Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
are you getting the connectorized performance gains within fcc eirp? Ive come to find a good majority of field test results are invalid solely because the tests are not performed legally On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: On the SM side, we did not try connectorized 3.65 450 SMs. In our past experience with 320s, the SMCs used with a KP Performance 3.65 feedhorn reflector got less results at times for NLOS shots then a standard SM. It was explained to me that is because it’s not a “need more power, burn through trees issue”… it’s a “don’t narrow the beam so much than the wimax can’t work around the tree elements” issue. Our testing exposure was rather limited and we stopped when others on the list confirmed they had similar results. *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ben Royer *Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:18 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Paul, Thanks for the response. More specifically I’m interested in the SM side of the test, as we too are using the Cambium Antennas at the AP. However, at the SM side, I’d recommend a NLOS test using a connectorized radio with a higher gain antenna. We’ve seen some initial NLOS tests where 450 out performs the 320. Thank you, Ben Royer, Operations Manager Royell Communications, Inc. 217-965-3699 www.royell.net *From:* Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net *Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2015 8:30 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Ben, The testing was based on using the standard Cambium antenna, respectively, for both platforms. Paul *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ben Royer *Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:11 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using What antenna are you using in your testing of the 450 vs. 320 NLOS? I’m just curious because this is an interesting report, as we have a network of around 2,500 320 customers, and we are in the same position of looking for that next great thing. Thank you, Ben Royer, Operations Manager Royell Communications, Inc. 217-965-3699 www.royell.net *From:* Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:40 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using But, if you are using 320 for NLOS solutions, the 450 trade up means you’re going to lose customers since the 450 doesn’t do nearly as good a job as the 320 Paul *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:37 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on? Kind of a 3650 MHz cash-for-clunkers program. *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm thatoneguyst...@gmail.com *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy. The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites. We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out. I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already have? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.com pa...@pdmnet.net -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. -- avast
Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
On the SM side, we did not try connectorized 3.65 450 SMs. In our past experience with 320s, the SMCs used with a KP Performance 3.65 feedhorn reflector got less results at times for NLOS shots then a standard SM. It was explained to me that is because it’s not a “need more power, burn through trees issue”… it’s a “don’t narrow the beam so much than the wimax can’t work around the tree elements” issue. Our testing exposure was rather limited and we stopped when others on the list confirmed they had similar results. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ben Royer Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:18 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Paul, Thanks for the response. More specifically I’m interested in the SM side of the test, as we too are using the Cambium Antennas at the AP. However, at the SM side, I’d recommend a NLOS test using a connectorized radio with a higher gain antenna. We’ve seen some initial NLOS tests where 450 out performs the 320. Thank you, Ben Royer, Operations Manager Royell Communications, Inc. 217-965-3699 www.royell.nethttp://www.royell.net From: Paul McCallmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 8:30 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Ben, The testing was based on using the standard Cambium antenna, respectively, for both platforms. Paul From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ben Royer Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:11 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using What antenna are you using in your testing of the 450 vs. 320 NLOS? I’m just curious because this is an interesting report, as we have a network of around 2,500 320 customers, and we are in the same position of looking for that next great thing. Thank you, Ben Royer, Operations Manager Royell Communications, Inc. 217-965-3699 www.royell.nethttp://www.royell.net From: Paul McCallmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:40 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using But, if you are using 320 for NLOS solutions, the 450 trade up means you’re going to lose customers since the 450 doesn’t do nearly as good a job as the 320 Paul From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:37 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on? Kind of a 3650 MHz cash-for-clunkers program. From: That One Guy /sarcasmmailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy. The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites. We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out. I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already have? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800tel:772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352tel:772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.comhttp://www.pdmnet.com/ pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. avast! Antivirushttps://www.avast.com/antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 150604-0, 06/04/2015 Tested on: 6/4/2015 8:10:34 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2015 AVAST Software. avast! Antivirushttps
Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
Paul, Thanks for the response. More specifically I’m interested in the SM side of the test, as we too are using the Cambium Antennas at the AP. However, at the SM side, I’d recommend a NLOS test using a connectorized radio with a higher gain antenna. We’ve seen some initial NLOS tests where 450 out performs the 320. Thank you, Ben Royer, Operations Manager Royell Communications, Inc. 217-965-3699 www.royell.net From: Paul McCall Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 8:30 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Ben, The testing was based on using the standard Cambium antenna, respectively, for both platforms. Paul From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ben Royer Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:11 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using What antenna are you using in your testing of the 450 vs. 320 NLOS? I’m just curious because this is an interesting report, as we have a network of around 2,500 320 customers, and we are in the same position of looking for that next great thing. Thank you, Ben Royer, Operations Manager Royell Communications, Inc. 217-965-3699 www.royell.net From: Paul McCall Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:40 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using But, if you are using 320 for NLOS solutions, the 450 trade up means you’re going to lose customers since the 450 doesn’t do nearly as good a job as the 320 Paul From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:37 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on? Kind of a 3650 MHz cash-for-clunkers program. From: That One Guy /sarcasm Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy. The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites. We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out. I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already have? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.com pa...@pdmnet.net -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. -- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 150604-0, 06/04/2015 Tested on: 6/4/2015 8:10:34 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2015 AVAST Software. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 150604-0, 06/04/2015 Tested on: 6/4/2015 10:17:58 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2015 AVAST Software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
Under the old rules - if I understand right, we'll eventually have to register existing stuff with an SAS, but nothing has really changed for now. You can keep operating under the old rules until some time in 2020. On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:31 AM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: OK, but under what rule set, for how long before you have to comply with the new rules coming out? *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 9:51 PM *To:* af *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using You can still add new 3.65 AP locations from any of the currently available manufacturers, as long as you already have a 3.65 license. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: Interesting. I agree with the dream of having someone re-write the firmware to interface 320 stuff with the FCC database. Probably just a dream though. On the 450, you mention being able to sync with customers down the road. The way I understand it, there is no standard being proposed that would make that happen… if you have 5 other people with like or unlike platforms playing in “your” RF space, they can still have the same frequency contention challenges that you have now. Its just that they would be restricted from competing with the known higher priority users in the database. I was curious to see what the consensus is on 320 use moving forward for those that have found it to be the only way to service certain NLOS customers. The considerations seem to be… 1) Replace with 450 series gear at 3.65 and loose some of the customers that were tough NLOS problems that the 320 series solved. (if your were using the 320 only because it was a cleaner freq. band (3.65), then the 450 seems to make sense for that. 2) Replace with Telrad gear at 3.65 (pricey) and sell off their old 320 series for whatever they can get. 3) Deploy MORE 320 gear because it is working well and solves the specific problem. BW limited but works pretty well (*some might debate that) *At this moment, can you add ANY new 3.65 AP locations (from any manufacturer) or forced to wait until the “next” thing comes to play with the FCC rules?* *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy /sarcasm *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:09 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy. The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites. We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out. I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already have? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.com pa...@pdmnet.net -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
OK, but under what rule set, for how long before you have to comply with the new rules coming out? From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 9:51 PM To: af Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using You can still add new 3.65 AP locations from any of the currently available manufacturers, as long as you already have a 3.65 license. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: Interesting. I agree with the dream of having someone re-write the firmware to interface 320 stuff with the FCC database. Probably just a dream though. On the 450, you mention being able to sync with customers down the road. The way I understand it, there is no standard being proposed that would make that happen… if you have 5 other people with like or unlike platforms playing in “your” RF space, they can still have the same frequency contention challenges that you have now. Its just that they would be restricted from competing with the known higher priority users in the database. I was curious to see what the consensus is on 320 use moving forward for those that have found it to be the only way to service certain NLOS customers. The considerations seem to be… 1) Replace with 450 series gear at 3.65 and loose some of the customers that were tough NLOS problems that the 320 series solved. (if your were using the 320 only because it was a cleaner freq. band (3.65), then the 450 seems to make sense for that. 2) Replace with Telrad gear at 3.65 (pricey) and sell off their old 320 series for whatever they can get. 3) Deploy MORE 320 gear because it is working well and solves the specific problem. BW limited but works pretty well (*some might debate that) At this moment, can you add ANY new 3.65 AP locations (from any manufacturer) or forced to wait until the “next” thing comes to play with the FCC rules? From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.commailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:09 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy. The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites. We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out. I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already have? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800tel:772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352tel:772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.comhttp://www.pdmnet.com/ pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
We had the exact same results. Bare SM worked better than reflector through trees. And it actually worked pretty good, got about 24x7Mbps linktests. That was until the trees started blowing in the wind, linktests were all over the place. Then it got worse, the trees got wet and the test SMs we had on the sector both dropped session 10-20 times per day and linktests dropped down to 3-5Mbps a lot. The power level dropped maybe 3-6dB, but the multipath increased a lot which is what hurt the most. The 450 definitely handles multipath better than FSK, but obviously nowhere near as well as a platform designed to take advantage of it. Maybe 5ms framing would help, but we tore that test sector down before it came around. This is why I keep asking Cambium to make an integrated panel SM for 3GHz. More gain than a bare SM and not as narrow as a reflector. We just did a 5.5 mile 3.6 450 SM on a 2' dish today. Can't see the tower at all, no trees up close, but it's getting -73 and solid 6X. Doing 30Mbps down, 9Mbps up. I'm surprised. But like Ken always says, that's just because of the low noise floor. On 6/4/2015 10:27 AM, Paul McCall wrote: On the SM side, we did not try connectorized 3.65 450 SMs. In our past experience with 320s, the SMCs used with a KP Performance 3.65 feedhorn reflector got less results at times for NLOS shots then a standard SM. It was explained to me that is because it’s not a “need more power, burn through trees issue”… it’s a “don’t narrow the beam so much than the wimax can’t work around the tree elements” issue. Our testing exposure was rather limited and we stopped when others on the list confirmed they had similar results. *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ben Royer *Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:18 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Paul, Thanks for the response. More specifically I’m interested in the SM side of the test, as we too are using the Cambium Antennas at the AP. However, at the SM side, I’d recommend a NLOS test using a connectorized radio with a higher gain antenna. We’ve seen some initial NLOS tests where 450 out performs the 320. Thank you, Ben Royer, Operations Manager Royell Communications, Inc. 217-965-3699 www.royell.net http://www.royell.net *From:*Paul McCall mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net *Sent:*Thursday, June 04, 2015 8:30 AM *To:*af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Ben, The testing was based on using the standard Cambium antenna, respectively, for both platforms. Paul *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ben Royer *Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:11 AM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using What antenna are you using in your testing of the 450 vs. 320 NLOS? I’m just curious because this is an interesting report, as we have a network of around 2,500 320 customers, and we are in the same position of looking for that next great thing. Thank you, Ben Royer, Operations Manager Royell Communications, Inc. 217-965-3699 www.royell.net http://www.royell.net *From:*Paul McCall mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net *Sent:*Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:40 PM *To:*af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using But, if you are using 320 for NLOS solutions, the 450 trade up means you’re going to lose customers since the 450 doesn’t do nearly as good a job as the 320 Paul *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:37 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on? Kind of a 3650 MHz cash-for-clunkers program. *From:*That One Guy /sarcasm mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com *Sent:*Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM *To:*af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy. The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites. We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out. I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors
Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
What antenna are you using in your testing of the 450 vs. 320 NLOS? I’m just curious because this is an interesting report, as we have a network of around 2,500 320 customers, and we are in the same position of looking for that next great thing. Thank you, Ben Royer, Operations Manager Royell Communications, Inc. 217-965-3699 www.royell.net From: Paul McCall Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:40 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using But, if you are using 320 for NLOS solutions, the 450 trade up means you’re going to lose customers since the 450 doesn’t do nearly as good a job as the 320 Paul From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:37 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on? Kind of a 3650 MHz cash-for-clunkers program. From: That One Guy /sarcasm Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy. The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites. We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out. I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already have? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.com pa...@pdmnet.net -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 150604-0, 06/04/2015 Tested on: 6/4/2015 8:10:34 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2015 AVAST Software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
An assertion made on the forum by somebody from Cambium was that the 450 in 3.65ghz wouldn't hit as many of the hard to reach places as the 320 did, but that you would end up with higher throughput on the ones that did work. On 6/4/2015 9:10 AM, Ben Royer wrote: What antenna are you using in your testing of the 450 vs. 320 NLOS? I’m just curious because this is an interesting report, as we have a network of around 2,500 320 customers, and we are in the same position of looking for that next great thing. Thank you, Ben Royer, Operations Manager Royell Communications, Inc. 217-965-3699 www.royell.net *From:* Paul McCall mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:40 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using But, if you are using 320 for NLOS solutions, the 450 trade up means you’re going to lose customers since the 450 doesn’t do nearly as good a job as the 320 Paul *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:37 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on? Kind of a 3650 MHz cash-for-clunkers program. *From:*That One Guy /sarcasm mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com *Sent:*Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM *To:*af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy. The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites. We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out. I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already have? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800 tel:772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352 tel:772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.com http://www.pdmnet.com/ pa...@pdmnet.net mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. avast! Antivirus https://www.avast.com/antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 150604-0, 06/04/2015 Tested on: 6/4/2015 8:10:34 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2015 AVAST Software.
Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
Ben, The testing was based on using the standard Cambium antenna, respectively, for both platforms. Paul From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ben Royer Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:11 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using What antenna are you using in your testing of the 450 vs. 320 NLOS? I’m just curious because this is an interesting report, as we have a network of around 2,500 320 customers, and we are in the same position of looking for that next great thing. Thank you, Ben Royer, Operations Manager Royell Communications, Inc. 217-965-3699 www.royell.nethttp://www.royell.net From: Paul McCallmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:40 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using But, if you are using 320 for NLOS solutions, the 450 trade up means you’re going to lose customers since the 450 doesn’t do nearly as good a job as the 320 Paul From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:37 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on? Kind of a 3650 MHz cash-for-clunkers program. From: That One Guy /sarcasmmailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy. The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites. We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out. I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already have? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800tel:772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352tel:772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.comhttp://www.pdmnet.com/ pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. avast! Antivirushttps://www.avast.com/antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 150604-0, 06/04/2015 Tested on: 6/4/2015 8:10:34 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2015 AVAST Software.
Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
Were you using a reflector on the 450SM? On 6/4/2015 9:30 AM, Paul McCall wrote: Ben, The testing was based on using the standard Cambium antenna, respectively, for both platforms. Paul *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ben Royer *Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:11 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using What antenna are you using in your testing of the 450 vs. 320 NLOS? I’m just curious because this is an interesting report, as we have a network of around 2,500 320 customers, and we are in the same position of looking for that next great thing. Thank you, Ben Royer, Operations Manager Royell Communications, Inc. 217-965-3699 www.royell.net http://www.royell.net *From:*Paul McCall mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net *Sent:*Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:40 PM *To:*af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using But, if you are using 320 for NLOS solutions, the 450 trade up means you’re going to lose customers since the 450 doesn’t do nearly as good a job as the 320 Paul *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:37 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on? Kind of a 3650 MHz cash-for-clunkers program. *From:*That One Guy /sarcasm mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com *Sent:*Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM *To:*af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy. The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites. We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out. I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already have? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800 tel:772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352 tel:772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.com http://www.pdmnet.com/ pa...@pdmnet.net mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. avast! Antivirus https://www.avast.com/antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 150604-0, 06/04/2015 Tested on: 6/4/2015 8:10:34 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2015 AVAST Software.
Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
With or without…. Made like difference. Sometimes the reflector made no different and on occasion made it worse depending on the densities of the trees. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:36 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Were you using a reflector on the 450SM? On 6/4/2015 9:30 AM, Paul McCall wrote: Ben, The testing was based on using the standard Cambium antenna, respectively, for both platforms. Paul From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ben Royer Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:11 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using What antenna are you using in your testing of the 450 vs. 320 NLOS? I’m just curious because this is an interesting report, as we have a network of around 2,500 320 customers, and we are in the same position of looking for that next great thing. Thank you, Ben Royer, Operations Manager Royell Communications, Inc. 217-965-3699 www.royell.nethttp://www.royell.net From: Paul McCallmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:40 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using But, if you are using 320 for NLOS solutions, the 450 trade up means you’re going to lose customers since the 450 doesn’t do nearly as good a job as the 320 Paul From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:37 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on? Kind of a 3650 MHz cash-for-clunkers program. From: That One Guy /sarcasmmailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy. The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites. We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out. I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already have? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800tel:772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352tel:772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.comhttp://www.pdmnet.com/ pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. avast! Antivirushttps://www.avast.com/antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 150604-0, 06/04/2015 Tested on: 6/4/2015 8:10:34 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2015 AVAST Software.
Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
I want to clarify… ALL of my statements regarding the 450 or discussion of the 320 in these scenarios is for challenging NLOS environments. For those using 3.65 simply because it is a cleaner spectrum, the 450 is a clear winner. Paul From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:42 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using With or without…. Made like difference. Sometimes the reflector made no different and on occasion made it worse depending on the densities of the trees. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:36 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Were you using a reflector on the 450SM? On 6/4/2015 9:30 AM, Paul McCall wrote: Ben, The testing was based on using the standard Cambium antenna, respectively, for both platforms. Paul From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ben Royer Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:11 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using What antenna are you using in your testing of the 450 vs. 320 NLOS? I’m just curious because this is an interesting report, as we have a network of around 2,500 320 customers, and we are in the same position of looking for that next great thing. Thank you, Ben Royer, Operations Manager Royell Communications, Inc. 217-965-3699 www.royell.nethttp://www.royell.net From: Paul McCallmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:40 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using But, if you are using 320 for NLOS solutions, the 450 trade up means you’re going to lose customers since the 450 doesn’t do nearly as good a job as the 320 Paul From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:37 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on? Kind of a 3650 MHz cash-for-clunkers program. From: That One Guy /sarcasmmailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy. The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites. We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out. I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already have? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800tel:772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352tel:772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.comhttp://www.pdmnet.com/ pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. avast! Antivirushttps://www.avast.com/antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 150604-0, 06/04/2015 Tested on: 6/4/2015 8:10:34 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2015 AVAST Software.
[AFMUG] 320 series - still using
I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already have? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.comhttp://www.pdmnet.com/ pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net
Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy. The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites. We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out. I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already have? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.com pa...@pdmnet.net -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
Interesting. I agree with the dream of having someone re-write the firmware to interface 320 stuff with the FCC database. Probably just a dream though. On the 450, you mention being able to sync with customers down the road. The way I understand it, there is no standard being proposed that would make that happen… if you have 5 other people with like or unlike platforms playing in “your” RF space, they can still have the same frequency contention challenges that you have now. Its just that they would be restricted from competing with the known higher priority users in the database. I was curious to see what the consensus is on 320 use moving forward for those that have found it to be the only way to service certain NLOS customers. The considerations seem to be… 1) Replace with 450 series gear at 3.65 and loose some of the customers that were tough NLOS problems that the 320 series solved. (if your were using the 320 only because it was a cleaner freq. band (3.65), then the 450 seems to make sense for that. 2) Replace with Telrad gear at 3.65 (pricey) and sell off their old 320 series for whatever they can get. 3) Deploy MORE 320 gear because it is working well and solves the specific problem. BW limited but works pretty well (*some might debate that) At this moment, can you add ANY new 3.65 AP locations (from any manufacturer) or forced to wait until the “next” thing comes to play with the FCC rules? From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:09 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy. The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites. We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out. I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already have? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800tel:772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352tel:772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.comhttp://www.pdmnet.com/ pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on? Kind of a 3650 MHz cash-for-clunkers program. From: That One Guy /sarcasm Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy. The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites. We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out. I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already have? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.com pa...@pdmnet.net -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
RANT
With the near-universal grousing about the lack of spectrum, why aren't
there any initiatives toward find more/better ways to share spectrum?
AKA if we could only get along...
/RANT
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 6/3/2015 2:37 PM, Paul McCall wrote:
Interesting. I agree with the dream of having someone re-write the
firmware to interface 320 stuff with the FCC database. Probably just a
dream though.
On the 450, you mention being able to sync with customers down the
road. The way I understand it, there is no standard being proposed
that would make that happen… if you have 5 other people with like or
unlike platforms playing in “your” RF space, they can still have the
same frequency contention challenges that you have now. Its just
that they would be restricted from competing with the known higher
priority users in the database.
I was curious to see what the consensus is on 320 use moving forward
for those that have found it to be the only way to service certain
NLOS customers.
The considerations seem to be…
1)Replace with 450 series gear at 3.65 and loose some of the customers
that were tough NLOS problems that the 320 series solved.
(if your were using the 320 only because it was a cleaner freq. band
(3.65), then the 450 seems to make sense for that.
2)Replace with Telrad gear at 3.65 (pricey) and sell off their old 320
series for whatever they can get.
3)Deploy MORE 320 gear because it is working well and solves the
specific problem. BW limited but works pretty well (*some might
debate that)
*At this moment, can you add ANY new 3.65 AP locations (from any
manufacturer) or forced to wait until the “next” thing comes to play
with the FCC rules?*
*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy
/sarcasm
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:09 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have
a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware
load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320
APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with
telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy.
The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an
intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we
can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites.
We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us
up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease
side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good
links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out.
I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able
to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the
potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to
sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me,
especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using
gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access
to the purse strings.
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net
mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net wrote:
I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320
series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series
3.65 product?
Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just
adding SMs to what you already have?
Paul
Paul McCall, Pres.
PDMNet / Florida Broadband
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800 tel:772-564-6800 office
772-473-0352 tel:772-473-0352 cell
www.pdmnet.com http://www.pdmnet.com/
pa...@pdmnet.net mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net
--
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your
team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
Ive said that forever, there should be a lite license basically, you can
use whatever gear you want wherever you want to use it. but if an operator
moves into the area that uses a standardized colocation/sync (fcc approved,
blech) they can force you off the band. That way podunk dead areas dont
have the expense, but congested areas dont have cheap bastards mucking
things up.
The competitive and self syncing capability of the canopy line is probably
the primary reason they dominated the way they did, its also the only
product currently on the standard market you can realistically do that with
inside an affordable platform.
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com wrote:
RANT
With the near-universal grousing about the lack of spectrum, why aren't
there any initiatives toward find more/better ways to share spectrum? AKA
if we could only get along...
/RANT
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 6/3/2015 2:37 PM, Paul McCall wrote:
Interesting. I agree with the dream of having someone re-write the
firmware to interface 320 stuff with the FCC database. Probably just a
dream though.
On the 450, you mention being able to sync with customers down the road.
The way I understand it, there is no standard being proposed that would
make that happen… if you have 5 other people with like or unlike platforms
playing in “your” RF space, they can still have the same frequency
contention challenges that you have now. Its just that they would be
restricted from competing with the known higher priority users in the
database.
I was curious to see what the consensus is on 320 use moving forward for
those that have found it to be the only way to service certain NLOS
customers.
The considerations seem to be…
1) Replace with 450 series gear at 3.65 and loose some of the
customers that were tough NLOS problems that the 320 series solved.
(if your were using the 320 only because it was a cleaner freq. band
(3.65), then the 450 seems to make sense for that.
2) Replace with Telrad gear at 3.65 (pricey) and sell off their old
320 series for whatever they can get.
3) Deploy MORE 320 gear because it is working well and solves the
specific problem. BW limited but works pretty well (*some might debate
that)
*At this moment, can you add ANY new 3.65 AP locations (from any
manufacturer) or forced to wait until the “next” thing comes to play with
the FCC rules?*
*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com af-boun...@afmug.com] *On
Behalf Of *That One Guy /sarcasm
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:09 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a
dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some
creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing
the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us
320 CPEs to redeploy.
The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary
server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the
320 APs to small sites.
We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up
there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and
our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent
been able to test the 1x magic out.
I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to
sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential
nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with
competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an
AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life,
but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings.
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net wrote:
I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320
series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65
product?
Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding
SMs to what you already have?
Paul
Paul McCall, Pres.
PDMNet / Florida Broadband
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800 office
772-473-0352 cell
www.pdmnet.com
pa...@pdmnet.net
--
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
--
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
At my old job they were keeping them for as long as possible - way too much invested in that platform to walk away . 450's on new sites as they were being built . From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2015 4:26 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already have? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.com http://www.pdmnet.com/ pa...@pdmnet.net mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net
Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
I don't buy the LTE NLOS pitch. It's too goddamn expensive to get good performance (3 or 4 4x4 sectors instead of a dual omni or split 2x2 sectors) to put 30, 40 or even 50 customers on a site which is all we have in rural areas. We'll never make any money buying Telrad. I can put up 4 sectors of 450 for ONE Telrad. I get it though. Standardized stuff is nice. But if you don't have the customers for it to make sense financially, all that goes out the window. We never deployed any 320. And we're ripping out UBNT 3.65 as fast as possible. On 6/3/2015 4:08 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote: Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy. The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites. We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out. I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already have? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800 tel:772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352 tel:772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.com http://www.pdmnet.com/ pa...@pdmnet.net mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
We still use it. Tons of it. However, we are not doing any new builds or installing any new customers. Purely maintenance mode at this point. Hoping something better comes along that we can migrate to. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:08 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm thatoneguyst...@gmail.com wrote: Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy. The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites. We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out. I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already have? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.com pa...@pdmnet.net -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
But, if you are using 320 for NLOS solutions, the 450 trade up means you’re going to lose customers since the 450 doesn’t do nearly as good a job as the 320 Paul From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:37 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on? Kind of a 3650 MHz cash-for-clunkers program. From: That One Guy /sarcasmmailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy. The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites. We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out. I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already have? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800tel:772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352tel:772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.comhttp://www.pdmnet.com/ pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
You can still add new 3.65 AP locations from any of the currently available manufacturers, as long as you already have a 3.65 license. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: Interesting. I agree with the dream of having someone re-write the firmware to interface 320 stuff with the FCC database. Probably just a dream though. On the 450, you mention being able to sync with customers down the road. The way I understand it, there is no standard being proposed that would make that happen… if you have 5 other people with like or unlike platforms playing in “your” RF space, they can still have the same frequency contention challenges that you have now. Its just that they would be restricted from competing with the known higher priority users in the database. I was curious to see what the consensus is on 320 use moving forward for those that have found it to be the only way to service certain NLOS customers. The considerations seem to be… 1) Replace with 450 series gear at 3.65 and loose some of the customers that were tough NLOS problems that the 320 series solved. (if your were using the 320 only because it was a cleaner freq. band (3.65), then the 450 seems to make sense for that. 2) Replace with Telrad gear at 3.65 (pricey) and sell off their old 320 series for whatever they can get. 3) Deploy MORE 320 gear because it is working well and solves the specific problem. BW limited but works pretty well (*some might debate that) *At this moment, can you add ANY new 3.65 AP locations (from any manufacturer) or forced to wait until the “next” thing comes to play with the FCC rules?* *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy /sarcasm *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:09 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy. The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites. We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out. I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already have? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.com pa...@pdmnet.net -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
Replacing UBNT with what? 450? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 3, 2015, at 8:08 PM, George Skorup geo...@cbcast.com wrote: I don't buy the LTE NLOS pitch. It's too goddamn expensive to get good performance (3 or 4 4x4 sectors instead of a dual omni or split 2x2 sectors) to put 30, 40 or even 50 customers on a site which is all we have in rural areas. We'll never make any money buying Telrad. I can put up 4 sectors of 450 for ONE Telrad. I get it though. Standardized stuff is nice. But if you don't have the customers for it to make sense financially, all that goes out the window. We never deployed any 320. And we're ripping out UBNT 3.65 as fast as possible. On 6/3/2015 4:08 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote: Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy. The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites. We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out. I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already have? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.com pa...@pdmnet.net -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using
Yes On 6/3/2015 8:16 PM, Jon Langeler wrote: Replacing UBNT with what? 450? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 3, 2015, at 8:08 PM, George Skorup geo...@cbcast.com mailto:geo...@cbcast.com wrote: I don't buy the LTE NLOS pitch. It's too goddamn expensive to get good performance (3 or 4 4x4 sectors instead of a dual omni or split 2x2 sectors) to put 30, 40 or even 50 customers on a site which is all we have in rural areas. We'll never make any money buying Telrad. I can put up 4 sectors of 450 for ONE Telrad. I get it though. Standardized stuff is nice. But if you don't have the customers for it to make sense financially, all that goes out the window. We never deployed any 320. And we're ripping out UBNT 3.65 as fast as possible. On 6/3/2015 4:08 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote: Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy. The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites. We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out. I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already have? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800 tel:772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352 tel:772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.com http://www.pdmnet.com/ pa...@pdmnet.net mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
