Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Matt Hoppes]

David,
Out of curiosity - what signal level are you installing customers to 
BLiNQ that you wouldn't install them to 450 on?


On 11/9/20 7:22 PM, David Coudron wrote:
Sorry for the very slow reply.   We have been putting up towers like 
crazy trying to stay ahead of the weather.   Here are some things we 
have found that in our opinion, moved us toward a Blinq/LTE decision:


 1. What has been said in this thread about the complexity of LTE is
absolutely true.   EPCs, Software maintenance agreements, complex
tower designs, and expensive equipment, are all the norm with LTE.  
Very frustrating.    What we found with Blinq is a relief in some of

these frustration points:
 1. An option for an embedded EPC.   Still a little more setup than
5 GHz type systems, but not really any more difficult than
cnMaestro setup for CBRS for a new workstation.
 2. More reasonable software maintenance options
 3. Simple network design.   180 degree Access Points, self
contained, no EPC or other controllers, very simple.  Just run
power and fiber to each Access Point, just like any other
Cambium access point.
 4. Reasonably priced.   The Access Points are about the same as PMP
450m, but cover 180 degrees.
 2. Our problem was not capacity or throughput, it was coverage with
lots of trees.   Therefore, a solution that had less overall
capacity, but better coverage was a better fit for us.  After
talking with other WISPs that had run both 450m and Blinq, we think
this fits that requirement.
 3. We have a number of 450i access points in place.   We understand
that 450i and 450 are not the same due to a few factors, not the
least of which is max EIRP, however, we can run max EIRP on the
Blinqs and we were getting non-LOS coverage in our tests we wouldn’t
even attempt with the 450i’s.   I know that folks will say that 450m
will do lots better than 450i, but from talking to folks who have
run both 450m and Blinq, the LTE technology handles trees better
than 450m at the same EIRP.   I am not trying to start a war on this
topic, but that is what we learned.

For folks who need lots of capacity on each tower, the solution we went 
with may not be the right path, and the 450m might be a far better 
choice.   However, we have a pretty significant tree problem and felt we 
had to do everything we could to get the best non-LOS we could.


A couple of other notes.  As others have said, cnHeat is awesome.   We 
modeled our towers using their non-LOS settings and tested out the Blinq 
radios in partial LOS and complete non-LOS and compared against the 
results cnHeat said we should get.   It is very accurate.


As others have said the PMP 450m equipment is pretty hard to get, and we 
had to know we could get the equipment for all towers by the middle of 
Nov.   We wouldn’t have been able to do that with 450m and wouldn’t have 
been able to do this project.


I would love to see the Cambium CBRS LTE solution, but we just couldn’t 
wait for it.  This project has to be done by the end of the year.


We’ll know a heck of a lot more in two months when we get several 
customers on each tower.   Right now it is a lot of test results, but 
not enough real world.    We went through this process pretty fast, so 
take our decisions with a grain of salt… 


Regards,

David Coudron

*From:* AF  *On Behalf Of * David Coudron
*Sent:* Sunday, November 8, 2020 12:50 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

I will provide more detail when back in front of a computer but we 
tested a few different things.  We ended up doing Blinq Networks for a 
few reasons.  The nonLOS was pretty impressive.  More to come


Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>



*From:*AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> on 
behalf of Jeremy Grip mailto:g...@nbnworks.net>>

*Sent:* Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:37:30 AM
*To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>

*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS 
LTE for my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage 
penetration.


What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now 
in CBRS 3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can 
serve as a rough equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he 
heatmaps a -100dBm signal represents full modulation—does that make any 
sense? Maybe he’s being a little slimy and referring to uplink 
modulation on a 1T4R UE?


And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those 
various platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the 
Baicells and/or Airspan stuff?


*From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> 
*On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett

*Sent:* Monday, Se

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Chuck McCown]

Wow.  Great write up.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 9, 2020, at 5:23 PM, David Coudron  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> Sorry for the very slow reply.   We have been putting up towers like crazy 
> trying to stay ahead of the weather.   Here are some things we have found 
> that in our opinion, moved us toward a Blinq/LTE decision:
> What has been said in this thread about the complexity of LTE is absolutely 
> true.   EPCs, Software maintenance agreements, complex tower designs, and 
> expensive equipment, are all the norm with LTE.   Very frustrating.What 
> we found with Blinq is a relief in some of these frustration points:
> An option for an embedded EPC.   Still a little more setup than 5 GHz type 
> systems, but not really any more difficult than cnMaestro setup for CBRS for 
> a new workstation.
> More reasonable software maintenance options
> Simple network design.   180 degree Access Points, self contained, no EPC or 
> other controllers, very simple.  Just run power and fiber to each Access 
> Point, just like any other Cambium access point.
> Reasonably priced.   The Access Points are about the same as PMP 450m, but 
> cover 180 degrees.
> Our problem was not capacity or throughput, it was coverage with lots of 
> trees.   Therefore, a solution that had less overall capacity, but better 
> coverage was a better fit for us.   After talking with other WISPs that had 
> run both 450m and Blinq, we think this fits that requirement.
> We have a number of 450i access points in place.   We understand that 450i 
> and 450 are not the same due to a few factors, not the least of which is max 
> EIRP, however, we can run max EIRP on the Blinqs and we were getting non-LOS 
> coverage in our tests we wouldn’t even attempt with the 450i’s.   I know that 
> folks will say that 450m will do lots better than 450i, but from talking to 
> folks who have run both 450m and Blinq, the LTE technology handles trees 
> better than 450m at the same EIRP.   I am not trying to start a war on this 
> topic, but that is what we learned.
>  
> For folks who need lots of capacity on each tower, the solution we went with 
> may not be the right path, and the 450m might be a far better choice.   
> However, we have a pretty significant tree problem and felt we had to do 
> everything we could to get the best non-LOS we could.  
>  
> A couple of other notes.  As others have said, cnHeat is awesome.   We 
> modeled our towers using their non-LOS settings and tested out the Blinq 
> radios in partial LOS and complete non-LOS and compared against the results 
> cnHeat said we should get.   It is very accurate.  
>  
> As others have said the PMP 450m equipment is pretty hard to get, and we had 
> to know we could get the equipment for all towers by the middle of Nov.   We 
> wouldn’t have been able to do that with 450m and wouldn’t have been able to 
> do this project. 
>  
> I would love to see the Cambium CBRS LTE solution, but we just couldn’t wait 
> for it.  This project has to be done by the end of the year.
>  
> We’ll know a heck of a lot more in two months when we get several customers 
> on each tower.   Right now it is a lot of test results, but not enough real 
> world.We went through this process pretty fast, so take our decisions 
> with a grain of salt… 
>  
> Regards,
>  
> David Coudron
>  
> From: AF  On Behalf Of David Coudron
> Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 12:50 PM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>  
> I will provide more detail when back in front of a computer but we tested a 
> few different things.  We ended up doing Blinq Networks for a few reasons.  
> The nonLOS was pretty impressive.  More to come
>  
> Get Outlook for iOS
> From: AF  on behalf of Jeremy Grip 
> 
> Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:37:30 AM
> To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>  
> Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE 
> for my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage 
> penetration.
>  
> What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in 
> CBRS 3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a 
> rough equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a 
> -100dBm signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe 
> he’s being a little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?
>  
> And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
> platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
> Airspan stuff?
>  
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[David Coudron]

Sorry for the very slow reply.   We have been putting up towers like crazy 
trying to stay ahead of the weather.   Here are some things we have found that 
in our opinion, moved us toward a Blinq/LTE decision:

  1.  What has been said in this thread about the complexity of LTE is 
absolutely true.   EPCs, Software maintenance agreements, complex tower 
designs, and expensive equipment, are all the norm with LTE.   Very 
frustrating.What we found with Blinq is a relief in some of these 
frustration points:
 *   An option for an embedded EPC.   Still a little more setup than 5 GHz 
type systems, but not really any more difficult than cnMaestro setup for CBRS 
for a new workstation.
 *   More reasonable software maintenance options
 *   Simple network design.   180 degree Access Points, self contained, no 
EPC or other controllers, very simple.  Just run power and fiber to each Access 
Point, just like any other Cambium access point.
 *   Reasonably priced.   The Access Points are about the same as PMP 450m, 
but cover 180 degrees.
  2.  Our problem was not capacity or throughput, it was coverage with lots of 
trees.   Therefore, a solution that had less overall capacity, but better 
coverage was a better fit for us.   After talking with other WISPs that had run 
both 450m and Blinq, we think this fits that requirement.
  3.  We have a number of 450i access points in place.   We understand that 
450i and 450 are not the same due to a few factors, not the least of which is 
max EIRP, however, we can run max EIRP on the Blinqs and we were getting 
non-LOS coverage in our tests we wouldn’t even attempt with the 450i’s.   I 
know that folks will say that 450m will do lots better than 450i, but from 
talking to folks who have run both 450m and Blinq, the LTE technology handles 
trees better than 450m at the same EIRP.   I am not trying to start a war on 
this topic, but that is what we learned.

For folks who need lots of capacity on each tower, the solution we went with 
may not be the right path, and the 450m might be a far better choice.   
However, we have a pretty significant tree problem and felt we had to do 
everything we could to get the best non-LOS we could.

A couple of other notes.  As others have said, cnHeat is awesome.   We modeled 
our towers using their non-LOS settings and tested out the Blinq radios in 
partial LOS and complete non-LOS and compared against the results cnHeat said 
we should get.   It is very accurate.

As others have said the PMP 450m equipment is pretty hard to get, and we had to 
know we could get the equipment for all towers by the middle of Nov.   We 
wouldn’t have been able to do that with 450m and wouldn’t have been able to do 
this project.

I would love to see the Cambium CBRS LTE solution, but we just couldn’t wait 
for it.  This project has to be done by the end of the year.

We’ll know a heck of a lot more in two months when we get several customers on 
each tower.   Right now it is a lot of test results, but not enough real world. 
   We went through this process pretty fast, so take our decisions with a grain 
of salt… 

Regards,

David Coudron

From: AF  On Behalf Of David Coudron
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 12:50 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

I will provide more detail when back in front of a computer but we tested a few 
different things.  We ended up doing Blinq Networks for a few reasons.  The 
nonLOS was pretty impressive.  More to come

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> on behalf of 
Jeremy Grip mailto:g...@nbnworks.net>>
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:37:30 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors


Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE for 
my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage penetration.



What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in CBRS 
3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a rough 
equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a -100dBm 
signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe he’s being a 
little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?



And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
Airspan stuff?



From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf Of 
Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com<mailto:af@af.afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors



For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.  When 
I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still a 
hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Adam Moffett]

I think I'd dismiss any claim made using the term "penetration" of 
foliage.  It's simply a matter of after accounting for all gains, 
losses, and noise whether you still have a usable signal.


LTE will function all the way down to 0db SNR with some pitiful 
capacity.  There might be a situation where that's more useful, but if 
you're only going to install the strong ones anyway, then I'd agree with 
people saying you'll get more capacity on the 450.


As Brian Webster mentioned, there's about a 30db difference between RSSI 
and RSRP.  This definitely caused confusion in the past because we 
always used RSSI, and it's like a new realtor came along and started 
measuring rooms in inches instead of feet.  I think the full story is 
that RSRP is average power across the subcarriers and RSSI is the sum of 
the power of the subcarriers. I think they like RSRP because comparing 
RSRP values is apples to apples across different channel sizes.  The 
difference between RSSI and RSRP isn't going to be constant across 
channel sizes by the way, but 30db is almost exactly right for a 20mhz 
channel, and close enough on a 10mhz or 40mhz channel.



On 11/8/2020 12:37 PM, Jeremy Grip wrote:


Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS 
LTE for my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged 
foliage penetration.


What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now 
in CBRS 3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can 
serve as a rough equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where 
he heatmaps a -100dBm signal represents full modulation—does that make 
any sense? Maybe he’s being a little slimy and referring to uplink 
modulation on a 1T4R UE?


And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those 
various platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the 
Baicells and/or Airspan stuff?


*From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
*Sent:* Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
*To:* af@af.afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably 
legal.  When I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, 
CBRS was still a hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating 
under an NN license with the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.


And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in time when 
the AP is talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel 
is 1Mbps.  At the moment in time when the AP is talking to a station 
at 300Mbps, the capacity is 300Mbps.  The average capacity over time 
is going to be a function of how much time is spent talking to each 
station at each rate.  If you literally had one at 1Mbps and one at 
300Mbps and both were allocated equal airtime then your capacity would 
be 150.5Mbps.  It's true that a 5Mbps UE won't make the capacity of 
the eNB 5Mbps, but it is true that while the channel is being used to 
talk to that UE, the channel is only running at 5Mbps.  My point was, 
if someone is testing with a single UE and happy that they're getting 
5Mbps, then they're forgetting that they won't actually get 5Mbps when 
there are other UE operating at the same time, and that the weak 
connections they install are weakening efficiency of the whole 
sector.  I know you know this, I think you're just misinterpreting 
what I said.


On 9/14/2020 8:39 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:

Hold on. 30dBm is well within legal power for CBRS.

Also a station connected getting 5 megabits is not dragging the
entire sector down to 5 megabits. That’s not how LTE works.



On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Adam Moffett
 <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:



Attenuation in 3.5ghz is on average 15db per 100meters of
foliage.  I got that number from a Telrad engineer, and it
seemed to hold up experimentally.  Whether it's Wimax, LTE,
etc, there's no reason that would be different.

LTE can connect with almost nothing for a signal.  So a person
testing with a single base station and a single UE might run
around and say "wow I've got 5 megs here and No LOS!", but I
think they forget that the entire base station's capacity is
5meg when it's talking to that single UE at 5mbps.  It's
impressive that it worked, but is that actually useful as a
fixed ISP?

Another thing I noticed is that Telrad could turn the Tx Power
all the way to +30dbm, and people were actually doing it, and
Telrad support seemed to be encouraging them to do it.  At a
training session someone in Telrad support told me, "Adam, if
you're worried about the legal EIRP limit then you're the only
one worried about it."  So if you're 8-10db stronger than the
legally operating product, and you can technically connect
with a signal too weak for the other product, that certainly
m

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Adam Moffett]

Exactly

On 11/8/2020 4:28 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:

Absolutely nothing amazing.

The worse clients would suffer a bit while the good clients would excel.


On Nov 8, 2020, at 4:11 PM, Jeremy Grip  wrote:



I wonder what things would look like if I had 20 customers/sector and 
connected a few clients down to -80 (rssi).


*From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
*Sent:* Sunday, November 08, 2020 4:00 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

What people are saying is the -100 RSRP is equivalent of -70 RSSI. It 
sounds impressive when you hear that LTE will work at -100, but in 
reality, it's roughly the same as something else working at -70, 
which really isn't impressive.


The supposed magical nlos qualities of LTE really aren't all that 
useful unless you intend to run very lightly loaded sectors, since 
modulation levels are still going to suffer at low signal levels 
(working and working well are two different things). CBRS does have a 
significant EIRP advantage over the other bands though, but I suspect 
that on a real world network, 450 is almost always going to work 
better, and you're certainly going to have a lot fewer headaches to 
deal with.


On Sun, Nov 8, 2020, 1:22 PM Jeremy Grip <mailto:g...@nbnworks.net>> wrote:


Thanks, Brian. I’m modeling with around 45dBm EIRP in a 20mHz
channel for, say, an Airspan 1030; my understanding of the FCC
EIRP limit. The radio should be able to push 33dBm into a KPP
15dBi sector.  Very confused by the report That we achieve full
mod at -100 RSRP. Are you saying that the pilot signal goes out
at like 75dBm just at the center frequency of the channel, and
reporting that the system is capable of full mod at a real -70dBm
EIRP?

Having trouble finding those MCS tables for…Airspan? Baicells?

Jeremy Grip

North Branch Networks

*From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *Brian Webster
*Sent:* Sunday, November 08, 2020 1:36 PM
*To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

Remember RSRP values are going to be 30 db stronger than the
signal you will actually need to deliver bandwidth. While it’s
easy to get excited when you see something working and the device
says the signal level is say -100, that is the narrow pilot
signal level the device is reporting which is about 30 db
stronger than the full width channel you are using to deliver
throughput. Modeling in RMD for the -100 signal is not what you
want to do. Model signal levels like you normally would for other
bands.

If you look at the MCS tables for these devices you will notice
that the signal levels needed to deliver speed are more like what
you are accustomed to.

Thank you,

Brian Webster

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

*From:*AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com
<mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>] *On Behalf Of *Matt Hoppes
*Sent:* Sunday, November 8, 2020 12:44 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

-100 would be full modulation on LTE. That being said please
consider Cambium 450 - you’ll save yourself a ton of headache in
the short and long run and have a better experience.

On Nov 8, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Grip mailto:g...@nbnworks.net>> wrote:



Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking
hard at CBRS LTE for my densely forested town, largely
because of its alleged foliage penetration.

What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel
to be now in CBRS 3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a
tool like RMD can serve as a rough equivalent of RSRP? Vendor
is telling me that where he heatmaps a -100dBm signal
represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe
he’s being a little slimy and referring to uplink modulation
on a 1T4R UE?

And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling
those various platforms—anything to report? Did you get your
hands on the Baicells and/or Airspan stuff?

*From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
*Sent:* Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
*To:* af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's
probably legal.  When I went to that Telrad training session
a few years ago, CBRS was still a hypothetical thing and
everyone there was operating under an NN license with the
1W/Mhz EIRP limit.

And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in
time when the AP is talking to a station at 1Mbps, the
capacity of the channel i

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Matt Hoppes]

Sure. 

> On Nov 8, 2020, at 7:38 PM, Jeremy Grip  wrote:
> 
> 
> Matt- you have any time to take this offline and chat about your CBRS 
> experience tomorrow?
>  
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 4:28 PM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>  
> Absolutely nothing amazing. 
>  
> The worse clients would suffer a bit while the good clients would excel. 
> 
> 
> On Nov 8, 2020, at 4:11 PM, Jeremy Grip  wrote:
> 
> 
> I wonder what things would look like if I had 20 customers/sector and 
> connected a few clients down to -80 (rssi).
>  
>  
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 4:00 PM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>  
> What people are saying is the -100 RSRP is equivalent of -70 RSSI. It sounds 
> impressive when you hear that LTE will work at -100, but in reality, it's 
> roughly the same as something else working at -70, which really isn't 
> impressive. 
>  
> The supposed magical nlos qualities of LTE really aren't all that useful 
> unless you intend to run very lightly loaded sectors, since modulation levels 
> are still going to suffer at low signal levels (working and working well are 
> two different things). CBRS does have a significant EIRP advantage over the 
> other bands though, but I suspect that on a real world network, 450 is almost 
> always going to work better, and you're certainly going to have a lot fewer 
> headaches to deal with. 
> 
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2020, 1:22 PM Jeremy Grip  wrote:
> Thanks, Brian. I’m modeling with around 45dBm EIRP in a 20mHz channel for, 
> say, an Airspan 1030; my understanding of the FCC EIRP limit. The radio 
> should be able to push 33dBm into a KPP 15dBi sector.  Very confused by the 
> report That we achieve full mod at -100 RSRP. Are you saying that the pilot 
> signal goes out at like 75dBm just at the center frequency of the channel, 
> and reporting that the system is capable of full mod at a real -70dBm EIRP?
>  
> Having trouble finding those MCS tables for…Airspan? Baicells?
>  
> Jeremy Grip
> North Branch Networks
>  
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Brian Webster
> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 1:36 PM
> To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>  
> Remember RSRP values are going to be 30 db stronger than the signal you will 
> actually need to deliver bandwidth. While it’s easy to get excited when you 
> see something working and the device says the signal level is say -100, that 
> is the narrow pilot signal level the device is reporting which is about 30 db 
> stronger than the full width channel you are using to deliver throughput. 
> Modeling in RMD for the -100 signal is not what you want to do. Model signal 
> levels like you normally would for other bands.
>  
> If you look at the MCS tables for these devices you will notice that the 
> signal levels needed to deliver speed are more like what you are accustomed 
> to.
>  
> Thank you,
> Brian Webster
> www.wirelessmapping.com
>  
> From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
> Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 12:44 PM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>  
> -100 would be full modulation on LTE. That being said please consider Cambium 
> 450 - you’ll save yourself a ton of headache in the short and long run and 
> have a better experience. 
>  
> 
> On Nov 8, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Grip  wrote:
> 
> 
> Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE 
> for my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage 
> penetration.
>  
> What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in 
> CBRS 3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a 
> rough equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a 
> -100dBm signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe 
> he’s being a little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?
>  
> And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
> platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
> Airspan stuff?
>  
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
> To: af@af.afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>  
> For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.  
> When I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still a 
> hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license with 
> the 1W/Mhz 

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Jeremy Grip]

Matt- you have any time to take this offline and chat about your CBRS 
experience tomorrow?

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 4:28 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

Absolutely nothing amazing. 

 

The worse clients would suffer a bit while the good clients would excel. 





On Nov 8, 2020, at 4:11 PM, Jeremy Grip  wrote:



I wonder what things would look like if I had 20 customers/sector and connected 
a few clients down to -80 (rssi).

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 4:00 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

What people are saying is the -100 RSRP is equivalent of -70 RSSI. It sounds 
impressive when you hear that LTE will work at -100, but in reality, it's 
roughly the same as something else working at -70, which really isn't 
impressive. 

 

The supposed magical nlos qualities of LTE really aren't all that useful unless 
you intend to run very lightly loaded sectors, since modulation levels are 
still going to suffer at low signal levels (working and working well are two 
different things). CBRS does have a significant EIRP advantage over the other 
bands though, but I suspect that on a real world network, 450 is almost always 
going to work better, and you're certainly going to have a lot fewer headaches 
to deal with. 

On Sun, Nov 8, 2020, 1:22 PM Jeremy Grip mailto:g...@nbnworks.net> > wrote:

Thanks, Brian. I’m modeling with around 45dBm EIRP in a 20mHz channel for, say, 
an Airspan 1030; my understanding of the FCC EIRP limit. The radio should be 
able to push 33dBm into a KPP 15dBi sector.  Very confused by the report That 
we achieve full mod at -100 RSRP. Are you saying that the pilot signal goes out 
at like 75dBm just at the center frequency of the channel, and reporting that 
the system is capable of full mod at a real -70dBm EIRP?

 

Having trouble finding those MCS tables for…Airspan? Baicells?

 

Jeremy Grip

North Branch Networks

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Brian Webster
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 1:36 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

Remember RSRP values are going to be 30 db stronger than the signal you will 
actually need to deliver bandwidth. While it’s easy to get excited when you see 
something working and the device says the signal level is say -100, that is the 
narrow pilot signal level the device is reporting which is about 30 db stronger 
than the full width channel you are using to deliver throughput. Modeling in 
RMD for the -100 signal is not what you want to do. Model signal levels like 
you normally would for other bands.

 

If you look at the MCS tables for these devices you will notice that the signal 
levels needed to deliver speed are more like what you are accustomed to.

 

Thank you,

Brian Webster

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

 

From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 12:44 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

-100 would be full modulation on LTE. That being said please consider Cambium 
450 - you’ll save yourself a ton of headache in the short and long run and have 
a better experience. 

 

On Nov 8, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Grip mailto:g...@nbnworks.net> > wrote:



Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE for 
my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage penetration. 

 

What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in CBRS 
3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a rough 
equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a -100dBm 
signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe he’s being a 
little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?

 

And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
Airspan stuff?

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.  When 
I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still a 
hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license with 
the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.

And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in time when the AP is 
talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps.  At the 
moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the capacity is 
300Mbps.  The average capacity over time is going to be a function 

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Jeremy Grip]

Got it. I think that’s what I was trying to say.

 

I trust it more coming from you—as far as I know, you’re not pushing Baicells 
LTE. ;o)> 

Just joking—I know that Rick’s a straight shooter.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Brian Webster
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 4:45 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

IT not about more power. The difference in the reports RSSI from the CPE is 
based on the very narrow pilot signal, not the total received signal for the 
whole channel. I could never get the actual transmit power level of just the 
pilot signal from a manufacturer. The like to quote those magical -100 dbm 
signals that the radio tells you but take that number and subtract 30. The 
manufacturers will tell you this as well. The narrower the channel you have the 
more signal you will receive(it’s a power density thing). When you cut a 
channel size in half you gain 3 dB in power budget on the receive side even if 
you don’t increase or change the output power. Many have been burned thinking 
they can run and RF propagation down to -100 and get “full modulation” for the 
radio. The full modulation is going to be a real signal level of -70. There are 
no magical power levels getting to the -100 numbers it is RSRP signal level 
reporting. Pilot signal is not delivered bandwidth signal. Start acting people 
who say they are getting -100 and full modulation, what is the distance for 
that path? Common logic would say a -100 real signal level would be a good long 
distance from the tower, when you get a person to tell you the distances it’s 
more like you would expect in any other radio to have that -70 level.

 

Rule of thumb with LTE devices, are they quoting RSSI level or RSRP? Rick 
Harnish was the first person to tell me this reality if that says anything for 
you.

 

Thank you,

Brian Webster

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

 

From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Grip
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 2:22 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

Thanks, Brian. I’m modeling with around 45dBm EIRP in a 20mHz channel for, say, 
an Airspan 1030; my understanding of the FCC EIRP limit. The radio should be 
able to push 33dBm into a KPP 15dBi sector.  Very confused by the report That 
we achieve full mod at -100 RSRP. Are you saying that the pilot signal goes out 
at like 75dBm just at the center frequency of the channel, and reporting that 
the system is capable of full mod at a real -70dBm EIRP?

 

Having trouble finding those MCS tables for…Airspan? Baicells?

 

Jeremy Grip

North Branch Networks

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Brian Webster
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 1:36 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

Remember RSRP values are going to be 30 db stronger than the signal you will 
actually need to deliver bandwidth. While it’s easy to get excited when you see 
something working and the device says the signal level is say -100, that is the 
narrow pilot signal level the device is reporting which is about 30 db stronger 
than the full width channel you are using to deliver throughput. Modeling in 
RMD for the -100 signal is not what you want to do. Model signal levels like 
you normally would for other bands.

 

If you look at the MCS tables for these devices you will notice that the signal 
levels needed to deliver speed are more like what you are accustomed to.

 

Thank you,

Brian Webster

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

 

From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 12:44 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

-100 would be full modulation on LTE. That being said please consider Cambium 
450 - you’ll save yourself a ton of headache in the short and long run and have 
a better experience. 

 

On Nov 8, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Grip mailto:g...@nbnworks.net> > wrote:



Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE for 
my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage penetration. 

 

What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in CBRS 
3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a rough 
equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a -100dBm 
signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe he’s being a 
little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?

 

And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
Airspan stuff?

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com <ma

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Brian Webster]

IT not about more power. The difference in the reports RSSI from the CPE is 
based on the very narrow pilot signal, not the total received signal for the 
whole channel. I could never get the actual transmit power level of just the 
pilot signal from a manufacturer. The like to quote those magical -100 dbm 
signals that the radio tells you but take that number and subtract 30. The 
manufacturers will tell you this as well. The narrower the channel you have the 
more signal you will receive(it’s a power density thing). When you cut a 
channel size in half you gain 3 dB in power budget on the receive side even if 
you don’t increase or change the output power. Many have been burned thinking 
they can run and RF propagation down to -100 and get “full modulation” for the 
radio. The full modulation is going to be a real signal level of -70. There are 
no magical power levels getting to the -100 numbers it is RSRP signal level 
reporting. Pilot signal is not delivered bandwidth signal. Start acting people 
who say they are getting -100 and full modulation, what is the distance for 
that path? Common logic would say a -100 real signal level would be a good long 
distance from the tower, when you get a person to tell you the distances it’s 
more like you would expect in any other radio to have that -70 level.

 

Rule of thumb with LTE devices, are they quoting RSSI level or RSRP? Rick 
Harnish was the first person to tell me this reality if that says anything for 
you.

 

Thank you,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

 

From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Grip
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 2:22 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

Thanks, Brian. I’m modeling with around 45dBm EIRP in a 20mHz channel for, say, 
an Airspan 1030; my understanding of the FCC EIRP limit. The radio should be 
able to push 33dBm into a KPP 15dBi sector.  Very confused by the report That 
we achieve full mod at -100 RSRP. Are you saying that the pilot signal goes out 
at like 75dBm just at the center frequency of the channel, and reporting that 
the system is capable of full mod at a real -70dBm EIRP?

 

Having trouble finding those MCS tables for…Airspan? Baicells?

 

Jeremy Grip

North Branch Networks

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Brian Webster
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 1:36 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

Remember RSRP values are going to be 30 db stronger than the signal you will 
actually need to deliver bandwidth. While it’s easy to get excited when you see 
something working and the device says the signal level is say -100, that is the 
narrow pilot signal level the device is reporting which is about 30 db stronger 
than the full width channel you are using to deliver throughput. Modeling in 
RMD for the -100 signal is not what you want to do. Model signal levels like 
you normally would for other bands.

 

If you look at the MCS tables for these devices you will notice that the signal 
levels needed to deliver speed are more like what you are accustomed to.

 

Thank you,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

 

From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 12:44 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

-100 would be full modulation on LTE. That being said please consider Cambium 
450 - you’ll save yourself a ton of headache in the short and long run and have 
a better experience. 

 

On Nov 8, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Grip  wrote:



Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE for 
my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage penetration. 

 

What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in CBRS 
3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a rough 
equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a -100dBm 
signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe he’s being a 
little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?

 

And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
Airspan stuff?

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.  When 
I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still a 
hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license with 
the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.

And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in time when the AP is 
talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps.  At the 
moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the capacity is 
300Mbps.  The average capacity over time is going

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Matt Hoppes]

Absolutely nothing amazing. 

The worse clients would suffer a bit while the good clients would excel. 

> On Nov 8, 2020, at 4:11 PM, Jeremy Grip  wrote:
> 
> 
> I wonder what things would look like if I had 20 customers/sector and 
> connected a few clients down to -80 (rssi).
>  
>  
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 4:00 PM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>  
> What people are saying is the -100 RSRP is equivalent of -70 RSSI. It sounds 
> impressive when you hear that LTE will work at -100, but in reality, it's 
> roughly the same as something else working at -70, which really isn't 
> impressive. 
>  
> The supposed magical nlos qualities of LTE really aren't all that useful 
> unless you intend to run very lightly loaded sectors, since modulation levels 
> are still going to suffer at low signal levels (working and working well are 
> two different things). CBRS does have a significant EIRP advantage over the 
> other bands though, but I suspect that on a real world network, 450 is almost 
> always going to work better, and you're certainly going to have a lot fewer 
> headaches to deal with. 
> 
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2020, 1:22 PM Jeremy Grip  wrote:
> Thanks, Brian. I’m modeling with around 45dBm EIRP in a 20mHz channel for, 
> say, an Airspan 1030; my understanding of the FCC EIRP limit. The radio 
> should be able to push 33dBm into a KPP 15dBi sector.  Very confused by the 
> report That we achieve full mod at -100 RSRP. Are you saying that the pilot 
> signal goes out at like 75dBm just at the center frequency of the channel, 
> and reporting that the system is capable of full mod at a real -70dBm EIRP?
>  
> Having trouble finding those MCS tables for…Airspan? Baicells?
>  
> Jeremy Grip
> North Branch Networks
>  
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Brian Webster
> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 1:36 PM
> To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>  
> Remember RSRP values are going to be 30 db stronger than the signal you will 
> actually need to deliver bandwidth. While it’s easy to get excited when you 
> see something working and the device says the signal level is say -100, that 
> is the narrow pilot signal level the device is reporting which is about 30 db 
> stronger than the full width channel you are using to deliver throughput. 
> Modeling in RMD for the -100 signal is not what you want to do. Model signal 
> levels like you normally would for other bands.
>  
> If you look at the MCS tables for these devices you will notice that the 
> signal levels needed to deliver speed are more like what you are accustomed 
> to.
>  
> Thank you,
> Brian Webster
> www.wirelessmapping.com
>  
> From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
> Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 12:44 PM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>  
> -100 would be full modulation on LTE. That being said please consider Cambium 
> 450 - you’ll save yourself a ton of headache in the short and long run and 
> have a better experience. 
>  
> 
> On Nov 8, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Grip  wrote:
> 
> 
> Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE 
> for my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage 
> penetration.
>  
> What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in 
> CBRS 3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a 
> rough equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a 
> -100dBm signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe 
> he’s being a little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?
>  
> And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
> platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
> Airspan stuff?
>  
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
> To: af@af.afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>  
> For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.  
> When I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still a 
> hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license with 
> the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.
> 
> And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in time when the AP is 
> talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps.  At the 
> moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the capacity 
> is 300Mbps.  The average capacity over time is going to be a function of how 
> much time is spent talkin

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Jeremy Grip]

I wonder what things would look like if I had 20 customers/sector and connected 
a few clients down to -80 (rssi).

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 4:00 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

What people are saying is the -100 RSRP is equivalent of -70 RSSI. It sounds 
impressive when you hear that LTE will work at -100, but in reality, it's 
roughly the same as something else working at -70, which really isn't 
impressive. 

 

The supposed magical nlos qualities of LTE really aren't all that useful unless 
you intend to run very lightly loaded sectors, since modulation levels are 
still going to suffer at low signal levels (working and working well are two 
different things). CBRS does have a significant EIRP advantage over the other 
bands though, but I suspect that on a real world network, 450 is almost always 
going to work better, and you're certainly going to have a lot fewer headaches 
to deal with. 

On Sun, Nov 8, 2020, 1:22 PM Jeremy Grip mailto:g...@nbnworks.net> > wrote:

Thanks, Brian. I’m modeling with around 45dBm EIRP in a 20mHz channel for, say, 
an Airspan 1030; my understanding of the FCC EIRP limit. The radio should be 
able to push 33dBm into a KPP 15dBi sector.  Very confused by the report That 
we achieve full mod at -100 RSRP. Are you saying that the pilot signal goes out 
at like 75dBm just at the center frequency of the channel, and reporting that 
the system is capable of full mod at a real -70dBm EIRP?

 

Having trouble finding those MCS tables for…Airspan? Baicells?

 

Jeremy Grip

North Branch Networks

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Brian Webster
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 1:36 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

Remember RSRP values are going to be 30 db stronger than the signal you will 
actually need to deliver bandwidth. While it’s easy to get excited when you see 
something working and the device says the signal level is say -100, that is the 
narrow pilot signal level the device is reporting which is about 30 db stronger 
than the full width channel you are using to deliver throughput. Modeling in 
RMD for the -100 signal is not what you want to do. Model signal levels like 
you normally would for other bands.

 

If you look at the MCS tables for these devices you will notice that the signal 
levels needed to deliver speed are more like what you are accustomed to.

 

Thank you,

Brian Webster

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

 

From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 12:44 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

-100 would be full modulation on LTE. That being said please consider Cambium 
450 - you’ll save yourself a ton of headache in the short and long run and have 
a better experience. 

 

On Nov 8, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Grip mailto:g...@nbnworks.net> > wrote:



Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE for 
my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage penetration. 

 

What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in CBRS 
3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a rough 
equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a -100dBm 
signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe he’s being a 
little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?

 

And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
Airspan stuff?

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.  When 
I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still a 
hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license with 
the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.

And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in time when the AP is 
talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps.  At the 
moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the capacity is 
300Mbps.  The average capacity over time is going to be a function of how much 
time is spent talking to each station at each rate.  If you literally had one 
at 1Mbps and one at 300Mbps and both were allocated equal airtime then your 
capacity would be 150.5Mbps.  It's true that a 5Mbps UE won't make the capacity 
of the eNB 5Mbps, but it is true that while the channel is being used to talk 
to that UE, the channel is only running at 5Mbps.  My point was, if someone is 
testi

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Mathew Howard]

What people are saying is the -100 RSRP is equivalent of -70 RSSI. It
sounds impressive when you hear that LTE will work at -100, but in reality,
it's roughly the same as something else working at -70, which really isn't
impressive.

The supposed magical nlos qualities of LTE really aren't all that useful
unless you intend to run very lightly loaded sectors, since modulation
levels are still going to suffer at low signal levels (working and working
well are two different things). CBRS does have a significant EIRP advantage
over the other bands though, but I suspect that on a real world network,
450 is almost always going to work better, and you're certainly going to
have a lot fewer headaches to deal with.

On Sun, Nov 8, 2020, 1:22 PM Jeremy Grip  wrote:

> Thanks, Brian. I’m modeling with around 45dBm EIRP in a 20mHz channel for,
> say, an Airspan 1030; my understanding of the FCC EIRP limit. The radio
> should be able to push 33dBm into a KPP 15dBi sector.  Very confused by the
> report That we achieve full mod at -100 RSRP. Are you saying that the pilot
> signal goes out at like 75dBm just at the center frequency of the channel,
> and reporting that the system is capable of full mod at a real -70dBm EIRP?
>
>
>
> Having trouble finding those MCS tables for…Airspan? Baicells?
>
>
>
> Jeremy Grip
>
> North Branch Networks
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Brian Webster
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 08, 2020 1:36 PM
> *To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>
>
>
> Remember RSRP values are going to be 30 db stronger than the signal you
> will actually need to deliver bandwidth. While it’s easy to get excited
> when you see something working and the device says the signal level is say
> -100, that is the narrow pilot signal level the device is reporting which
> is about 30 db stronger than the full width channel you are using to
> deliver throughput. Modeling in RMD for the -100 signal is not what you
> want to do. Model signal levels like you normally would for other bands.
>
>
>
> If you look at the MCS tables for these devices you will notice that the
> signal levels needed to deliver speed are more like what you are accustomed
> to.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Brian Webster
>
> www.wirelessmapping.com
>
>
>
> *From:* AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *Matt Hoppes
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 8, 2020 12:44 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>
>
>
> -100 would be full modulation on LTE. That being said please consider
> Cambium 450 - you’ll save yourself a ton of headache in the short and long
> run and have a better experience.
>
>
>
> On Nov 8, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Grip  wrote:
>
> 
>
> Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE
> for my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage
> penetration.
>
>
>
> What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in
> CBRS 3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as
> a rough equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a
> -100dBm signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe
> he’s being a little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?
>
>
>
> And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those
> various platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the
> Baicells and/or Airspan stuff?
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>
>
>
> For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.
> When I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still
> a hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license
> with the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.
>
> And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in time when the AP
> is talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps.  At
> the moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the
> capacity is 300Mbps.  The average capacity over time is going to be a
> function of how much time is spent talking to each station at each rate.
> If you literally had one at 1Mbps and one at 300Mbps and both were
> allocated equal airtime then your capacity would be 150.5Mbps.  It's true
> that a 5Mbps UE won't make the capacity of the eNB 5Mbps, but it is true
> that while the channel is being used to talk to that UE, the channel is
> only running at 5Mbps.  My point was, if someone is testing with a single
> UE and happy that they're get

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Matt Hoppes]

Cambium is specifically selling the 450 product right now for CBRS to use in 
non los situations. 

> On Nov 8, 2020, at 2:41 PM, Matt Hoppes  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> The lowest we will install a 450 CBRS is -70, same as LTE - no lower than 
> -100. Otherwise you’re asking for issues. 
> 
> The other benefit for 450 is higher uplink power. LTE is limited to 23dB. 
> Cambium 450 goes much higher. 
> 
> Finally, we have - as others pointed out - have had issues with trees close 
> in to the customer with LTE. We have not observed that issue with the 450. 
> 
>>> On Nov 8, 2020, at 2:34 PM, Jeremy Grip  wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> Of course you can’t get your hands on the 450s now until sometime in 2021.
>>  
>> From: AF  On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
>> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 2:07 PM
>> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>>  
>> It’s not he ability to hold modulation through multipath changes. UBNT 
>> doesn’t have this. 
>>  
>> LTE does this but at the expense of lower modulations. Think 80 down and 6 
>> up max for the sector. 
>>  
>> 450 is blowing that out of the water. 150 down and 60 up on the sector. 
>> Completely obscured. 
>>  
>> We have customers installed to 450i 3ghz through forests. Rocking 80 meg 
>> down. 
>>  
>> We won’t deploy another tower without it. 
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 8, 2020, at 2:01 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I would not recommend Cambium 450 / CBRS if your main goal is foliage 
>> penetration in a densely forested town.  It won’t magically penetrate dense 
>> foliage, and you may even have problems with a strong signal through just 1 
>> or 2 trees when the branches blow in the wind.
>>  
>> I am skeptical of the LTE claims but have no first hand knowledge.
>>  
>> From: AF  On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
>> Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:44 AM
>> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>>  
>> -100 would be full modulation on LTE. That being said please consider 
>> Cambium 450 - you’ll save yourself a ton of headache in the short and long 
>> run and have a better experience. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 8, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Grip  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE 
>> for my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage 
>> penetration.
>>  
>> What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in 
>> CBRS 3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a 
>> rough equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a 
>> -100dBm signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe 
>> he’s being a little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?
>>  
>> And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
>> platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
>> Airspan stuff?
>>  
>> From: AF  On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
>> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
>> To: af@af.afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>>  
>> For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.  
>> When I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still 
>> a hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license 
>> with the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.
>> 
>> And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in time when the AP 
>> is talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps.  At 
>> the moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the 
>> capacity is 300Mbps.  The average capacity over time is going to be a 
>> function of how much time is spent talking to each station at each rate.  If 
>> you literally had one at 1Mbps and one at 300Mbps and both were allocated 
>> equal airtime then your capacity would be 150.5Mbps.  It's true that a 5Mbps 
>> UE won't make the capacity of the eNB 5Mbps, but it is true that while the 
>> channel is being used to talk to that UE, the channel is only running at 
>> 5Mbps.  My point was, if someone is testing with a single UE and happy that 
>> they're getting 5Mbps, then they're forgetting that they won't actually get 
>> 5Mbps when there are other UE operating at the same time, and that the weak 
>> connections they install are weakening efficiency of the whole sector.  I 
>> know you know this, I think you're just misinterpre

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Matt Hoppes]

The lowest we will install a 450 CBRS is -70, same as LTE - no lower than -100. 
Otherwise you’re asking for issues. 

The other benefit for 450 is higher uplink power. LTE is limited to 23dB. 
Cambium 450 goes much higher. 

Finally, we have - as others pointed out - have had issues with trees close in 
to the customer with LTE. We have not observed that issue with the 450. 

> On Nov 8, 2020, at 2:34 PM, Jeremy Grip  wrote:
> 
> 
> Of course you can’t get your hands on the 450s now until sometime in 2021.
>  
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 2:07 PM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>  
> It’s not he ability to hold modulation through multipath changes. UBNT 
> doesn’t have this. 
>  
> LTE does this but at the expense of lower modulations. Think 80 down and 6 up 
> max for the sector. 
>  
> 450 is blowing that out of the water. 150 down and 60 up on the sector. 
> Completely obscured. 
>  
> We have customers installed to 450i 3ghz through forests. Rocking 80 meg 
> down. 
>  
> We won’t deploy another tower without it. 
> 
> 
> On Nov 8, 2020, at 2:01 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
> 
> 
> I would not recommend Cambium 450 / CBRS if your main goal is foliage 
> penetration in a densely forested town.  It won’t magically penetrate dense 
> foliage, and you may even have problems with a strong signal through just 1 
> or 2 trees when the branches blow in the wind.
>  
> I am skeptical of the LTE claims but have no first hand knowledge.
>  
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
> Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:44 AM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>  
> -100 would be full modulation on LTE. That being said please consider Cambium 
> 450 - you’ll save yourself a ton of headache in the short and long run and 
> have a better experience. 
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 8, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Grip  wrote:
> 
> 
> Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE 
> for my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage 
> penetration.
>  
> What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in 
> CBRS 3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a 
> rough equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a 
> -100dBm signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe 
> he’s being a little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?
>  
> And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
> platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
> Airspan stuff?
>  
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
> To: af@af.afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>  
> For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.  
> When I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still a 
> hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license with 
> the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.
> 
> And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in time when the AP is 
> talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps.  At the 
> moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the capacity 
> is 300Mbps.  The average capacity over time is going to be a function of how 
> much time is spent talking to each station at each rate.  If you literally 
> had one at 1Mbps and one at 300Mbps and both were allocated equal airtime 
> then your capacity would be 150.5Mbps.  It's true that a 5Mbps UE won't make 
> the capacity of the eNB 5Mbps, but it is true that while the channel is being 
> used to talk to that UE, the channel is only running at 5Mbps.  My point was, 
> if someone is testing with a single UE and happy that they're getting 5Mbps, 
> then they're forgetting that they won't actually get 5Mbps when there are 
> other UE operating at the same time, and that the weak connections they 
> install are weakening efficiency of the whole sector.  I know you know this, 
> I think you're just misinterpreting what I said.
> 
>  
> 
> On 9/14/2020 8:39 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
> Hold on. 30dBm is well within legal power for CBRS. 
>  
> Also a station connected getting 5 megabits is not dragging the entire sector 
> down to 5 megabits. That’s not how LTE works. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
> 
> 
> Attenuation in 3.5ghz is on average 15db per 100meters of foliage.  I got 
> that number from a Telrad engineer, and it seemed to hold up experimentally.  
> Whether it's Wimax, LTE, etc,

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Jeremy Grip]

Of course you can’t get your hands on the 450s now until sometime in 2021.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 2:07 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

It’s not he ability to hold modulation through multipath changes. UBNT doesn’t 
have this. 

 

LTE does this but at the expense of lower modulations. Think 80 down and 6 up 
max for the sector. 

 

450 is blowing that out of the water. 150 down and 60 up on the sector. 
Completely obscured. 

 

We have customers installed to 450i 3ghz through forests. Rocking 80 meg down. 

 

We won’t deploy another tower without it. 





On Nov 8, 2020, at 2:01 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:



I would not recommend Cambium 450 / CBRS if your main goal is foliage 
penetration in a densely forested town.  It won’t magically penetrate dense 
foliage, and you may even have problems with a strong signal through just 1 or 
2 trees when the branches blow in the wind.

 

I am skeptical of the LTE claims but have no first hand knowledge.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:44 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

-100 would be full modulation on LTE. That being said please consider Cambium 
450 - you’ll save yourself a ton of headache in the short and long run and have 
a better experience. 






On Nov 8, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Grip mailto:g...@nbnworks.net> > wrote:



Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE for 
my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage penetration. 

 

What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in CBRS 
3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a rough 
equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a -100dBm 
signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe he’s being a 
little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?

 

And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
Airspan stuff?

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.  When 
I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still a 
hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license with 
the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.

And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in time when the AP is 
talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps.  At the 
moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the capacity is 
300Mbps.  The average capacity over time is going to be a function of how much 
time is spent talking to each station at each rate.  If you literally had one 
at 1Mbps and one at 300Mbps and both were allocated equal airtime then your 
capacity would be 150.5Mbps.  It's true that a 5Mbps UE won't make the capacity 
of the eNB 5Mbps, but it is true that while the channel is being used to talk 
to that UE, the channel is only running at 5Mbps.  My point was, if someone is 
testing with a single UE and happy that they're getting 5Mbps, then they're 
forgetting that they won't actually get 5Mbps when there are other UE operating 
at the same time, and that the weak connections they install are weakening 
efficiency of the whole sector.  I know you know this, I think you're just 
misinterpreting what I said.

 

On 9/14/2020 8:39 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:

Hold on. 30dBm is well within legal power for CBRS. 

 

Also a station connected getting 5 megabits is not dragging the entire sector 
down to 5 megabits. That’s not how LTE works. 







On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Adam Moffett  <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> 
 wrote:

 

Attenuation in 3.5ghz is on average 15db per 100meters of foliage.  I got that 
number from a Telrad engineer, and it seemed to hold up experimentally.  
Whether it's Wimax, LTE, etc, there's no reason that would be different.   

LTE can connect with almost nothing for a signal.  So a person testing with a 
single base station and a single UE might run around and say "wow I've got 5 
megs here and No LOS!", but I think they forget that the entire base station's 
capacity is 5meg when it's talking to that single UE at 5mbps.  It's impressive 
that it worked, but is that actually useful as a fixed ISP?  

Another thing I noticed is that Telrad could turn the Tx Power all the way to 
+30dbm, and people were actually doing it, and Telrad support seemed to be 
encouraging them to do it.  At a training session someone in Telrad support 
told me, "Adam, if you're worried about the legal EIRP limit then you're the 
only one worried a

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Jeremy Grip]

Really, Matt? Even Cambium officially says for foliage you need to go to LTE. 
How low a signal will you connect a 450B to?

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 2:07 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

It’s not he ability to hold modulation through multipath changes. UBNT doesn’t 
have this. 

 

LTE does this but at the expense of lower modulations. Think 80 down and 6 up 
max for the sector. 

 

450 is blowing that out of the water. 150 down and 60 up on the sector. 
Completely obscured. 

 

We have customers installed to 450i 3ghz through forests. Rocking 80 meg down. 

 

We won’t deploy another tower without it. 





On Nov 8, 2020, at 2:01 PM, Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com> > wrote:



I would not recommend Cambium 450 / CBRS if your main goal is foliage 
penetration in a densely forested town.  It won’t magically penetrate dense 
foliage, and you may even have problems with a strong signal through just 1 or 
2 trees when the branches blow in the wind.

 

I am skeptical of the LTE claims but have no first hand knowledge.

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Matt Hoppes
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:44 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

-100 would be full modulation on LTE. That being said please consider Cambium 
450 - you’ll save yourself a ton of headache in the short and long run and have 
a better experience. 






On Nov 8, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Grip mailto:g...@nbnworks.net> > wrote:



Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE for 
my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage penetration. 

 

What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in CBRS 
3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a rough 
equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a -100dBm 
signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe he’s being a 
little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?

 

And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
Airspan stuff?

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.  When 
I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still a 
hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license with 
the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.

And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in time when the AP is 
talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps.  At the 
moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the capacity is 
300Mbps.  The average capacity over time is going to be a function of how much 
time is spent talking to each station at each rate.  If you literally had one 
at 1Mbps and one at 300Mbps and both were allocated equal airtime then your 
capacity would be 150.5Mbps.  It's true that a 5Mbps UE won't make the capacity 
of the eNB 5Mbps, but it is true that while the channel is being used to talk 
to that UE, the channel is only running at 5Mbps.  My point was, if someone is 
testing with a single UE and happy that they're getting 5Mbps, then they're 
forgetting that they won't actually get 5Mbps when there are other UE operating 
at the same time, and that the weak connections they install are weakening 
efficiency of the whole sector.  I know you know this, I think you're just 
misinterpreting what I said.

 

On 9/14/2020 8:39 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:

Hold on. 30dBm is well within legal power for CBRS. 

 

Also a station connected getting 5 megabits is not dragging the entire sector 
down to 5 megabits. That’s not how LTE works. 







On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Adam Moffett  <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> 
 wrote:

 

Attenuation in 3.5ghz is on average 15db per 100meters of foliage.  I got that 
number from a Telrad engineer, and it seemed to hold up experimentally.  
Whether it's Wimax, LTE, etc, there's no reason that would be different.   

LTE can connect with almost nothing for a signal.  So a person testing with a 
single base station and a single UE might run around and say "wow I've got 5 
megs here and No LOS!", but I think they forget that the entire base station's 
capacity is 5meg when it's talking to that single UE at 5mbps.  It's impressive 
that it worked, but is that actually useful as a fixed ISP?  

Another thing I noticed is that Telrad could turn the Tx Power all the way to 
+30dbm, and people were actually doing it, and Telrad support seemed to be 
encouraging them to do it.  A

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Jeremy Grip]

Thanks, Brian. I’m modeling with around 45dBm EIRP in a 20mHz channel for, say, 
an Airspan 1030; my understanding of the FCC EIRP limit. The radio should be 
able to push 33dBm into a KPP 15dBi sector.  Very confused by the report That 
we achieve full mod at -100 RSRP. Are you saying that the pilot signal goes out 
at like 75dBm just at the center frequency of the channel, and reporting that 
the system is capable of full mod at a real -70dBm EIRP?

 

Having trouble finding those MCS tables for…Airspan? Baicells?

 

Jeremy Grip

North Branch Networks

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Brian Webster
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 1:36 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

Remember RSRP values are going to be 30 db stronger than the signal you will 
actually need to deliver bandwidth. While it’s easy to get excited when you see 
something working and the device says the signal level is say -100, that is the 
narrow pilot signal level the device is reporting which is about 30 db stronger 
than the full width channel you are using to deliver throughput. Modeling in 
RMD for the -100 signal is not what you want to do. Model signal levels like 
you normally would for other bands.

 

If you look at the MCS tables for these devices you will notice that the signal 
levels needed to deliver speed are more like what you are accustomed to.

 

Thank you,

Brian Webster

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

 

From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 12:44 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

-100 would be full modulation on LTE. That being said please consider Cambium 
450 - you’ll save yourself a ton of headache in the short and long run and have 
a better experience. 

 

On Nov 8, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Grip mailto:g...@nbnworks.net> > wrote:



Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE for 
my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage penetration. 

 

What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in CBRS 
3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a rough 
equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a -100dBm 
signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe he’s being a 
little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?

 

And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
Airspan stuff?

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.  When 
I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still a 
hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license with 
the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.

And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in time when the AP is 
talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps.  At the 
moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the capacity is 
300Mbps.  The average capacity over time is going to be a function of how much 
time is spent talking to each station at each rate.  If you literally had one 
at 1Mbps and one at 300Mbps and both were allocated equal airtime then your 
capacity would be 150.5Mbps.  It's true that a 5Mbps UE won't make the capacity 
of the eNB 5Mbps, but it is true that while the channel is being used to talk 
to that UE, the channel is only running at 5Mbps.  My point was, if someone is 
testing with a single UE and happy that they're getting 5Mbps, then they're 
forgetting that they won't actually get 5Mbps when there are other UE operating 
at the same time, and that the weak connections they install are weakening 
efficiency of the whole sector.  I know you know this, I think you're just 
misinterpreting what I said.

 

On 9/14/2020 8:39 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:

Hold on. 30dBm is well within legal power for CBRS. 

 

Also a station connected getting 5 megabits is not dragging the entire sector 
down to 5 megabits. That’s not how LTE works. 





On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Adam Moffett  <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> 
 wrote:

 

Attenuation in 3.5ghz is on average 15db per 100meters of foliage.  I got that 
number from a Telrad engineer, and it seemed to hold up experimentally.  
Whether it's Wimax, LTE, etc, there's no reason that would be different.   

LTE can connect with almost nothing for a signal.  So a person testing with a 
single base station and a single UE might run around and say "wow I've got 5 
megs here and No LOS!", but I think they forget that the entire base station's 
capacity is 5meg when

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Ken Hohhof]

I think you’re going to want to avoid the situation where the tree(s) are very 
close to the customer.  On the plus side you don’t have to search for a special 
high power CPE radio, a 450b will do fine.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 1:07 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

It’s not he ability to hold modulation through multipath changes. UBNT doesn’t 
have this. 

 

LTE does this but at the expense of lower modulations. Think 80 down and 6 up 
max for the sector. 

 

450 is blowing that out of the water. 150 down and 60 up on the sector. 
Completely obscured. 

 

We have customers installed to 450i 3ghz through forests. Rocking 80 meg down. 

 

We won’t deploy another tower without it. 





On Nov 8, 2020, at 2:01 PM, Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com> > wrote:



I would not recommend Cambium 450 / CBRS if your main goal is foliage 
penetration in a densely forested town.  It won’t magically penetrate dense 
foliage, and you may even have problems with a strong signal through just 1 or 
2 trees when the branches blow in the wind.

 

I am skeptical of the LTE claims but have no first hand knowledge.

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Matt Hoppes
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:44 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

-100 would be full modulation on LTE. That being said please consider Cambium 
450 - you’ll save yourself a ton of headache in the short and long run and have 
a better experience. 






On Nov 8, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Grip mailto:g...@nbnworks.net> > wrote:



Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE for 
my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage penetration. 

 

What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in CBRS 
3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a rough 
equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a -100dBm 
signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe he’s being a 
little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?

 

And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
Airspan stuff?

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.  When 
I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still a 
hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license with 
the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.

And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in time when the AP is 
talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps.  At the 
moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the capacity is 
300Mbps.  The average capacity over time is going to be a function of how much 
time is spent talking to each station at each rate.  If you literally had one 
at 1Mbps and one at 300Mbps and both were allocated equal airtime then your 
capacity would be 150.5Mbps.  It's true that a 5Mbps UE won't make the capacity 
of the eNB 5Mbps, but it is true that while the channel is being used to talk 
to that UE, the channel is only running at 5Mbps.  My point was, if someone is 
testing with a single UE and happy that they're getting 5Mbps, then they're 
forgetting that they won't actually get 5Mbps when there are other UE operating 
at the same time, and that the weak connections they install are weakening 
efficiency of the whole sector.  I know you know this, I think you're just 
misinterpreting what I said.

 

On 9/14/2020 8:39 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:

Hold on. 30dBm is well within legal power for CBRS. 

 

Also a station connected getting 5 megabits is not dragging the entire sector 
down to 5 megabits. That’s not how LTE works. 







On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Adam Moffett  <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> 
 wrote:

 

Attenuation in 3.5ghz is on average 15db per 100meters of foliage.  I got that 
number from a Telrad engineer, and it seemed to hold up experimentally.  
Whether it's Wimax, LTE, etc, there's no reason that would be different.   

LTE can connect with almost nothing for a signal.  So a person testing with a 
single base station and a single UE might run around and say "wow I've got 5 
megs here and No LOS!", but I think they forget that the entire base station's 
capacity is 5meg when it's talking to that single UE at 5mbps.  It's impressive 
that it worked, but is that actually useful as a fixed ISP?  

Another thing I noticed is that Telrad could turn the Tx Power all the way to 
+30dbm, and peop

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Matt Hoppes]

It’s not he ability to hold modulation through multipath changes. UBNT doesn’t 
have this. 

LTE does this but at the expense of lower modulations. Think 80 down and 6 up 
max for the sector. 

450 is blowing that out of the water. 150 down and 60 up on the sector. 
Completely obscured. 

We have customers installed to 450i 3ghz through forests. Rocking 80 meg down. 

We won’t deploy another tower without it. 

> On Nov 8, 2020, at 2:01 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
> 
> 
> I would not recommend Cambium 450 / CBRS if your main goal is foliage 
> penetration in a densely forested town.  It won’t magically penetrate dense 
> foliage, and you may even have problems with a strong signal through just 1 
> or 2 trees when the branches blow in the wind.
>  
> I am skeptical of the LTE claims but have no first hand knowledge.
>  
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
> Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:44 AM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>  
> -100 would be full modulation on LTE. That being said please consider Cambium 
> 450 - you’ll save yourself a ton of headache in the short and long run and 
> have a better experience. 
> 
> 
> On Nov 8, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Grip  wrote:
> 
> 
> Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE 
> for my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage 
> penetration.
>  
> What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in 
> CBRS 3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a 
> rough equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a 
> -100dBm signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe 
> he’s being a little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?
>  
> And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
> platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
> Airspan stuff?
>  
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
> To: af@af.afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>  
> For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.  
> When I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still a 
> hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license with 
> the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.
> 
> And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in time when the AP is 
> talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps.  At the 
> moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the capacity 
> is 300Mbps.  The average capacity over time is going to be a function of how 
> much time is spent talking to each station at each rate.  If you literally 
> had one at 1Mbps and one at 300Mbps and both were allocated equal airtime 
> then your capacity would be 150.5Mbps.  It's true that a 5Mbps UE won't make 
> the capacity of the eNB 5Mbps, but it is true that while the channel is being 
> used to talk to that UE, the channel is only running at 5Mbps.  My point was, 
> if someone is testing with a single UE and happy that they're getting 5Mbps, 
> then they're forgetting that they won't actually get 5Mbps when there are 
> other UE operating at the same time, and that the weak connections they 
> install are weakening efficiency of the whole sector.  I know you know this, 
> I think you're just misinterpreting what I said.
> 
>  
> 
> On 9/14/2020 8:39 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
> Hold on. 30dBm is well within legal power for CBRS. 
>  
> Also a station connected getting 5 megabits is not dragging the entire sector 
> down to 5 megabits. That’s not how LTE works. 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
> 
> 
> Attenuation in 3.5ghz is on average 15db per 100meters of foliage.  I got 
> that number from a Telrad engineer, and it seemed to hold up experimentally.  
> Whether it's Wimax, LTE, etc, there's no reason that would be different.  
> 
> LTE can connect with almost nothing for a signal.  So a person testing with a 
> single base station and a single UE might run around and say "wow I've got 5 
> megs here and No LOS!", but I think they forget that the entire base 
> station's capacity is 5meg when it's talking to that single UE at 5mbps.  
> It's impressive that it worked, but is that actually useful as a fixed ISP? 
> 
> Another thing I noticed is that Telrad could turn the Tx Power all the way to 
> +30dbm, and people were actually doing it, and Telrad support seemed to be 
> encouraging them to do it.  At a training session someone in Telrad support 
> told me, "Adam, if you're worried about the legal EIRP limit the

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Ken Hohhof]

I would not recommend Cambium 450 / CBRS if your main goal is foliage 
penetration in a densely forested town.  It won’t magically penetrate dense 
foliage, and you may even have problems with a strong signal through just 1 or 
2 trees when the branches blow in the wind.

 

I am skeptical of the LTE claims but have no first hand knowledge.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:44 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

-100 would be full modulation on LTE. That being said please consider Cambium 
450 - you’ll save yourself a ton of headache in the short and long run and have 
a better experience. 





On Nov 8, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Grip mailto:g...@nbnworks.net> > wrote:



Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE for 
my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage penetration. 

 

What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in CBRS 
3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a rough 
equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a -100dBm 
signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe he’s being a 
little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?

 

And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
Airspan stuff?

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.  When 
I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still a 
hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license with 
the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.

And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in time when the AP is 
talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps.  At the 
moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the capacity is 
300Mbps.  The average capacity over time is going to be a function of how much 
time is spent talking to each station at each rate.  If you literally had one 
at 1Mbps and one at 300Mbps and both were allocated equal airtime then your 
capacity would be 150.5Mbps.  It's true that a 5Mbps UE won't make the capacity 
of the eNB 5Mbps, but it is true that while the channel is being used to talk 
to that UE, the channel is only running at 5Mbps.  My point was, if someone is 
testing with a single UE and happy that they're getting 5Mbps, then they're 
forgetting that they won't actually get 5Mbps when there are other UE operating 
at the same time, and that the weak connections they install are weakening 
efficiency of the whole sector.  I know you know this, I think you're just 
misinterpreting what I said.

 

On 9/14/2020 8:39 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:

Hold on. 30dBm is well within legal power for CBRS. 

 

Also a station connected getting 5 megabits is not dragging the entire sector 
down to 5 megabits. That’s not how LTE works. 






On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Adam Moffett  <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> 
 wrote:

 

Attenuation in 3.5ghz is on average 15db per 100meters of foliage.  I got that 
number from a Telrad engineer, and it seemed to hold up experimentally.  
Whether it's Wimax, LTE, etc, there's no reason that would be different.   

LTE can connect with almost nothing for a signal.  So a person testing with a 
single base station and a single UE might run around and say "wow I've got 5 
megs here and No LOS!", but I think they forget that the entire base station's 
capacity is 5meg when it's talking to that single UE at 5mbps.  It's impressive 
that it worked, but is that actually useful as a fixed ISP?  

Another thing I noticed is that Telrad could turn the Tx Power all the way to 
+30dbm, and people were actually doing it, and Telrad support seemed to be 
encouraging them to do it.  At a training session someone in Telrad support 
told me, "Adam, if you're worried about the legal EIRP limit then you're the 
only one worried about it."  So if you're 8-10db stronger than the legally 
operating product, and you can technically connect with a signal too weak for 
the other product, that certainly makes people feel like there's better 
penetration. 

There may also be some "magic" in how LTE allocates resource blocks and gets 
feedback from the UE's (CQI) on which resource blocks are working best for each 
unit, but I think that's a matter of getting the most value possible out of a 
trashy signal.  If you're a fixed operator building for capacity and 
performance then you hopefully won't be installing with a trashy signal anyway.

My biggest issue of all is that all of the WISP priced LTE stuff is clunky and 
buggy.

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Bill Prince]

  
  
It's still on Android 11, but you have to dig for it. It's buried
  several layers deep under SIM status.
Something they've implemented is that you get into settings and
  search for something like "strength" to get Signal Strength, and
  it will take you to it.



bp

On 11/8/2020 10:44 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com
  wrote:


  
  
  
  

  I miss the dbm readout on my phone.  Apple killed it a
few versions of IOS ago.  
  

   
  
From: Brian Webster 
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:35 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users
Group' 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
  

 
  
  

  Remember
  RSRP values are going to be 30 db stronger than the
  signal you will actually need to deliver bandwidth.
  While it’s easy to get excited when you see something
  working and the device says the signal level is say
  -100, that is the narrow pilot signal level the device
  is reporting which is about 30 db stronger than the
  full width channel you are using to deliver
  throughput. Modeling in RMD for the -100 signal is not
  what you want to do. Model signal levels like you
  normally would for other bands.
   
  If you
  look at the MCS tables for these devices you will
  notice that the signal levels needed to deliver speed
  are more like what you are accustomed to.
   
  
Thank
you,
Brian
Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com
  
   
  

  From: AF
  [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of
  Matt Hoppes
  Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 12:44 PM
  To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

  
   
  
-100 would be full modulation on
  LTE. That being said please consider Cambium 450 -
  you’ll save yourself a ton of headache in the short
  and long run and have a better experience. 
  
  

  
  
On Nov
  8, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Grip
   wrote:
  
  

  
  Thought I’d pick up this thread again
  because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE for my
  densely forested town, largely because of its
  alleged foliage penetration. 
   
  What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for
  a 20Mhz channel to be now in CBRS 3.65? Can I
  assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can
  serve as a rough equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is
  telling me that where he heatmaps a -100dBm signal
  represents full modulation—does that make any
  sense? Maybe he’s being a little slimy and
  referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?
   
  And David—you started this thread and said
  you were trialling those various
  platforms—anything to report? Did you get your
  hands on the Baicells and/or Airspan stuff?
   
  

  From:
AF  On Behalf
  Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

  
   
  For CBRS, depending on
antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal. 
When I went to that Telrad training session a few
years ago, CBRS was still a hypothetical thing and
everyone there was operating under an NN license
with the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.
  And yeah that's how ALL
wireless works.  At the moment in time when the AP
is talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of
the channel is 1Mbps.  At 

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Matt Hoppes]

You shouldn’t be installing horrible LTE signals (eg -110 or worse) anyway as 
the experience will be terrible. 

> On Nov 8, 2020, at 1:55 PM, Matt Hoppes  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 450m or i. We’re deploying I with Omni on our micro sites. M on our main 
> sites. 
> 
> -100 in LTE is about -70 in 450. Plenty of SNR. 
> 
> 
> 
>>> On Nov 8, 2020, at 1:51 PM, David Coudron  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> I will provide more detail when back in front of a computer but we tested a 
>> few different things.  We ended up doing Blinq Networks for a few reasons.  
>> The nonLOS was pretty impressive.  More to come
>> 
>> Get Outlook for iOS
>> From: AF  on behalf of Jeremy Grip 
>> 
>> Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:37:30 AM
>> To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>>  
>> Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE 
>> for my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage 
>> penetration.
>>  
>> What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in 
>> CBRS 3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a 
>> rough equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a 
>> -100dBm signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe 
>> he’s being a little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?
>>  
>> And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
>> platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
>> Airspan stuff?
>>  
>> From: AF  On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
>> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
>> To: af@af.afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>>  
>> For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.  
>> When I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still 
>> a hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license 
>> with the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.
>> 
>> And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in time when the AP 
>> is talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps.  At 
>> the moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the 
>> capacity is 300Mbps.  The average capacity over time is going to be a 
>> function of how much time is spent talking to each station at each rate.  If 
>> you literally had one at 1Mbps and one at 300Mbps and both were allocated 
>> equal airtime then your capacity would be 150.5Mbps.  It's true that a 5Mbps 
>> UE won't make the capacity of the eNB 5Mbps, but it is true that while the 
>> channel is being used to talk to that UE, the channel is only running at 
>> 5Mbps.  My point was, if someone is testing with a single UE and happy that 
>> they're getting 5Mbps, then they're forgetting that they won't actually get 
>> 5Mbps when there are other UE operating at the same time, and that the weak 
>> connections they install are weakening efficiency of the whole sector.  I 
>> know you know this, I think you're just misinterpreting what I said.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On 9/14/2020 8:39 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
>> Hold on. 30dBm is well within legal power for CBRS. 
>>  
>> Also a station connected getting 5 megabits is not dragging the entire 
>> sector down to 5 megabits. That’s not how LTE works. 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Attenuation in 3.5ghz is on average 15db per 100meters of foliage.  I got 
>> that number from a Telrad engineer, and it seemed to hold up experimentally. 
>>  Whether it's Wimax, LTE, etc, there's no reason that would be different.  
>> 
>> LTE can connect with almost nothing for a signal.  So a person testing with 
>> a single base station and a single UE might run around and say "wow I've got 
>> 5 megs here and No LOS!", but I think they forget that the entire base 
>> station's capacity is 5meg when it's talking to that single UE at 5mbps.  
>> It's impressive that it worked, but is that actually useful as a fixed ISP? 
>> 
>> Another thing I noticed is that Telrad could turn the Tx Power all the way 
>> to +30dbm, and people were actually doing it, and Telrad support seemed to 
>> be encouraging them to do it.  At a training session someone in Telrad 
>> support told me, "Adam, if you're worried about the legal EIRP limit then 
>> you're the only one worried about it."  So if you're 8-10db stronger than 
>> the legally operatin

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Matt Hoppes]

450m or i. We’re deploying I with Omni on our micro sites. M on our main sites. 

-100 in LTE is about -70 in 450. Plenty of SNR. 



> On Nov 8, 2020, at 1:51 PM, David Coudron  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> I will provide more detail when back in front of a computer but we tested a 
> few different things.  We ended up doing Blinq Networks for a few reasons.  
> The nonLOS was pretty impressive.  More to come
> 
> Get Outlook for iOS
> From: AF  on behalf of Jeremy Grip 
> 
> Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:37:30 AM
> To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>  
> Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE 
> for my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage 
> penetration.
>  
> What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in 
> CBRS 3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a 
> rough equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a 
> -100dBm signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe 
> he’s being a little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?
>  
> And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
> platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
> Airspan stuff?
>  
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
> To: af@af.afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>  
> For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.  
> When I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still a 
> hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license with 
> the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.
> 
> And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in time when the AP is 
> talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps.  At the 
> moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the capacity 
> is 300Mbps.  The average capacity over time is going to be a function of how 
> much time is spent talking to each station at each rate.  If you literally 
> had one at 1Mbps and one at 300Mbps and both were allocated equal airtime 
> then your capacity would be 150.5Mbps.  It's true that a 5Mbps UE won't make 
> the capacity of the eNB 5Mbps, but it is true that while the channel is being 
> used to talk to that UE, the channel is only running at 5Mbps.  My point was, 
> if someone is testing with a single UE and happy that they're getting 5Mbps, 
> then they're forgetting that they won't actually get 5Mbps when there are 
> other UE operating at the same time, and that the weak connections they 
> install are weakening efficiency of the whole sector.  I know you know this, 
> I think you're just misinterpreting what I said.
> 
>  
> 
> On 9/14/2020 8:39 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
> Hold on. 30dBm is well within legal power for CBRS. 
>  
> Also a station connected getting 5 megabits is not dragging the entire sector 
> down to 5 megabits. That’s not how LTE works. 
> 
> 
> On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
> 
> 
> Attenuation in 3.5ghz is on average 15db per 100meters of foliage.  I got 
> that number from a Telrad engineer, and it seemed to hold up experimentally.  
> Whether it's Wimax, LTE, etc, there's no reason that would be different.  
> 
> LTE can connect with almost nothing for a signal.  So a person testing with a 
> single base station and a single UE might run around and say "wow I've got 5 
> megs here and No LOS!", but I think they forget that the entire base 
> station's capacity is 5meg when it's talking to that single UE at 5mbps.  
> It's impressive that it worked, but is that actually useful as a fixed ISP? 
> 
> Another thing I noticed is that Telrad could turn the Tx Power all the way to 
> +30dbm, and people were actually doing it, and Telrad support seemed to be 
> encouraging them to do it.  At a training session someone in Telrad support 
> told me, "Adam, if you're worried about the legal EIRP limit then you're the 
> only one worried about it."  So if you're 8-10db stronger than the legally 
> operating product, and you can technically connect with a signal too weak for 
> the other product, that certainly makes people feel like there's better 
> penetration.
> 
> There may also be some "magic" in how LTE allocates resource blocks and gets 
> feedback from the UE's (CQI) on which resource blocks are working best for 
> each unit, but I think that's a matter of getting the most value possible out 
> of a trashy signal.  If you're a fixed operator building for capacity and 
> performance then you hopefully won't be i

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[chuck]

Do easy to be cynical about nlos claims.  We have heard so many over the years. 
 

From: David Coudron 
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:50 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

I will provide more detail when back in front of a computer but we tested a few 
different things.  We ended up doing Blinq Networks for a few reasons.  The 
nonLOS was pretty impressive.  More to come

Get Outlook for iOS



From: AF  on behalf of Jeremy Grip 
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:37:30 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors 

Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE for 
my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage penetration. 



What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in CBRS 
3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a rough 
equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a -100dBm 
signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe he’s being a 
little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?



And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
Airspan stuff?



From: AF  On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors



For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.  When 
I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still a 
hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license with 
the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.

And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in time when the AP is 
talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps.  At the 
moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the capacity is 
300Mbps.  The average capacity over time is going to be a function of how much 
time is spent talking to each station at each rate.  If you literally had one 
at 1Mbps and one at 300Mbps and both were allocated equal airtime then your 
capacity would be 150.5Mbps.  It's true that a 5Mbps UE won't make the capacity 
of the eNB 5Mbps, but it is true that while the channel is being used to talk 
to that UE, the channel is only running at 5Mbps.  My point was, if someone is 
testing with a single UE and happy that they're getting 5Mbps, then they're 
forgetting that they won't actually get 5Mbps when there are other UE operating 
at the same time, and that the weak connections they install are weakening 
efficiency of the whole sector.  I know you know this, I think you're just 
misinterpreting what I said.



On 9/14/2020 8:39 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:

  Hold on. 30dBm is well within legal power for CBRS. 



  Also a station connected getting 5 megabits is not dragging the entire sector 
down to 5 megabits. That’s not how LTE works. 





On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Adam Moffett mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com wrote:

 

Attenuation in 3.5ghz is on average 15db per 100meters of foliage.  I got 
that number from a Telrad engineer, and it seemed to hold up experimentally.  
Whether it's Wimax, LTE, etc, there's no reason that would be different.   

LTE can connect with almost nothing for a signal.  So a person testing with 
a single base station and a single UE might run around and say "wow I've got 5 
megs here and No LOS!", but I think they forget that the entire base station's 
capacity is 5meg when it's talking to that single UE at 5mbps.  It's impressive 
that it worked, but is that actually useful as a fixed ISP?  

Another thing I noticed is that Telrad could turn the Tx Power all the way 
to +30dbm, and people were actually doing it, and Telrad support seemed to be 
encouraging them to do it.  At a training session someone in Telrad support 
told me, "Adam, if you're worried about the legal EIRP limit then you're the 
only one worried about it."  So if you're 8-10db stronger than the legally 
operating product, and you can technically connect with a signal too weak for 
the other product, that certainly makes people feel like there's better 
penetration. 

There may also be some "magic" in how LTE allocates resource blocks and 
gets feedback from the UE's (CQI) on which resource blocks are working best for 
each unit, but I think that's a matter of getting the most value possible out 
of a trashy signal.  If you're a fixed operator building for capacity and 
performance then you hopefully won't be installing with a trashy signal anyway.

My biggest issue of all is that all of the WISP priced LTE stuff is clunky 
and buggy.  Frankly, that was true of WiMax too.  It seemed like Telrad's 
bridging modes never quite worked right for example.  You were better off 
buildin

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[David Coudron]

I will provide more detail when back in front of a computer but we tested a few 
different things.  We ended up doing Blinq Networks for a few reasons.  The 
nonLOS was pretty impressive.  More to come

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

From: AF  on behalf of Jeremy Grip 
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:37:30 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors


Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE for 
my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage penetration.



What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in CBRS 
3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a rough 
equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a -100dBm 
signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe he’s being a 
little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?



And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
Airspan stuff?



From: AF  On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors



For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.  When 
I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still a 
hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license with 
the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.

And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in time when the AP is 
talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps.  At the 
moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the capacity is 
300Mbps.  The average capacity over time is going to be a function of how much 
time is spent talking to each station at each rate.  If you literally had one 
at 1Mbps and one at 300Mbps and both were allocated equal airtime then your 
capacity would be 150.5Mbps.  It's true that a 5Mbps UE won't make the capacity 
of the eNB 5Mbps, but it is true that while the channel is being used to talk 
to that UE, the channel is only running at 5Mbps.  My point was, if someone is 
testing with a single UE and happy that they're getting 5Mbps, then they're 
forgetting that they won't actually get 5Mbps when there are other UE operating 
at the same time, and that the weak connections they install are weakening 
efficiency of the whole sector.  I know you know this, I think you're just 
misinterpreting what I said.



On 9/14/2020 8:39 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:

Hold on. 30dBm is well within legal power for CBRS.



Also a station connected getting 5 megabits is not dragging the entire sector 
down to 5 megabits. That’s not how LTE works.



On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Adam Moffett 
<mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:



Attenuation in 3.5ghz is on average 15db per 100meters of foliage.  I got that 
number from a Telrad engineer, and it seemed to hold up experimentally.  
Whether it's Wimax, LTE, etc, there's no reason that would be different.

LTE can connect with almost nothing for a signal.  So a person testing with a 
single base station and a single UE might run around and say "wow I've got 5 
megs here and No LOS!", but I think they forget that the entire base station's 
capacity is 5meg when it's talking to that single UE at 5mbps.  It's impressive 
that it worked, but is that actually useful as a fixed ISP?

Another thing I noticed is that Telrad could turn the Tx Power all the way to 
+30dbm, and people were actually doing it, and Telrad support seemed to be 
encouraging them to do it.  At a training session someone in Telrad support 
told me, "Adam, if you're worried about the legal EIRP limit then you're the 
only one worried about it."  So if you're 8-10db stronger than the legally 
operating product, and you can technically connect with a signal too weak for 
the other product, that certainly makes people feel like there's better 
penetration.

There may also be some "magic" in how LTE allocates resource blocks and gets 
feedback from the UE's (CQI) on which resource blocks are working best for each 
unit, but I think that's a matter of getting the most value possible out of a 
trashy signal.  If you're a fixed operator building for capacity and 
performance then you hopefully won't be installing with a trashy signal anyway.

My biggest issue of all is that all of the WISP priced LTE stuff is clunky and 
buggy.  Frankly, that was true of WiMax too.  It seemed like Telrad's bridging 
modes never quite worked right for example.  You were better off building an L2 
tunnel on your own box behind the UE.

-Adam



On 9/14/2020 12:19 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Ever since I got bamboozled into deploying a WiMax basestation, I have been 
skeptical of tree penetration hype.



We have been deploying Cambium 450 in 3.5 GHz / CBRS 

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[chuck]

I miss the dbm readout on my phone.  Apple killed it a few versions of IOS ago. 
 

From: Brian Webster 
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:35 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

Remember RSRP values are going to be 30 db stronger than the signal you will 
actually need to deliver bandwidth. While it’s easy to get excited when you see 
something working and the device says the signal level is say -100, that is the 
narrow pilot signal level the device is reporting which is about 30 db stronger 
than the full width channel you are using to deliver throughput. Modeling in 
RMD for the -100 signal is not what you want to do. Model signal levels like 
you normally would for other bands.

 

If you look at the MCS tables for these devices you will notice that the signal 
levels needed to deliver speed are more like what you are accustomed to.

 

Thank you,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

 

From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 12:44 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

-100 would be full modulation on LTE. That being said please consider Cambium 
450 - you’ll save yourself a ton of headache in the short and long run and have 
a better experience. 





On Nov 8, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Grip  wrote:

  

  Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE 
for my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage 
penetration. 

   

  What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in 
CBRS 3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a 
rough equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a -100dBm 
signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe he’s being a 
little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?

   

  And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
Airspan stuff?

   

  From: AF  On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
  Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
  To: af@af.afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

   

  For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.  
When I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still a 
hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license with 
the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.

  And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in time when the AP is 
talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps.  At the 
moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the capacity is 
300Mbps.  The average capacity over time is going to be a function of how much 
time is spent talking to each station at each rate.  If you literally had one 
at 1Mbps and one at 300Mbps and both were allocated equal airtime then your 
capacity would be 150.5Mbps.  It's true that a 5Mbps UE won't make the capacity 
of the eNB 5Mbps, but it is true that while the channel is being used to talk 
to that UE, the channel is only running at 5Mbps.  My point was, if someone is 
testing with a single UE and happy that they're getting 5Mbps, then they're 
forgetting that they won't actually get 5Mbps when there are other UE operating 
at the same time, and that the weak connections they install are weakening 
efficiency of the whole sector.  I know you know this, I think you're just 
misinterpreting what I said.

   

  On 9/14/2020 8:39 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:

Hold on. 30dBm is well within legal power for CBRS. 

 

Also a station connected getting 5 megabits is not dragging the entire 
sector down to 5 megabits. That’s not how LTE works. 






  On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Adam Moffett mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com 
wrote:

   

  Attenuation in 3.5ghz is on average 15db per 100meters of foliage.  I got 
that number from a Telrad engineer, and it seemed to hold up experimentally.  
Whether it's Wimax, LTE, etc, there's no reason that would be different.   

  LTE can connect with almost nothing for a signal.  So a person testing 
with a single base station and a single UE might run around and say "wow I've 
got 5 megs here and No LOS!", but I think they forget that the entire base 
station's capacity is 5meg when it's talking to that single UE at 5mbps.  It's 
impressive that it worked, but is that actually useful as a fixed ISP?  

  Another thing I noticed is that Telrad could turn the Tx Power all the 
way to +30dbm, and people were actually doing it, and Telrad support seemed to 
be encouraging them to do it.  At a training session someone in Telrad support 
told me, "Adam, if you're worried about the legal EIRP limit then you're the 
only one worried about it."  So if you're 8-10db stronger than the legally 
operating product, and you can technically connect wi

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Brian Webster]

Remember RSRP values are going to be 30 db stronger than the signal you will 
actually need to deliver bandwidth. While it’s easy to get excited when you see 
something working and the device says the signal level is say -100, that is the 
narrow pilot signal level the device is reporting which is about 30 db stronger 
than the full width channel you are using to deliver throughput. Modeling in 
RMD for the -100 signal is not what you want to do. Model signal levels like 
you normally would for other bands.

 

If you look at the MCS tables for these devices you will notice that the signal 
levels needed to deliver speed are more like what you are accustomed to.

 

Thank you,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

 

From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 12:44 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

-100 would be full modulation on LTE. That being said please consider Cambium 
450 - you’ll save yourself a ton of headache in the short and long run and have 
a better experience. 





On Nov 8, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Grip  wrote:



Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE for 
my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage penetration. 

 

What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in CBRS 
3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a rough 
equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a -100dBm 
signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe he’s being a 
little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?

 

And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
Airspan stuff?

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.  When 
I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still a 
hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license with 
the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.

And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in time when the AP is 
talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps.  At the 
moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the capacity is 
300Mbps.  The average capacity over time is going to be a function of how much 
time is spent talking to each station at each rate.  If you literally had one 
at 1Mbps and one at 300Mbps and both were allocated equal airtime then your 
capacity would be 150.5Mbps.  It's true that a 5Mbps UE won't make the capacity 
of the eNB 5Mbps, but it is true that while the channel is being used to talk 
to that UE, the channel is only running at 5Mbps.  My point was, if someone is 
testing with a single UE and happy that they're getting 5Mbps, then they're 
forgetting that they won't actually get 5Mbps when there are other UE operating 
at the same time, and that the weak connections they install are weakening 
efficiency of the whole sector.  I know you know this, I think you're just 
misinterpreting what I said.

 

On 9/14/2020 8:39 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:

Hold on. 30dBm is well within legal power for CBRS. 

 

Also a station connected getting 5 megabits is not dragging the entire sector 
down to 5 megabits. That’s not how LTE works. 






On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Adam Moffett  <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> 
 wrote:

 

Attenuation in 3.5ghz is on average 15db per 100meters of foliage.  I got that 
number from a Telrad engineer, and it seemed to hold up experimentally.  
Whether it's Wimax, LTE, etc, there's no reason that would be different.   

LTE can connect with almost nothing for a signal.  So a person testing with a 
single base station and a single UE might run around and say "wow I've got 5 
megs here and No LOS!", but I think they forget that the entire base station's 
capacity is 5meg when it's talking to that single UE at 5mbps.  It's impressive 
that it worked, but is that actually useful as a fixed ISP?  

Another thing I noticed is that Telrad could turn the Tx Power all the way to 
+30dbm, and people were actually doing it, and Telrad support seemed to be 
encouraging them to do it.  At a training session someone in Telrad support 
told me, "Adam, if you're worried about the legal EIRP limit then you're the 
only one worried about it."  So if you're 8-10db stronger than the legally 
operating product, and you can technically connect with a signal too weak for 
the other product, that certainly makes people feel like there's better 
penetration. 

There may also be some "magic" in how LTE allocates resource blocks and gets 
feedback from the UE's (CQI) on which resource blocks are working best for eac

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Jeremy Grip]

I assume you’re talking 450m. Problem is receive sensitivity here; 2/3 of 
clients through mixed hardwood and evergreen. The sensitivity down to -100 and 
below is what seems to point to LTE, it’s the only way to reach most of the 
client base. Besides that, there is nothing else up here except DSL and won’t 
be for years, so interference should be a non-issue. Just found an old thread 
on the Cambium forum:

 

https://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t/spectrum-efficiency-450-vs-lte/49778

 

The discussion there (and what a lot of guys on this thread have said) kind of 
worries me about the complexities and lack of visibility into the user side 
with LTE…

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 12:44 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

-100 would be full modulation on LTE. That being said please consider Cambium 
450 - you’ll save yourself a ton of headache in the short and long run and have 
a better experience. 





On Nov 8, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Grip mailto:g...@nbnworks.net> > wrote:



Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE for 
my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage penetration. 

 

What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in CBRS 
3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a rough 
equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a -100dBm 
signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe he’s being a 
little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?

 

And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
Airspan stuff?

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.  When 
I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still a 
hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license with 
the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.

And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in time when the AP is 
talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps.  At the 
moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the capacity is 
300Mbps.  The average capacity over time is going to be a function of how much 
time is spent talking to each station at each rate.  If you literally had one 
at 1Mbps and one at 300Mbps and both were allocated equal airtime then your 
capacity would be 150.5Mbps.  It's true that a 5Mbps UE won't make the capacity 
of the eNB 5Mbps, but it is true that while the channel is being used to talk 
to that UE, the channel is only running at 5Mbps.  My point was, if someone is 
testing with a single UE and happy that they're getting 5Mbps, then they're 
forgetting that they won't actually get 5Mbps when there are other UE operating 
at the same time, and that the weak connections they install are weakening 
efficiency of the whole sector.  I know you know this, I think you're just 
misinterpreting what I said.

 

On 9/14/2020 8:39 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:

Hold on. 30dBm is well within legal power for CBRS. 

 

Also a station connected getting 5 megabits is not dragging the entire sector 
down to 5 megabits. That’s not how LTE works. 






On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Adam Moffett  <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> 
 wrote:

 

Attenuation in 3.5ghz is on average 15db per 100meters of foliage.  I got that 
number from a Telrad engineer, and it seemed to hold up experimentally.  
Whether it's Wimax, LTE, etc, there's no reason that would be different.   

LTE can connect with almost nothing for a signal.  So a person testing with a 
single base station and a single UE might run around and say "wow I've got 5 
megs here and No LOS!", but I think they forget that the entire base station's 
capacity is 5meg when it's talking to that single UE at 5mbps.  It's impressive 
that it worked, but is that actually useful as a fixed ISP?  

Another thing I noticed is that Telrad could turn the Tx Power all the way to 
+30dbm, and people were actually doing it, and Telrad support seemed to be 
encouraging them to do it.  At a training session someone in Telrad support 
told me, "Adam, if you're worried about the legal EIRP limit then you're the 
only one worried about it."  So if you're 8-10db stronger than the legally 
operating product, and you can technically connect with a signal too weak for 
the other product, that certainly makes people feel like there's better 
penetration. 

There may also be some "magic" in how LTE allocates resource blocks and gets 
feedback from the UE's (CQI) on which resource blocks are working best 

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Matt Hoppes]

-100 would be full modulation on LTE. That being said please consider Cambium 
450 - you’ll save yourself a ton of headache in the short and long run and have 
a better experience. 

> On Nov 8, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Grip  wrote:
> 
> 
> Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE 
> for my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage 
> penetration.
>  
> What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in 
> CBRS 3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a 
> rough equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a 
> -100dBm signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe 
> he’s being a little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?
>  
> And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
> platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
> Airspan stuff?
>  
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
> To: af@af.afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>  
> For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.  
> When I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still a 
> hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license with 
> the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.
> 
> And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in time when the AP is 
> talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps.  At the 
> moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the capacity 
> is 300Mbps.  The average capacity over time is going to be a function of how 
> much time is spent talking to each station at each rate.  If you literally 
> had one at 1Mbps and one at 300Mbps and both were allocated equal airtime 
> then your capacity would be 150.5Mbps.  It's true that a 5Mbps UE won't make 
> the capacity of the eNB 5Mbps, but it is true that while the channel is being 
> used to talk to that UE, the channel is only running at 5Mbps.  My point was, 
> if someone is testing with a single UE and happy that they're getting 5Mbps, 
> then they're forgetting that they won't actually get 5Mbps when there are 
> other UE operating at the same time, and that the weak connections they 
> install are weakening efficiency of the whole sector.  I know you know this, 
> I think you're just misinterpreting what I said.
> 
>  
> 
> On 9/14/2020 8:39 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
> Hold on. 30dBm is well within legal power for CBRS. 
>  
> Also a station connected getting 5 megabits is not dragging the entire sector 
> down to 5 megabits. That’s not how LTE works. 
> 
> 
> On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
> 
> 
> Attenuation in 3.5ghz is on average 15db per 100meters of foliage.  I got 
> that number from a Telrad engineer, and it seemed to hold up experimentally.  
> Whether it's Wimax, LTE, etc, there's no reason that would be different.  
> 
> LTE can connect with almost nothing for a signal.  So a person testing with a 
> single base station and a single UE might run around and say "wow I've got 5 
> megs here and No LOS!", but I think they forget that the entire base 
> station's capacity is 5meg when it's talking to that single UE at 5mbps.  
> It's impressive that it worked, but is that actually useful as a fixed ISP? 
> 
> Another thing I noticed is that Telrad could turn the Tx Power all the way to 
> +30dbm, and people were actually doing it, and Telrad support seemed to be 
> encouraging them to do it.  At a training session someone in Telrad support 
> told me, "Adam, if you're worried about the legal EIRP limit then you're the 
> only one worried about it."  So if you're 8-10db stronger than the legally 
> operating product, and you can technically connect with a signal too weak for 
> the other product, that certainly makes people feel like there's better 
> penetration.
> 
> There may also be some "magic" in how LTE allocates resource blocks and gets 
> feedback from the UE's (CQI) on which resource blocks are working best for 
> each unit, but I think that's a matter of getting the most value possible out 
> of a trashy signal.  If you're a fixed operator building for capacity and 
> performance then you hopefully won't be installing with a trashy signal 
> anyway.
> 
> My biggest issue of all is that all of the WISP priced LTE stuff is clunky 
> and buggy.  Frankly, that was true of WiMax too.  It seemed like Telrad's 
> bridging modes never quite worked right for example.  You were better off 
> building an L2 tunnel on your own box behind the UE. 
> 
> -Adam
> 
>  
> 
> O

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Jeremy Grip]

Thought I’d pick up this thread again because I’m looking hard at CBRS LTE for 
my densely forested town, largely because of its alleged foliage penetration. 

 

What’s anybody understand the EIRP limit for a 20Mhz channel to be now in CBRS 
3.65? Can I assume that modeling RSSI in a tool like RMD can serve as a rough 
equivalent of RSRP? Vendor is telling me that where he heatmaps a -100dBm 
signal represents full modulation—does that make any sense? Maybe he’s being a 
little slimy and referring to uplink modulation on a 1T4R UE?

 

And David—you started this thread and said you were trialling those various 
platforms—anything to report? Did you get your hands on the Baicells and/or 
Airspan stuff?

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:50 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.  When 
I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still a 
hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license with 
the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.

And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in time when the AP is 
talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps.  At the 
moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the capacity is 
300Mbps.  The average capacity over time is going to be a function of how much 
time is spent talking to each station at each rate.  If you literally had one 
at 1Mbps and one at 300Mbps and both were allocated equal airtime then your 
capacity would be 150.5Mbps.  It's true that a 5Mbps UE won't make the capacity 
of the eNB 5Mbps, but it is true that while the channel is being used to talk 
to that UE, the channel is only running at 5Mbps.  My point was, if someone is 
testing with a single UE and happy that they're getting 5Mbps, then they're 
forgetting that they won't actually get 5Mbps when there are other UE operating 
at the same time, and that the weak connections they install are weakening 
efficiency of the whole sector.  I know you know this, I think you're just 
misinterpreting what I said.

 

On 9/14/2020 8:39 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:

Hold on. 30dBm is well within legal power for CBRS. 

 

Also a station connected getting 5 megabits is not dragging the entire sector 
down to 5 megabits. That’s not how LTE works. 





On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Adam Moffett  <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> 
 wrote:

 

Attenuation in 3.5ghz is on average 15db per 100meters of foliage.  I got that 
number from a Telrad engineer, and it seemed to hold up experimentally.  
Whether it's Wimax, LTE, etc, there's no reason that would be different.   

LTE can connect with almost nothing for a signal.  So a person testing with a 
single base station and a single UE might run around and say "wow I've got 5 
megs here and No LOS!", but I think they forget that the entire base station's 
capacity is 5meg when it's talking to that single UE at 5mbps.  It's impressive 
that it worked, but is that actually useful as a fixed ISP?  

Another thing I noticed is that Telrad could turn the Tx Power all the way to 
+30dbm, and people were actually doing it, and Telrad support seemed to be 
encouraging them to do it.  At a training session someone in Telrad support 
told me, "Adam, if you're worried about the legal EIRP limit then you're the 
only one worried about it."  So if you're 8-10db stronger than the legally 
operating product, and you can technically connect with a signal too weak for 
the other product, that certainly makes people feel like there's better 
penetration. 

There may also be some "magic" in how LTE allocates resource blocks and gets 
feedback from the UE's (CQI) on which resource blocks are working best for each 
unit, but I think that's a matter of getting the most value possible out of a 
trashy signal.  If you're a fixed operator building for capacity and 
performance then you hopefully won't be installing with a trashy signal anyway.

My biggest issue of all is that all of the WISP priced LTE stuff is clunky and 
buggy.  Frankly, that was true of WiMax too.  It seemed like Telrad's bridging 
modes never quite worked right for example.  You were better off building an L2 
tunnel on your own box behind the UE.  

-Adam

 

On 9/14/2020 12:19 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Ever since I got bamboozled into deploying a WiMax basestation, I have been 
skeptical of tree penetration hype.

 

We have been deploying Cambium 450 in 3.5 GHz / CBRS and it’s great, but it 
doesn’t “penetrate” trees.  OK, an SM within a mile can go through 1 or 2 
trees, depending on the size/density/type of tree.  And with the usual caveat 
that trees near the customer are more problematic than trees in the middle of 
the path.

 

Some people say otherwise, but there were all sorts of glowing testimonials for 
the WiMax equipment as well.

 

Maybe LTE has magic properties.  I doubt

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Ken Hohhof]

Back in the WiMax days that was true.

 

We had a Purewave system, and eventually I realized everyone was cranking up 
the xmt power to max, ignoring FCC limits on max EIRP.  It wasn’t enforced at 
all in software, and I guess the assumption was only a professional wireless 
engineer would be configuring a WiMax system, and would set the xmt power 
according to regulatory rules.  But the marketing and sales people, and the 
customers, ignored all that.  Pedal to the metal!  And then give a testimonial 
about how it burns through a mile of forest.  Look, it linked up at -92 and I 
got a web page!

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:00 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

.and I think Telrad is relevant because at the time when people's notions 
developed about LTE working through trees Telrad was the only option for a WISP 
wanting to use LTE.  At that time, people were putting out testimonials and 
videos where they seemed to be very impressed that they got xx Mbps without LOS 
when testing with a single UE.  Given that Telrad support advised me to turn up 
the tx power all the way, I imagine they advised these other people to do that 
too.  Then they're comparing to a Wimax, 450, or Airmax unit in 3.65ghz that 
can't operate at too high of a Tx power to their Telrad unit that does operate 
at too high of a Tx power.  

If you were comparing apples to apples today with an LTE unit and a 450m which 
can both max out the EIRP limit on CBRS then what are we really left with?   
What we're left with is LTE can function with a crappier signal, and then I 
have to ask does a fixed wireless operator really want all the baggage with LTE 
so that they have the ability to connect customers with crappy signals?  What I 
was pointing out is that weak connections hurt you.  Maybe I could have phrased 
it in a more clear way.

 

On 9/14/2020 8:49 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:

For CBRS, depending on antenna and channel size, yes it's probably legal.  When 
I went to that Telrad training session a few years ago, CBRS was still a 
hypothetical thing and everyone there was operating under an NN license with 
the 1W/Mhz EIRP limit.

And yeah that's how ALL wireless works.  At the moment in time when the AP is 
talking to a station at 1Mbps, the capacity of the channel is 1Mbps.  At the 
moment in time when the AP is talking to a station at 300Mbps, the capacity is 
300Mbps.  The average capacity over time is going to be a function of how much 
time is spent talking to each station at each rate.  If you literally had one 
at 1Mbps and one at 300Mbps and both were allocated equal airtime then your 
capacity would be 150.5Mbps.  It's true that a 5Mbps UE won't make the capacity 
of the eNB 5Mbps, but it is true that while the channel is being used to talk 
to that UE, the channel is only running at 5Mbps.  My point was, if someone is 
testing with a single UE and happy that they're getting 5Mbps, then they're 
forgetting that they won't actually get 5Mbps when there are other UE operating 
at the same time, and that the weak connections they install are weakening 
efficiency of the whole sector.  I know you know this, I think you're just 
misinterpreting what I said.

 

On 9/14/2020 8:39 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:

Hold on. 30dBm is well within legal power for CBRS. 

 

Also a station connected getting 5 megabits is not dragging the entire sector 
down to 5 megabits. That’s not how LTE works. 





On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Adam Moffett  <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> 
 wrote:

 

Attenuation in 3.5ghz is on average 15db per 100meters of foliage.  I got that 
number from a Telrad engineer, and it seemed to hold up experimentally.  
Whether it's Wimax, LTE, etc, there's no reason that would be different.   

LTE can connect with almost nothing for a signal.  So a person testing with a 
single base station and a single UE might run around and say "wow I've got 5 
megs here and No LOS!", but I think they forget that the entire base station's 
capacity is 5meg when it's talking to that single UE at 5mbps.  It's impressive 
that it worked, but is that actually useful as a fixed ISP?  

Another thing I noticed is that Telrad could turn the Tx Power all the way to 
+30dbm, and people were actually doing it, and Telrad support seemed to be 
encouraging them to do it.  At a training session someone in Telrad support 
told me, "Adam, if you're worried about the legal EIRP limit then you're the 
only one worried about it."  So if you're 8-10db stronger than the legally 
operating product, and you can technically connect with a signal too weak for 
the other product, that certainly makes people feel like there's better 
penetration. 

There may also be some "magic" in how LTE allocates resource blocks and gets 
feedback from the UE's (CQI) on which resource blocks are working best for each 
unit, but I think that's a matter of

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Adam Moffett]

 depending on the size/density/type of 
tree.  And with the usual caveat that trees near the customer are 
more problematic than trees in the middle of the path.


Some people say otherwise, but there were all sorts of glowing 
testimonials for the WiMax equipment as well.


Maybe LTE has magic properties.  I doubt it, but I haven’t tried 
it, I don’t want to repeat the WiMax fiasco.  So I could be wrong.  
But when I’m wrong, usually it’s because I wasn’t pessimistic 
enough and things are even worse than I feared.  Only on rare 
occasions do I expect a lion behind the door and there’s a 
beautiful lady.  Usually there’s 2 lions.


Certainly turning on CBRS made all our 3.5 GHz Cambium stuff work 
better, we got several dB higher xmt power, and usually cleaner 
spectrum. But the cleaner spectrum thing is only true until other 
operators fire up their stuff in 3550-3650. Even if you get a PAL, 
it’s not like nobody can use that frequency in the whole county.  
The interference at the edge of your PAL protection zone should be 
below some level that the SAS uses when authorizing nearby 
operators to transmit.  But that level isn’t -99 dBm.


LTE gear may be designed with better receiver sensitivity, that 
will help if the noise floor is really really low.  On the other 
hand, does most LTE gear use the highest allowed EIRP?  What about 
the CPE?  That was another problem with the WiMax stuff, the CPE 
was 3rd party stuff that typically had kind of wimpy xmt power and 
not particularly high antenna gain.  Maybe that’s not true of LTE 
gear, I haven’t looked into it.  But pull out a Cambium 3 GHz 450b 
high-gain SM spec sheet and compare to the LTE CPE.


*From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Trey Scarborough
*Sent:* Sunday, September 13, 2020 4:43 PM
*To:* af@af.afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

Has anyone done a comparison or know of a whitepaper between LTE 
and Cambium? I am mainly looking at tree penetration or lower DB 
signals to actual throughput comparison. I have been told that LTE 
gets a little better tree penetration but if that is at a low rate 
that really doesn't help any.


On 9/12/2020 10:03 AM, Darin Steffl wrote:

It comes down to complexity. Ericsson, Nokia, etc are all
cellular brands and to run and manage those complex LTE
networks, you need full time engineers to manage, debug, and
optimize things.

Cambium is so easy, in comparison, there's very little extra
learning to do in order to get it running great. Ericsson LTE
probably would require months of training and needing to hire
someone just to run the gear or hire expensive consultants to
do it for you.

On Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 9:49 AM Kurt Fankhauser
mailto:lists.wavel...@gmail.com>> wrote:

450m is the only way to do, especially if your already
using the 450 platform in other parts of your network,
there is an operator in my area with the Ericson system and
they had a ton of issues with getting it up and running,
not even sure if they ever got it all resolved.

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:00 PM Sean Heskett
mailto:af...@zirkel.us>> wrote:

Yup what josh said lol.

We tried the LTE thing and glad we switch to
450m...much easier.

-Sean

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 4:43 PM Josh Luthman
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:

Having done one LTE vendor and 450m the only
mistake I made was not buying the 450m sooner.


Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St

<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1100+Wayne+St+Suite+1337+Troy,+OH+45373?entry=gmail=g>
Suite 1337

<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1100+Wayne+St+Suite+1337+Troy,+OH+45373?entry=gmail=g>
Troy, OH 45373

<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1100+Wayne+St+Suite+1337+Troy,+OH+45373?entry=gmail=g>

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:54 PM Adam Moffett
mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>>
wrote:










And yeah, 450m might be expensive, but so is
all the LTE stuff.

You'll max out the legal EIRP with 450m, and
get 8x8 MIMO.  I think

part of the magic with LTE is that it will
connect with ridiculously

low signal, but on a fixed system you probably
won't really want the

trashy signals anyway.

Cambium also has LTE for whatever it's worth. 
The CBRS version

is supposed to be available relatively soon
(though I forget

precisely when).

 

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Adam Moffett]

r sensitivity, that will 
help if the noise floor is really really low.  On the other hand, 
does most LTE gear use the highest allowed EIRP?  What about the 
CPE? That was another problem with the WiMax stuff, the CPE was 3rd 
party stuff that typically had kind of wimpy xmt power and not 
particularly high antenna gain.  Maybe that’s not true of LTE gear, 
I haven’t looked into it. But pull out a Cambium 3 GHz 450b 
high-gain SM spec sheet and compare to the LTE CPE.


*From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Trey Scarborough
*Sent:* Sunday, September 13, 2020 4:43 PM
*To:* af@af.afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

Has anyone done a comparison or know of a whitepaper between LTE and 
Cambium? I am mainly looking at tree penetration or lower DB signals 
to actual throughput comparison. I have been told that LTE gets a 
little better tree penetration but if that is at a low rate that 
really doesn't help any.


On 9/12/2020 10:03 AM, Darin Steffl wrote:

It comes down to complexity. Ericsson, Nokia, etc are all
cellular brands and to run and manage those complex LTE
networks, you need full time engineers to manage, debug, and
optimize things.

Cambium is so easy, in comparison, there's very little extra
learning to do in order to get it running great. Ericsson LTE
probably would require months of training and needing to hire
someone just to run the gear or hire expensive consultants to do
it for you.

On Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 9:49 AM Kurt Fankhauser
mailto:lists.wavel...@gmail.com>> wrote:

450m is the only way to do, especially if your already using
the 450 platform in other parts of your network, there is an
operator in my area with the Ericson system and they had a
ton of issues with getting it up and running, not even sure
if they ever got it all resolved.

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:00 PM Sean Heskett
mailto:af...@zirkel.us>> wrote:

Yup what josh said lol.

We tried the LTE thing and glad we switch to 450m...much
easier.

-Sean

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 4:43 PM Josh Luthman
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:

Having done one LTE vendor and 450m the only mistake
I made was not buying the 450m sooner.


Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St

<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1100+Wayne+St+Suite+1337+Troy,+OH+45373?entry=gmail=g>
Suite 1337

<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1100+Wayne+St+Suite+1337+Troy,+OH+45373?entry=gmail=g>
Troy, OH 45373

<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1100+Wayne+St+Suite+1337+Troy,+OH+45373?entry=gmail=g>

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:54 PM Adam Moffett
mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>>
wrote:










And yeah, 450m might be expensive, but so is all
the LTE stuff.

You'll max out the legal EIRP with 450m, and get
8x8 MIMO.  I think

part of the magic with LTE is that it will
connect with ridiculously

low signal, but on a fixed system you probably
won't really want the

trashy signals anyway.

Cambium also has LTE for whatever it's worth. 
The CBRS version

is supposed to be available relatively soon
(though I forget

precisely when).

I don't know if I state it as "fewer issues
since there is no

EPC", but definitely fewer complexities and
fewer things to worry

about.  The connection from eNB to EPC has to be
/pristine/,

and the EPC comes with its own set of new
terminology and new

concepts to figure out.



On 9/11/2020 4:06 PM, Darin Steffl

wrote:







I have seen lots to people doing 450M in CBRS

stating coverage is nearly the same as LTE
but way better speeds

and triple the aggregate capacity due to
mu-mimo.



Way fewer issues too since there is no EPC. Just

straight layer 2 with no bullshit.





On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 2:39 PM

David Coudron mailto:david.coud...@advantenon.com>>

wrote:

We are looking at a new area to

 

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Matt Hoppes]

Hold on. 30dBm is well within legal power for CBRS. 

Also a station connected getting 5 megabits is not dragging the entire sector 
down to 5 megabits. That’s not how LTE works. 

> On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
> 
> 
> Attenuation in 3.5ghz is on average 15db per 100meters of foliage.  I got 
> that number from a Telrad engineer, and it seemed to hold up experimentally.  
> Whether it's Wimax, LTE, etc, there's no reason that would be different.  
> 
> LTE can connect with almost nothing for a signal.  So a person testing with a 
> single base station and a single UE might run around and say "wow I've got 5 
> megs here and No LOS!", but I think they forget that the entire base 
> station's capacity is 5meg when it's talking to that single UE at 5mbps.  
> It's impressive that it worked, but is that actually useful as a fixed ISP?  
> 
> Another thing I noticed is that Telrad could turn the Tx Power all the way to 
> +30dbm, and people were actually doing it, and Telrad support seemed to be 
> encouraging them to do it.  At a training session someone in Telrad support 
> told me, "Adam, if you're worried about the legal EIRP limit then you're the 
> only one worried about it."  So if you're 8-10db stronger than the legally 
> operating product, and you can technically connect with a signal too weak for 
> the other product, that certainly makes people feel like there's better 
> penetration. 
> 
> There may also be some "magic" in how LTE allocates resource blocks and gets 
> feedback from the UE's (CQI) on which resource blocks are working best for 
> each unit, but I think that's a matter of getting the most value possible out 
> of a trashy signal.  If you're a fixed operator building for capacity and 
> performance then you hopefully won't be installing with a trashy signal 
> anyway.
> 
> My biggest issue of all is that all of the WISP priced LTE stuff is clunky 
> and buggy.  Frankly, that was true of WiMax too.  It seemed like Telrad's 
> bridging modes never quite worked right for example.  You were better off 
> building an L2 tunnel on your own box behind the UE.  
> 
> -Adam
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/14/2020 12:19 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>> Ever since I got bamboozled into deploying a WiMax basestation, I have been 
>> skeptical of tree penetration hype.
>>  
>> We have been deploying Cambium 450 in 3.5 GHz / CBRS and it’s great, but it 
>> doesn’t “penetrate” trees.  OK, an SM within a mile can go through 1 or 2 
>> trees, depending on the size/density/type of tree.  And with the usual 
>> caveat that trees near the customer are more problematic than trees in the 
>> middle of the path.
>>  
>> Some people say otherwise, but there were all sorts of glowing testimonials 
>> for the WiMax equipment as well.
>>  
>> Maybe LTE has magic properties.  I doubt it, but I haven’t tried it, I don’t 
>> want to repeat the WiMax fiasco.  So I could be wrong.  But when I’m wrong, 
>> usually it’s because I wasn’t pessimistic enough and things are even worse 
>> than I feared.  Only on rare occasions do I expect a lion behind the door 
>> and there’s a beautiful lady.  Usually there’s 2 lions.
>>  
>> Certainly turning on CBRS made all our 3.5 GHz Cambium stuff work better, we 
>> got several dB higher xmt power, and usually cleaner spectrum.  But the 
>> cleaner spectrum thing is only true until other operators fire up their 
>> stuff in 3550-3650.  Even if you get a PAL, it’s not like nobody can use 
>> that frequency in the whole county.  The interference at the edge of your 
>> PAL protection zone should be below some level that the SAS uses when 
>> authorizing nearby operators to transmit.  But that level isn’t -99 dBm.
>>  
>> LTE gear may be designed with better receiver sensitivity, that will help if 
>> the noise floor is really really low.  On the other hand, does most LTE gear 
>> use the highest allowed EIRP?  What about the CPE?  That was another problem 
>> with the WiMax stuff, the CPE was 3rd party stuff that typically had kind of 
>> wimpy xmt power and not particularly high antenna gain.  Maybe that’s not 
>> true of LTE gear, I haven’t looked into it.  But pull out a Cambium 3 GHz 
>> 450b high-gain SM spec sheet and compare to the LTE CPE.
>>  
>> From: AF  On Behalf Of Trey Scarborough
>> Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 4:43 PM
>> To: af@af.afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>>  
>> Has anyone done a comparison or know of a whitepaper between LTE and 
>> Cambium? I am mainly looking at tree penetration or lower DB signals to 
>> actual throughput comparison. I have 

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Adam Moffett]

Attenuation in 3.5ghz is on average 15db per 100meters of foliage.  I 
got that number from a Telrad engineer, and it seemed to hold up 
experimentally.  Whether it's Wimax, LTE, etc, there's no reason that 
would be different.


LTE can connect with almost nothing for a signal.  So a person testing 
with a single base station and a single UE might run around and say "wow 
I've got 5 megs here and No LOS!", but I think they forget that the 
entire base station's capacity is 5meg when it's talking to that single 
UE at 5mbps.  It's impressive that it worked, but is that actually 
useful as a fixed ISP?


Another thing I noticed is that Telrad could turn the Tx Power all the 
way to +30dbm, and people were actually doing it, and Telrad support 
seemed to be encouraging them to do it.  At a training session someone 
in Telrad support told me, "Adam, if you're worried about the legal EIRP 
limit then you're the only one worried about it."  So if you're 8-10db 
stronger than the legally operating product, and you can technically 
connect with a signal too weak for the other product, that certainly 
makes people feel like there's better penetration.


There may also be some "magic" in how LTE allocates resource blocks and 
gets feedback from the UE's (CQI) on which resource blocks are working 
best for each unit, but I think that's a matter of getting the most 
value possible out of a trashy signal.  If you're a fixed operator 
building for capacity and performance then you hopefully won't be 
installing with a trashy signal anyway.


My biggest issue of all is that all of the WISP priced LTE stuff is 
clunky and buggy.  Frankly, that was true of WiMax too.  It seemed like 
Telrad's bridging modes never quite worked right for example.  You were 
better off building an L2 tunnel on your own box behind the UE.


-Adam


On 9/14/2020 12:19 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:


Ever since I got bamboozled into deploying a WiMax basestation, I have 
been skeptical of tree penetration hype.


We have been deploying Cambium 450 in 3.5 GHz / CBRS and it’s great, 
but it doesn’t “penetrate” trees. OK, an SM within a mile can go 
through 1 or 2 trees, depending on the size/density/type of tree.  And 
with the usual caveat that trees near the customer are more 
problematic than trees in the middle of the path.


Some people say otherwise, but there were all sorts of glowing 
testimonials for the WiMax equipment as well.


Maybe LTE has magic properties.  I doubt it, but I haven’t tried it, I 
don’t want to repeat the WiMax fiasco.  So I could be wrong.  But when 
I’m wrong, usually it’s because I wasn’t pessimistic enough and things 
are even worse than I feared.  Only on rare occasions do I expect a 
lion behind the door and there’s a beautiful lady.  Usually there’s 2 
lions.


Certainly turning on CBRS made all our 3.5 GHz Cambium stuff work 
better, we got several dB higher xmt power, and usually cleaner 
spectrum.  But the cleaner spectrum thing is only true until other 
operators fire up their stuff in 3550-3650.  Even if you get a PAL, 
it’s not like nobody can use that frequency in the whole county.  The 
interference at the edge of your PAL protection zone should be below 
some level that the SAS uses when authorizing nearby operators to 
transmit.  But that level isn’t -99 dBm.


LTE gear may be designed with better receiver sensitivity, that will 
help if the noise floor is really really low.  On the other hand, does 
most LTE gear use the highest allowed EIRP?  What about the CPE?  That 
was another problem with the WiMax stuff, the CPE was 3rd party stuff 
that typically had kind of wimpy xmt power and not particularly high 
antenna gain.  Maybe that’s not true of LTE gear, I haven’t looked 
into it.  But pull out a Cambium 3 GHz 450b high-gain SM spec sheet 
and compare to the LTE CPE.


*From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Trey Scarborough
*Sent:* Sunday, September 13, 2020 4:43 PM
*To:* af@af.afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

Has anyone done a comparison or know of a whitepaper between LTE and 
Cambium? I am mainly looking at tree penetration or lower DB signals 
to actual throughput comparison. I have been told that LTE gets a 
little better tree penetration but if that is at a low rate that 
really doesn't help any.


On 9/12/2020 10:03 AM, Darin Steffl wrote:

It comes down to complexity. Ericsson, Nokia, etc are all cellular
brands and to run and manage those complex LTE networks, you need
full time engineers to manage, debug, and optimize things.

Cambium is so easy, in comparison, there's very little extra
learning to do in order to get it running great. Ericsson LTE
probably would require months of training and needing to hire
someone just to run the gear or hire expensive consultants to do
it for you.

On Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 9:49 AM Kurt Fankhauser
mailto:lists.wavel...@gmail.com>> wrote:

450m is the only way to 

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Mark Radabaugh]

Cambium published one not too long ago on that subject that Matt Mangriotis 
wrote.Cambium has both proprietary and LTE products.

Mark

> On Sep 14, 2020, at 7:29 AM, David Coudron  
> wrote:
> 
> This is very helpful conversation, we definitely appreciate the input.   As 
> Trey mentioned has anyone been able to compare tree penetration of the two 
> solutions?   That is the main issue for us.  The comments about complexity 
> and so on are what has kept us away from the LTE based products thus far, and 
> from watching the Baicells Facebook page, stability and can also be an issue. 
>   We are just wondering if now is the time to take on the complexity if it 
> brings a notable improvement in the heavily treed areas and gives us some 
> real Non LOS coverage.   If it is incremental at best, or not much of an 
> improvement, we already have an investment in PMP 450 and the 450m would be a 
> heck of a lot more comfortable to us.  But if there is notable improvement, 
> it might be the time to invest the effort into learning a new platform.   
>  
> A couple of you mentioned trying LTE and then also working with 450m.   Is 
> the Non LOS coverage about the same when they were both working correctly, or 
> was there a big difference?
>  
> Regards,
>  
> David Coudron
>  
> From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf 
> Of Trey Scarborough
> Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 4:43 PM
> To: af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors
>  
> Has anyone done a comparison or know of a whitepaper between LTE and Cambium? 
> I am mainly looking at tree penetration or lower DB signals to actual 
> throughput comparison. I have been told that LTE gets a little better tree 
> penetration but if that is at a low rate that really doesn't help any. 
> 
> On 9/12/2020 10:03 AM, Darin Steffl wrote:
> It comes down to complexity. Ericsson, Nokia, etc are all cellular brands and 
> to run and manage those complex LTE networks, you need full time engineers to 
> manage, debug, and optimize things.
>  
> Cambium is so easy, in comparison, there's very little extra learning to do 
> in order to get it running great. Ericsson LTE probably would require months 
> of training and needing to hire someone just to run the gear or hire 
> expensive consultants to do it for you. 
>  
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 9:49 AM Kurt Fankhauser  <mailto:lists.wavel...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 450m is the only way to do, especially if your already using the 450 platform 
> in other parts of your network, there is an operator in my area with the 
> Ericson system and they had a ton of issues with getting it up and running, 
> not even sure if they ever got it all resolved.
>  
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:00 PM Sean Heskett  <mailto:af...@zirkel.us>> wrote:
> Yup what josh said lol.
>  
> We tried the LTE thing and glad we switch to 450m...much easier.
>  
> -Sean
>  
>  
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 4:43 PM Josh Luthman  <mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:
> Having done one LTE vendor and 450m the only mistake I made was not buying 
> the 450m sooner.
> 
>  
> Josh Luthman
> 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St 
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1100+Wayne+St+Suite+1337+Troy,+OH+45373?entry=gmail=g>
> Suite 1337 
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1100+Wayne+St+Suite+1337+Troy,+OH+45373?entry=gmail=g>
> Troy, OH 45373 
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1100+Wayne+St+Suite+1337+Troy,+OH+45373?entry=gmail=g>
>  
>  
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:54 PM Adam Moffett  <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yeah, 450m might be expensive, but so is all the LTE stuff. 
> 
> You'll max out the legal EIRP with 450m, and get 8x8 MIMO.  I think
> 
> part of the magic with LTE is that it will connect with ridiculously
> 
> low signal, but on a fixed system you probably won't really want the
> 
> trashy signals anyway. 
> 
> 
> Cambium also has LTE for whatever it's worth.  The CBRS version
> 
> is supposed to be available relatively soon (though I forget
> 
> precisely when).
> 
>  
> 
> I don't know if I state it as "fewer issues since there is no
> 
> EPC", but definitely fewer complexities and fewer things to worry
> 
> about.  The connection from eNB to EPC has to be pristine,
> 
> and the EPC comes with its own set of new terminology and new
> 
> concepts to figure out.  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> On 9/11/2020 4:06 PM, Darin Steffl
> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[David Coudron]

This is very helpful conversation, we definitely appreciate the input.   As 
Trey mentioned has anyone been able to compare tree penetration of the two 
solutions?   That is the main issue for us.  The comments about complexity and 
so on are what has kept us away from the LTE based products thus far, and from 
watching the Baicells Facebook page, stability and can also be an issue.   We 
are just wondering if now is the time to take on the complexity if it brings a 
notable improvement in the heavily treed areas and gives us some real Non LOS 
coverage.   If it is incremental at best, or not much of an improvement, we 
already have an investment in PMP 450 and the 450m would be a heck of a lot 
more comfortable to us.  But if there is notable improvement, it might be the 
time to invest the effort into learning a new platform.

A couple of you mentioned trying LTE and then also working with 450m.   Is the 
Non LOS coverage about the same when they were both working correctly, or was 
there a big difference?

Regards,

David Coudron

From: AF  On Behalf Of Trey Scarborough
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 4:43 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors


Has anyone done a comparison or know of a whitepaper between LTE and Cambium? I 
am mainly looking at tree penetration or lower DB signals to actual throughput 
comparison. I have been told that LTE gets a little better tree penetration but 
if that is at a low rate that really doesn't help any.
On 9/12/2020 10:03 AM, Darin Steffl wrote:
It comes down to complexity. Ericsson, Nokia, etc are all cellular brands and 
to run and manage those complex LTE networks, you need full time engineers to 
manage, debug, and optimize things.

Cambium is so easy, in comparison, there's very little extra learning to do in 
order to get it running great. Ericsson LTE probably would require months of 
training and needing to hire someone just to run the gear or hire expensive 
consultants to do it for you.

On Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 9:49 AM Kurt Fankhauser 
mailto:lists.wavel...@gmail.com>> wrote:
450m is the only way to do, especially if your already using the 450 platform 
in other parts of your network, there is an operator in my area with the 
Ericson system and they had a ton of issues with getting it up and running, not 
even sure if they ever got it all resolved.

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:00 PM Sean Heskett 
mailto:af...@zirkel.us>> wrote:
Yup what josh said lol.

We tried the LTE thing and glad we switch to 450m...much easier.

-Sean


On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 4:43 PM Josh Luthman 
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:
Having done one LTE vendor and 450m the only mistake I made was not buying the 
450m sooner.


Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne 
St<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1100+Wayne+St+Suite+1337+Troy,+OH+45373?entry=gmail=g>
Suite 
1337<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1100+Wayne+St+Suite+1337+Troy,+OH+45373?entry=gmail=g>
Troy, OH 
45373<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1100+Wayne+St+Suite+1337+Troy,+OH+45373?entry=gmail=g>


On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:54 PM Adam Moffett 
mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:









And yeah, 450m might be expensive, but so is all the LTE stuff.

You'll max out the legal EIRP with 450m, and get 8x8 MIMO.  I think

part of the magic with LTE is that it will connect with ridiculously

low signal, but on a fixed system you probably won't really want the

trashy signals anyway.


Cambium also has LTE for whatever it's worth.  The CBRS version

is supposed to be available relatively soon (though I forget

precisely when).


I don't know if I state it as "fewer issues since there is no

EPC", but definitely fewer complexities and fewer things to worry

about.  The connection from eNB to EPC has to be pristine,

and the EPC comes with its own set of new terminology and new

concepts to figure out.





On 9/11/2020 4:06 PM, Darin Steffl

wrote:







I have seen lots to people doing 450M in CBRS

stating coverage is nearly the same as LTE but way better speeds

and triple the aggregate capacity due to mu-mimo.



Way fewer issues too since there is no EPC. Just

straight layer 2 with no bullshit.






On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 2:39 PM

David Coudron 
mailto:david.coud...@advantenon.com>>

wrote:





We are looking at a new area to

expand out network that has a lot more tree cover than

our current footprint.   We are thinking with the

combination of CBRS and LTE, that we might be able to

offer better coverage than with traditional fixed

wireless options.   We have started conversations with

the following vendors, wondering if anyone has any hands

on experience with any of them and what their

impressions were:

Blinq

Airspan

Baicells

Ericsson



The Ericsson equipment is in a class

by itself price wise, but the others are similarly

priced, and somewhere around double the price of PMP 450

stuff.   N

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Ken Hohhof]

Ever since I got bamboozled into deploying a WiMax basestation, I have been 
skeptical of tree penetration hype.

 

We have been deploying Cambium 450 in 3.5 GHz / CBRS and it’s great, but it 
doesn’t “penetrate” trees.  OK, an SM within a mile can go through 1 or 2 
trees, depending on the size/density/type of tree.  And with the usual caveat 
that trees near the customer are more problematic than trees in the middle of 
the path.

 

Some people say otherwise, but there were all sorts of glowing testimonials for 
the WiMax equipment as well.

 

Maybe LTE has magic properties.  I doubt it, but I haven’t tried it, I don’t 
want to repeat the WiMax fiasco.  So I could be wrong.  But when I’m wrong, 
usually it’s because I wasn’t pessimistic enough and things are even worse than 
I feared.  Only on rare occasions do I expect a lion behind the door and 
there’s a beautiful lady.  Usually there’s 2 lions.

 

Certainly turning on CBRS made all our 3.5 GHz Cambium stuff work better, we 
got several dB higher xmt power, and usually cleaner spectrum.  But the cleaner 
spectrum thing is only true until other operators fire up their stuff in 
3550-3650.  Even if you get a PAL, it’s not like nobody can use that frequency 
in the whole county.  The interference at the edge of your PAL protection zone 
should be below some level that the SAS uses when authorizing nearby operators 
to transmit.  But that level isn’t -99 dBm.

 

LTE gear may be designed with better receiver sensitivity, that will help if 
the noise floor is really really low.  On the other hand, does most LTE gear 
use the highest allowed EIRP?  What about the CPE?  That was another problem 
with the WiMax stuff, the CPE was 3rd party stuff that typically had kind of 
wimpy xmt power and not particularly high antenna gain.  Maybe that’s not true 
of LTE gear, I haven’t looked into it.  But pull out a Cambium 3 GHz 450b 
high-gain SM spec sheet and compare to the LTE CPE.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Trey Scarborough
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 4:43 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

 

Has anyone done a comparison or know of a whitepaper between LTE and Cambium? I 
am mainly looking at tree penetration or lower DB signals to actual throughput 
comparison. I have been told that LTE gets a little better tree penetration but 
if that is at a low rate that really doesn't help any. 

On 9/12/2020 10:03 AM, Darin Steffl wrote:

It comes down to complexity. Ericsson, Nokia, etc are all cellular brands and 
to run and manage those complex LTE networks, you need full time engineers to 
manage, debug, and optimize things. 

 

Cambium is so easy, in comparison, there's very little extra learning to do in 
order to get it running great. Ericsson LTE probably would require months of 
training and needing to hire someone just to run the gear or hire expensive 
consultants to do it for you. 

 

On Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 9:49 AM Kurt Fankhauser mailto:lists.wavel...@gmail.com> > wrote:

450m is the only way to do, especially if your already using the 450 platform 
in other parts of your network, there is an operator in my area with the 
Ericson system and they had a ton of issues with getting it up and running, not 
even sure if they ever got it all resolved.

 

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:00 PM Sean Heskett mailto:af...@zirkel.us> > wrote:

Yup what josh said lol.

 

We tried the LTE thing and glad we switch to 450m...much easier.

 

-Sean

 

 

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 4:43 PM Josh Luthman mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> > wrote:

Having done one LTE vendor and 450m the only mistake I made was not buying the 
450m sooner.




 

Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St 
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1100+Wayne+St+Suite+1337+Troy,+OH+45373?entry=gmail=g>
 
Suite 1337 
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1100+Wayne+St+Suite+1337+Troy,+OH+45373?entry=gmail=g>
 
Troy, OH 45373 
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1100+Wayne+St+Suite+1337+Troy,+OH+45373?entry=gmail=g>
 

 

 

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:54 PM Adam Moffett mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> > wrote:












And yeah, 450m might be expensive, but so is all the LTE stuff. 

You'll max out the legal EIRP with 450m, and get 8x8 MIMO.  I think

part of the magic with LTE is that it will connect with ridiculously

low signal, but on a fixed system you probably won't really want the

trashy signals anyway. 



Cambium also has LTE for whatever it's worth.  The CBRS version

is supposed to be available relatively soon (though I forget

precisely when).

 

I don't know if I state it as "fewer issues since there is no

EPC", but definitely fewer complexities and fewer things to worry

about.  The connection from eNB to EPC has to be pristine,

and the EPC comes with its own set of new terminology and new

concepts to figure out.  



 





 

On 9/11/2020 4:06 PM, Darin Steffl

wrote:

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Trey Scarborough]

Has anyone done a comparison or know of a whitepaper between LTE and 
Cambium? I am mainly looking at tree penetration or lower DB signals to 
actual throughput comparison. I have been told that LTE gets a little 
better tree penetration but if that is at a low rate that really doesn't 
help any.


On 9/12/2020 10:03 AM, Darin Steffl wrote:
It comes down to complexity. Ericsson, Nokia, etc are all cellular 
brands and to run and manage those complex LTE networks, you need full 
time engineers to manage, debug, and optimize things.


Cambium is so easy, in comparison, there's very little extra learning 
to do in order to get it running great. Ericsson LTE probably would 
require months of training and needing to hire someone just to run the 
gear or hire expensive consultants to do it for you.


On Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 9:49 AM Kurt Fankhauser 
mailto:lists.wavel...@gmail.com>> wrote:


450m is the only way to do, especially if your already using the
450 platform in other parts of your network, there is an operator
in my area with the Ericson system and they had a ton of issues
with getting it up and running, not even sure if they ever got it
all resolved.

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:00 PM Sean Heskett mailto:af...@zirkel.us>> wrote:

Yup what josh said lol.

We tried the LTE thing and glad we switch to 450m...much easier.

-Sean


On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 4:43 PM Josh Luthman
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:

Having done one LTE vendor and 450m the only mistake I
made was not buying the 450m sooner.


Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St


Suite 1337


Troy, OH 45373




On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:54 PM Adam Moffett
mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:











And yeah, 450m might be expensive, but so is all the
LTE stuff.

You'll max out the legal EIRP with 450m, and get 8x8
MIMO.  I think

part of the magic with LTE is that it will connect
with ridiculously

low signal, but on a fixed system you probably won't
really want the

trashy signals anyway.


Cambium also has LTE for whatever it's worth.  The
CBRS version

is supposed to be available relatively soon (though I
forget

precisely when).



I don't know if I state it as "fewer issues since
there is no

EPC", but definitely fewer complexities and fewer
things to worry

about.  The connection from eNB to EPC has to be
/pristine/,

and the EPC comes with its own set of new terminology
and new

concepts to figure out.









On 9/11/2020 4:06 PM, Darin Steffl

wrote:









I have seen lots to people doing 450M in CBRS

stating coverage is nearly the same as LTE but way
better speeds

and triple the aggregate capacity due to mu-mimo.






Way fewer issues too since there is no EPC. Just

straight layer 2 with no bullshit.









On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 2:39 PM

David Coudron mailto:david.coud...@advantenon.com>>

wrote:










We are looking at a new area to

expand out network that has a lot more tree cover
than

our current footprint.   We are thinking with the

combination of CBRS and LTE, that we might be able to

offer better coverage than with traditional fixed

wireless options.   We have started conversations
with

the following vendors, wondering if anyone has
any hands

on experience with any of them and what their

impressions were:



Blinq



Airspan



Baicells



Ericsson





The Ericsson equipment is in a class

by itself price wise, but the others are similarly

priced, and somewhere around double the price of
PMP 450

stuff.   Normally we would add more 

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Darin Steffl]

It comes down to complexity. Ericsson, Nokia, etc are all cellular brands
and to run and manage those complex LTE networks, you need full time
engineers to manage, debug, and optimize things.

Cambium is so easy, in comparison, there's very little extra learning to do
in order to get it running great. Ericsson LTE probably would require
months of training and needing to hire someone just to run the gear or hire
expensive consultants to do it for you.

On Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 9:49 AM Kurt Fankhauser 
wrote:

> 450m is the only way to do, especially if your already using the 450
> platform in other parts of your network, there is an operator in my area
> with the Ericson system and they had a ton of issues with getting it up and
> running, not even sure if they ever got it all resolved.
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:00 PM Sean Heskett  wrote:
>
>> Yup what josh said lol.
>>
>> We tried the LTE thing and glad we switch to 450m...much easier.
>>
>> -Sean
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 4:43 PM Josh Luthman 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Having done one LTE vendor and 450m the only mistake I made was not
>>> buying the 450m sooner.
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> 
>>> Suite 1337
>>> 
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:54 PM Adam Moffett 
>>> wrote:
>>>










 And yeah, 450m might be expensive, but so is all the LTE stuff.

 You'll max out the legal EIRP with 450m, and get 8x8 MIMO.  I think

 part of the magic with LTE is that it will connect with ridiculously

 low signal, but on a fixed system you probably won't really want the

 trashy signals anyway.


 Cambium also has LTE for whatever it's worth.  The CBRS version

 is supposed to be available relatively soon (though I forget

 precisely when).


 I don't know if I state it as "fewer issues since there is no

 EPC", but definitely fewer complexities and fewer things to worry

 about.  The connection from eNB to EPC has to be *pristine*,

 and the EPC comes with its own set of new terminology and new

 concepts to figure out.









 On 9/11/2020 4:06 PM, Darin Steffl

 wrote:








 I have seen lots to people doing 450M in CBRS

 stating coverage is nearly the same as LTE but way better speeds

 and triple the aggregate capacity due to mu-mimo.






 Way fewer issues too since there is no EPC. Just

 straight layer 2 with no bullshit.









 On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 2:39 PM

 David Coudron 

 wrote:





>
>
>
>
>
> We are looking at a new area to
>
> expand out network that has a lot more tree cover than
>
> our current footprint.   We are thinking with the
>
> combination of CBRS and LTE, that we might be able to
>
> offer better coverage than with traditional fixed
>
> wireless options.   We have started conversations with
>
> the following vendors, wondering if anyone has any hands
>
> on experience with any of them and what their
>
> impressions were:
>
>
> Blinq
>
>
> Airspan
>
>
> Baicells
>
>
> Ericsson
>
>
>
>
>
> The Ericsson equipment is in a class
>
> by itself price wise, but the others are similarly
>
> priced, and somewhere around double the price of PMP 450
>
> stuff.   Normally we would add more tower sites for
>
> better coverage, but this project will need to be done
>
> before the end of the year and building towers isn’t an
>
> option.   We have good enough spread on the towers that
>
> we think we can do this with PMP 450 APs, but are
>
> thinking we’d get even better coverage out of LTE.   Any
>
> opinions on the reliability and the manageability of the
>
> four vendors above?   Sorry for such an open ended
>
> question, but not sure what to ask to be more
>
> specific.   We know that we will have the LTE stuff to
>
> deal with like access to an EPC and so on, so not so
>
> much worried about that as more the manufacturers
>
> themselves.   Baicells concerns us as they may get
>
> lumped in with Huawei.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> David 

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Kurt Fankhauser]

450m is the only way to do, especially if your already using the 450
platform in other parts of your network, there is an operator in my area
with the Ericson system and they had a ton of issues with getting it up and
running, not even sure if they ever got it all resolved.

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:00 PM Sean Heskett  wrote:

> Yup what josh said lol.
>
> We tried the LTE thing and glad we switch to 450m...much easier.
>
> -Sean
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 4:43 PM Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
>> Having done one LTE vendor and 450m the only mistake I made was not
>> buying the 450m sooner.
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> 
>> Suite 1337
>> 
>> Troy, OH 45373
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:54 PM Adam Moffett  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And yeah, 450m might be expensive, but so is all the LTE stuff.
>>>
>>> You'll max out the legal EIRP with 450m, and get 8x8 MIMO.  I think
>>>
>>> part of the magic with LTE is that it will connect with ridiculously
>>>
>>> low signal, but on a fixed system you probably won't really want the
>>>
>>> trashy signals anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cambium also has LTE for whatever it's worth.  The CBRS version
>>>
>>> is supposed to be available relatively soon (though I forget
>>>
>>> precisely when).
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know if I state it as "fewer issues since there is no
>>>
>>> EPC", but definitely fewer complexities and fewer things to worry
>>>
>>> about.  The connection from eNB to EPC has to be *pristine*,
>>>
>>> and the EPC comes with its own set of new terminology and new
>>>
>>> concepts to figure out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/11/2020 4:06 PM, Darin Steffl
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have seen lots to people doing 450M in CBRS
>>>
>>> stating coverage is nearly the same as LTE but way better speeds
>>>
>>> and triple the aggregate capacity due to mu-mimo.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Way fewer issues too since there is no EPC. Just
>>>
>>> straight layer 2 with no bullshit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 2:39 PM
>>>
>>> David Coudron 
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>





 We are looking at a new area to

 expand out network that has a lot more tree cover than

 our current footprint.   We are thinking with the

 combination of CBRS and LTE, that we might be able to

 offer better coverage than with traditional fixed

 wireless options.   We have started conversations with

 the following vendors, wondering if anyone has any hands

 on experience with any of them and what their

 impressions were:


 Blinq


 Airspan


 Baicells


 Ericsson





 The Ericsson equipment is in a class

 by itself price wise, but the others are similarly

 priced, and somewhere around double the price of PMP 450

 stuff.   Normally we would add more tower sites for

 better coverage, but this project will need to be done

 before the end of the year and building towers isn’t an

 option.   We have good enough spread on the towers that

 we think we can do this with PMP 450 APs, but are

 thinking we’d get even better coverage out of LTE.   Any

 opinions on the reliability and the manageability of the

 four vendors above?   Sorry for such an open ended

 question, but not sure what to ask to be more

 specific.   We know that we will have the LTE stuff to

 deal with like access to an EPC and so on, so not so

 much worried about that as more the manufacturers

 themselves.   Baicells concerns us as they may get

 lumped in with Huawei.





 Thoughts?





 Regards,





 David Coudron









 --


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

Re: [AFMUG] LTE vendors

[Sean Heskett]

Yup what josh said lol.

We tried the LTE thing and glad we switch to 450m...much easier.

-Sean


On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 4:43 PM Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> Having done one LTE vendor and 450m the only mistake I made was not buying
> the 450m sooner.
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> 
> Suite 1337
> 
> Troy, OH 45373
> 
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:54 PM Adam Moffett  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> And yeah, 450m might be expensive, but so is all the LTE stuff.
>>
>> You'll max out the legal EIRP with 450m, and get 8x8 MIMO.  I think
>>
>> part of the magic with LTE is that it will connect with ridiculously
>>
>> low signal, but on a fixed system you probably won't really want the
>>
>> trashy signals anyway.
>>
>>
>> Cambium also has LTE for whatever it's worth.  The CBRS version
>>
>> is supposed to be available relatively soon (though I forget
>>
>> precisely when).
>>
>>
>> I don't know if I state it as "fewer issues since there is no
>>
>> EPC", but definitely fewer complexities and fewer things to worry
>>
>> about.  The connection from eNB to EPC has to be *pristine*,
>>
>> and the EPC comes with its own set of new terminology and new
>>
>> concepts to figure out.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/11/2020 4:06 PM, Darin Steffl
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I have seen lots to people doing 450M in CBRS
>>
>> stating coverage is nearly the same as LTE but way better speeds
>>
>> and triple the aggregate capacity due to mu-mimo.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Way fewer issues too since there is no EPC. Just
>>
>> straight layer 2 with no bullshit.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 2:39 PM
>>
>> David Coudron 
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We are looking at a new area to
>>>
>>> expand out network that has a lot more tree cover than
>>>
>>> our current footprint.   We are thinking with the
>>>
>>> combination of CBRS and LTE, that we might be able to
>>>
>>> offer better coverage than with traditional fixed
>>>
>>> wireless options.   We have started conversations with
>>>
>>> the following vendors, wondering if anyone has any hands
>>>
>>> on experience with any of them and what their
>>>
>>> impressions were:
>>>
>>>
>>> Blinq
>>>
>>>
>>> Airspan
>>>
>>>
>>> Baicells
>>>
>>>
>>> Ericsson
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Ericsson equipment is in a class
>>>
>>> by itself price wise, but the others are similarly
>>>
>>> priced, and somewhere around double the price of PMP 450
>>>
>>> stuff.   Normally we would add more tower sites for
>>>
>>> better coverage, but this project will need to be done
>>>
>>> before the end of the year and building towers isn’t an
>>>
>>> option.   We have good enough spread on the towers that
>>>
>>> we think we can do this with PMP 450 APs, but are
>>>
>>> thinking we’d get even better coverage out of LTE.   Any
>>>
>>> opinions on the reliability and the manageability of the
>>>
>>> four vendors above?   Sorry for such an open ended
>>>
>>> question, but not sure what to ask to be more
>>>
>>> specific.   We know that we will have the LTE stuff to
>>>
>>> deal with like access to an EPC and so on, so not so
>>>
>>> much worried about that as more the manufacturers
>>>
>>> themselves.   Baicells concerns us as they may get
>>>
>>> lumped in with Huawei.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David Coudron
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> 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] LTE vendors

[Jaime Solorza]

MoFi

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 1:39 PM David Coudron 
wrote:

> We are looking at a new area to expand out network that has a lot more
> tree cover than our current footprint.   We are thinking with the
> combination of CBRS and LTE, that we might be able to offer better coverage
> than with traditional fixed wireless options.   We have started
> conversations with the following vendors, wondering if anyone has any hands
> on experience with any of them and what their impressions were:
>
> Blinq
>
> Airspan
>
> Baicells
>
> Ericsson
>
>
>
> The Ericsson equipment is in a class by itself price wise, but the others
> are similarly priced, and somewhere around double the price of PMP 450
> stuff.   Normally we would add more tower sites for better coverage, but
> this project will need to be done before the end of the year and building
> towers isn’t an option.   We have good enough spread on the towers that we
> think we can do this with PMP 450 APs, but are thinking we’d get even
> better coverage out of LTE.   Any opinions on the reliability and the
> manageability of the four vendors above?   Sorry for such an open ended
> question, but not sure what to ask to be more specific.   We know that we
> will have the LTE stuff to deal with like access to an EPC and so on, so
> not so much worried about that as more the manufacturers themselves.
> Baicells concerns us as they may get lumped in with Huawei.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> David Coudron
>
>
> --
> 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] LTE vendors

[Josh Luthman]

Having done one LTE vendor and 450m the only mistake I made was not buying
the 450m sooner.

Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:54 PM Adam Moffett  wrote:

> And yeah, 450m might be expensive, but so is all the LTE stuff.  You'll
> max out the legal EIRP with 450m, and get 8x8 MIMO.  I think part of the
> magic with LTE is that it will connect with ridiculously low signal, but on
> a fixed system you probably won't really want the trashy signals anyway.
>
> Cambium also has LTE for whatever it's worth.  The CBRS version is
> supposed to be available relatively soon (though I forget precisely when).
>
> I don't know if I state it as "fewer issues since there is no EPC", but
> definitely fewer complexities and fewer things to worry about.  The
> connection from eNB to EPC has to be *pristine*, and the EPC comes with
> its own set of new terminology and new concepts to figure out.
>
>
> On 9/11/2020 4:06 PM, Darin Steffl wrote:
>
> I have seen lots to people doing 450M in CBRS stating coverage is nearly
> the same as LTE but way better speeds and triple the aggregate capacity due
> to mu-mimo.
>
> Way fewer issues too since there is no EPC. Just straight layer 2 with no
> bullshit.
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 2:39 PM David Coudron 
> wrote:
>
>> We are looking at a new area to expand out network that has a lot more
>> tree cover than our current footprint.   We are thinking with the
>> combination of CBRS and LTE, that we might be able to offer better coverage
>> than with traditional fixed wireless options.   We have started
>> conversations with the following vendors, wondering if anyone has any hands
>> on experience with any of them and what their impressions were:
>>
>> Blinq
>>
>> Airspan
>>
>> Baicells
>>
>> Ericsson
>>
>>
>>
>> The Ericsson equipment is in a class by itself price wise, but the others
>> are similarly priced, and somewhere around double the price of PMP 450
>> stuff.   Normally we would add more tower sites for better coverage, but
>> this project will need to be done before the end of the year and building
>> towers isn’t an option.   We have good enough spread on the towers that we
>> think we can do this with PMP 450 APs, but are thinking we’d get even
>> better coverage out of LTE.   Any opinions on the reliability and the
>> manageability of the four vendors above?   Sorry for such an open ended
>> question, but not sure what to ask to be more specific.   We know that we
>> will have the LTE stuff to deal with like access to an EPC and so on, so
>> not so much worried about that as more the manufacturers themselves.
>> Baicells concerns us as they may get lumped in with Huawei.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> David Coudron
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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] LTE vendors

[Adam Moffett]

And yeah, 450m might be expensive, but so is all the LTE stuff. You'll 
max out the legal EIRP with 450m, and get 8x8 MIMO.  I think part of the 
magic with LTE is that it will connect with ridiculously low signal, but 
on a fixed system you probably won't really want the trashy signals anyway.


Cambium also has LTE for whatever it's worth.  The CBRS version is 
supposed to be available relatively soon (though I forget precisely when).


I don't know if I state it as "fewer issues since there is no EPC", but 
definitely fewer complexities and fewer things to worry about.  The 
connection from eNB to EPC has to be /pristine/, and the EPC comes with 
its own set of new terminology and new concepts to figure out.



On 9/11/2020 4:06 PM, Darin Steffl wrote:
I have seen lots to people doing 450M in CBRS stating coverage is 
nearly the same as LTE but way better speeds and triple the aggregate 
capacity due to mu-mimo.


Way fewer issues too since there is no EPC. Just straight layer 2 with 
no bullshit.


On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 2:39 PM David Coudron 
mailto:david.coud...@advantenon.com>> 
wrote:


We are looking at a new area to expand out network that has a lot
more tree cover than our current footprint.   We are thinking with
the combination of CBRS and LTE, that we might be able to offer
better coverage than with traditional fixed wireless options.   We
have started conversations with the following vendors, wondering
if anyone has any hands on experience with any of them and what
their impressions were:

Blinq

Airspan

Baicells

Ericsson

The Ericsson equipment is in a class by itself price wise, but the
others are similarly priced, and somewhere around double the price
of PMP 450 stuff.   Normally we would add more tower sites for
better coverage, but this project will need to be done before the
end of the year and building towers isn’t an option.   We have
good enough spread on the towers that we think we can do this with
PMP 450 APs, but are thinking we’d get even better coverage out of
LTE.   Any opinions on the reliability and the manageability of
the four vendors above?   Sorry for such an open ended question,
but not sure what to ask to be more specific.   We know that we
will have the LTE stuff to deal with like access to an EPC and so
on, so not so much worried about that as more the manufacturers
themselves.   Baicells concerns us as they may get lumped in with
Huawei.

Thoughts?

Regards,

David Coudron

-- 
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] LTE vendors

[Sean Heskett]

If you are planning on going through foliage then you want to pick the
product with the highest clean Tx power so you can achieve the max EIRP.



On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 1:39 PM David Coudron 
wrote:

> We are looking at a new area to expand out network that has a lot more
> tree cover than our current footprint.   We are thinking with the
> combination of CBRS and LTE, that we might be able to offer better coverage
> than with traditional fixed wireless options.   We have started
> conversations with the following vendors, wondering if anyone has any hands
> on experience with any of them and what their impressions were:
>
> Blinq
>
> Airspan
>
> Baicells
>
> Ericsson
>
>
>
> The Ericsson equipment is in a class by itself price wise, but the others
> are similarly priced, and somewhere around double the price of PMP 450
> stuff.   Normally we would add more tower sites for better coverage, but
> this project will need to be done before the end of the year and building
> towers isn’t an option.   We have good enough spread on the towers that we
> think we can do this with PMP 450 APs, but are thinking we’d get even
> better coverage out of LTE.   Any opinions on the reliability and the
> manageability of the four vendors above?   Sorry for such an open ended
> question, but not sure what to ask to be more specific.   We know that we
> will have the LTE stuff to deal with like access to an EPC and so on, so
> not so much worried about that as more the manufacturers themselves.
> Baicells concerns us as they may get lumped in with Huawei.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> David Coudron
>
>
> --
> 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] LTE vendors

[Darin Steffl]

I have seen lots to people doing 450M in CBRS stating coverage is nearly
the same as LTE but way better speeds and triple the aggregate capacity due
to mu-mimo.

Way fewer issues too since there is no EPC. Just straight layer 2 with no
bullshit.

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 2:39 PM David Coudron 
wrote:

> We are looking at a new area to expand out network that has a lot more
> tree cover than our current footprint.   We are thinking with the
> combination of CBRS and LTE, that we might be able to offer better coverage
> than with traditional fixed wireless options.   We have started
> conversations with the following vendors, wondering if anyone has any hands
> on experience with any of them and what their impressions were:
>
> Blinq
>
> Airspan
>
> Baicells
>
> Ericsson
>
>
>
> The Ericsson equipment is in a class by itself price wise, but the others
> are similarly priced, and somewhere around double the price of PMP 450
> stuff.   Normally we would add more tower sites for better coverage, but
> this project will need to be done before the end of the year and building
> towers isn’t an option.   We have good enough spread on the towers that we
> think we can do this with PMP 450 APs, but are thinking we’d get even
> better coverage out of LTE.   Any opinions on the reliability and the
> manageability of the four vendors above?   Sorry for such an open ended
> question, but not sure what to ask to be more specific.   We know that we
> will have the LTE stuff to deal with like access to an EPC and so on, so
> not so much worried about that as more the manufacturers themselves.
> Baicells concerns us as they may get lumped in with Huawei.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> David Coudron
>
>
> --
> 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

[AFMUG] LTE vendors

[David Coudron]

We are looking at a new area to expand out network that has a lot more tree 
cover than our current footprint.   We are thinking with the combination of 
CBRS and LTE, that we might be able to offer better coverage than with 
traditional fixed wireless options.   We have started conversations with the 
following vendors, wondering if anyone has any hands on experience with any of 
them and what their impressions were:
Blinq
Airspan
Baicells
Ericsson

The Ericsson equipment is in a class by itself price wise, but the others are 
similarly priced, and somewhere around double the price of PMP 450 stuff.   
Normally we would add more tower sites for better coverage, but this project 
will need to be done before the end of the year and building towers isn't an 
option.   We have good enough spread on the towers that we think we can do this 
with PMP 450 APs, but are thinking we'd get even better coverage out of LTE.   
Any opinions on the reliability and the manageability of the four vendors 
above?   Sorry for such an open ended question, but not sure what to ask to be 
more specific.   We know that we will have the LTE stuff to deal with like 
access to an EPC and so on, so not so much worried about that as more the 
manufacturers themselves.   Baicells concerns us as they may get lumped in with 
Huawei.

Thoughts?

Regards,

David Coudron

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