human 
generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find 
out more Click Here <http://www.mimecast.com/products/> .

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

[Adam Moffett]

Yeah I think there's truth to both statements.  You'll lose something 
like 15db per 100 meters of foliage you're passing through.  No 
technological miracle is going to make that attenuation go away.  The 
difference in my reckoning is that most products would deliver crappy 
service when there's crappy signal, whereas Wimax stepped that up to 
/mediocre/ service on a crappy signal.  LTE is another incremental 
improvement over that.


After several years of firmware upgrades our Telrad stuff is more or 
less working//ok, you just need to temper your expectations on 
capacityclaims of 200mbps with carrier aggregation and MU-MIMO have 
a lot of caveats.  Our problems with Telrad basically boil down to over 
complexity, stability, reliability, and our expectations being set too 
high by some overzealous marketing claims.  As far as NLOS, it does work 
better than most of the other options out there.it's basically a one 
trick pony in that regard.  It works nLOS, but you must carefully define 
"works".


-Adam



On 8/20/2019 8:57 AM, Josh Baird wrote:

Quite the opposite for us.  PMP320 could burn through trees!

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:30 AM Ken Hohhof <mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:


WiMAX had little to no magical power against trees when we
deployed it.  Trees apparently are hype resistant.  YMMV.

*From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *Paul McCall
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:22 AM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Subject:* [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

We were told recently by Cambium that their Medusa product in 3.65
competes favorable with LTE competitors.  We ONLY need it for tree
penetration challenged customers.

I have a healthy skepticism on 3.65 Medusa being able to magically
work better that standard 2.4 Ghz penetration, seeing the regular
450SM in 3.65 performed as expected compared to a 2.4 Ghz 450SM,
meaning not as well.  Seeing that LTE or Wimax far exceeds normal
2.4 Ghz gear, expecting 3.65 in 450 series (even Medusa) is a
strong leap of faith.

We are open minded but skeptical of these recent claims.  We are
not happy with the LTE options available ATM, having field tested
Baicells and Bliniq for a while now.

Paul

*Paul McCall, President *

*Florida Broadband / PDMNet*

*658 Old Dixie Highway*

*Vero Beach, FL 32962*

*772-564-6800*

-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com




-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

[Colin Stanners]

I agree on the PMP320's impressive tree penetration. We moved some sites
from PMP320 to PMP450... with the added gain of the PMP450 reflector dish
(8+11dBi vs the PMP320's 14dBi) I expected it to make up for the PMP450's
lower transmit power, and as a result have "similar" final signal levels.
In the end, some customers heavily in trees "lost" up to 10dB of signal and
required moving their mounts etc. So the WiMAX / flat-panel-in-NLOS magic
seems to have been adding around 10dB.

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:58 AM Josh Baird  wrote:

> Quite the opposite for us.  PMP320 could burn through trees!
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:30 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> WiMAX had little to no magical power against trees when we deployed it.
>> Trees apparently are hype resistant.  YMMV.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Paul McCall
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:22 AM
>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65
>>
>>
>>
>> We were told recently by Cambium that their Medusa product in 3.65
>> competes favorable with LTE competitors.  We ONLY need it for tree
>> penetration challenged customers.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have a healthy skepticism on 3.65 Medusa being able to magically work
>> better that standard 2.4 Ghz penetration, seeing the regular 450SM in 3.65
>> performed as expected compared to a 2.4 Ghz 450SM, meaning not as well.
>> Seeing that LTE or Wimax far exceeds normal 2.4 Ghz gear, expecting 3.65 in
>> 450 series (even Medusa) is a strong leap of faith.
>>
>>
>>
>> We are open minded but skeptical of these recent claims.  We are not
>> happy with the LTE options available ATM, having field tested Baicells and
>> Bliniq for a while now.
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Paul McCall, President *
>>
>> *Florida Broadband / PDMNet*
>>
>> *658 Old Dixie Highway*
>>
>> *Vero Beach, FL 32962*
>>
>> *772-564-6800*
>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

[Ken Hohhof]

Probably not applicable to PMP320, but with the Purewave basestations, I’m 
convinced many operators were setting them to max xmt power ignoring FCC limits 
on EIRP.  That of course didn’t help upstream, and the CPE was fairly anemic.  
But downstream, I think that was part of the “magic”.

 

I think with CBRS there is the potential of increased EIRP over what we are 
allowed under Part 90.  Given the huge power consumption of the 3.6 GHz 
PMP450m, I have to suspect it has the power amps to take advantage of higher 
EIRP, not sure about the regular 450 AP.  If I remember correctly though, it 
doesn’t have as many antenna beams as the 5 GHz 450m.  And given the size, 
weight and power consumption, we have sites I doubt we could deploy 4 sectors.

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Colin Stanners
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:50 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

 

I agree on the PMP320's impressive tree penetration. We moved some sites from 
PMP320 to PMP450... with the added gain of the PMP450 reflector dish (8+11dBi 
vs the PMP320's 14dBi) I expected it to make up for the PMP450's lower transmit 
power, and as a result have "similar" final signal levels. In the end, some 
customers heavily in trees "lost" up to 10dB of signal and required moving 
their mounts etc. So the WiMAX / flat-panel-in-NLOS magic seems to have been 
adding around 10dB.

 

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:58 AM Josh Baird mailto:joshba...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Quite the opposite for us.  PMP320 could burn through trees!

 

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:30 AM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com> > wrote:

WiMAX had little to no magical power against trees when we deployed it.  Trees 
apparently are hype resistant.  YMMV.

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Paul McCall
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:22 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Subject: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

 

We were told recently by Cambium that their Medusa product in 3.65 competes 
favorable with LTE competitors.  We ONLY need it for tree penetration 
challenged customers.  

 

I have a healthy skepticism on 3.65 Medusa being able to magically work better 
that standard 2.4 Ghz penetration, seeing the regular 450SM in 3.65 performed 
as expected compared to a 2.4 Ghz 450SM, meaning not as well.  Seeing that LTE 
or Wimax far exceeds normal 2.4 Ghz gear, expecting 3.65 in 450 series (even 
Medusa) is a strong leap of faith.

 

We are open minded but skeptical of these recent claims.  We are not happy with 
the LTE options available ATM, having field tested Baicells and Bliniq for a 
while now.

 

Paul

 

 

Paul McCall, President 

Florida Broadband / PDMNet

658 Old Dixie Highway

Vero Beach, FL 32962

772-564-6800

 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

[Steve Jones]

We are at decision time on what to do with the 320/ubnt 3ghz, same boat on
decisions. LTE is a brand new horse to us, but the historic issues of
interference frighten my more than walking in on my wife with another man
when she should be doing laundry, I need clean work shirts. We had done
some base testing with baicells and we considering the trigger pull, but we
have the 450 out, and its performed as well or better than expected, this
is not i or m but it was considered, by us to be a drop in replacement for
the wimax, and ePMP to pick up the LOS UBNT junk.
Ive been trying to find out what SAS is actually doing real world, but I
dont know that the trial operators are allowed to speak of it without
ending up in a lake with concrete shoes. If SAS solves all the worlds woes
regarding interference, its a cost no brainer to deploy the crap out of
baicells, take the range hit, and fill the gaps with microcells where
required.
but, 450, being the horse it is, works, and works well, even in the
interference we have. Its drop in for us on the wimax because we were very
careful on EIRP to not push our luck. we may take a 1x hit here and there,
but offloading the LOS customers to EPMP will make up for that. May still
require the occasional non standard solution for the customers that just
dont work on anything other than the wimax, solely because it connected at
such a crummy level. We should have addressed them historically anyway
though.

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:17 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> Probably not applicable to PMP320, but with the Purewave basestations, I’m
> convinced many operators were setting them to max xmt power ignoring FCC
> limits on EIRP.  That of course didn’t help upstream, and the CPE was
> fairly anemic.  But downstream, I think that was part of the “magic”.
>
>
>
> I think with CBRS there is the potential of increased EIRP over what we
> are allowed under Part 90.  Given the huge power consumption of the 3.6 GHz
> PMP450m, I have to suspect it has the power amps to take advantage of
> higher EIRP, not sure about the regular 450 AP.  If I remember correctly
> though, it doesn’t have as many antenna beams as the 5 GHz 450m.  And given
> the size, weight and power consumption, we have sites I doubt we could
> deploy 4 sectors.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Colin Stanners
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:50 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65
>
>
>
> I agree on the PMP320's impressive tree penetration. We moved some sites
> from PMP320 to PMP450... with the added gain of the PMP450 reflector dish
> (8+11dBi vs the PMP320's 14dBi) I expected it to make up for the PMP450's
> lower transmit power, and as a result have "similar" final signal levels.
> In the end, some customers heavily in trees "lost" up to 10dB of signal and
> required moving their mounts etc. So the WiMAX / flat-panel-in-NLOS magic
> seems to have been adding around 10dB.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:58 AM Josh Baird  wrote:
>
> Quite the opposite for us.  PMP320 could burn through trees!
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:30 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
> WiMAX had little to no magical power against trees when we deployed it.
> Trees apparently are hype resistant.  YMMV.
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Paul McCall
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:22 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65
>
>
>
> We were told recently by Cambium that their Medusa product in 3.65
> competes favorable with LTE competitors.  We ONLY need it for tree
> penetration challenged customers.
>
>
>
> I have a healthy skepticism on 3.65 Medusa being able to magically work
> better that standard 2.4 Ghz penetration, seeing the regular 450SM in 3.65
> performed as expected compared to a 2.4 Ghz 450SM, meaning not as well.
> Seeing that LTE or Wimax far exceeds normal 2.4 Ghz gear, expecting 3.65 in
> 450 series (even Medusa) is a strong leap of faith.
>
>
>
> We are open minded but skeptical of these recent claims.  We are not happy
> with the LTE options available ATM, having field tested Baicells and Bliniq
> for a while now.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> *Paul McCall, President *
>
> *Florida Broadband / PDMNet*
>
> *658 Old Dixie Highway*
>
> *Vero Beach, FL 32962*
>
> *772-564-6800*
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

[Paul McCall]

Great feedback everyone.  Kinda what I figured though.  No special sauce added 
on the MU-Mimo part of the 450 APs that overcome tree penetration issues.  We 
have had good luck with the 320s for the most part, but they are only ¾ baked 
as a system , and far from being future proof, capacity wise.

The 3.65 band  in general makes they choice a bit tentative.  Meaning  you can 
spend a bunch of money on LTE gear and have a $ 150 UBNT device start 
interfering with you, with little recourse.  Ouch.  No 2.5ghz band available in 
my area.

And, In Florida our ROI sheet has to account for more equipment damage that 
most, so its not an easy call.

Paul


From: AF  On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11:36 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

We are at decision time on what to do with the 320/ubnt 3ghz, same boat on 
decisions. LTE is a brand new horse to us, but the historic issues of 
interference frighten my more than walking in on my wife with another man when 
she should be doing laundry, I need clean work shirts. We had done some base 
testing with baicells and we considering the trigger pull, but we have the 450 
out, and its performed as well or better than expected, this is not i or m but 
it was considered, by us to be a drop in replacement for the wimax, and ePMP to 
pick up the LOS UBNT junk.
Ive been trying to find out what SAS is actually doing real world, but I dont 
know that the trial operators are allowed to speak of it without ending up in a 
lake with concrete shoes. If SAS solves all the worlds woes regarding 
interference, its a cost no brainer to deploy the crap out of baicells, take 
the range hit, and fill the gaps with microcells where required.
but, 450, being the horse it is, works, and works well, even in the 
interference we have. Its drop in for us on the wimax because we were very 
careful on EIRP to not push our luck. we may take a 1x hit here and there, but 
offloading the LOS customers to EPMP will make up for that. May still require 
the occasional non standard solution for the customers that just dont work on 
anything other than the wimax, solely because it connected at such a crummy 
level. We should have addressed them historically anyway though.

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:17 AM Ken Hohhof 
mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:
Probably not applicable to PMP320, but with the Purewave basestations, I’m 
convinced many operators were setting them to max xmt power ignoring FCC limits 
on EIRP.  That of course didn’t help upstream, and the CPE was fairly anemic.  
But downstream, I think that was part of the “magic”.

I think with CBRS there is the potential of increased EIRP over what we are 
allowed under Part 90.  Given the huge power consumption of the 3.6 GHz 
PMP450m, I have to suspect it has the power amps to take advantage of higher 
EIRP, not sure about the regular 450 AP.  If I remember correctly though, it 
doesn’t have as many antenna beams as the 5 GHz 450m.  And given the size, 
weight and power consumption, we have sites I doubt we could deploy 4 sectors.


From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf Of 
Colin Stanners
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:50 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

I agree on the PMP320's impressive tree penetration. We moved some sites from 
PMP320 to PMP450... with the added gain of the PMP450 reflector dish (8+11dBi 
vs the PMP320's 14dBi) I expected it to make up for the PMP450's lower transmit 
power, and as a result have "similar" final signal levels. In the end, some 
customers heavily in trees "lost" up to 10dB of signal and required moving 
their mounts etc. So the WiMAX / flat-panel-in-NLOS magic seems to have been 
adding around 10dB.

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:58 AM Josh Baird 
mailto:joshba...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Quite the opposite for us.  PMP320 could burn through trees!

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:30 AM Ken Hohhof 
mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:
WiMAX had little to no magical power against trees when we deployed it.  Trees 
apparently are hype resistant.  YMMV.

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf Of 
Paul McCall
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:22 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
Subject: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

We were told recently by Cambium that their Medusa product in 3.65 competes 
favorable with LTE competitors.  We ONLY need it for tree penetration 
challenged customers.

I have a healthy skepticism on 3.65 Medusa being able to magically work better 
that standard 2.4 Ghz penetration, seeing the regular 450SM in 3.65 performed 
as expected compared to a 2.4 Ghz 450SM, meaning not as well.  Seeing that LTE 
or Wimax far exceeds normal 2.4 Ghz gear, expecting 3.65 in 450 series (even 
Medusa) is a strong leap of faith.

We are open minded 

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

[Paul McCall]

From who Gino?   Been at least a year since we looked… was costly, and reviews 
from others not so hot

Paul

From: AF  On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:02 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

Have you looked into TVWS ?


Gino Villarini
Founder/President
@gvillarini
t: 787.273.4143 Ext. 204
m:
[aeronet-logo]<http://www.aeronetpr.com/>
[inc500]<https://www.inc.com/profile/aeronet>
[fb-logo]<https://www.facebook.com/aeronetpr/>
[insta-logo]<https://www.instagram.com/aeronetpr/?hl=en>
[in-logo]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/aeronet-broadband-corp>
[tw-logo]<https://twitter.com/AeroNetPR?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor>
[yt-logo]<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr2Q9WBrAYVm3Fn970Jd6VA>

www.aeronetpr.com<http://www.aeronetpr.com> | Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 
Guaynabo, PR 00968
From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> on behalf of 
Paul McCall mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net>>
Reply-To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
Date: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 6:45 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
Subject: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

We were told recently by Cambium that their Medusa product in 3.65 competes 
favorable with LTE competitors.  We ONLY need it for tree penetration 
challenged customers.

I have a healthy skepticism on 3.65 Medusa being able to magically work better 
that standard 2.4 Ghz penetration, seeing the regular 450SM in 3.65 performed 
as expected compared to a 2.4 Ghz 450SM, meaning not as well.  Seeing that LTE 
or Wimax far exceeds normal 2.4 Ghz gear, expecting 3.65 in 450 series (even 
Medusa) is a strong leap of faith.

We are open minded but skeptical of these recent claims.  We are not happy with 
the LTE options available ATM, having field tested Baicells and Bliniq for a 
while now.

Paul


Paul McCall, President
Florida Broadband / PDMNet
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800



Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication from the sender is 
confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others 
authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the 
contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been 
automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service 
(SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human 
generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find 
out more Click Here<http://www.mimecast.com/products/>.
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

[Steve Jones]

Sas is suppposed to eliminate the rogue ubnt gear. Im assuming there is
recourse if there is an illegal operator, but as far as i know, that path
is not clearly defined

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 8:43 AM Paul McCall  wrote:

> Great feedback everyone.  Kinda what I figured though.  No special sauce
> added on the MU-Mimo part of the 450 APs that overcome tree penetration
> issues.  We have had good luck with the 320s for the most part, but they
> are only ¾ baked as a system , and far from being future proof, capacity
> wise.
>
>
>
> The 3.65 band  in general makes they choice a bit tentative.  Meaning  you
> can spend a bunch of money on LTE gear and have a $ 150 UBNT device start
> interfering with you, with little recourse.  Ouch.  No 2.5ghz band
> available in my area.
>
>
>
> And, In Florida our ROI sheet has to account for more equipment damage
> that most, so its not an easy call.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of * Steve Jones
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11:36 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65
>
>
>
> We are at decision time on what to do with the 320/ubnt 3ghz, same boat on
> decisions. LTE is a brand new horse to us, but the historic issues of
> interference frighten my more than walking in on my wife with another man
> when she should be doing laundry, I need clean work shirts. We had done
> some base testing with baicells and we considering the trigger pull, but we
> have the 450 out, and its performed as well or better than expected, this
> is not i or m but it was considered, by us to be a drop in replacement for
> the wimax, and ePMP to pick up the LOS UBNT junk.
>
> Ive been trying to find out what SAS is actually doing real world, but I
> dont know that the trial operators are allowed to speak of it without
> ending up in a lake with concrete shoes. If SAS solves all the worlds woes
> regarding interference, its a cost no brainer to deploy the crap out of
> baicells, take the range hit, and fill the gaps with microcells where
> required.
>
> but, 450, being the horse it is, works, and works well, even in the
> interference we have. Its drop in for us on the wimax because we were very
> careful on EIRP to not push our luck. we may take a 1x hit here and there,
> but offloading the LOS customers to EPMP will make up for that. May still
> require the occasional non standard solution for the customers that just
> dont work on anything other than the wimax, solely because it connected at
> such a crummy level. We should have addressed them historically anyway
> though.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:17 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
> Probably not applicable to PMP320, but with the Purewave basestations, I’m
> convinced many operators were setting them to max xmt power ignoring FCC
> limits on EIRP.  That of course didn’t help upstream, and the CPE was
> fairly anemic.  But downstream, I think that was part of the “magic”.
>
>
>
> I think with CBRS there is the potential of increased EIRP over what we
> are allowed under Part 90.  Given the huge power consumption of the 3.6 GHz
> PMP450m, I have to suspect it has the power amps to take advantage of
> higher EIRP, not sure about the regular 450 AP.  If I remember correctly
> though, it doesn’t have as many antenna beams as the 5 GHz 450m.  And given
> the size, weight and power consumption, we have sites I doubt we could
> deploy 4 sectors.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Colin Stanners
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:50 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65
>
>
>
> I agree on the PMP320's impressive tree penetration. We moved some sites
> from PMP320 to PMP450... with the added gain of the PMP450 reflector dish
> (8+11dBi vs the PMP320's 14dBi) I expected it to make up for the PMP450's
> lower transmit power, and as a result have "similar" final signal levels.
> In the end, some customers heavily in trees "lost" up to 10dB of signal and
> required moving their mounts etc. So the WiMAX / flat-panel-in-NLOS magic
> seems to have been adding around 10dB.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:58 AM Josh Baird  wrote:
>
> Quite the opposite for us.  PMP320 could burn through trees!
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:30 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
> WiMAX had little to no magical power against trees when we deployed it.
> Trees apparently are hype resistant.  YMMV.
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Paul McCall
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:22 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65
&g

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

[Ken Hohhof]

Not really SAS per se,  but the fact that at some date, legacy Part 90 
equipment that can’t be certified under Part 96 is supposed to be 
decommissioned.  That means WiMAX stuff like PMP320 as well as Ubiquiti M 
series and AF3x.

 

I think it’s a bit naïve though to assume this will “eliminate” that gear like 
waving a magic wand.  Yes, responsible network operators will replace a lot of 
it with CBRS equipment or something else, but it’s not just going to turn into 
pumpkins at midnight because the FCC wishes it.  We have some grandfathered 
backhauls with AF3x and even some Rockets and Powerbridges, those won’t be 
going CBRS, probably 11 GHz where possible.

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 8:54 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

 

Sas is suppposed to eliminate the rogue ubnt gear. Im assuming there is 
recourse if there is an illegal operator, but as far as i know, that path is 
not clearly defined

 

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 8:43 AM Paul McCall mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net> > wrote:

Great feedback everyone.  Kinda what I figured though.  No special sauce added 
on the MU-Mimo part of the 450 APs that overcome tree penetration issues.  We 
have had good luck with the 320s for the most part, but they are only ¾ baked 
as a system , and far from being future proof, capacity wise.

 

The 3.65 band  in general makes they choice a bit tentative.  Meaning  you can 
spend a bunch of money on LTE gear and have a $ 150 UBNT device start 
interfering with you, with little recourse.  Ouch.  No 2.5ghz band available in 
my area.

 

And, In Florida our ROI sheet has to account for more equipment damage that 
most, so its not an easy call.

 

Paul

 

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Steve Jones
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11:36 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

 

We are at decision time on what to do with the 320/ubnt 3ghz, same boat on 
decisions. LTE is a brand new horse to us, but the historic issues of 
interference frighten my more than walking in on my wife with another man when 
she should be doing laundry, I need clean work shirts. We had done some base 
testing with baicells and we considering the trigger pull, but we have the 450 
out, and its performed as well or better than expected, this is not i or m but 
it was considered, by us to be a drop in replacement for the wimax, and ePMP to 
pick up the LOS UBNT junk. 

Ive been trying to find out what SAS is actually doing real world, but I dont 
know that the trial operators are allowed to speak of it without ending up in a 
lake with concrete shoes. If SAS solves all the worlds woes regarding 
interference, its a cost no brainer to deploy the crap out of baicells, take 
the range hit, and fill the gaps with microcells where required. 

but, 450, being the horse it is, works, and works well, even in the 
interference we have. Its drop in for us on the wimax because we were very 
careful on EIRP to not push our luck. we may take a 1x hit here and there, but 
offloading the LOS customers to EPMP will make up for that. May still require 
the occasional non standard solution for the customers that just dont work on 
anything other than the wimax, solely because it connected at such a crummy 
level. We should have addressed them historically anyway though.

 

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:17 AM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com> > wrote:

Probably not applicable to PMP320, but with the Purewave basestations, I’m 
convinced many operators were setting them to max xmt power ignoring FCC limits 
on EIRP.  That of course didn’t help upstream, and the CPE was fairly anemic.  
But downstream, I think that was part of the “magic”.

 

I think with CBRS there is the potential of increased EIRP over what we are 
allowed under Part 90.  Given the huge power consumption of the 3.6 GHz 
PMP450m, I have to suspect it has the power amps to take advantage of higher 
EIRP, not sure about the regular 450 AP.  If I remember correctly though, it 
doesn’t have as many antenna beams as the 5 GHz 450m.  And given the size, 
weight and power consumption, we have sites I doubt we could deploy 4 sectors.

 

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Colin Stanners
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:50 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

 

I agree on the PMP320's impressive tree penetration. We moved some sites from 
PMP320 to PMP450... with the added gain of the PMP450 reflector dish (8+11dBi 
vs the PMP320's 14dBi) I expected it to make up for the PMP450's lower transmit 
power, and as a result have "similar" final signal levels. In the end, some 
customers heavily in trees "lost" up to 10dB of signal and required moving 
their

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

[Adam Moffett]

Good point.

We have a tower with old Alvarion Wimax gear on it.   We know we'll have 
to replace it with something that talks to the SAS, but it's a tough 
pill to swallow.  LTE is expensive and a new Wimax product would be a 
dead end, but it's almost 100% nLOS so we basically have to pick between 
those two flavors of crap sandwich.


We basically decided on LTE and it'll get done, but I could imagine 
people in that circumstance operating out of compliance for awhile 
because they can't pay for the replacement.  There's also going to be 
/somebody/ out there who hasn't been paying attention and has no idea 
that their hardware is going to become illegal.


-Adam



On 8/21/2019 10:28 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:


Not really SAS per se,  but the fact that at some date, legacy Part 90 
equipment that can’t be certified under Part 96 is supposed to be 
decommissioned.  That means WiMAX stuff like PMP320 as well as 
Ubiquiti M series and AF3x.


I think it’s a bit naïve though to assume this will “eliminate” that 
gear like waving a magic wand. Yes, responsible network operators will 
replace a lot of it with CBRS equipment or something else, but it’s 
not just going to turn into pumpkins at midnight because the FCC 
wishes it. We have some grandfathered backhauls with AF3x and even 
some Rockets and Powerbridges, those won’t be going CBRS, probably 11 
GHz where possible.


*From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 21, 2019 8:54 AM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

Sas is suppposed to eliminate the rogue ubnt gear. Im assuming there 
is recourse if there is an illegal operator, but as far as i know, 
that path is not clearly defined


On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 8:43 AM Paul McCall <mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net>> wrote:


Great feedback everyone.  Kinda what I figured though.  No special
sauce added on the MU-Mimo part of the 450 APs that overcome tree
penetration issues.  We have had good luck with the 320s for the
most part, but they are only ¾ baked as a system , and far from
being future proof, capacity wise.

The 3.65 band  in general makes they choice a bit tentative. 
Meaning  you can spend a bunch of money on LTE gear and have a $
150 UBNT device start interfering with you, with little recourse. 
Ouch.  No 2.5ghz band available in my area.

And, In Florida our ROI sheet has to account for more equipment
damage that most, so its not an easy call.

Paul

*From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11:36 AM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

We are at decision time on what to do with the 320/ubnt 3ghz, same
boat on decisions. LTE is a brand new horse to us, but the
historic issues of interference frighten my more than walking in
on my wife with another man when she should be doing laundry, I
need clean work shirts. We had done some base testing with
baicells and we considering the trigger pull, but we have the 450
out, and its performed as well or better than expected, this is
not i or m but it was considered, by us to be a drop in
replacement for the wimax, and ePMP to pick up the LOS UBNT junk.

Ive been trying to find out what SAS is actually doing real world,
but I dont know that the trial operators are allowed to speak of
it without ending up in a lake with concrete shoes. If SAS solves
all the worlds woes regarding interference, its a cost no brainer
to deploy the crap out of baicells, take the range hit, and fill
the gaps with microcells where required.

but, 450, being the horse it is, works, and works well, even in
the interference we have. Its drop in for us on the wimax because
we were very careful on EIRP to not push our luck. we may take a
1x hit here and there, but offloading the LOS customers to EPMP
will make up for that. May still require the occasional non
standard solution for the customers that just dont work on
anything other than the wimax, solely because it connected at such
a crummy level. We should have addressed them historically anyway
though.

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:17 AM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:

Probably not applicable to PMP320, but with the Purewave
basestations, I’m convinced many operators were setting them
to max xmt power ignoring FCC limits on EIRP.  That of course
didn’t help upstream, and the CPE was fairly anemic.  But
downstream, I think that was part of the “magic”.

I think with CBRS there is the potential of increased EIRP
over what we are allowed under Part 90.  Given the huge power
consumption of the 3.6 GHz PMP450m, I have to suspect it has
   

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

[Steve Jones]

its got to be turned down in april

we are converting everything, we missed the deadline about signing up to be
grandfathered before we even knew about it, besides the grandfathering isnt
likely to give any authority

I dont know if theyll even tell us how to report unauthorized transmitters,
and even if we get a mechanism I have to question whether theyll enforce
anything on behalf of a nobody operator like us


On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 9:42 AM Adam Moffett  wrote:

> Good point.
>
> We have a tower with old Alvarion Wimax gear on it.   We know we'll have
> to replace it with something that talks to the SAS, but it's a tough pill
> to swallow.  LTE is expensive and a new Wimax product would be a dead end,
> but it's almost 100% nLOS so we basically have to pick between those two
> flavors of crap sandwich.
>
> We basically decided on LTE and it'll get done, but I could imagine people
> in that circumstance operating out of compliance for awhile because they
> can't pay for the replacement.  There's also going to be *somebody* out
> there who hasn't been paying attention and has no idea that their hardware
> is going to become illegal.
>
> -Adam
>
>
>
> On 8/21/2019 10:28 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>
> Not really SAS per se,  but the fact that at some date, legacy Part 90
> equipment that can’t be certified under Part 96 is supposed to be
> decommissioned.  That means WiMAX stuff like PMP320 as well as Ubiquiti M
> series and AF3x.
>
>
>
> I think it’s a bit naïve though to assume this will “eliminate” that gear
> like waving a magic wand.  Yes, responsible network operators will replace
> a lot of it with CBRS equipment or something else, but it’s not just going
> to turn into pumpkins at midnight because the FCC wishes it.  We have some
> grandfathered backhauls with AF3x and even some Rockets and Powerbridges,
> those won’t be going CBRS, probably 11 GHz where possible.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF   *On Behalf
> Of *Steve Jones
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 21, 2019 8:54 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group  
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65
>
>
>
> Sas is suppposed to eliminate the rogue ubnt gear. Im assuming there is
> recourse if there is an illegal operator, but as far as i know, that path
> is not clearly defined
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 8:43 AM Paul McCall  wrote:
>
> Great feedback everyone.  Kinda what I figured though.  No special sauce
> added on the MU-Mimo part of the 450 APs that overcome tree penetration
> issues.  We have had good luck with the 320s for the most part, but they
> are only ¾ baked as a system , and far from being future proof, capacity
> wise.
>
>
>
> The 3.65 band  in general makes they choice a bit tentative.  Meaning  you
> can spend a bunch of money on LTE gear and have a $ 150 UBNT device start
> interfering with you, with little recourse.  Ouch.  No 2.5ghz band
> available in my area.
>
>
>
> And, In Florida our ROI sheet has to account for more equipment damage
> that most, so its not an easy call.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11:36 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65
>
>
>
> We are at decision time on what to do with the 320/ubnt 3ghz, same boat on
> decisions. LTE is a brand new horse to us, but the historic issues of
> interference frighten my more than walking in on my wife with another man
> when she should be doing laundry, I need clean work shirts. We had done
> some base testing with baicells and we considering the trigger pull, but we
> have the 450 out, and its performed as well or better than expected, this
> is not i or m but it was considered, by us to be a drop in replacement for
> the wimax, and ePMP to pick up the LOS UBNT junk.
>
> Ive been trying to find out what SAS is actually doing real world, but I
> dont know that the trial operators are allowed to speak of it without
> ending up in a lake with concrete shoes. If SAS solves all the worlds woes
> regarding interference, its a cost no brainer to deploy the crap out of
> baicells, take the range hit, and fill the gaps with microcells where
> required.
>
> but, 450, being the horse it is, works, and works well, even in the
> interference we have. Its drop in for us on the wimax because we were very
> careful on EIRP to not push our luck. we may take a 1x hit here and there,
> but offloading the LOS customers to EPMP will make up for that. May still
> require the occasional non standard solution for the customers that just
> dont work on anything other than the wimax, solely because it connected at
&g

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

[Ken Hohhof]

Isn’t WISPA still trying to get an extension?  The start date slipped 5 years 
but the end date stayed the same.  But probably the govt doesn’t care because 
only us nobodies deployed under Part 90, not important entities like AT&T and 
Verizon.  So transition?  What transition?  This is greenfield spectrum (for 
the cellcos).

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 1:21 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

 

its got to be turned down in april

 

we are converting everything, we missed the deadline about signing up to be 
grandfathered before we even knew about it, besides the grandfathering isnt 
likely to give any authority

 

I dont know if theyll even tell us how to report unauthorized transmitters, and 
even if we get a mechanism I have to question whether theyll enforce anything 
on behalf of a nobody operator like us

 

 

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 9:42 AM Adam Moffett mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Good point.

We have a tower with old Alvarion Wimax gear on it.   We know we'll have to 
replace it with something that talks to the SAS, but it's a tough pill to 
swallow.  LTE is expensive and a new Wimax product would be a dead end, but 
it's almost 100% nLOS so we basically have to pick between those two flavors of 
crap sandwich.

We basically decided on LTE and it'll get done, but I could imagine people in 
that circumstance operating out of compliance for awhile because they can't pay 
for the replacement.  There's also going to be somebody out there who hasn't 
been paying attention and has no idea that their hardware is going to become 
illegal. 

-Adam




On 8/21/2019 10:28 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Not really SAS per se,  but the fact that at some date, legacy Part 90 
equipment that can’t be certified under Part 96 is supposed to be 
decommissioned.  That means WiMAX stuff like PMP320 as well as Ubiquiti M 
series and AF3x.

 

I think it’s a bit naïve though to assume this will “eliminate” that gear like 
waving a magic wand.  Yes, responsible network operators will replace a lot of 
it with CBRS equipment or something else, but it’s not just going to turn into 
pumpkins at midnight because the FCC wishes it.  We have some grandfathered 
backhauls with AF3x and even some Rockets and Powerbridges, those won’t be 
going CBRS, probably 11 GHz where possible.

 

 

From: AF  <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>  On Behalf 
Of Steve Jones
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 8:54 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group  <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

 

Sas is suppposed to eliminate the rogue ubnt gear. Im assuming there is 
recourse if there is an illegal operator, but as far as i know, that path is 
not clearly defined

 

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 8:43 AM Paul McCall mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net> > wrote:

Great feedback everyone.  Kinda what I figured though.  No special sauce added 
on the MU-Mimo part of the 450 APs that overcome tree penetration issues.  We 
have had good luck with the 320s for the most part, but they are only ¾ baked 
as a system , and far from being future proof, capacity wise.

 

The 3.65 band  in general makes they choice a bit tentative.  Meaning  you can 
spend a bunch of money on LTE gear and have a $ 150 UBNT device start 
interfering with you, with little recourse.  Ouch.  No 2.5ghz band available in 
my area.

 

And, In Florida our ROI sheet has to account for more equipment damage that 
most, so its not an easy call.

 

Paul

 

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Steve Jones
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11:36 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

 

We are at decision time on what to do with the 320/ubnt 3ghz, same boat on 
decisions. LTE is a brand new horse to us, but the historic issues of 
interference frighten my more than walking in on my wife with another man when 
she should be doing laundry, I need clean work shirts. We had done some base 
testing with baicells and we considering the trigger pull, but we have the 450 
out, and its performed as well or better than expected, this is not i or m but 
it was considered, by us to be a drop in replacement for the wimax, and ePMP to 
pick up the LOS UBNT junk. 

Ive been trying to find out what SAS is actually doing real world, but I dont 
know that the trial operators are allowed to speak of it without ending up in a 
lake with concrete shoes. If SAS solves all the worlds woes regarding 
interference, its a cost no brainer to deploy the crap out of baicells, take 
the range hit, and fill the gaps with microcells where required. 

but, 450, being the horse it is, works, and works well, even in the 
interference we have. Its drop in for us on the wimax because we were very 
careful on EIRP to not push our luck. we may take a

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65

[Jeff Broadwick - Lists]

Asking for three years, but likely to take something less, with an appeal 
process for specific situations.  It’s a moving target.

Jeff Broadwick
CTIconnect
312-205-2519 Office
574-220-7826 Cell
jbroadw...@cticonnect.com

> On Aug 21, 2019, at 4:02 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
> 
> Isn’t WISPA still trying to get an extension?  The start date slipped 5 years 
> but the end date stayed the same.  But probably the govt doesn’t care because 
> only us nobodies deployed under Part 90, not important entities like AT&T and 
> Verizon.  So transition?  What transition?  This is greenfield spectrum (for 
> the cellcos).
>  
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Steve Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 1:21 PM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65
>  
> its got to be turned down in april
>  
> we are converting everything, we missed the deadline about signing up to be 
> grandfathered before we even knew about it, besides the grandfathering isnt 
> likely to give any authority
>  
> I dont know if theyll even tell us how to report unauthorized transmitters, 
> and even if we get a mechanism I have to question whether theyll enforce 
> anything on behalf of a nobody operator like us
>  
>  
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 9:42 AM Adam Moffett  wrote:
> Good point.
> 
> We have a tower with old Alvarion Wimax gear on it.   We know we'll have to 
> replace it with something that talks to the SAS, but it's a tough pill to 
> swallow.  LTE is expensive and a new Wimax product would be a dead end, but 
> it's almost 100% nLOS so we basically have to pick between those two flavors 
> of crap sandwich.
> 
> We basically decided on LTE and it'll get done, but I could imagine people in 
> that circumstance operating out of compliance for awhile because they can't 
> pay for the replacement.  There's also going to be somebody out there who 
> hasn't been paying attention and has no idea that their hardware is going to 
> become illegal. 
> 
> -Adam
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/21/2019 10:28 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> Not really SAS per se,  but the fact that at some date, legacy Part 90 
> equipment that can’t be certified under Part 96 is supposed to be 
> decommissioned.  That means WiMAX stuff like PMP320 as well as Ubiquiti M 
> series and AF3x.
>  
> I think it’s a bit naïve though to assume this will “eliminate” that gear 
> like waving a magic wand.  Yes, responsible network operators will replace a 
> lot of it with CBRS equipment or something else, but it’s not just going to 
> turn into pumpkins at midnight because the FCC wishes it.  We have some 
> grandfathered backhauls with AF3x and even some Rockets and Powerbridges, 
> those won’t be going CBRS, probably 11 GHz where possible.
>  
>  
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Steve Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 8:54 AM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65
>  
> Sas is suppposed to eliminate the rogue ubnt gear. Im assuming there is 
> recourse if there is an illegal operator, but as far as i know, that path is 
> not clearly defined
>  
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 8:43 AM Paul McCall  wrote:
> Great feedback everyone.  Kinda what I figured though.  No special sauce 
> added on the MU-Mimo part of the 450 APs that overcome tree penetration 
> issues.  We have had good luck with the 320s for the most part, but they are 
> only ¾ baked as a system , and far from being future proof, capacity wise.
>  
> The 3.65 band  in general makes they choice a bit tentative.  Meaning  you 
> can spend a bunch of money on LTE gear and have a $ 150 UBNT device start 
> interfering with you, with little recourse.  Ouch.  No 2.5ghz band available 
> in my area.
>  
> And, In Florida our ROI sheet has to account for more equipment damage that 
> most, so its not an easy call.
>  
> Paul
>  
>  
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Steve Jones
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11:36 AM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Medusa in 3.65
>  
> We are at decision time on what to do with the 320/ubnt 3ghz, same boat on 
> decisions. LTE is a brand new horse to us, but the historic issues of 
> interference frighten my more than walking in on my wife with another man 
> when she should be doing laundry, I need clean work shirts. We had done some 
> base testing with baicells and we considering the trigger pull, but we have 
> the 450 out, and its performed as well or better than expected, this is not i 
> or m but it was considered, by us to be a drop in replacement for the wimax, 
> and ePMP to pick up the LOS UBNT junk. 
> Ive been trying to find out what SAS is actually doing real wor