Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Brandon Yuchasz]

Matt,
Thanks for the idea. We actually have turned all the RF visible FSK off. 
Unfortunately there was no change with the 450i performance. 

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 8:36 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

> In response to you and George. Yes I am on a 7mhx channel. Co located 
> with FSK. We froze the conversion for now from FSK to the 450i because 
> of the concerns we had with the uplink and control slots needed. 
> Obviously if we got rid of the FSK or did a lot of configuration 
> changes network wide on FSK we could add more control slots to as 
> George said to try and increase the ability of the SM to get its 
> download scheduled. When we hit peak times that’s exactly what we are 
> running into is the download isn’t always getting scheduled.

Have you tried shutting down all the FSK gear for say a quick reboot using SNMP 
and seeing if the 450i link tests made an improvement during that time?  It 
would tell you what you could be looking at when you make the full transition 
to 450 gear.  Maybe some of your problems are from FSK noise yet despite being 
synced.


>
>
>
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sean Heskett
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 3:47 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
>
> what channel size are you using?  if you are at 7mhz or 10mhz then the 
> utilization and throughput you mentioned is in line with what i would 
> expect.  if you are on a 20mhz channel then something is wrong or your 
> noise environment is just bad.
>
>
>
> what modulation rates are the SMs running?  if you have a lot of 1X or 
> 2X SMs then you'll drag down the whole AP
>
>
>
> -Sean
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Brandon Yuchasz 
> <li...@gogebicrange.net>
> wrote:
>
> Its good ( kinda) to see we are not the only ones that are running 
> into the frame utilization issues with the upload on to the AP. Once 
> we got to around 20sm we started to see the top of what we could do 
> with an AP. For those of you that are seeing noise at the AP side but 
> not at the SM side are you seeing >80% upload in your link tests? If 
> so are you finding the same load of around 20 SM to be the top where 
> you hit full frame utilization at peak times?  I see our AP's moving 
> around 30mbps aggregated at peak times never more it seems to be topped out.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 12:44 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
> Like everything with 900, you probably have to just try it.
>
> What's clearer is that if most of your FSK subs are at 2X, then moving 
> to 450i will probably net you a big capacity increase, you will be 
> back in the real broadband business.
>
> But with a marginal signal level and lots of interference, it's hard 
> to predict.  It will give you some extra tools, like 5, 7 and 10 MHz 
> channel widths.  And my (limited)  experience was yes we got better 
> throughput and fewer losses of registration.
>
> You do have to realize that with a 17 dBi CPE antenna and probably 
> running full xmt power, you are probably over the 36 dBm EIRP limit by 
> at least 6 dB in the upstream direction.  So do you use the KP 17.5 
> dBi yagi but tell the SM it only has a 10 or 12 dBi antenna?  From 
> your numbers, I think you're going to have to.  Unless you have one of 
> those situations where a wider beam to illuminate more foliage would actually 
> perform better.
>
> It you're going to try it, now's the time with the promotion.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jay Weekley
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:34 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
> I'm curious how the conversion from the legacy 900 gear to the 450i is.
> For example, if we have a customer with a -75 with a 17 db yagi on the 
> old stuff but is having problems due to interference will we be able 
> to salvage them with the 450i 900 gear?
>
> Dave wrote:
>> George,
>>  Myself and another ISP here in Arkansas have been using the new 450i
>> 900 gear and for what its worth we have been amazed at some of the 
>> penetration and numbers we able to see.
>>  Using KP sectors and yagis is the ticket.
>> We have been able to increase marginal shots in upwards of 10+ points 
>> or more.
>>
>> The only gotcha I have with the stuff is the n

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Matt]

> In response to you and George. Yes I am on a 7mhx channel. Co located with
> FSK. We froze the conversion for now from FSK to the 450i because of the
> concerns we had with the uplink and control slots needed. Obviously if we
> got rid of the FSK or did a lot of configuration changes network wide on FSK
> we could add more control slots to as George said to try and increase the
> ability of the SM to get its download scheduled. When we hit peak times
> that’s exactly what we are running into is the download isn’t always getting
> scheduled.

Have you tried shutting down all the FSK gear for say a quick reboot
using SNMP and seeing if the 450i link tests made an improvement
during that time?  It would tell you what you could be looking at when
you make the full transition to 450 gear.  Maybe some of your problems
are from FSK noise yet despite being synced.


>
>
>
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sean Heskett
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 3:47 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
>
> what channel size are you using?  if you are at 7mhz or 10mhz then the
> utilization and throughput you mentioned is in line with what i would
> expect.  if you are on a 20mhz channel then something is wrong or your noise
> environment is just bad.
>
>
>
> what modulation rates are the SMs running?  if you have a lot of 1X or 2X
> SMs then you'll drag down the whole AP
>
>
>
> -Sean
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Brandon Yuchasz <li...@gogebicrange.net>
> wrote:
>
> Its good ( kinda) to see we are not the only ones that are running into the
> frame utilization issues with the upload on to the AP. Once we got to around
> 20sm we started to see the top of what we could do with an AP. For those of
> you that are seeing noise at the AP side but not at the SM side are you
> seeing >80% upload in your link tests? If so are you finding the same load
> of around 20 SM to be the top where you hit full frame utilization at peak
> times?  I see our AP's moving around 30mbps aggregated at peak times never
> more it seems to be topped out.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 12:44 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
> Like everything with 900, you probably have to just try it.
>
> What's clearer is that if most of your FSK subs are at 2X, then moving to
> 450i will probably net you a big capacity increase, you will be back in the
> real broadband business.
>
> But with a marginal signal level and lots of interference, it's hard to
> predict.  It will give you some extra tools, like 5, 7 and 10 MHz channel
> widths.  And my (limited)  experience was yes we got better throughput and
> fewer losses of registration.
>
> You do have to realize that with a 17 dBi CPE antenna and probably running
> full xmt power, you are probably over the 36 dBm EIRP limit by at least 6 dB
> in the upstream direction.  So do you use the KP 17.5 dBi yagi but tell the
> SM it only has a 10 or 12 dBi antenna?  From your numbers, I think you're
> going to have to.  Unless you have one of those situations where a wider
> beam to illuminate more foliage would actually perform better.
>
> It you're going to try it, now's the time with the promotion.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jay Weekley
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:34 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
> I'm curious how the conversion from the legacy 900 gear to the 450i is.
> For example, if we have a customer with a -75 with a 17 db yagi on the old
> stuff but is having problems due to interference will we be able to salvage
> them with the 450i 900 gear?
>
> Dave wrote:
>> George,
>>  Myself and another ISP here in Arkansas have been using the new 450i
>> 900 gear and for what its worth we have been amazed at some of the
>> penetration and numbers we able to see.
>>  Using KP sectors and yagis is the ticket.
>> We have been able to increase marginal shots in upwards of 10+ points
>> or more.
>>
>> The only gotcha I have with the stuff is the number of clients that
>> can be sustained on an AP.
>> Which all revolves around Frame Utilization. We have been ok with
>> about 20 subs with a 5x5 sustained rate package.
>> I am sure you could squeeze more by tweaking the sustained and burst.
>> I used the Capacity planner cambium has for this and it was really
>> close for what we see.
>> 

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Sean Heskett]

If you need help with the frame calculator hit me up.  Cambium also has a
good spreadsheet that helps line up FSK and 450.

-Sean

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016, Brandon Yuchasz <li...@gogebicrange.net>
wrote:

> That Sean,
>
> Right now we are at the max that stays in sync. I could reconfigure the
> FSK to allow more but would lose downlink % on the FSK and add control
> slots. Its something we will address once snow starts to fly and we have
> more office and less field time.
>
>
>
> Its just nice to know we are not the only ones dealing with it.
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] *On Behalf Of *Sean
> Heskett
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 27, 2016 8:34 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
>
> I'd increase the control slots.  On FSK the control slots are a
> substantial hit since the aggregate of the sector is 4mbps but on the 450
> the control slots are not that huge of a hit.  I can't remember how big
> they are but it's a cpl hundred Kb.
>
>
>
> I'd try increasing them to the max that allows you to stay in sync with
> your FSK network and see what happens.
>
>
>
> -Sean
>
> On Tuesday, September 27, 2016, Brandon Yuchasz <li...@gogebicrange.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','li...@gogebicrange.net');>> wrote:
>
> In response to you and George. Yes I am on a 7mhx channel. Co located with
> FSK. We froze the conversion for now from FSK to the 450i because of the
> concerns we had with the uplink and control slots needed. Obviously if we
> got rid of the FSK or did a lot of configuration changes network wide on
> FSK we could add more control slots to as George said to try and increase
> the ability of the SM to get its download scheduled. When we hit peak times
> that’s exactly what we are running into is the download isn’t always
> getting scheduled.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Sean Heskett
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 27, 2016 3:47 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
>
> what channel size are you using?  if you are at 7mhz or 10mhz then the
> utilization and throughput you mentioned is in line with what i would
> expect.  if you are on a 20mhz channel then something is wrong or your
> noise environment is just bad.
>
>
>
> what modulation rates are the SMs running?  if you have a lot of 1X or 2X
> SMs then you'll drag down the whole AP
>
>
>
> -Sean
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Brandon Yuchasz <li...@gogebicrange.net>
> wrote:
>
> Its good ( kinda) to see we are not the only ones that are running into
> the frame utilization issues with the upload on to the AP. Once we got to
> around 20sm we started to see the top of what we could do with an AP. For
> those of you that are seeing noise at the AP side but not at the SM side
> are you seeing >80% upload in your link tests? If so are you finding the
> same load of around 20 SM to be the top where you hit full frame
> utilization at peak times?  I see our AP's moving around 30mbps aggregated
> at peak times never more it seems to be topped out.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 12:44 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
> Like everything with 900, you probably have to just try it.
>
> What's clearer is that if most of your FSK subs are at 2X, then moving to
> 450i will probably net you a big capacity increase, you will be back in the
> real broadband business.
>
> But with a marginal signal level and lots of interference, it's hard to
> predict.  It will give you some extra tools, like 5, 7 and 10 MHz channel
> widths.  And my (limited)  experience was yes we got better throughput and
> fewer losses of registration.
>
> You do have to realize that with a 17 dBi CPE antenna and probably running
> full xmt power, you are probably over the 36 dBm EIRP limit by at least 6
> dB in the upstream direction.  So do you use the KP 17.5 dBi yagi but tell
> the SM it only has a 10 or 12 dBi antenna?  From your numbers, I think
> you're going to have to.  Unless you have one of those situations where a
> wider beam to illuminate more foliage would actually perform better.
>
> It you're going to try it, now's the time with the promotion.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jay

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[George Skorup]

If you're willing to sacrifice a little bit of downlink throughput on 
the 450, you should be able to get a little more uplink air time and 
keep it in sync with the FSK. Play with the frame calculator and see if 
there's a combo that will get close.


Honestly, we run our FSK at 13 miles, 75% and only 2 control slots. 3 
would be better, but we're pulling customers off of 900 any chance we 
get. We're getting down to the ones that don't have any chance in hell 
of getting LOS (not at the edge of the property, no barn, no old 
farm/windmill tower.. nothing, they're just screwed). Unfortunately 
that's still a couple hundred. Which is why we're going to try some 450i 
at some micro sites really, really close to the customers. And hope for 
the best until the smart grid gets turned up. Coming soon. And not UBNT 
soon(tm).


On 9/27/2016 8:45 PM, Brandon Yuchasz wrote:


That Sean,

Right now we are at the max that stays in sync. I could reconfigure 
the FSK to allow more but would lose downlink % on the FSK and add 
control slots. Its something we will address once snow starts to fly 
and we have more office and less field time.


Its just nice to know we are not the only ones dealing with it.

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Sean Heskett
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 27, 2016 8:34 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

I'd increase the control slots.  On FSK the control slots are a 
substantial hit since the aggregate of the sector is 4mbps but on the 
450 the control slots are not that huge of a hit.  I can't remember 
how big they are but it's a cpl hundred Kb.


I'd try increasing them to the max that allows you to stay in sync 
with your FSK network and see what happens.


-Sean

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016, Brandon Yuchasz 
<li...@gogebicrange.net <mailto:li...@gogebicrange.net>> wrote:


In response to you and George. Yes I am on a 7mhx channel. Co located 
with FSK. We froze the conversion for now from FSK to the 450i because 
of the concerns we had with the uplink and control slots needed. 
Obviously if we got rid of the FSK or did a lot of configuration 
changes network wide on FSK we could add more control slots to as 
George said to try and increase the ability of the SM to get its 
download scheduled. When we hit peak times that’s exactly what we are 
running into is the download isn’t always getting scheduled.


*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com 
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] *On Behalf Of 
*Sean Heskett

*Sent:* Tuesday, September 27, 2016 3:47 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

what channel size are you using?  if you are at 7mhz or 10mhz then the 
utilization and throughput you mentioned is in line with what i would 
expect.  if you are on a 20mhz channel then something is wrong or your 
noise environment is just bad.


what modulation rates are the SMs running?  if you have a lot of 1X or 
2X SMs then you'll drag down the whole AP


-Sean

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Brandon Yuchasz 
<li...@gogebicrange.net 
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','li...@gogebicrange.net');>> wrote:


Its good ( kinda) to see we are not the only ones that are running 
into the frame utilization issues with the upload on to the AP. Once 
we got to around 20sm we started to see the top of what we could do 
with an AP. For those of you that are seeing noise at the AP side but 
not at the SM side are you seeing >80% upload in your link tests? If 
so are you finding the same load of around 20 SM to be the top where 
you hit full frame utilization at peak times? I see our AP's moving 
around 30mbps aggregated at peak times never more it seems to be 
topped out.



-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com 
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] On Behalf Of 
Ken Hohhof

Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 12:44 AM
To: af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Like everything with 900, you probably have to just try it.

What's clearer is that if most of your FSK subs are at 2X, then moving 
to 450i will probably net you a big capacity increase, you will be 
back in the real broadband business.


But with a marginal signal level and lots of interference, it's hard 
to predict.  It will give you some extra tools, like 5, 7 and 10 MHz 
channel widths.  And my (limited)  experience was yes we got better 
throughput and fewer losses of registration.


You do have to realize that with a 17 dBi CPE antenna and probably 
running full xmt power, you are probably over the 36 dBm EIRP limit by 
at least 6 dB in the upstream direction.  So do you use the KP 17.5 
dBi yagi but tell the SM it only has a 10 or 12 dBi antenna?  From 
your numbers, I think you're going to have 

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Brandon Yuchasz]

That Sean,

Right now we are at the max that stays in sync. I could reconfigure the FSK to 
allow more but would lose downlink % on the FSK and add control slots. Its 
something we will address once snow starts to fly and we have more office and 
less field time.

 

Its just nice to know we are not the only ones dealing with it. 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sean Heskett
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 8:34 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

 

I'd increase the control slots.  On FSK the control slots are a substantial hit 
since the aggregate of the sector is 4mbps but on the 450 the control slots are 
not that huge of a hit.  I can't remember how big they are but it's a cpl 
hundred Kb.

 

I'd try increasing them to the max that allows you to stay in sync with your 
FSK network and see what happens.

 

-Sean 

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016, Brandon Yuchasz <li...@gogebicrange.net> wrote:

In response to you and George. Yes I am on a 7mhx channel. Co located with FSK. 
We froze the conversion for now from FSK to the 450i because of the concerns we 
had with the uplink and control slots needed. Obviously if we got rid of the 
FSK or did a lot of configuration changes network wide on FSK we could add more 
control slots to as George said to try and increase the ability of the SM to 
get its download scheduled. When we hit peak times that’s exactly what we are 
running into is the download isn’t always getting scheduled. 

 

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com 
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');> ] On Behalf Of Sean 
Heskett
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 3:47 PM
To: af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

 

what channel size are you using?  if you are at 7mhz or 10mhz then the 
utilization and throughput you mentioned is in line with what i would expect.  
if you are on a 20mhz channel then something is wrong or your noise environment 
is just bad.

 

what modulation rates are the SMs running?  if you have a lot of 1X or 2X SMs 
then you'll drag down the whole AP 

 

-Sean

 

 

 

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Brandon Yuchasz <li...@gogebicrange.net 
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','li...@gogebicrange.net');> > wrote:

Its good ( kinda) to see we are not the only ones that are running into the 
frame utilization issues with the upload on to the AP. Once we got to around 
20sm we started to see the top of what we could do with an AP. For those of you 
that are seeing noise at the AP side but not at the SM side are you seeing >80% 
upload in your link tests? If so are you finding the same load of around 20 SM 
to be the top where you hit full frame utilization at peak times?  I see our 
AP's moving around 30mbps aggregated at peak times never more it seems to be 
topped out.


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com 
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');> ] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 12:44 AM
To: af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Like everything with 900, you probably have to just try it.

What's clearer is that if most of your FSK subs are at 2X, then moving to 450i 
will probably net you a big capacity increase, you will be back in the real 
broadband business.

But with a marginal signal level and lots of interference, it's hard to 
predict.  It will give you some extra tools, like 5, 7 and 10 MHz channel 
widths.  And my (limited)  experience was yes we got better throughput and 
fewer losses of registration.

You do have to realize that with a 17 dBi CPE antenna and probably running full 
xmt power, you are probably over the 36 dBm EIRP limit by at least 6 dB in the 
upstream direction.  So do you use the KP 17.5 dBi yagi but tell the SM it only 
has a 10 or 12 dBi antenna?  From your numbers, I think you're going to have 
to.  Unless you have one of those situations where a wider beam to illuminate 
more foliage would actually perform better.

It you're going to try it, now's the time with the promotion.


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com 
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');> ] On Behalf Of Jay 
Weekley
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:34 PM
To: af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

I'm curious how the conversion from the legacy 900 gear to the 450i is.
For example, if we have a customer with a -75 with a 17 db yagi on the old 
stuff but is having problems due to interference will we be able to salvage 
them with the 450i 900 gear?

Dave wrote:
> George,
>  Myself and another ISP here in Arkansas have been using the new 450i
> 900 gear and for what its wor

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Sean Heskett]

I'd increase the control slots.  On FSK the control slots are a substantial
hit since the aggregate of the sector is 4mbps but on the 450 the control
slots are not that huge of a hit.  I can't remember how big they are but
it's a cpl hundred Kb.

I'd try increasing them to the max that allows you to stay in sync with
your FSK network and see what happens.

-Sean

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016, Brandon Yuchasz <li...@gogebicrange.net>
wrote:

> In response to you and George. Yes I am on a 7mhx channel. Co located with
> FSK. We froze the conversion for now from FSK to the 450i because of the
> concerns we had with the uplink and control slots needed. Obviously if we
> got rid of the FSK or did a lot of configuration changes network wide on
> FSK we could add more control slots to as George said to try and increase
> the ability of the SM to get its download scheduled. When we hit peak times
> that’s exactly what we are running into is the download isn’t always
> getting scheduled.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] *On Behalf Of *Sean
> Heskett
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 27, 2016 3:47 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
>
> what channel size are you using?  if you are at 7mhz or 10mhz then the
> utilization and throughput you mentioned is in line with what i would
> expect.  if you are on a 20mhz channel then something is wrong or your
> noise environment is just bad.
>
>
>
> what modulation rates are the SMs running?  if you have a lot of 1X or 2X
> SMs then you'll drag down the whole AP
>
>
>
> -Sean
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Brandon Yuchasz <li...@gogebicrange.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','li...@gogebicrange.net');>> wrote:
>
> Its good ( kinda) to see we are not the only ones that are running into
> the frame utilization issues with the upload on to the AP. Once we got to
> around 20sm we started to see the top of what we could do with an AP. For
> those of you that are seeing noise at the AP side but not at the SM side
> are you seeing >80% upload in your link tests? If so are you finding the
> same load of around 20 SM to be the top where you hit full frame
> utilization at peak times?  I see our AP's moving around 30mbps aggregated
> at peak times never more it seems to be topped out.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] On Behalf Of Ken
> Hohhof
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 12:44 AM
> To: af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
> Like everything with 900, you probably have to just try it.
>
> What's clearer is that if most of your FSK subs are at 2X, then moving to
> 450i will probably net you a big capacity increase, you will be back in the
> real broadband business.
>
> But with a marginal signal level and lots of interference, it's hard to
> predict.  It will give you some extra tools, like 5, 7 and 10 MHz channel
> widths.  And my (limited)  experience was yes we got better throughput and
> fewer losses of registration.
>
> You do have to realize that with a 17 dBi CPE antenna and probably running
> full xmt power, you are probably over the 36 dBm EIRP limit by at least 6
> dB in the upstream direction.  So do you use the KP 17.5 dBi yagi but tell
> the SM it only has a 10 or 12 dBi antenna?  From your numbers, I think
> you're going to have to.  Unless you have one of those situations where a
> wider beam to illuminate more foliage would actually perform better.
>
> It you're going to try it, now's the time with the promotion.
>
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] On Behalf Of Jay
> Weekley
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:34 PM
> To: af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
> I'm curious how the conversion from the legacy 900 gear to the 450i is.
> For example, if we have a customer with a -75 with a 17 db yagi on the old
> stuff but is having problems due to interference will we be able to salvage
> them with the 450i 900 gear?
>
> Dave wrote:
> > George,
> >  Myself and another ISP here in Arkansas have been using the new 450i
> > 900 gear and for what its worth we have been amazed at some of the
> > penetration and numbers we able to see.
> &

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Brandon Yuchasz]

In response to you and George. Yes I am on a 7mhx channel. Co located with FSK. 
We froze the conversion for now from FSK to the 450i because of the concerns we 
had with the uplink and control slots needed. Obviously if we got rid of the 
FSK or did a lot of configuration changes network wide on FSK we could add more 
control slots to as George said to try and increase the ability of the SM to 
get its download scheduled. When we hit peak times that’s exactly what we are 
running into is the download isn’t always getting scheduled. 

 

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sean Heskett
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 3:47 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

 

what channel size are you using?  if you are at 7mhz or 10mhz then the 
utilization and throughput you mentioned is in line with what i would expect.  
if you are on a 20mhz channel then something is wrong or your noise environment 
is just bad.

 

what modulation rates are the SMs running?  if you have a lot of 1X or 2X SMs 
then you'll drag down the whole AP 

 

-Sean

 

 

 

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Brandon Yuchasz <li...@gogebicrange.net> 
wrote:

Its good ( kinda) to see we are not the only ones that are running into the 
frame utilization issues with the upload on to the AP. Once we got to around 
20sm we started to see the top of what we could do with an AP. For those of you 
that are seeing noise at the AP side but not at the SM side are you seeing >80% 
upload in your link tests? If so are you finding the same load of around 20 SM 
to be the top where you hit full frame utilization at peak times?  I see our 
AP's moving around 30mbps aggregated at peak times never more it seems to be 
topped out.


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 12:44 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Like everything with 900, you probably have to just try it.

What's clearer is that if most of your FSK subs are at 2X, then moving to 450i 
will probably net you a big capacity increase, you will be back in the real 
broadband business.

But with a marginal signal level and lots of interference, it's hard to 
predict.  It will give you some extra tools, like 5, 7 and 10 MHz channel 
widths.  And my (limited)  experience was yes we got better throughput and 
fewer losses of registration.

You do have to realize that with a 17 dBi CPE antenna and probably running full 
xmt power, you are probably over the 36 dBm EIRP limit by at least 6 dB in the 
upstream direction.  So do you use the KP 17.5 dBi yagi but tell the SM it only 
has a 10 or 12 dBi antenna?  From your numbers, I think you're going to have 
to.  Unless you have one of those situations where a wider beam to illuminate 
more foliage would actually perform better.

It you're going to try it, now's the time with the promotion.


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jay Weekley
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:34 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

I'm curious how the conversion from the legacy 900 gear to the 450i is.
For example, if we have a customer with a -75 with a 17 db yagi on the old 
stuff but is having problems due to interference will we be able to salvage 
them with the 450i 900 gear?

Dave wrote:
> George,
>  Myself and another ISP here in Arkansas have been using the new 450i
> 900 gear and for what its worth we have been amazed at some of the
> penetration and numbers we able to see.
>  Using KP sectors and yagis is the ticket.
> We have been able to increase marginal shots in upwards of 10+ points
> or more.
>
> The only gotcha I have with the stuff is the number of clients that
> can be sustained on an AP.
> Which all revolves around Frame Utilization. We have been ok with
> about 20 subs with a 5x5 sustained rate package.
> I am sure you could squeeze more by tweaking the sustained and burst.
> I used the Capacity planner cambium has for this and it was really
> close for what we see.
>  Yes, even through some pine
>
>
> On 09/24/2016 02:45 PM, George Skorup wrote:
>> And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't
>> hear those shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered itself.
>>
>> The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a
>> mile or more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, not
>> only due to power levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it
>> actually does "work" (meaning horrible mod levels) and he'll want to
>> run with it. So we'll get what, a couple Mbps out of a sector. Sounds
>> a lot like 900 FSK. Sounds a lot like 900 450i with a horrible noise
>> floor. So we gain nothing and s

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[George Skorup]

Uplink interference has the ungoodness of not only poor uplink capacity, 
but also the impact on control. If SMs can't get bandwidth requests 
fulfilled, there goes your downlink throughput.


I had this argument with the boss. He says so what if we can't get a 
whole lot of upload speed out of it, there's still like >20Mbps 
download! I said yeahbut, if it can't be scheduled, then what's the point?


Yeah, you can throw a whole lot of control slots at the problem. 
Probably half will be wasted and you also burn up usable data slots.


On 9/27/2016 1:24 PM, Brandon Yuchasz wrote:

Its good ( kinda) to see we are not the only ones that are running into the frame 
utilization issues with the upload on to the AP. Once we got to around 20sm we 
started to see the top of what we could do with an AP. For those of you that are 
seeing noise at the AP side but not at the SM side are you seeing >80% upload 
in your link tests? If so are you finding the same load of around 20 SM to be the 
top where you hit full frame utilization at peak times?  I see our AP's moving 
around 30mbps aggregated at peak times never more it seems to be topped out.


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 12:44 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Like everything with 900, you probably have to just try it.

What's clearer is that if most of your FSK subs are at 2X, then moving to 450i 
will probably net you a big capacity increase, you will be back in the real 
broadband business.

But with a marginal signal level and lots of interference, it's hard to 
predict.  It will give you some extra tools, like 5, 7 and 10 MHz channel 
widths.  And my (limited)  experience was yes we got better throughput and 
fewer losses of registration.

You do have to realize that with a 17 dBi CPE antenna and probably running full 
xmt power, you are probably over the 36 dBm EIRP limit by at least 6 dB in the 
upstream direction.  So do you use the KP 17.5 dBi yagi but tell the SM it only 
has a 10 or 12 dBi antenna?  From your numbers, I think you're going to have 
to.  Unless you have one of those situations where a wider beam to illuminate 
more foliage would actually perform better.

It you're going to try it, now's the time with the promotion.


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jay Weekley
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:34 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

I'm curious how the conversion from the legacy 900 gear to the 450i is.
For example, if we have a customer with a -75 with a 17 db yagi on the old 
stuff but is having problems due to interference will we be able to salvage 
them with the 450i 900 gear?

Dave wrote:

George,
  Myself and another ISP here in Arkansas have been using the new 450i
900 gear and for what its worth we have been amazed at some of the
penetration and numbers we able to see.
  Using KP sectors and yagis is the ticket.
We have been able to increase marginal shots in upwards of 10+ points
or more.

The only gotcha I have with the stuff is the number of clients that
can be sustained on an AP.
Which all revolves around Frame Utilization. We have been ok with
about 20 subs with a 5x5 sustained rate package.
I am sure you could squeeze more by tweaking the sustained and burst.
I used the Capacity planner cambium has for this and it was really
close for what we see.
  Yes, even through some pine


On 09/24/2016 02:45 PM, George Skorup wrote:

And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't
hear those shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered itself.

The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a
mile or more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, not
only due to power levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it
actually does "work" (meaning horrible mod levels) and he'll want to
run with it. So we'll get what, a couple Mbps out of a sector. Sounds
a lot like 900 FSK. Sounds a lot like 900 450i with a horrible noise
floor. So we gain nothing and spent a ton of money. Great idea. And
we won't end up getting all of the customers off of the 900 anyway,
that I'm sure.

On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:

In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well,
but I think feature was released only a month or so ago.  We have a
few places with split sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2.
 From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can
hang on to a crummy signal longer than Wimax. It was explained to me
that Wimax puts the synchronization data in the pre-amble which has
to be received on every subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data
interspersed among the subcarriers, so where your weak wimax CPE
sometimes cuts in an out, an LTE CPE in the same conditions can stay
connected.   It also has 

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Sean Heskett]

what channel size are you using?  if you are at 7mhz or 10mhz then the
utilization and throughput you mentioned is in line with what i would
expect.  if you are on a 20mhz channel then something is wrong or your
noise environment is just bad.

what modulation rates are the SMs running?  if you have a lot of 1X or 2X
SMs then you'll drag down the whole AP

-Sean



On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Brandon Yuchasz <li...@gogebicrange.net>
wrote:

> Its good ( kinda) to see we are not the only ones that are running into
> the frame utilization issues with the upload on to the AP. Once we got to
> around 20sm we started to see the top of what we could do with an AP. For
> those of you that are seeing noise at the AP side but not at the SM side
> are you seeing >80% upload in your link tests? If so are you finding the
> same load of around 20 SM to be the top where you hit full frame
> utilization at peak times?  I see our AP's moving around 30mbps aggregated
> at peak times never more it seems to be topped out.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 12:44 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
> Like everything with 900, you probably have to just try it.
>
> What's clearer is that if most of your FSK subs are at 2X, then moving to
> 450i will probably net you a big capacity increase, you will be back in the
> real broadband business.
>
> But with a marginal signal level and lots of interference, it's hard to
> predict.  It will give you some extra tools, like 5, 7 and 10 MHz channel
> widths.  And my (limited)  experience was yes we got better throughput and
> fewer losses of registration.
>
> You do have to realize that with a 17 dBi CPE antenna and probably running
> full xmt power, you are probably over the 36 dBm EIRP limit by at least 6
> dB in the upstream direction.  So do you use the KP 17.5 dBi yagi but tell
> the SM it only has a 10 or 12 dBi antenna?  From your numbers, I think
> you're going to have to.  Unless you have one of those situations where a
> wider beam to illuminate more foliage would actually perform better.
>
> It you're going to try it, now's the time with the promotion.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jay Weekley
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:34 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
> I'm curious how the conversion from the legacy 900 gear to the 450i is.
> For example, if we have a customer with a -75 with a 17 db yagi on the old
> stuff but is having problems due to interference will we be able to salvage
> them with the 450i 900 gear?
>
> Dave wrote:
> > George,
> >  Myself and another ISP here in Arkansas have been using the new 450i
> > 900 gear and for what its worth we have been amazed at some of the
> > penetration and numbers we able to see.
> >  Using KP sectors and yagis is the ticket.
> > We have been able to increase marginal shots in upwards of 10+ points
> > or more.
> >
> > The only gotcha I have with the stuff is the number of clients that
> > can be sustained on an AP.
> > Which all revolves around Frame Utilization. We have been ok with
> > about 20 subs with a 5x5 sustained rate package.
> > I am sure you could squeeze more by tweaking the sustained and burst.
> > I used the Capacity planner cambium has for this and it was really
> > close for what we see.
> >  Yes, even through some pine
> >
> >
> > On 09/24/2016 02:45 PM, George Skorup wrote:
> >> And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't
> >> hear those shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered
> itself.
> >>
> >> The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a
> >> mile or more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, not
> >> only due to power levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it
> >> actually does "work" (meaning horrible mod levels) and he'll want to
> >> run with it. So we'll get what, a couple Mbps out of a sector. Sounds
> >> a lot like 900 FSK. Sounds a lot like 900 450i with a horrible noise
> >> floor. So we gain nothing and spent a ton of money. Great idea. And
> >> we won't end up getting all of the customers off of the 900 anyway,
> >> that I'm sure.
> >>
> >> On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
> >>> In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well,
> >>> but I think feature was released only a month or so ago.  We have a

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Brandon Yuchasz]

Its good ( kinda) to see we are not the only ones that are running into the 
frame utilization issues with the upload on to the AP. Once we got to around 
20sm we started to see the top of what we could do with an AP. For those of you 
that are seeing noise at the AP side but not at the SM side are you seeing >80% 
upload in your link tests? If so are you finding the same load of around 20 SM 
to be the top where you hit full frame utilization at peak times?  I see our 
AP's moving around 30mbps aggregated at peak times never more it seems to be 
topped out. 


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 12:44 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Like everything with 900, you probably have to just try it.

What's clearer is that if most of your FSK subs are at 2X, then moving to 450i 
will probably net you a big capacity increase, you will be back in the real 
broadband business.

But with a marginal signal level and lots of interference, it's hard to 
predict.  It will give you some extra tools, like 5, 7 and 10 MHz channel 
widths.  And my (limited)  experience was yes we got better throughput and 
fewer losses of registration.

You do have to realize that with a 17 dBi CPE antenna and probably running full 
xmt power, you are probably over the 36 dBm EIRP limit by at least 6 dB in the 
upstream direction.  So do you use the KP 17.5 dBi yagi but tell the SM it only 
has a 10 or 12 dBi antenna?  From your numbers, I think you're going to have 
to.  Unless you have one of those situations where a wider beam to illuminate 
more foliage would actually perform better.

It you're going to try it, now's the time with the promotion.


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jay Weekley
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:34 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

I'm curious how the conversion from the legacy 900 gear to the 450i is.  
For example, if we have a customer with a -75 with a 17 db yagi on the old 
stuff but is having problems due to interference will we be able to salvage 
them with the 450i 900 gear?

Dave wrote:
> George,
>  Myself and another ISP here in Arkansas have been using the new 450i
> 900 gear and for what its worth we have been amazed at some of the 
> penetration and numbers we able to see.
>  Using KP sectors and yagis is the ticket.
> We have been able to increase marginal shots in upwards of 10+ points 
> or more.
>
> The only gotcha I have with the stuff is the number of clients that 
> can be sustained on an AP.
> Which all revolves around Frame Utilization. We have been ok with 
> about 20 subs with a 5x5 sustained rate package.
> I am sure you could squeeze more by tweaking the sustained and burst.
> I used the Capacity planner cambium has for this and it was really 
> close for what we see.
>  Yes, even through some pine
>
>
> On 09/24/2016 02:45 PM, George Skorup wrote:
>> And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't 
>> hear those shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered itself.
>>
>> The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a 
>> mile or more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, not 
>> only due to power levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it 
>> actually does "work" (meaning horrible mod levels) and he'll want to 
>> run with it. So we'll get what, a couple Mbps out of a sector. Sounds 
>> a lot like 900 FSK. Sounds a lot like 900 450i with a horrible noise 
>> floor. So we gain nothing and spent a ton of money. Great idea. And 
>> we won't end up getting all of the customers off of the 900 anyway, 
>> that I'm sure.
>>
>> On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>>> In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well, 
>>> but I think feature was released only a month or so ago.  We have a 
>>> few places with split sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2.
>>> From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can 
>>> hang on to a crummy signal longer than Wimax. It was explained to me 
>>> that Wimax puts the synchronization data in the pre-amble which has 
>>> to be received on every subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data 
>>> interspersed among the subcarriers, so where your weak wimax CPE 
>>> sometimes cuts in an out, an LTE CPE in the same conditions can stay
>>> connected.   It also has lower mod levels that let it operate right 
>>> down to the noise floor.  And at least in theory you'll get more 
>>> throughput than you get in the same conditions on Wimax.
>>> I have the same reserva

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Josh Baird]

Sweet, thanks!

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Eric Muehleisen <ericm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Cambium Networks is pleased to announce a promotion on the 900 MHz PMP
> 450i Access Points. For a limited time, Cambium Networks will be selling
> the 900 MHz AP
> <http://ib3.bislr.net/m?s=cambiumsfdcap2=s_3e94bcef-d199-4231-9cf8-ec23c7d75c79=e1jq4wvfdtfk8ghp60u4ce1j5mrk6h9k5mu48h1r5n130ctg5mt3ah1j70wm4du488t32=d1u78w1u5wqqexvq5thp2vb2d5upuvk5ehvpywkbecq66vvd5xr74vv4enhq8wtfc5hp6tbkecqq0vbg5mu3ac1f=2>*
>  at
> 50% off, *with no restrictions as to the number of SMs connected.
>
> Contact your Cambium Networks reseller
> <http://ib3.bislr.net/m?s=cambiumsfdcap2=s_3e94bcef-d199-4231-9cf8-ec23c7d75c79=e1jq4wvfdtfk8ghp60u4ce1j5mrk6h9k5mu48h1r5n130ctg5mt3ah1j70wm4du488t32=d1u78w1u5wqqexvq5thp2vb2d5upuvk5ehvpywkbecq66vvd5xvpgtbjcmpq8vtdc9uqjbr=3>
>  and
> use promotion code*900AP*.
> Offer available only to network operators in North America. Promotion price
> valid from August 15, 2016 through December 09, 2016. CRSD must be by December
> 31. 2016. This offer may not be combined with any other discounts,
> rebates, or price exceptions.
>
> Get information on the PMP 450i HERE
> <http://ib3.bislr.net/m?s=cambiumsfdcap2=s_3e94bcef-d199-4231-9cf8-ec23c7d75c79=e1jq4wvfdtfk8ghp60u4ce1j5mrk6h9k5mu48h1r5n130ctg5mt3ah1j70wm4du488t32=d1u78w1u5wqqexvq5thp2vb2d5upuvk5ehvpywkbecq66vvd5xr74vv4enhq8wtfc5hp6tbkecqq0vbg5mu3ac1f=4>
> .
>
> Cambium Networks
>
>
> <http://ib3.bislr.net/m?s=cambiumsfdcap2=s_3e94bcef-d199-4231-9cf8-ec23c7d75c79=e1jq4wvfdtfk8ghp60u4ce1j5mrk6h9k5mu48h1r5n130ctg5mt3ah1j70wm4du488t32=d1u78w1u5wqqexvq5thp2vb2d5upuvk5ehvpywkbecq66vvd5xt6awbncntq8bb15nrqavvmcmqkyrvfdnmpwttdctt6yv9xcnr6uw1d64r30c1de1u70=5>
>
> <http://ib3.bislr.net/m?s=cambiumsfdcap2=s_3e94bcef-d199-4231-9cf8-ec23c7d75c79=e1jq4wvfdtfk8ghp60u4ce1j5mrk6h9k5mu48h1r5n130ctg5mt3ah1j70wm4du488t32=d1u78w1u5wqqexvq5thp2vb2d5upuvk5ehvpywkbecq66vvd5xhpyvkmc5hq8bbnecqg=6>
>
> Join the Conversation: Cambium Community
> <http://ib3.bislr.net/m?s=cambiumsfdcap2=s_3e94bcef-d199-4231-9cf8-ec23c7d75c79=e1jq4wvfdtfk8ghp60u4ce1j5mrk6h9k5mu48h1r5n130ctg5mt3ah1j70wm4du488t32=d1u78w1u5wqp6vvddnupwubmf4q66rbdc9mqavbecnu7evvjddtjwrvfdmqg=7>
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote:
>
>> I thought there was a promo price on the APs.  Is it over?  Did I dream
>> it?
>>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 8:13 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>>
>> What promotion?
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com>
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: 9/27/2016 1:44:19 AM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>>
>> >Like everything with 900, you probably have to just try it.
>> >
>> >What's clearer is that if most of your FSK subs are at 2X, then moving
>> >to 450i will probably net you a big capacity increase, you will be back
>> >in the real broadband business.
>> >
>> >But with a marginal signal level and lots of interference, it's hard to
>> >predict.  It will give you some extra tools, like 5, 7 and 10 MHz
>> >channel widths.  And my (limited)  experience was yes we got better
>> >throughput and fewer losses of registration.
>> >
>> >You do have to realize that with a 17 dBi CPE antenna and probably
>> >running full xmt power, you are probably over the 36 dBm EIRP limit by
>> >at least 6 dB in the upstream direction.  So do you use the KP 17.5 dBi
>> >yagi but tell the SM it only has a 10 or 12 dBi antenna?  From your
>> >numbers, I think you're going to have to.  Unless you have one of those
>> >situations where a wider beam to illuminate more foliage would actually
>> >perform better.
>> >
>> >It you're going to try it, now's the time with the promotion.
>> >
>> >
>> >-Original Message-
>> >From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jay Weekley
>> >Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:34 PM
>> >To: af@afmug.com
>> >Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>> >
>> >I'm curious how the conversion from the legacy 900 gear to the 450i is.
>> >For example, if we have a customer with a -75 with a 17 db yagi on the
>> >old stuff but is having problems due to interference will we be able to
>> >salvage them with the 450i 900 gear?
>> >
>> >Dave wrote:
>

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Eric Muehleisen]

Cambium Networks is pleased to announce a promotion on the 900 MHz PMP 450i
Access Points. For a limited time, Cambium Networks will be selling the 900
MHz AP
<http://ib3.bislr.net/m?s=cambiumsfdcap2=s_3e94bcef-d199-4231-9cf8-ec23c7d75c79=e1jq4wvfdtfk8ghp60u4ce1j5mrk6h9k5mu48h1r5n130ctg5mt3ah1j70wm4du488t32=d1u78w1u5wqqexvq5thp2vb2d5upuvk5ehvpywkbecq66vvd5xr74vv4enhq8wtfc5hp6tbkecqq0vbg5mu3ac1f=2>*
at
50% off, *with no restrictions as to the number of SMs connected.

Contact your Cambium Networks reseller
<http://ib3.bislr.net/m?s=cambiumsfdcap2=s_3e94bcef-d199-4231-9cf8-ec23c7d75c79=e1jq4wvfdtfk8ghp60u4ce1j5mrk6h9k5mu48h1r5n130ctg5mt3ah1j70wm4du488t32=d1u78w1u5wqqexvq5thp2vb2d5upuvk5ehvpywkbecq66vvd5xvpgtbjcmpq8vtdc9uqjbr=3>
and
use promotion code*900AP*.
Offer available only to network operators in North America. Promotion price
valid from August 15, 2016 through December 09, 2016. CRSD must be by December
31. 2016. This offer may not be combined with any other discounts, rebates,
or price exceptions.

Get information on the PMP 450i HERE
<http://ib3.bislr.net/m?s=cambiumsfdcap2=s_3e94bcef-d199-4231-9cf8-ec23c7d75c79=e1jq4wvfdtfk8ghp60u4ce1j5mrk6h9k5mu48h1r5n130ctg5mt3ah1j70wm4du488t32=d1u78w1u5wqqexvq5thp2vb2d5upuvk5ehvpywkbecq66vvd5xr74vv4enhq8wtfc5hp6tbkecqq0vbg5mu3ac1f=4>
.

Cambium Networks

<http://ib3.bislr.net/m?s=cambiumsfdcap2=s_3e94bcef-d199-4231-9cf8-ec23c7d75c79=e1jq4wvfdtfk8ghp60u4ce1j5mrk6h9k5mu48h1r5n130ctg5mt3ah1j70wm4du488t32=d1u78w1u5wqqexvq5thp2vb2d5upuvk5ehvpywkbecq66vvd5xt6awbncntq8bb15nrqavvmcmqkyrvfdnmpwttdctt6yv9xcnr6uw1d64r30c1de1u70=5>

<http://ib3.bislr.net/m?s=cambiumsfdcap2=s_3e94bcef-d199-4231-9cf8-ec23c7d75c79=e1jq4wvfdtfk8ghp60u4ce1j5mrk6h9k5mu48h1r5n130ctg5mt3ah1j70wm4du488t32=d1u78w1u5wqqexvq5thp2vb2d5upuvk5ehvpywkbecq66vvd5xhpyvkmc5hq8bbnecqg=6>

Join the Conversation: Cambium Community
<http://ib3.bislr.net/m?s=cambiumsfdcap2=s_3e94bcef-d199-4231-9cf8-ec23c7d75c79=e1jq4wvfdtfk8ghp60u4ce1j5mrk6h9k5mu48h1r5n130ctg5mt3ah1j70wm4du488t32=d1u78w1u5wqp6vvddnupwubmf4q66rbdc9mqavbecnu7evvjddtjwrvfdmqg=7>

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote:

> I thought there was a promo price on the APs.  Is it over?  Did I dream it?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 8:13 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
> What promotion?
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 9/27/2016 1:44:19 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
> >Like everything with 900, you probably have to just try it.
> >
> >What's clearer is that if most of your FSK subs are at 2X, then moving
> >to 450i will probably net you a big capacity increase, you will be back
> >in the real broadband business.
> >
> >But with a marginal signal level and lots of interference, it's hard to
> >predict.  It will give you some extra tools, like 5, 7 and 10 MHz
> >channel widths.  And my (limited)  experience was yes we got better
> >throughput and fewer losses of registration.
> >
> >You do have to realize that with a 17 dBi CPE antenna and probably
> >running full xmt power, you are probably over the 36 dBm EIRP limit by
> >at least 6 dB in the upstream direction.  So do you use the KP 17.5 dBi
> >yagi but tell the SM it only has a 10 or 12 dBi antenna?  From your
> >numbers, I think you're going to have to.  Unless you have one of those
> >situations where a wider beam to illuminate more foliage would actually
> >perform better.
> >
> >It you're going to try it, now's the time with the promotion.
> >
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jay Weekley
> >Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:34 PM
> >To: af@afmug.com
> >Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
> >
> >I'm curious how the conversion from the legacy 900 gear to the 450i is.
> >For example, if we have a customer with a -75 with a 17 db yagi on the
> >old stuff but is having problems due to interference will we be able to
> >salvage them with the 450i 900 gear?
> >
> >Dave wrote:
> >>  George,
> >>   Myself and another ISP here in Arkansas have been using the new
> >> 450i
> >>  900 gear and for what its worth we have been amazed at some of the
> >> penetration and numbers we able to see.
> >>   Using KP sectors and yagis is the ticket.
> >>  We have been able to increase marginal shots in upwards of 10+
> >> points  or more.
> >>
> >>  The only gotcha 

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Ken Hohhof]

I thought there was a promo price on the APs.  Is it over?  Did I dream it?

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 8:13 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

What promotion?


-- Original Message --
From: "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/27/2016 1:44:19 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

>Like everything with 900, you probably have to just try it.
>
>What's clearer is that if most of your FSK subs are at 2X, then moving 
>to 450i will probably net you a big capacity increase, you will be back 
>in the real broadband business.
>
>But with a marginal signal level and lots of interference, it's hard to 
>predict.  It will give you some extra tools, like 5, 7 and 10 MHz 
>channel widths.  And my (limited)  experience was yes we got better 
>throughput and fewer losses of registration.
>
>You do have to realize that with a 17 dBi CPE antenna and probably 
>running full xmt power, you are probably over the 36 dBm EIRP limit by 
>at least 6 dB in the upstream direction.  So do you use the KP 17.5 dBi 
>yagi but tell the SM it only has a 10 or 12 dBi antenna?  From your 
>numbers, I think you're going to have to.  Unless you have one of those 
>situations where a wider beam to illuminate more foliage would actually 
>perform better.
>
>It you're going to try it, now's the time with the promotion.
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jay Weekley
>Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:34 PM
>To: af@afmug.com
>Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>I'm curious how the conversion from the legacy 900 gear to the 450i is.
>For example, if we have a customer with a -75 with a 17 db yagi on the 
>old stuff but is having problems due to interference will we be able to 
>salvage them with the 450i 900 gear?
>
>Dave wrote:
>>  George,
>>   Myself and another ISP here in Arkansas have been using the new 
>> 450i
>>  900 gear and for what its worth we have been amazed at some of the  
>> penetration and numbers we able to see.
>>   Using KP sectors and yagis is the ticket.
>>  We have been able to increase marginal shots in upwards of 10+ 
>> points  or more.
>>
>>  The only gotcha I have with the stuff is the number of clients that  
>> can be sustained on an AP.
>>  Which all revolves around Frame Utilization. We have been ok with  
>> about 20 subs with a 5x5 sustained rate package.
>>  I am sure you could squeeze more by tweaking the sustained and burst.
>>  I used the Capacity planner cambium has for this and it was really  
>> close for what we see.
>>   Yes, even through some pine
>>
>>
>>  On 09/24/2016 02:45 PM, George Skorup wrote:
>>>  And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't
>>>  hear those shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered 
>>>itself.
>>>
>>>  The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have 
>>>a
>>>  mile or more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, 
>>>not
>>>  only due to power levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it
>>>  actually does "work" (meaning horrible mod levels) and he'll want 
>>>to
>>>  run with it. So we'll get what, a couple Mbps out of a sector. 
>>>Sounds
>>>  a lot like 900 FSK. Sounds a lot like 900 450i with a horrible 
>>>noise
>>>  floor. So we gain nothing and spent a ton of money. Great idea. And
>>>  we won't end up getting all of the customers off of the 900 anyway,
>>>  that I'm sure.
>>>
>>>  On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>>>>  In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as 
>>>>well,
>>>>  but I think feature was released only a month or so ago.  We have 
>>>>a
>>>>  few places with split sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2.
>>>>  From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can
>>>>  hang on to a crummy signal longer than Wimax. It was explained to 
>>>>me
>>>>  that Wimax puts the synchronization data in the pre-amble which 
>>>>has
>>>>  to be received on every subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data
>>>>  interspersed among the subcarriers, so where your weak wimax CPE
>>>>  sometimes cuts in an out, an LTE CPE in the same conditions can 
>>>>stay
>>>>  connected.   It also has lower mod l

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Adam Moffett]

What promotion?


-- Original Message --
From: "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/27/2016 1:44:19 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


Like everything with 900, you probably have to just try it.

What's clearer is that if most of your FSK subs are at 2X, then moving 
to 450i will probably net you a big capacity increase, you will be back 
in the real broadband business.


But with a marginal signal level and lots of interference, it's hard to 
predict.  It will give you some extra tools, like 5, 7 and 10 MHz 
channel widths.  And my (limited)  experience was yes we got better 
throughput and fewer losses of registration.


You do have to realize that with a 17 dBi CPE antenna and probably 
running full xmt power, you are probably over the 36 dBm EIRP limit by 
at least 6 dB in the upstream direction.  So do you use the KP 17.5 dBi 
yagi but tell the SM it only has a 10 or 12 dBi antenna?  From your 
numbers, I think you're going to have to.  Unless you have one of those 
situations where a wider beam to illuminate more foliage would actually 
perform better.


It you're going to try it, now's the time with the promotion.


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jay Weekley
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:34 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

I'm curious how the conversion from the legacy 900 gear to the 450i is.
For example, if we have a customer with a -75 with a 17 db yagi on the 
old stuff but is having problems due to interference will we be able to 
salvage them with the 450i 900 gear?


Dave wrote:

 George,
  Myself and another ISP here in Arkansas have been using the new 450i
 900 gear and for what its worth we have been amazed at some of the
 penetration and numbers we able to see.
  Using KP sectors and yagis is the ticket.
 We have been able to increase marginal shots in upwards of 10+ points
 or more.

 The only gotcha I have with the stuff is the number of clients that
 can be sustained on an AP.
 Which all revolves around Frame Utilization. We have been ok with
 about 20 subs with a 5x5 sustained rate package.
 I am sure you could squeeze more by tweaking the sustained and burst.
 I used the Capacity planner cambium has for this and it was really
 close for what we see.
  Yes, even through some pine


 On 09/24/2016 02:45 PM, George Skorup wrote:

 And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't
 hear those shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered 
itself.


 The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a
 mile or more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, not
 only due to power levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it
 actually does "work" (meaning horrible mod levels) and he'll want to
 run with it. So we'll get what, a couple Mbps out of a sector. 
Sounds

 a lot like 900 FSK. Sounds a lot like 900 450i with a horrible noise
 floor. So we gain nothing and spent a ton of money. Great idea. And
 we won't end up getting all of the customers off of the 900 anyway,
 that I'm sure.

 On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:

 In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well,
 but I think feature was released only a month or so ago.  We have a
 few places with split sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2.
 From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can
 hang on to a crummy signal longer than Wimax. It was explained to 
me

 that Wimax puts the synchronization data in the pre-amble which has
 to be received on every subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data
 interspersed among the subcarriers, so where your weak wimax CPE
 sometimes cuts in an out, an LTE CPE in the same conditions can 
stay

 connected.   It also has lower mod levels that let it operate right
 down to the noise floor.  And at least in theory you'll get more
 throughput than you get in the same conditions on Wimax.
 I have the same reservations as you about the low mod levels thing.
 Just because they work doesn't mean you want them.  We're not
 intentionally installing anything weaker than a -80 RSSI right now,
 so we really ought to be ok on that front.
 -Adam
 -- Original Message --
 From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com 
<mailto:geo...@cbcast.com>>

 To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
 Sent: 9/23/2016 11:23:57 PM
 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

 Well, let me ask this. Are you doing 2x2 or 4x4 on the Telrad?
 Obviously 4x4 would give a slight advantage.

 My whole thing is, OK, it might work through a shit ton of trees.
 Linked up and able to move some traffic is one thing. But a whole
 bunch of low modulation customers on a sector is not worth the
 investment. LTE, Wimax, 450i 900.. whatever it may be.

 I know of a Telrad installation where they couldn't make it work.
 

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Josh Baird]

What promotion?  I don't see anything on Cambium's site (or Streakwaves).

Josh

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:44 AM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote:

> Like everything with 900, you probably have to just try it.
>
> What's clearer is that if most of your FSK subs are at 2X, then moving to
> 450i will probably net you a big capacity increase, you will be back in the
> real broadband business.
>
> But with a marginal signal level and lots of interference, it's hard to
> predict.  It will give you some extra tools, like 5, 7 and 10 MHz channel
> widths.  And my (limited)  experience was yes we got better throughput and
> fewer losses of registration.
>
> You do have to realize that with a 17 dBi CPE antenna and probably running
> full xmt power, you are probably over the 36 dBm EIRP limit by at least 6
> dB in the upstream direction.  So do you use the KP 17.5 dBi yagi but tell
> the SM it only has a 10 or 12 dBi antenna?  From your numbers, I think
> you're going to have to.  Unless you have one of those situations where a
> wider beam to illuminate more foliage would actually perform better.
>
> It you're going to try it, now's the time with the promotion.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jay Weekley
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:34 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
> I'm curious how the conversion from the legacy 900 gear to the 450i is.
> For example, if we have a customer with a -75 with a 17 db yagi on the old
> stuff but is having problems due to interference will we be able to salvage
> them with the 450i 900 gear?
>
> Dave wrote:
> > George,
> >  Myself and another ISP here in Arkansas have been using the new 450i
> > 900 gear and for what its worth we have been amazed at some of the
> > penetration and numbers we able to see.
> >  Using KP sectors and yagis is the ticket.
> > We have been able to increase marginal shots in upwards of 10+ points
> > or more.
> >
> > The only gotcha I have with the stuff is the number of clients that
> > can be sustained on an AP.
> > Which all revolves around Frame Utilization. We have been ok with
> > about 20 subs with a 5x5 sustained rate package.
> > I am sure you could squeeze more by tweaking the sustained and burst.
> > I used the Capacity planner cambium has for this and it was really
> > close for what we see.
> >  Yes, even through some pine
> >
> >
> > On 09/24/2016 02:45 PM, George Skorup wrote:
> >> And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't
> >> hear those shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered
> itself.
> >>
> >> The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a
> >> mile or more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, not
> >> only due to power levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it
> >> actually does "work" (meaning horrible mod levels) and he'll want to
> >> run with it. So we'll get what, a couple Mbps out of a sector. Sounds
> >> a lot like 900 FSK. Sounds a lot like 900 450i with a horrible noise
> >> floor. So we gain nothing and spent a ton of money. Great idea. And
> >> we won't end up getting all of the customers off of the 900 anyway,
> >> that I'm sure.
> >>
> >> On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
> >>> In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well,
> >>> but I think feature was released only a month or so ago.  We have a
> >>> few places with split sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2.
> >>> From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can
> >>> hang on to a crummy signal longer than Wimax. It was explained to me
> >>> that Wimax puts the synchronization data in the pre-amble which has
> >>> to be received on every subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data
> >>> interspersed among the subcarriers, so where your weak wimax CPE
> >>> sometimes cuts in an out, an LTE CPE in the same conditions can stay
> >>> connected.   It also has lower mod levels that let it operate right
> >>> down to the noise floor.  And at least in theory you'll get more
> >>> throughput than you get in the same conditions on Wimax.
> >>> I have the same reservations as you about the low mod levels thing.
> >>> Just because they work doesn't mean you want them.  We're not
> >>> intentionally installing anything weaker than a -80 RSSI right now,
> >>> so we really ought to be ok on tha

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Ken Hohhof]

Like everything with 900, you probably have to just try it.

What's clearer is that if most of your FSK subs are at 2X, then moving to 450i 
will probably net you a big capacity increase, you will be back in the real 
broadband business.

But with a marginal signal level and lots of interference, it's hard to 
predict.  It will give you some extra tools, like 5, 7 and 10 MHz channel 
widths.  And my (limited)  experience was yes we got better throughput and 
fewer losses of registration.

You do have to realize that with a 17 dBi CPE antenna and probably running full 
xmt power, you are probably over the 36 dBm EIRP limit by at least 6 dB in the 
upstream direction.  So do you use the KP 17.5 dBi yagi but tell the SM it only 
has a 10 or 12 dBi antenna?  From your numbers, I think you're going to have 
to.  Unless you have one of those situations where a wider beam to illuminate 
more foliage would actually perform better.

It you're going to try it, now's the time with the promotion.


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jay Weekley
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:34 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

I'm curious how the conversion from the legacy 900 gear to the 450i is.  
For example, if we have a customer with a -75 with a 17 db yagi on the old 
stuff but is having problems due to interference will we be able to salvage 
them with the 450i 900 gear?

Dave wrote:
> George,
>  Myself and another ISP here in Arkansas have been using the new 450i
> 900 gear and for what its worth we have been amazed at some of the 
> penetration and numbers we able to see.
>  Using KP sectors and yagis is the ticket.
> We have been able to increase marginal shots in upwards of 10+ points 
> or more.
>
> The only gotcha I have with the stuff is the number of clients that 
> can be sustained on an AP.
> Which all revolves around Frame Utilization. We have been ok with 
> about 20 subs with a 5x5 sustained rate package.
> I am sure you could squeeze more by tweaking the sustained and burst.
> I used the Capacity planner cambium has for this and it was really 
> close for what we see.
>  Yes, even through some pine
>
>
> On 09/24/2016 02:45 PM, George Skorup wrote:
>> And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't 
>> hear those shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered itself.
>>
>> The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a 
>> mile or more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, not 
>> only due to power levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it 
>> actually does "work" (meaning horrible mod levels) and he'll want to 
>> run with it. So we'll get what, a couple Mbps out of a sector. Sounds 
>> a lot like 900 FSK. Sounds a lot like 900 450i with a horrible noise 
>> floor. So we gain nothing and spent a ton of money. Great idea. And 
>> we won't end up getting all of the customers off of the 900 anyway, 
>> that I'm sure.
>>
>> On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>>> In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well, 
>>> but I think feature was released only a month or so ago.  We have a 
>>> few places with split sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2.
>>> From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can 
>>> hang on to a crummy signal longer than Wimax. It was explained to me 
>>> that Wimax puts the synchronization data in the pre-amble which has 
>>> to be received on every subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data 
>>> interspersed among the subcarriers, so where your weak wimax CPE 
>>> sometimes cuts in an out, an LTE CPE in the same conditions can stay
>>> connected.   It also has lower mod levels that let it operate right 
>>> down to the noise floor.  And at least in theory you'll get more 
>>> throughput than you get in the same conditions on Wimax.
>>> I have the same reservations as you about the low mod levels thing.  
>>> Just because they work doesn't mean you want them.  We're not 
>>> intentionally installing anything weaker than a -80 RSSI right now, 
>>> so we really ought to be ok on that front.
>>> -Adam
>>> -- Original Message --
>>> From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com <mailto:geo...@cbcast.com>>
>>> To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
>>> Sent: 9/23/2016 11:23:57 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>>>> Well, let me ask this. Are you doing 2x2 or 4x4 on the Telrad? 
>>>> Obviously 4x4 would give a slight advantage.
>>>>
>>>> My

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[George Skorup]

Well, what are you seeing now on that customer at -75? Are you getting 
>4Mbps aggregate on linktests? It's possible that the active filtering 
in the 450i will help. But if all you have right now is 1X (so maybe 
5-6dB above the noise floor), then you might get 1X MIMO-B or more 
likely 1X MIMO-A.


We're going to try a sector on Wednesday or Thursday. Small site with 
<10 customers. AP on a SuperStinger trying to blow through solid trees. 
Noise floor is about -70 or so. The farthest customer is just over 3/4 
of a mile and sitting at -65 (yeah, with a KP 17dBi yagi). 2X works most 
of the time. If we get any more bandwidth out of it, then we'll probably 
just leave it and pull the FSK down.


On 9/26/2016 11:33 PM, Jay Weekley wrote:
I'm curious how the conversion from the legacy 900 gear to the 450i 
is.  For example, if we have a customer with a -75 with a 17 db yagi 
on the old stuff but is having problems due to interference will we be 
able to salvage them with the 450i 900 gear?


Dave wrote:

George,
 Myself and another ISP here in Arkansas have been using the new 450i 
900 gear and for what its worth we have been amazed at

some of the penetration and numbers we able to see.
 Using KP sectors and yagis is the ticket.
We have been able to increase marginal shots in upwards of 10+ points 
or more.


The only gotcha I have with the stuff is the number of clients that 
can be sustained on an AP.
Which all revolves around Frame Utilization. We have been ok with 
about 20 subs with a 5x5 sustained rate package.

I am sure you could squeeze more by tweaking the sustained and burst.
I used the Capacity planner cambium has for this and it was really 
close for what we see.

 Yes, even through some pine


On 09/24/2016 02:45 PM, George Skorup wrote:
And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't 
hear those shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered 
itself.


The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a 
mile or more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, not 
only due to power levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it 
actually does "work" (meaning horrible mod levels) and he'll want to 
run with it. So we'll get what, a couple Mbps out of a sector. 
Sounds a lot like 900 FSK. Sounds a lot like 900 450i with a 
horrible noise floor. So we gain nothing and spent a ton of money. 
Great idea. And we won't end up getting all of the customers off of 
the 900 anyway, that I'm sure.


On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well, 
but I think feature was released only a month or so ago.  We have a 
few places with split sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2.
From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can 
hang on to a crummy signal longer than Wimax. It was explained to 
me that Wimax puts the synchronization data in the pre-amble which 
has to be received on every subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data 
interspersed among the subcarriers, so where your weak wimax CPE 
sometimes cuts in an out, an LTE CPE in the same conditions can 
stay connected.   It also has lower mod levels that let it operate 
right down to the noise floor.  And at least in theory you'll get 
more throughput than you get in the same conditions on Wimax.
I have the same reservations as you about the low mod levels 
thing.  Just because they work doesn't mean you want them. We're 
not intentionally installing anything weaker than a -80 RSSI right 
now, so we really ought to be ok on that front.

-Adam
-- Original Message --
From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com <mailto:geo...@cbcast.com>>
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: 9/23/2016 11:23:57 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
Well, let me ask this. Are you doing 2x2 or 4x4 on the Telrad? 
Obviously 4x4 would give a slight advantage.


My whole thing is, OK, it might work through a shit ton of trees. 
Linked up and able to move some traffic is one thing. But a whole 
bunch of low modulation customers on a sector is not worth the 
investment. LTE, Wimax, 450i 900.. whatever it may be.


I know of a Telrad installation where they couldn't make it work. 
Turned out to be interference. They had some guys from Israel come 
"fix" it. I won't say any names, but I now see what they did to 
get it working. It's in the 3.5 band.. because I can see them on 
my 450's spectrum analyzer. From multiple sectors on multiple 
towers, so I know what direction it's coming from. And I have no 
doubt they're running it over powered.


Welp, we have a BaiCells demo kit, so we'll see what happens.

On 9/23/2016 9:52 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
We've had Telrad Compact 1000's for around 2.5 years, but they're 
running Wimax firmware because we were replacing older 16e 
installations.  We have a number of sites now that have entirely 
dual mode CPE so we'r

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Jay Weekley]

I'm curious how the conversion from the legacy 900 gear to the 450i is.  
For example, if we have a customer with a -75 with a 17 db yagi on the 
old stuff but is having problems due to interference will we be able to 
salvage them with the 450i 900 gear?


Dave wrote:

George,
 Myself and another ISP here in Arkansas have been using the new 450i 
900 gear and for what its worth we have been amazed at

some of the penetration and numbers we able to see.
 Using KP sectors and yagis is the ticket.
We have been able to increase marginal shots in upwards of 10+ points 
or more.


The only gotcha I have with the stuff is the number of clients that 
can be sustained on an AP.
Which all revolves around Frame Utilization. We have been ok with 
about 20 subs with a 5x5 sustained rate package.

I am sure you could squeeze more by tweaking the sustained and burst.
I used the Capacity planner cambium has for this and it was really 
close for what we see.

 Yes, even through some pine


On 09/24/2016 02:45 PM, George Skorup wrote:
And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't 
hear those shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered itself.


The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a 
mile or more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, not 
only due to power levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it 
actually does "work" (meaning horrible mod levels) and he'll want to 
run with it. So we'll get what, a couple Mbps out of a sector. Sounds 
a lot like 900 FSK. Sounds a lot like 900 450i with a horrible noise 
floor. So we gain nothing and spent a ton of money. Great idea. And 
we won't end up getting all of the customers off of the 900 anyway, 
that I'm sure.


On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well, 
but I think feature was released only a month or so ago.  We have a 
few places with split sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2.
From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can 
hang on to a crummy signal longer than Wimax. It was explained to me 
that Wimax puts the synchronization data in the pre-amble which has 
to be received on every subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data 
interspersed among the subcarriers, so where your weak wimax CPE 
sometimes cuts in an out, an LTE CPE in the same conditions can stay 
connected.   It also has lower mod levels that let it operate right 
down to the noise floor.  And at least in theory you'll get more 
throughput than you get in the same conditions on Wimax.
I have the same reservations as you about the low mod levels thing.  
Just because they work doesn't mean you want them.  We're not 
intentionally installing anything weaker than a -80 RSSI right now, 
so we really ought to be ok on that front.

-Adam
-- Original Message --
From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com <mailto:geo...@cbcast.com>>
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: 9/23/2016 11:23:57 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
Well, let me ask this. Are you doing 2x2 or 4x4 on the Telrad? 
Obviously 4x4 would give a slight advantage.


My whole thing is, OK, it might work through a shit ton of trees. 
Linked up and able to move some traffic is one thing. But a whole 
bunch of low modulation customers on a sector is not worth the 
investment. LTE, Wimax, 450i 900.. whatever it may be.


I know of a Telrad installation where they couldn't make it work. 
Turned out to be interference. They had some guys from Israel come 
"fix" it. I won't say any names, but I now see what they did to get 
it working. It's in the 3.5 band.. because I can see them on my 
450's spectrum analyzer. From multiple sectors on multiple towers, 
so I know what direction it's coming from. And I have no doubt 
they're running it over powered.


Welp, we have a BaiCells demo kit, so we'll see what happens.

On 9/23/2016 9:52 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
We've had Telrad Compact 1000's for around 2.5 years, but they're 
running Wimax firmware because we were replacing older 16e 
installations.  We have a number of sites now that have entirely 
dual mode CPE so we're about to pull the trigger on LTE.  We're 
installing four LTE base stations next week on brand new sites, 
and assuming those go well we'll upgrade some existing Wimax sites.
So yeah, within the next few weeks I'll know more. I'll definitely 
report back.
It's interesting that you phrase it as "if it works at all."  The 
issue with Wimax has never been it "working", it's just that it 
comes with a lot of quirks and it sucks at administration and 
troubleshooting.  I'm speaking of Wimax in general here, not 
Telrad specificallyand I've used Wimax from three different 
vendors now.  I have no fear about LTE working.  I _am_ afraid it 
will turn out to be cut from the same cloth as Wimax.

-- Original Message -

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Ken Hohhof]

Are you talking about the 14.5 or 17.5 dBi yagis from KP?  I would hate to use 
a 6 ft yagi as my standard for all installs, also when going through trees 
especially near the subscriber, experience says higher gain / narrower beam 
isn’t always better.

 

Another thing, what are you setting the antenna gain to in the SM?  In our case 
upstream is often the challenge because the AP sees so much interference, so 
receive gain at the CPE while dialing down the xmt power to maintain +36 dBm 
EIRP may not work.

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 10:03 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

 

George,
 Myself and another ISP here in Arkansas have been using the new 450i 900 gear 
and for what its worth we have been amazed at 
some of the penetration and numbers we able to see. 
 Using KP sectors and yagis is the ticket.
We have been able to increase marginal shots in upwards of 10+ points or more.

The only gotcha I have with the stuff is the number of clients that can be 
sustained on an AP. 
Which all revolves around Frame Utilization. We have been ok with about 20 subs 
with a 5x5 sustained rate package.
I am sure you could squeeze more by tweaking the sustained and burst.
I used the Capacity planner cambium has for this and it was really close for 
what we see.
 Yes, even through some pine



On 09/24/2016 02:45 PM, George Skorup wrote:

And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't hear those 
shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered itself.

The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a mile or 
more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, not only due to power 
levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it actually does "work" (meaning 
horrible mod levels) and he'll want to run with it. So we'll get what, a couple 
Mbps out of a sector. Sounds a lot like 900 FSK. Sounds a lot like 900 450i 
with a horrible noise floor. So we gain nothing and spent a ton of money. Great 
idea. And we won't end up getting all of the customers off of the 900 anyway, 
that I'm sure.

On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:

In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well, but I think 
feature was released only a month or so ago.  We have a few places with split 
sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2.

 

>From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can hang on to a 
>crummy signal longer than Wimax.  It was explained to me that Wimax puts the 
>synchronization data in the pre-amble which has to be received on every 
>subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data interspersed among the subcarriers, so 
>where your weak wimax CPE sometimes cuts in an out, an LTE CPE in the same 
>conditions can stay connected.   It also has lower mod levels that let it 
>operate right down to the noise floor.  And at least in theory you'll get more 
>throughput than you get in the same conditions on Wimax.

 

I have the same reservations as you about the low mod levels thing.  Just 
because they work doesn't mean you want them.  We're not intentionally 
installing anything weaker than a -80 RSSI right now, so we really ought to be 
ok on that front.

 

-Adam

 

 

-- Original Message --

From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com <mailto:geo...@cbcast.com> >

To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 

Sent: 9/23/2016 11:23:57 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

 

Well, let me ask this. Are you doing 2x2 or 4x4 on the Telrad? Obviously 4x4 
would give a slight advantage.

My whole thing is, OK, it might work through a shit ton of trees. Linked up and 
able to move some traffic is one thing. But a whole bunch of low modulation 
customers on a sector is not worth the investment. LTE, Wimax, 450i 900.. 
whatever it may be.

I know of a Telrad installation where they couldn't make it work. Turned out to 
be interference. They had some guys from Israel come "fix" it. I won't say any 
names, but I now see what they did to get it working. It's in the 3.5 band.. 
because I can see them on my 450's spectrum analyzer. >From multiple sectors on 
multiple towers, so I know what direction it's coming from. And I have no doubt 
they're running it over powered.

Welp, we have a BaiCells demo kit, so we'll see what happens.

On 9/23/2016 9:52 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

We've had Telrad Compact 1000's for around 2.5 years, but they're running Wimax 
firmware because we were replacing older 16e installations.  We have a number 
of sites now that have entirely dual mode CPE so we're about to pull the 
trigger on LTE.  We're installing four LTE base stations next week on brand new 
sites, and assuming those go well we'll upgrade some existing Wimax sites.

 

So yeah, within the next few weeks I'll know more.  I'll definitely report back.

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Jaime Solorza]

I made SCADA comment regarding 900MHz performance only... Not for Internet
data usage per se.   Some SCADA systems do connect to Internet but it is
typically monitoring, alarming or maintenance,... Not for watching
NetFleece... Many Are upgrading to 5GHz for more bandwidth and camera
surveillance... I have several clients doing this on small scale.   EPWU
has over 800 sites now using MDS licensed and unlicensed 900 so a change is
coming but it's going to be combination of 11Ghz and 5Ghz I am told.

On Sep 25, 2016 2:00 PM, "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's the whole sector.  You definitely don't want anybody at QPSK, and IMO
> you don't actually want customers who can't get 64QAM.  Anybody running
> QPSK would be an unhappy customer and he'd weaken the whole sector.
>
> The point of the chart was this: I said earlier, "even 900 doesn't work
> with a mile of forest in the way".  People responded, "but SCADA at
> 115kbps!".  My rebuttal is that crappy speeds are already an option, but
> they don't count as "working" if you're selling internet access.
>
> I'm not sure about the SNR question.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 9/25/2016 3:30:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
> Something that always seems fuzzy with WIMAX and now LTE is whether you
> can have a bunch of subscribers all getting that throughput simultaneously,
> or if that’s the entire sector capacity.  If the entire sector capacity is
> 0.91 Mbps download shared over however many customers you need to make that
> basestation profitable, then it’s silly to talk about an MCS0 link.  In
> fact, even the MCS10 numbers from that chart wouldn’t really be useful for
> fixed broadband service.  For best effort connectivity from a mobile
> client, maybe it’s acceptable.
>
>
>
> The other thing is I remember one vendor saying their SNR numbers were per
> subcarrier or something, and you had to add a fudge factor of something
> like 10 dB to do an apples-to-apples comparison with the non LTE world.
> Not sure if that applies here.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 25, 2016 2:02 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
>
> I dunno, but the chart says it theoretically works at an SINR of -6.7db
>
> Seems insane.
>
>
>
> At the other end of the chart at MCS28 you're getting 42.46mbps x
> 6.61mbps.....and that's supposed to work with 24 SINR.
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
>
> From: "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com>
>
> To: af@afmug.com
>
> Sent: 9/25/2016 12:17:14 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
>
> What is 0-QPSK?  CW?
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com>
>
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 25, 2016 5:09 AM
>
> *To:* af@afmug.com ; af@afmug.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
>
> Undoubtedly true guys, but same thing.  Assuming this table comes through,
> it's showing you the bottom mod levels on LTE at 10mhz channel size.  So
> yeah, in theory we could hook up somebody at -100 and it would "work", but
> you'd be spending a lot of money to not get much capacity.  SCADA might
> "work" for George's internet customers in the same sense that scraping the
> bottom on LTE would "work".
>
>
>
> Modulation and Coding Scheme
>
> Max troughtput [Mbps]
>
> SINR (dB)
>
> Receiver Sensitivity (dBm)
>
> Minimum by DL/UL split
>
> Required SINR at Cell Edge (dB)
>
> DL MCS
>
> UL MCS
>
> DL
>
> UL
>
> DL
>
> UL
>
> DL
>
> UL
>
> DL
>
> UL
>
> 0-QPSK
>
> 0-QPSK
>
> 0.91 Mbps
>
> 0.25 Mbps
>
> -1.2 dB
>
> -1.0 dB
>
> -6.7 dB
>
> -3.3 dB
>
> -106.1 dBm
>
> -102.3 dBm
>
> 1-QPSK
>
> 1-QPSK
>
> 1.18 Mbps
>
> 0.32 Mbps
>
> 0.0 dB
>
> 0.1 dB
>
> -5.6 dB
>
> -2.4 dB
>
> -105.1 dBm
>
> -101.4 dBm
>
> 2-QPSK
>
> 2-QPSK
>
> 1.45 Mbps
>
> 0.40 Mbps
>
> 0.7 dB
>
> 0.7 dB
>
> -4.8 dB
>
> -1.6 dB
>
> -104.3 dBm
>
> -100.6 dBm
>
> 3-QPSK
>
> 3-QPSK
>
> 1.87 Mbps
>
> 0.51 Mbps
>
> 1.7 dB
>
> 1.7 dB
>
> -3.8 dB
>
> -0.5 dB
>
> -103.3 dBm
>
> -99.5 dBm
>
> 4-QPSK
>
> 4-QPSK
>
> 2.38 Mbps
>
> 0.65 Mbps
>
> 2.7 dB

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Dave]

George,
 Myself and another ISP here in Arkansas have been using the new 450i 
900 gear and for what its worth we have been amazed at

some of the penetration and numbers we able to see.
 Using KP sectors and yagis is the ticket.
We have been able to increase marginal shots in upwards of 10+ points or 
more.


The only gotcha I have with the stuff is the number of clients that can 
be sustained on an AP.
Which all revolves around Frame Utilization. We have been ok with about 
20 subs with a 5x5 sustained rate package.

I am sure you could squeeze more by tweaking the sustained and burst.
I used the Capacity planner cambium has for this and it was really close 
for what we see.

 Yes, even through some pine


On 09/24/2016 02:45 PM, George Skorup wrote:
And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't hear 
those shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered itself.


The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a 
mile or more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, not 
only due to power levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it 
actually does "work" (meaning horrible mod levels) and he'll want to 
run with it. So we'll get what, a couple Mbps out of a sector. Sounds 
a lot like 900 FSK. Sounds a lot like 900 450i with a horrible noise 
floor. So we gain nothing and spent a ton of money. Great idea. And we 
won't end up getting all of the customers off of the 900 anyway, that 
I'm sure.


On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well, 
but I think feature was released only a month or so ago.  We have a 
few places with split sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2.
From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can 
hang on to a crummy signal longer than Wimax.  It was explained to me 
that Wimax puts the synchronization data in the pre-amble which has 
to be received on every subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data 
interspersed among the subcarriers, so where your weak wimax CPE 
sometimes cuts in an out, an LTE CPE in the same conditions can stay 
connected.   It also has lower mod levels that let it operate right 
down to the noise floor.  And at least in theory you'll get more 
throughput than you get in the same conditions on Wimax.
I have the same reservations as you about the low mod levels thing.  
Just because they work doesn't mean you want them.  We're not 
intentionally installing anything weaker than a -80 RSSI right now, 
so we really ought to be ok on that front.

-Adam
-- Original Message --
From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com <mailto:geo...@cbcast.com>>
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: 9/23/2016 11:23:57 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
Well, let me ask this. Are you doing 2x2 or 4x4 on the Telrad? 
Obviously 4x4 would give a slight advantage.


My whole thing is, OK, it might work through a shit ton of trees. 
Linked up and able to move some traffic is one thing. But a whole 
bunch of low modulation customers on a sector is not worth the 
investment. LTE, Wimax, 450i 900.. whatever it may be.


I know of a Telrad installation where they couldn't make it work. 
Turned out to be interference. They had some guys from Israel come 
"fix" it. I won't say any names, but I now see what they did to get 
it working. It's in the 3.5 band.. because I can see them on my 
450's spectrum analyzer. From multiple sectors on multiple towers, 
so I know what direction it's coming from. And I have no doubt 
they're running it over powered.


Welp, we have a BaiCells demo kit, so we'll see what happens.

On 9/23/2016 9:52 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
We've had Telrad Compact 1000's for around 2.5 years, but they're 
running Wimax firmware because we were replacing older 16e 
installations.  We have a number of sites now that have entirely 
dual mode CPE so we're about to pull the trigger on LTE.  We're 
installing four LTE base stations next week on brand new sites, and 
assuming those go well we'll upgrade some existing Wimax sites.
So yeah, within the next few weeks I'll know more. I'll definitely 
report back.
It's interesting that you phrase it as "if it works at all."  The 
issue with Wimax has never been it "working", it's just that it 
comes with a lot of quirks and it sucks at administration and 
troubleshooting.  I'm speaking of Wimax in general here, not Telrad 
specificallyand I've used Wimax from three different vendors 
now.  I have no fear about LTE working.  I _am_ afraid it will turn 
out to be cut from the same cloth as Wimax.

-- Original Message --
From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com <mailto:geo...@cbcast.com>>
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: 9/23/2016 8:04:34 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Aren't you doing Telrad? Please let us know 

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Adam Moffett]

It's the whole sector.  You definitely don't want anybody at QPSK, and 
IMO you don't actually want customers who can't get 64QAM.  Anybody 
running QPSK would be an unhappy customer and he'd weaken the whole 
sector.


The point of the chart was this: I said earlier, "even 900 doesn't work 
with a mile of forest in the way".  People responded, "but SCADA at 
115kbps!".  My rebuttal is that crappy speeds are already an option, but 
they don't count as "working" if you're selling internet access.


I'm not sure about the SNR question.


-- Original Message --
From: "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/25/2016 3:30:43 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Something that always seems fuzzy with WIMAX and now LTE is whether you 
can have a bunch of subscribers all getting that throughput 
simultaneously, or if that’s the entire sector capacity.  If the entire 
sector capacity is 0.91 Mbps download shared over however many 
customers you need to make that basestation profitable, then it’s silly 
to talk about an MCS0 link.  In fact, even the MCS10 numbers from that 
chart wouldn’t really be useful for fixed broadband service.  For best 
effort connectivity from a mobile client, maybe it’s acceptable.




The other thing is I remember one vendor saying their SNR numbers were 
per subcarrier or something, and you had to add a fudge factor of 
something like 10 dB to do an apples-to-apples comparison with the non 
LTE world.  Not sure if that applies here.






From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 2:02 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?



I dunno, but the chart says it theoretically works at an SINR of -6.7db

Seems insane.



At the other end of the chart at MCS28 you're getting 42.46mbps x 
6.61mbps.and that's supposed to work with 24 SINR.






-- Original Message --

From: "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com>

To: af@afmug.com

Sent: 9/25/2016 12:17:14 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?




What is 0-QPSK?  CW?



From:Adam Moffett

Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 5:09 AM

To:af@afmug.com ; af@afmug.com

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?



Undoubtedly true guys, but same thing.  Assuming this table comes 
through, it's showing you the bottom mod levels on LTE at 10mhz 
channel size.  So yeah, in theory we could hook up somebody at -100 
and it would "work", but you'd be spending a lot of money to not get 
much capacity.  SCADA might "work" for George's internet customers in 
the same sense that scraping the bottom on LTE would "work".




Modulation and Coding Scheme

Max troughtput [Mbps]

SINR (dB)

Receiver Sensitivity (dBm)

Minimum by DL/UL split

Required SINR at Cell Edge (dB)

DL MCS

UL MCS

DL

UL

DL

UL

DL

UL

DL

UL

0-QPSK

0-QPSK

0.91 Mbps

0.25 Mbps

-1.2 dB

-1.0 dB

-6.7 dB

-3.3 dB

-106.1 dBm

-102.3 dBm

1-QPSK

1-QPSK

1.18 Mbps

0.32 Mbps

0.0 dB

0.1 dB

-5.6 dB

-2.4 dB

-105.1 dBm

-101.4 dBm

2-QPSK

2-QPSK

1.45 Mbps

0.40 Mbps

0.7 dB

0.7 dB

-4.8 dB

-1.6 dB

-104.3 dBm

-100.6 dBm

3-QPSK

3-QPSK

1.87 Mbps

0.51 Mbps

1.7 dB

1.7 dB

-3.8 dB

-0.5 dB

-103.3 dBm

-99.5 dBm

4-QPSK

4-QPSK

2.38 Mbps

0.65 Mbps

2.7 dB

2.8 dB

-2.8 dB

0.4 dB

-102.2 dBm

-98.5 dBm

5-QPSK

5-QPSK

2.88 Mbps

0.79 Mbps

3.6 dB

3.5 dB

-1.7 dB

1.3 dB

-101.1 dBm

-97.7 dBm

6-QPSK

6-QPSK

3.38 Mbps

0.93 Mbps

4.6 dB

4.2 dB

-0.7 dB

2.2 dB

-100.2 dBm

-96.7 dBm

7-QPSK

7-QPSK

4.07 Mbps

1.12 Mbps

5.6 dB

5.3 dB

0.6 dB

3.4 dB

-98.9 dBm

-95.6 dBm

8-QPSK

8-QPSK

4.57 Mbps

1.25 Mbps

6.5 dB

6.0 dB

1.5 dB

4.2 dB

-97.9 dBm

-94.7 dBm

9-QPSK

9-QPSK

5.24 Mbps

1.44 Mbps

7.6 dB

6.9 dB

2.5 dB

5.6 dB

-97.0 dBm

-93.3 dBm

10-16QAM

10-QPSK

5.24 Mbps

1.58 Mbps

7.7 dB

7.6 dB

2.5 dB

6.2 dB

-97.0 dBm

-92.7 dBm





-- Original Message --

From: "Colin Stanners" <cstann...@gmail.com>

To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>

Sent: 9/25/2016 12:11:30 AM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?



Some SCADA systems run at like 115kbaud with -103db receive 
sensitivity in a 1mhz channel... that will survive a lot.




On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Jaime Solorza 
<losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:


Depends on the system..  SCADA type radios have no problem with 
trees...




On Sep 24, 2016 7:22 PM, "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:

Might be worth a shot I guess.  Depends how strong your 900 is 
coming in.




Attenuation is attenuation though...whether it's LTE or something 
else.  If the path literally passes through a mile of trees then 
I'm surprised even 900 works.






------ Original Message --

From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com>

To: af@afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Ken Hohhof]

Something that always seems fuzzy with WIMAX and now LTE is whether you can 
have a bunch of subscribers all getting that throughput simultaneously, or if 
that’s the entire sector capacity.  If the entire sector capacity is 0.91 Mbps 
download shared over however many customers you need to make that basestation 
profitable, then it’s silly to talk about an MCS0 link.  In fact, even the 
MCS10 numbers from that chart wouldn’t really be useful for fixed broadband 
service.  For best effort connectivity from a mobile client, maybe it’s 
acceptable.

 

The other thing is I remember one vendor saying their SNR numbers were per 
subcarrier or something, and you had to add a fudge factor of something like 10 
dB to do an apples-to-apples comparison with the non LTE world.  Not sure if 
that applies here.

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 2:02 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

 

I dunno, but the chart says it theoretically works at an SINR of -6.7db

Seems insane.

 

At the other end of the chart at MCS28 you're getting 42.46mbps x 
6.61mbps.and that's supposed to work with 24 SINR.  

 

 

-- Original Message --

From: "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com> >

To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 

Sent: 9/25/2016 12:17:14 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

 

What is 0-QPSK?  CW?

 

From: Adam Moffett <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>  

Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 5:09 AM

To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>  ; af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>  

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

 

Undoubtedly true guys, but same thing.  Assuming this table comes through, it's 
showing you the bottom mod levels on LTE at 10mhz channel size.  So yeah, in 
theory we could hook up somebody at -100 and it would "work", but you'd be 
spending a lot of money to not get much capacity.  SCADA might "work" for 
George's internet customers in the same sense that scraping the bottom on LTE 
would "work".  

 


Modulation and Coding Scheme

Max troughtput [Mbps]

SINR (dB)

Receiver Sensitivity (dBm)


Minimum by DL/UL split

Required SINR at Cell Edge (dB)


DL MCS

UL MCS

DL

UL

DL

UL

DL

UL

DL

UL


0-QPSK

0-QPSK

0.91 Mbps

0.25 Mbps

-1.2 dB

-1.0 dB

-6.7 dB

-3.3 dB

-106.1 dBm

-102.3 dBm


1-QPSK

1-QPSK

1.18 Mbps

0.32 Mbps

0.0 dB

0.1 dB

-5.6 dB

-2.4 dB

-105.1 dBm

-101.4 dBm


2-QPSK

2-QPSK

1.45 Mbps

0.40 Mbps

0.7 dB

0.7 dB

-4.8 dB

-1.6 dB

-104.3 dBm

-100.6 dBm


3-QPSK

3-QPSK

1.87 Mbps

0.51 Mbps

1.7 dB

1.7 dB

-3.8 dB

-0.5 dB

-103.3 dBm

-99.5 dBm


4-QPSK

4-QPSK

2.38 Mbps

0.65 Mbps

2.7 dB

2.8 dB

-2.8 dB

0.4 dB

-102.2 dBm

-98.5 dBm


5-QPSK

5-QPSK

2.88 Mbps

0.79 Mbps

3.6 dB

3.5 dB

-1.7 dB

1.3 dB

-101.1 dBm

-97.7 dBm


6-QPSK

6-QPSK

3.38 Mbps

0.93 Mbps

4.6 dB

4.2 dB

-0.7 dB

2.2 dB

-100.2 dBm

-96.7 dBm


7-QPSK

7-QPSK

4.07 Mbps

1.12 Mbps

5.6 dB

5.3 dB

0.6 dB

3.4 dB

-98.9 dBm

-95.6 dBm


8-QPSK

8-QPSK

4.57 Mbps

1.25 Mbps

6.5 dB

6.0 dB

1.5 dB

4.2 dB

-97.9 dBm

-94.7 dBm


9-QPSK

9-QPSK

5.24 Mbps

1.44 Mbps

7.6 dB

6.9 dB

2.5 dB

5.6 dB

-97.0 dBm

-93.3 dBm


10-16QAM

10-QPSK

5.24 Mbps

1.58 Mbps

7.7 dB

7.6 dB

2.5 dB

6.2 dB

-97.0 dBm

-92.7 dBm

 

 

-- Original Message --

From: "Colin Stanners" <cstann...@gmail.com <mailto:cstann...@gmail.com> >

To: "af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> " <af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> >

Sent: 9/25/2016 12:11:30 AM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

 

Some SCADA systems run at like 115kbaud with -103db receive sensitivity in a 
1mhz channel... that will survive a lot.

 

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com 
<mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Depends on the system..  SCADA type radios have no problem with trees... 

 

On Sep 24, 2016 7:22 PM, "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com 
<mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Might be worth a shot I guess.  Depends how strong your 900 is coming in.  

 

Attenuation is attenuation though...whether it's LTE or something else.  If the 
path literally passes through a mile of trees then I'm surprised even 900 works.

 

 

-- Original Message --

From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com <mailto:geo...@cbcast.com> >

To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 

Sent: 9/24/2016 3:45:44 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

 

And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't hear those 
shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered itself.

The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a mile or 
more deep trees (where we

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Adam Moffett]

I dunno, but the chart says it theoretically works at an SINR of -6.7db
Seems insane.

At the other end of the chart at MCS28 you're getting 42.46mbps x 
6.61mbps.and that's supposed to work with 24 SINR.



-- Original Message --
From: "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/25/2016 12:17:14 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


What is 0-QPSK?  CW?

From:Adam Moffett
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 5:09 AM
To:af@afmug.com ; af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Undoubtedly true guys, but same thing.  Assuming this table comes 
through, it's showing you the bottom mod levels on LTE at 10mhz channel 
size.  So yeah, in theory we could hook up somebody at -100 and it 
would "work", but you'd be spending a lot of money to not get much 
capacity.  SCADA might "work" for George's internet customers in the 
same sense that scraping the bottom on LTE would "work".


Modulation and Coding SchemeMax troughtput [Mbps]SINR (dB)Receiver 
Sensitivity (dBm)Minimum by DL/UL splitRequired SINR at Cell Edge 
(dB)DL MCSUL MCSDLULDLULDLULDLUL0-QPSK0-QPSK0.91 Mbps0.25 Mbps-1.2 
dB-1.0 dB-6.7 dB-3.3 dB-106.1 dBm-102.3 dBm1-QPSK1-QPSK1.18 Mbps0.32 
Mbps0.0 dB0.1 dB-5.6 dB-2.4 dB-105.1 dBm-101.4 dBm2-QPSK2-QPSK1.45 
Mbps0.40 Mbps0.7 dB0.7 dB-4.8 dB-1.6 dB-104.3 dBm-100.6 
dBm3-QPSK3-QPSK1.87 Mbps0.51 Mbps1.7 dB1.7 dB-3.8 dB-0.5 dB-103.3 
dBm-99.5 dBm4-QPSK4-QPSK2.38 Mbps0.65 Mbps2.7 dB2.8 dB-2.8 dB0.4 
dB-102.2 dBm-98.5 dBm5-QPSK5-QPSK2.88 Mbps0.79 Mbps3.6 dB3.5 dB-1.7 
dB1.3 dB-101.1 dBm-97.7 dBm6-QPSK6-QPSK3.38 Mbps0.93 Mbps4.6 dB4.2 
dB-0.7 dB2.2 dB-100.2 dBm-96.7 dBm7-QPSK7-QPSK4.07 Mbps1.12 Mbps5.6 
dB5.3 dB0.6 dB3.4 dB-98.9 dBm-95.6 dBm8-QPSK8-QPSK4.57 Mbps1.25 Mbps6.5 
dB6.0 dB1.5 dB4.2 dB-97.9 dBm-94.7 dBm9-QPSK9-QPSK5.24 Mbps1.44 Mbps7.6 
dB6.9 dB2.5 dB5.6 dB-97.0 dBm-93.3 dBm10-16QAM10-QPSK5.24 Mbps1.58 
Mbps7.7 dB7.6 dB2.5 dB6.2 dB-97.0 dBm-92.7 dBm



-- Original Message --
From: "Colin Stanners" <cstann...@gmail.com>
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Sent: 9/25/2016 12:11:30 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Some SCADA systems run at like 115kbaud with -103db receive 
sensitivity in a 1mhz channel... that will survive a lot.


On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Jaime Solorza 
<losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:
Depends on the system..  SCADA type radios have no problem with 
trees...



On Sep 24, 2016 7:22 PM, "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:
Might be worth a shot I guess.  Depends how strong your 900 is 
coming in.


Attenuation is attenuation though...whether it's LTE or something 
else.  If the path literally passes through a mile of trees then I'm 
surprised even 900 works.



-- Original Message --
From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/24/2016 3:45:44 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't 
hear those shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered 
itself.


The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have 
a mile or more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, 
not only due to power levels but noise floor too). My fear is that 
it actually does "work" (meaning horrible mod levels) and he'll 
want to run with it. So we'll get what, a couple Mbps out of a 
sector. Sounds a lot like 900 FSK. Sounds a lot like 900 450i with 
a horrible noise floor. So we gain nothing and spent a ton of 
money. Great idea. And we won't end up getting all of the customers 
off of the 900 anyway, that I'm sure.


On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as 
well, but I think feature was released only a month or so ago.  We 
have a few places with split sectors, so we'll be able to compare 
to 2x2.


From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can 
hang on to a crummy signal longer than Wimax.  It was explained to 
me that Wimax puts the synchronization data in the pre-amble which 
has to be received on every subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data 
interspersed among the subcarriers, so where your weak wimax CPE 
sometimes cuts in an out, an LTE CPE in the same conditions can 
stay connected.   It also has lower mod levels that let it operate 
right down to the noise floor.  And at least in theory you'll get 
more throughput than you get in the same conditions on Wimax.


I have the same reservations as you about the low mod levels 
thing.  Just because they work doesn't mean you want them.  We're 
not intentionally installing anything weaker than a -80 RSSI right 
now, so we really ought to be ok on that front.


-Adam


-- Original Message --
From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Ken Hohhof]

MCS0, using QPSK and whatever other parameters constitute LTE MCS0.  Evidently 
TBS Index is a big factor.  Attempts to Google for more information resulted in 
me having a Monty Python Gumby experience.  MY BRAIN HURTS!

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 11:17 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

 

What is 0-QPSK?  CW?

 

From: Adam Moffett <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>  

Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 5:09 AM

To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>  ; af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>  

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

 

Undoubtedly true guys, but same thing.  Assuming this table comes through, it's 
showing you the bottom mod levels on LTE at 10mhz channel size.  So yeah, in 
theory we could hook up somebody at -100 and it would "work", but you'd be 
spending a lot of money to not get much capacity.  SCADA might "work" for 
George's internet customers in the same sense that scraping the bottom on LTE 
would "work".  

 


Modulation and Coding Scheme

Max troughtput [Mbps]

SINR (dB)

Receiver Sensitivity (dBm)


Minimum by DL/UL split

Required SINR at Cell Edge (dB)


DL MCS

UL MCS

DL

UL

DL

UL

DL

UL

DL

UL


0-QPSK

0-QPSK

0.91 Mbps

0.25 Mbps

-1.2 dB

-1.0 dB

-6.7 dB

-3.3 dB

-106.1 dBm

-102.3 dBm


1-QPSK

1-QPSK

1.18 Mbps

0.32 Mbps

0.0 dB

0.1 dB

-5.6 dB

-2.4 dB

-105.1 dBm

-101.4 dBm


2-QPSK

2-QPSK

1.45 Mbps

0.40 Mbps

0.7 dB

0.7 dB

-4.8 dB

-1.6 dB

-104.3 dBm

-100.6 dBm


3-QPSK

3-QPSK

1.87 Mbps

0.51 Mbps

1.7 dB

1.7 dB

-3.8 dB

-0.5 dB

-103.3 dBm

-99.5 dBm


4-QPSK

4-QPSK

2.38 Mbps

0.65 Mbps

2.7 dB

2.8 dB

-2.8 dB

0.4 dB

-102.2 dBm

-98.5 dBm


5-QPSK

5-QPSK

2.88 Mbps

0.79 Mbps

3.6 dB

3.5 dB

-1.7 dB

1.3 dB

-101.1 dBm

-97.7 dBm


6-QPSK

6-QPSK

3.38 Mbps

0.93 Mbps

4.6 dB

4.2 dB

-0.7 dB

2.2 dB

-100.2 dBm

-96.7 dBm


7-QPSK

7-QPSK

4.07 Mbps

1.12 Mbps

5.6 dB

5.3 dB

0.6 dB

3.4 dB

-98.9 dBm

-95.6 dBm


8-QPSK

8-QPSK

4.57 Mbps

1.25 Mbps

6.5 dB

6.0 dB

1.5 dB

4.2 dB

-97.9 dBm

-94.7 dBm


9-QPSK

9-QPSK

5.24 Mbps

1.44 Mbps

7.6 dB

6.9 dB

2.5 dB

5.6 dB

-97.0 dBm

-93.3 dBm


10-16QAM

10-QPSK

5.24 Mbps

1.58 Mbps

7.7 dB

7.6 dB

2.5 dB

6.2 dB

-97.0 dBm

-92.7 dBm

 

 

-- Original Message --

From: "Colin Stanners" <cstann...@gmail.com <mailto:cstann...@gmail.com> >

To: "af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> " <af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> >

Sent: 9/25/2016 12:11:30 AM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

 

Some SCADA systems run at like 115kbaud with -103db receive sensitivity in a 
1mhz channel... that will survive a lot.

 

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com 
<mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Depends on the system..  SCADA type radios have no problem with trees... 

 

On Sep 24, 2016 7:22 PM, "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com 
<mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Might be worth a shot I guess.  Depends how strong your 900 is coming in.  

 

Attenuation is attenuation though...whether it's LTE or something else.  If the 
path literally passes through a mile of trees then I'm surprised even 900 works.

 

 

-- Original Message --

From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com <mailto:geo...@cbcast.com> >

To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 

Sent: 9/24/2016 3:45:44 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

 

And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't hear those 
shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered itself.

The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a mile or 
more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, not only due to power 
levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it actually does "work" (meaning 
horrible mod levels) and he'll want to run with it. So we'll get what, a couple 
Mbps out of a sector. Sounds a lot like 900 FSK. Sounds a lot like 900 450i 
with a horrible noise floor. So we gain nothing and spent a ton of money. Great 
idea. And we won't end up getting all of the customers off of the 900 anyway, 
that I'm sure.

On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:

In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well, but I think 
feature was released only a month or so ago.  We have a few places with split 
sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2.

 

>From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can hang on to a 
>crummy signal longer than Wimax.  It was explained to me that Wimax puts the 
>synchronization data in the pre-amble which has to be received on every 
>subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data interspersed among the subcarriers, so 
>where

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Chuck McCown]

What is 0-QPSK?  CW?

From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 5:09 AM
To: af@afmug.com ; af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Undoubtedly true guys, but same thing.  Assuming this table comes through, it's 
showing you the bottom mod levels on LTE at 10mhz channel size.  So yeah, in 
theory we could hook up somebody at -100 and it would "work", but you'd be 
spending a lot of money to not get much capacity.  SCADA might "work" for 
George's internet customers in the same sense that scraping the bottom on LTE 
would "work".  

  Modulation and Coding Scheme Max troughtput [Mbps] SINR (dB) Receiver 
Sensitivity (dBm) 
  Minimum by DL/UL split Required SINR at Cell Edge (dB) 
  DL MCS UL MCS DL UL DL UL DL UL DL UL 
  0-QPSK 0-QPSK 0.91 Mbps 0.25 Mbps -1.2 dB -1.0 dB -6.7 dB -3.3 dB -106.1 
dBm -102.3 dBm 
  1-QPSK 1-QPSK 1.18 Mbps 0.32 Mbps 0.0 dB 0.1 dB -5.6 dB -2.4 dB -105.1 
dBm -101.4 dBm 
  2-QPSK 2-QPSK 1.45 Mbps 0.40 Mbps 0.7 dB 0.7 dB -4.8 dB -1.6 dB -104.3 
dBm -100.6 dBm 
  3-QPSK 3-QPSK 1.87 Mbps 0.51 Mbps 1.7 dB 1.7 dB -3.8 dB -0.5 dB -103.3 
dBm -99.5 dBm 
  4-QPSK 4-QPSK 2.38 Mbps 0.65 Mbps 2.7 dB 2.8 dB -2.8 dB 0.4 dB -102.2 dBm 
-98.5 dBm 
  5-QPSK 5-QPSK 2.88 Mbps 0.79 Mbps 3.6 dB 3.5 dB -1.7 dB 1.3 dB -101.1 dBm 
-97.7 dBm 
  6-QPSK 6-QPSK 3.38 Mbps 0.93 Mbps 4.6 dB 4.2 dB -0.7 dB 2.2 dB -100.2 dBm 
-96.7 dBm 
  7-QPSK 7-QPSK 4.07 Mbps 1.12 Mbps 5.6 dB 5.3 dB 0.6 dB 3.4 dB -98.9 dBm 
-95.6 dBm 
  8-QPSK 8-QPSK 4.57 Mbps 1.25 Mbps 6.5 dB 6.0 dB 1.5 dB 4.2 dB -97.9 dBm 
-94.7 dBm 
  9-QPSK 9-QPSK 5.24 Mbps 1.44 Mbps 7.6 dB 6.9 dB 2.5 dB 5.6 dB -97.0 dBm 
-93.3 dBm 
  10-16QAM 10-QPSK 5.24 Mbps 1.58 Mbps 7.7 dB 7.6 dB 2.5 dB 6.2 dB -97.0 
dBm -92.7 dBm 



-- Original Message --
From: "Colin Stanners" <cstann...@gmail.com>
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Sent: 9/25/2016 12:11:30 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

  Some SCADA systems run at like 115kbaud with -103db receive sensitivity in a 
1mhz channel... that will survive a lot.


  On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

Depends on the system..  SCADA type radios have no problem with trees... 


On Sep 24, 2016 7:22 PM, "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:

  Might be worth a shot I guess.  Depends how strong your 900 is coming in. 
 

  Attenuation is attenuation though...whether it's LTE or something else.  
If the path literally passes through a mile of trees then I'm surprised even 
900 works.


  -- Original Message --
  From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com>
      To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: 9/24/2016 3:45:44 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't hear 
those shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered itself.

The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a 
mile or more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, not only due 
to power levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it actually does "work" 
(meaning horrible mod levels) and he'll want to run with it. So we'll get what, 
a couple Mbps out of a sector. Sounds a lot like 900 FSK. Sounds a lot like 900 
450i with a horrible noise floor. So we gain nothing and spent a ton of money. 
Great idea. And we won't end up getting all of the customers off of the 900 
anyway, that I'm sure.


On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:

  In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well, 
but I think feature was released only a month or so ago.  We have a few places 
with split sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2.

  From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can 
hang on to a crummy signal longer than Wimax.  It was explained to me that 
Wimax puts the synchronization data in the pre-amble which has to be received 
on every subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data interspersed among the 
subcarriers, so where your weak wimax CPE sometimes cuts in an out, an LTE CPE 
in the same conditions can stay connected.   It also has lower mod levels that 
let it operate right down to the noise floor.  And at least in theory you'll 
get more throughput than you get in the same conditions on Wimax.

  I have the same reservations as you about the low mod levels thing.  
Just because they work doesn't mean you want them.  We're not intentionally 
installing anything weaker than a -80 RSSI right now, so we really ought to be 
ok on that front.

  -Adam


  -- Original Message --
  From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com>
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: 9/23/2016 11:23:57 PM
  

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Adam Moffett]

Undoubtedly true guys, but same thing.  Assuming this table comes 
through, it's showing you the bottom mod levels on LTE at 10mhz channel 
size.  So yeah, in theory we could hook up somebody at -100 and it would 
"work", but you'd be spending a lot of money to not get much capacity.  
SCADA might "work" for George's internet customers in the same sense 
that scraping the bottom on LTE would "work".


Modulation and Coding SchemeMax troughtput [Mbps]SINR (dB)Receiver 
Sensitivity (dBm)Minimum by DL/UL splitRequired SINR at Cell Edge (dB)DL 
MCSUL MCSDLULDLULDLULDLUL0-QPSK0-QPSK0.91 Mbps0.25 Mbps-1.2 dB-1.0 
dB-6.7 dB-3.3 dB-106.1 dBm-102.3 dBm1-QPSK1-QPSK1.18 Mbps0.32 Mbps0.0 
dB0.1 dB-5.6 dB-2.4 dB-105.1 dBm-101.4 dBm2-QPSK2-QPSK1.45 Mbps0.40 
Mbps0.7 dB0.7 dB-4.8 dB-1.6 dB-104.3 dBm-100.6 dBm3-QPSK3-QPSK1.87 
Mbps0.51 Mbps1.7 dB1.7 dB-3.8 dB-0.5 dB-103.3 dBm-99.5 
dBm4-QPSK4-QPSK2.38 Mbps0.65 Mbps2.7 dB2.8 dB-2.8 dB0.4 dB-102.2 
dBm-98.5 dBm5-QPSK5-QPSK2.88 Mbps0.79 Mbps3.6 dB3.5 dB-1.7 dB1.3 
dB-101.1 dBm-97.7 dBm6-QPSK6-QPSK3.38 Mbps0.93 Mbps4.6 dB4.2 dB-0.7 
dB2.2 dB-100.2 dBm-96.7 dBm7-QPSK7-QPSK4.07 Mbps1.12 Mbps5.6 dB5.3 dB0.6 
dB3.4 dB-98.9 dBm-95.6 dBm8-QPSK8-QPSK4.57 Mbps1.25 Mbps6.5 dB6.0 dB1.5 
dB4.2 dB-97.9 dBm-94.7 dBm9-QPSK9-QPSK5.24 Mbps1.44 Mbps7.6 dB6.9 dB2.5 
dB5.6 dB-97.0 dBm-93.3 dBm10-16QAM10-QPSK5.24 Mbps1.58 Mbps7.7 dB7.6 
dB2.5 dB6.2 dB-97.0 dBm-92.7 dBm



-- Original Message --
From: "Colin Stanners" <cstann...@gmail.com>
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Sent: 9/25/2016 12:11:30 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Some SCADA systems run at like 115kbaud with -103db receive sensitivity 
in a 1mhz channel... that will survive a lot.


On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Jaime Solorza 
<losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:
Depends on the system..  SCADA type radios have no problem with 
trees...



On Sep 24, 2016 7:22 PM, "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:
Might be worth a shot I guess.  Depends how strong your 900 is coming 
in.


Attenuation is attenuation though...whether it's LTE or something 
else.  If the path literally passes through a mile of trees then I'm 
surprised even 900 works.



-- Original Message --
From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/24/2016 3:45:44 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't 
hear those shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered 
itself.


The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a 
mile or more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, not 
only due to power levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it 
actually does "work" (meaning horrible mod levels) and he'll want to 
run with it. So we'll get what, a couple Mbps out of a sector. 
Sounds a lot like 900 FSK. Sounds a lot like 900 450i with a 
horrible noise floor. So we gain nothing and spent a ton of money. 
Great idea. And we won't end up getting all of the customers off of 
the 900 anyway, that I'm sure.


On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well, 
but I think feature was released only a month or so ago.  We have a 
few places with split sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2.


From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can 
hang on to a crummy signal longer than Wimax.  It was explained to 
me that Wimax puts the synchronization data in the pre-amble which 
has to be received on every subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data 
interspersed among the subcarriers, so where your weak wimax CPE 
sometimes cuts in an out, an LTE CPE in the same conditions can 
stay connected.   It also has lower mod levels that let it operate 
right down to the noise floor.  And at least in theory you'll get 
more throughput than you get in the same conditions on Wimax.


I have the same reservations as you about the low mod levels thing. 
 Just because they work doesn't mean you want them.  We're not 
intentionally installing anything weaker than a -80 RSSI right now, 
so we really ought to be ok on that front.


-Adam


-- Original Message ------
From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 11:23:57 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Well, let me ask this. Are you doing 2x2 or 4x4 on the Telrad? 
Obviously 4x4 would give a slight advantage.


My whole thing is, OK, it might work through a shit ton of trees. 
Linked up and able to move some traffic is one thing. But a whole 
bunch of low modulation customers on a sector is not worth the 
investment. LTE, Wimax, 450i 900.. whatever it may be.


I know of a Telrad installation where they couldn't make it work. 
Turned out to be interference. They had some guys from Israel c

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Colin Stanners]

Some SCADA systems run at like 115kbaud with -103db receive sensitivity in
a 1mhz channel... that will survive a lot.

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Depends on the system..  SCADA type radios have no problem with trees...
>
> On Sep 24, 2016 7:22 PM, "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Might be worth a shot I guess.  Depends how strong your 900 is coming
>> in.
>>
>> Attenuation is attenuation though...whether it's LTE or something else.
>> If the path literally passes through a mile of trees then I'm surprised
>> even 900 works.
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com>
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: 9/24/2016 3:45:44 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>>
>>
>> And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't hear
>> those shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered itself.
>>
>> The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a mile
>> or more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, not only due to
>> power levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it actually does "work"
>> (meaning horrible mod levels) and he'll want to run with it. So we'll get
>> what, a couple Mbps out of a sector. Sounds a lot like 900 FSK. Sounds a
>> lot like 900 450i with a horrible noise floor. So we gain nothing and spent
>> a ton of money. Great idea. And we won't end up getting all of the
>> customers off of the 900 anyway, that I'm sure.
>>
>> On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>>
>> In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well, but
>> I think feature was released only a month or so ago.  We have a few places
>> with split sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2.
>>
>> From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can hang on
>> to a crummy signal longer than Wimax.  It was explained to me that Wimax
>> puts the synchronization data in the pre-amble which has to be received on
>> every subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data interspersed among the
>> subcarriers, so where your weak wimax CPE sometimes cuts in an out, an LTE
>> CPE in the same conditions can stay connected.   It also has lower mod
>> levels that let it operate right down to the noise floor.  And at least in
>> theory you'll get more throughput than you get in the same conditions on
>> Wimax.
>>
>> I have the same reservations as you about the low mod levels thing.  Just
>> because they work doesn't mean you want them.  We're not intentionally
>> installing anything weaker than a -80 RSSI right now, so we really ought to
>> be ok on that front.
>>
>> -Adam
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com>
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: 9/23/2016 11:23:57 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>>
>>
>> Well, let me ask this. Are you doing 2x2 or 4x4 on the Telrad? Obviously
>> 4x4 would give a slight advantage.
>>
>> My whole thing is, OK, it might work through a shit ton of trees. Linked
>> up and able to move some traffic is one thing. But a whole bunch of low
>> modulation customers on a sector is not worth the investment. LTE, Wimax,
>> 450i 900.. whatever it may be.
>>
>> I know of a Telrad installation where they couldn't make it work. Turned
>> out to be interference. They had some guys from Israel come "fix" it. I
>> won't say any names, but I now see what they did to get it working. It's in
>> the 3.5 band.. because I can see them on my 450's spectrum analyzer. From
>> multiple sectors on multiple towers, so I know what direction it's coming
>> from. And I have no doubt they're running it over powered.
>>
>> Welp, we have a BaiCells demo kit, so we'll see what happens.
>>
>> On 9/23/2016 9:52 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>>
>> We've had Telrad Compact 1000's for around 2.5 years, but they're running
>> Wimax firmware because we were replacing older 16e installations.  We have
>> a number of sites now that have entirely dual mode CPE so we're about to
>> pull the trigger on LTE.  We're installing four LTE base stations next week
>> on brand new sites, and assuming those go well we'll upgrade some existing
>> Wimax sites.
>>
>> So yeah, within the next few weeks I'll know more.  I'll definitely
>> report back.
>>
>> It's interesting that you phrase it

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Jaime Solorza]

Depends on the system..  SCADA type radios have no problem with trees...

On Sep 24, 2016 7:22 PM, "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Might be worth a shot I guess.  Depends how strong your 900 is coming in.
>
> Attenuation is attenuation though...whether it's LTE or something else.
> If the path literally passes through a mile of trees then I'm surprised
> even 900 works.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 9/24/2016 3:45:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
> And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't hear
> those shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered itself.
>
> The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a mile
> or more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, not only due to
> power levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it actually does "work"
> (meaning horrible mod levels) and he'll want to run with it. So we'll get
> what, a couple Mbps out of a sector. Sounds a lot like 900 FSK. Sounds a
> lot like 900 450i with a horrible noise floor. So we gain nothing and spent
> a ton of money. Great idea. And we won't end up getting all of the
> customers off of the 900 anyway, that I'm sure.
>
> On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>
> In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well, but
> I think feature was released only a month or so ago.  We have a few places
> with split sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2.
>
> From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can hang on
> to a crummy signal longer than Wimax.  It was explained to me that Wimax
> puts the synchronization data in the pre-amble which has to be received on
> every subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data interspersed among the
> subcarriers, so where your weak wimax CPE sometimes cuts in an out, an LTE
> CPE in the same conditions can stay connected.   It also has lower mod
> levels that let it operate right down to the noise floor.  And at least in
> theory you'll get more throughput than you get in the same conditions on
> Wimax.
>
> I have the same reservations as you about the low mod levels thing.  Just
> because they work doesn't mean you want them.  We're not intentionally
> installing anything weaker than a -80 RSSI right now, so we really ought to
> be ok on that front.
>
> -Adam
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 9/23/2016 11:23:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
> Well, let me ask this. Are you doing 2x2 or 4x4 on the Telrad? Obviously
> 4x4 would give a slight advantage.
>
> My whole thing is, OK, it might work through a shit ton of trees. Linked
> up and able to move some traffic is one thing. But a whole bunch of low
> modulation customers on a sector is not worth the investment. LTE, Wimax,
> 450i 900.. whatever it may be.
>
> I know of a Telrad installation where they couldn't make it work. Turned
> out to be interference. They had some guys from Israel come "fix" it. I
> won't say any names, but I now see what they did to get it working. It's in
> the 3.5 band.. because I can see them on my 450's spectrum analyzer. From
> multiple sectors on multiple towers, so I know what direction it's coming
> from. And I have no doubt they're running it over powered.
>
> Welp, we have a BaiCells demo kit, so we'll see what happens.
>
> On 9/23/2016 9:52 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>
> We've had Telrad Compact 1000's for around 2.5 years, but they're running
> Wimax firmware because we were replacing older 16e installations.  We have
> a number of sites now that have entirely dual mode CPE so we're about to
> pull the trigger on LTE.  We're installing four LTE base stations next week
> on brand new sites, and assuming those go well we'll upgrade some existing
> Wimax sites.
>
> So yeah, within the next few weeks I'll know more.  I'll definitely report
> back.
>
> It's interesting that you phrase it as "if it works at all."  The issue
> with Wimax has never been it "working", it's just that it comes with a lot
> of quirks and it sucks at administration and troubleshooting.  I'm speaking
> of Wimax in general here, not Telrad specificallyand I've used Wimax
> from three different vendors now.  I have no fear about LTE working.  I
> *am* afraid it will turn out to be cut from the same cloth as Wimax.
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
>

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Adam Moffett]

Might be worth a shot I guess.  Depends how strong your 900 is coming 
in.


Attenuation is attenuation though...whether it's LTE or something else.  
If the path literally passes through a mile of trees then I'm surprised 
even 900 works.



-- Original Message --
From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/24/2016 3:45:44 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't hear 
those shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered itself.


The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a 
mile or more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, not 
only due to power levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it 
actually does "work" (meaning horrible mod levels) and he'll want to 
run with it. So we'll get what, a couple Mbps out of a sector. Sounds a 
lot like 900 FSK. Sounds a lot like 900 450i with a horrible noise 
floor. So we gain nothing and spent a ton of money. Great idea. And we 
won't end up getting all of the customers off of the 900 anyway, that 
I'm sure.


On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well, 
but I think feature was released only a month or so ago.  We have a 
few places with split sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2.


From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can hang 
on to a crummy signal longer than Wimax.  It was explained to me that 
Wimax puts the synchronization data in the pre-amble which has to be 
received on every subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data interspersed 
among the subcarriers, so where your weak wimax CPE sometimes cuts in 
an out, an LTE CPE in the same conditions can stay connected.   It 
also has lower mod levels that let it operate right down to the noise 
floor.  And at least in theory you'll get more throughput than you get 
in the same conditions on Wimax.


I have the same reservations as you about the low mod levels thing.  
Just because they work doesn't mean you want them.  We're not 
intentionally installing anything weaker than a -80 RSSI right now, so 
we really ought to be ok on that front.


-Adam


-- Original Message --
From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 11:23:57 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Well, let me ask this. Are you doing 2x2 or 4x4 on the Telrad? 
Obviously 4x4 would give a slight advantage.


My whole thing is, OK, it might work through a shit ton of trees. 
Linked up and able to move some traffic is one thing. But a whole 
bunch of low modulation customers on a sector is not worth the 
investment. LTE, Wimax, 450i 900.. whatever it may be.


I know of a Telrad installation where they couldn't make it work. 
Turned out to be interference. They had some guys from Israel come 
"fix" it. I won't say any names, but I now see what they did to get 
it working. It's in the 3.5 band.. because I can see them on my 450's 
spectrum analyzer. From multiple sectors on multiple towers, so I 
know what direction it's coming from. And I have no doubt they're 
running it over powered.


Welp, we have a BaiCells demo kit, so we'll see what happens.

On 9/23/2016 9:52 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
We've had Telrad Compact 1000's for around 2.5 years, but they're 
running Wimax firmware because we were replacing older 16e 
installations.  We have a number of sites now that have entirely 
dual mode CPE so we're about to pull the trigger on LTE.  We're 
installing four LTE base stations next week on brand new sites, and 
assuming those go well we'll upgrade some existing Wimax sites.


So yeah, within the next few weeks I'll know more.  I'll definitely 
report back.


It's interesting that you phrase it as "if it works at all."  The 
issue with Wimax has never been it "working", it's just that it 
comes with a lot of quirks and it sucks at administration and 
troubleshooting.  I'm speaking of Wimax in general here, not Telrad 
specificallyand I've used Wimax from three different vendors 
now.  I have no fear about LTE working.  I am afraid it will turn 
out to be cut from the same cloth as Wimax.




-- Original Message --
From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 8:04:34 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


Aren't you doing Telrad? Please let us know if it works at all.

On 9/23/2016 4:05 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

I'll let you know in a few weeks.


-- Original Message --
From: ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 5:01:02 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


I wonder what LTE would do with the same RSSI.

From:Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 2:46 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Oh

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[George Skorup]

And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't hear 
those shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered itself.


The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a 
mile or more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, not 
only due to power levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it 
actually does "work" (meaning horrible mod levels) and he'll want to run 
with it. So we'll get what, a couple Mbps out of a sector. Sounds a lot 
like 900 FSK. Sounds a lot like 900 450i with a horrible noise floor. So 
we gain nothing and spent a ton of money. Great idea. And we won't end 
up getting all of the customers off of the 900 anyway, that I'm sure.


On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well, 
but I think feature was released only a month or so ago. We have a few 
places with split sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2.
From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can hang 
on to a crummy signal longer than Wimax.  It was explained to me that 
Wimax puts the synchronization data in the pre-amble which has to be 
received on every subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data interspersed 
among the subcarriers, so where your weak wimax CPE sometimes cuts in 
an out, an LTE CPE in the same conditions can stay connected.   It 
also has lower mod levels that let it operate right down to the noise 
floor.  And at least in theory you'll get more throughput than you get 
in the same conditions on Wimax.
I have the same reservations as you about the low mod levels thing.  
Just because they work doesn't mean you want them. We're not 
intentionally installing anything weaker than a -80 RSSI right now, so 
we really ought to be ok on that front.

-Adam
-- Original Message --
From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com <mailto:geo...@cbcast.com>>
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: 9/23/2016 11:23:57 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
Well, let me ask this. Are you doing 2x2 or 4x4 on the Telrad? 
Obviously 4x4 would give a slight advantage.


My whole thing is, OK, it might work through a shit ton of trees. 
Linked up and able to move some traffic is one thing. But a whole 
bunch of low modulation customers on a sector is not worth the 
investment. LTE, Wimax, 450i 900.. whatever it may be.


I know of a Telrad installation where they couldn't make it work. 
Turned out to be interference. They had some guys from Israel come 
"fix" it. I won't say any names, but I now see what they did to get 
it working. It's in the 3.5 band.. because I can see them on my 450's 
spectrum analyzer. From multiple sectors on multiple towers, so I 
know what direction it's coming from. And I have no doubt they're 
running it over powered.


Welp, we have a BaiCells demo kit, so we'll see what happens.

On 9/23/2016 9:52 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
We've had Telrad Compact 1000's for around 2.5 years, but they're 
running Wimax firmware because we were replacing older 16e 
installations.  We have a number of sites now that have entirely 
dual mode CPE so we're about to pull the trigger on LTE.  We're 
installing four LTE base stations next week on brand new sites, and 
assuming those go well we'll upgrade some existing Wimax sites.
So yeah, within the next few weeks I'll know more. I'll definitely 
report back.
It's interesting that you phrase it as "if it works at all."  The 
issue with Wimax has never been it "working", it's just that it 
comes with a lot of quirks and it sucks at administration and 
troubleshooting.  I'm speaking of Wimax in general here, not Telrad 
specificallyand I've used Wimax from three different vendors 
now.  I have no fear about LTE working.  I _am_ afraid it will turn 
out to be cut from the same cloth as Wimax.

-- Original Message --
From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com <mailto:geo...@cbcast.com>>
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: 9/23/2016 8:04:34 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Aren't you doing Telrad? Please let us know if it works at all.

On 9/23/2016 4:05 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

I'll let you know in a few weeks.
-- Original Message --
From: ch...@wbmfg.com <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: 9/23/2016 5:01:02 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

I wonder what LTE would do with the same RSSI.
*From:* Adam Moffett <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 2:46 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
Oh I also have somebody with a -88 who gets about half that.
900 was the last ditch effort for both of these.
With wimax from the same tower we got a big fat nothing at both 
locations.

-- Origi

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Adam Moffett]

They apparently do have a 5.1ghz versionor are working on one.  I 
don't recall which.



-- Original Message --
From: "Bill Prince" <part15...@gmail.com>
To: "Motorola III" <af@afmug.com>
Sent: 9/24/2016 1:39:17 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


That would imply that it "should" work in other frequencies as well,
such as 5 GHz and 2 GHz?

bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 9/24/2016 9:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:

 It also has lower mod levels that let it operate right down to the
 noise floor.  And at least in theory you'll get more throughput than
 you get in the same conditions on Wimax.

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Bill Prince]

That would imply that it "should" work in other frequencies as well,
such as 5 GHz and 2 GHz?

bp


On 9/24/2016 9:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
> It also has lower mod levels that let it operate right down to the
> noise floor.  And at least in theory you'll get more throughput than
> you get in the same conditions on Wimax.

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Adam Moffett]

In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well, but 
I think feature was released only a month or so ago.  We have a few 
places with split sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2.


From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can hang 
on to a crummy signal longer than Wimax.  It was explained to me that 
Wimax puts the synchronization data in the pre-amble which has to be 
received on every subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data interspersed 
among the subcarriers, so where your weak wimax CPE sometimes cuts in an 
out, an LTE CPE in the same conditions can stay connected.   It also has 
lower mod levels that let it operate right down to the noise floor.  And 
at least in theory you'll get more throughput than you get in the same 
conditions on Wimax.


I have the same reservations as you about the low mod levels thing.  
Just because they work doesn't mean you want them.  We're not 
intentionally installing anything weaker than a -80 RSSI right now, so 
we really ought to be ok on that front.


-Adam


-- Original Message --
From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 11:23:57 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Well, let me ask this. Are you doing 2x2 or 4x4 on the Telrad? 
Obviously 4x4 would give a slight advantage.


My whole thing is, OK, it might work through a shit ton of trees. 
Linked up and able to move some traffic is one thing. But a whole bunch 
of low modulation customers on a sector is not worth the investment. 
LTE, Wimax, 450i 900.. whatever it may be.


I know of a Telrad installation where they couldn't make it work. 
Turned out to be interference. They had some guys from Israel come 
"fix" it. I won't say any names, but I now see what they did to get it 
working. It's in the 3.5 band.. because I can see them on my 450's 
spectrum analyzer. From multiple sectors on multiple towers, so I know 
what direction it's coming from. And I have no doubt they're running it 
over powered.


Welp, we have a BaiCells demo kit, so we'll see what happens.

On 9/23/2016 9:52 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
We've had Telrad Compact 1000's for around 2.5 years, but they're 
running Wimax firmware because we were replacing older 16e 
installations.  We have a number of sites now that have entirely dual 
mode CPE so we're about to pull the trigger on LTE.  We're installing 
four LTE base stations next week on brand new sites, and assuming 
those go well we'll upgrade some existing Wimax sites.


So yeah, within the next few weeks I'll know more.  I'll definitely 
report back.


It's interesting that you phrase it as "if it works at all."  The 
issue with Wimax has never been it "working", it's just that it comes 
with a lot of quirks and it sucks at administration and 
troubleshooting.  I'm speaking of Wimax in general here, not Telrad 
specificallyand I've used Wimax from three different vendors now.  
I have no fear about LTE working.  I am afraid it will turn out to be 
cut from the same cloth as Wimax.




-- Original Message --
From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 8:04:34 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


Aren't you doing Telrad? Please let us know if it works at all.

On 9/23/2016 4:05 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

I'll let you know in a few weeks.


-- Original Message --
From: ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 5:01:02 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


I wonder what LTE would do with the same RSSI.

From:Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 2:46 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Oh I also have somebody with a -88 who gets about half that.
900 was the last ditch effort for both of these.
With wimax from the same tower we got a big fat nothing at both 
locations.



-- Original Message --
From: "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 4:44:21 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


On the other end of the quality spectrum:

Link Test with Bridging
VCDownlinkUplinkAggregatePacket TransmitPacket 
ReceiveActualActual196.07 Mbps1.32 Mbps7.39 Mbps,  474 pps821 (410 
pps)128(64 pps)
That's a -85 on a 5mhz channel.  On any wider channel I lose this 
guy.




-- Original Message --
From: "Dave" <dmilho...@wletc.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 4:17:36 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


This is from one of ours
Current Results StatusStats for LUID: 3   Test Duration: 5   Pkt 
Length: 1714   Test Direction Bi-Directional


RF Link Test
VCDownlinkUplinkAggregatePacket TransmitPacket 
ReceiveActualActual1926.13 Mbps6.78 Mbps32.92 Mbps,  2367 pps2389 
(477 pps)9450(1890 pps)

Efficiency
DownlinkUplinkEfficiencyFragments
countEfficiencyFragments

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[George Skorup]

Well, let me ask this. Are you doing 2x2 or 4x4 on the Telrad? Obviously 
4x4 would give a slight advantage.


My whole thing is, OK, it might work through a shit ton of trees. Linked 
up and able to move some traffic is one thing. But a whole bunch of low 
modulation customers on a sector is not worth the investment. LTE, 
Wimax, 450i 900.. whatever it may be.


I know of a Telrad installation where they couldn't make it work. Turned 
out to be interference. They had some guys from Israel come "fix" it. I 
won't say any names, but I now see what they did to get it working. It's 
in the 3.5 band.. because I can see them on my 450's spectrum analyzer. 
From multiple sectors on multiple towers, so I know what direction it's 
coming from. And I have no doubt they're running it over powered.


Welp, we have a BaiCells demo kit, so we'll see what happens.

On 9/23/2016 9:52 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
We've had Telrad Compact 1000's for around 2.5 years, but they're 
running Wimax firmware because we were replacing older 16e 
installations.  We have a number of sites now that have entirely dual 
mode CPE so we're about to pull the trigger on LTE.  We're installing 
four LTE base stations next week on brand new sites, and assuming 
those go well we'll upgrade some existing Wimax sites.
So yeah, within the next few weeks I'll know more.  I'll definitely 
report back.
It's interesting that you phrase it as "if it works at all." The issue 
with Wimax has never been it "working", it's just that it comes with a 
lot of quirks and it sucks at administration and troubleshooting.  I'm 
speaking of Wimax in general here, not Telrad specificallyand I've 
used Wimax from three different vendors now.  I have no fear about LTE 
working.  I _am_ afraid it will turn out to be cut from the same cloth 
as Wimax.

-- Original Message --
From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com <mailto:geo...@cbcast.com>>
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: 9/23/2016 8:04:34 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Aren't you doing Telrad? Please let us know if it works at all.

On 9/23/2016 4:05 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

I'll let you know in a few weeks.
-- Original Message --
From: ch...@wbmfg.com <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: 9/23/2016 5:01:02 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

I wonder what LTE would do with the same RSSI.
*From:* Adam Moffett <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 2:46 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
Oh I also have somebody with a -88 who gets about half that.
900 was the last ditch effort for both of these.
With wimax from the same tower we got a big fat nothing at both 
locations.

-- Original Message --
From: "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>>
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: 9/23/2016 4:44:21 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

On the other end of the quality spectrum:
*Link Test with Bridging
*
VC  DownlinkUplink  Aggregate   Packet Transmit Packet 
Receive
Actual  Actual
19 	6.07 Mbps 	1.32 Mbps 	7.39 Mbps,  474 pps 	821 (410 pps) 
128(64 pps)


That's a -85 on a 5mhz channel.  On any wider channel I lose this guy.
-- Original Message --
From: "Dave" <dmilho...@wletc.com <mailto:dmilho...@wletc.com>>
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: 9/23/2016 4:17:36 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

This is from one of ours


Current Results Status

Stats for LUID: 3   Test Duration: 5   Pkt Length: 1714   Test 
Direction Bi-Directional


*RF Link Test*
VC  DownlinkUplink  Aggregate   Packet Transmit Packet 
Receive
Actual  Actual
19 	26.13 Mbps 	6.78 Mbps 	32.92 Mbps,  2367 pps 	2389 (477 pps) 
9450(1890 pps)



*Efficiency*
DownlinkUplink
Efficiency  Fragments
count   Efficiency  Fragments
count
Actual  ExpectedActual  Expected
100%255254  255254  78% 84124   66231


Link Test ran on 03:59:48 01/09/2011 UTC

*Currently transmitting at:*
VC 19 Rate 8X/8X MIMO-B



On 09/23/2016 03:12 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
We're looking at doing a forklift on a couple of 900 MHz FSK 
APs. What are real world throughput numbers that any of you 
pioneers are getting? We would probably want to do 10 MHz 
channels at first, and I would hope that we could get > 15 Mbps 
in download, but maybe I'm being too conservative?

The places we are looking at do not have Smart Meter issues.
--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com


--

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Jaime Solorza]

Interesting.  I have an LTE install next week for a national car parts
dealer.   I will share what I can when I finish job.  I received a detail
SCOW but no vendor information.   Gear arrives Monday.   Kind of excited
because it's new to me.

On Sep 23, 2016 8:52 PM, "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:

> We've had Telrad Compact 1000's for around 2.5 years, but they're running
> Wimax firmware because we were replacing older 16e installations.  We have
> a number of sites now that have entirely dual mode CPE so we're about to
> pull the trigger on LTE.  We're installing four LTE base stations next week
> on brand new sites, and assuming those go well we'll upgrade some existing
> Wimax sites.
>
> So yeah, within the next few weeks I'll know more.  I'll definitely report
> back.
>
> It's interesting that you phrase it as "if it works at all."  The issue
> with Wimax has never been it "working", it's just that it comes with a lot
> of quirks and it sucks at administration and troubleshooting.  I'm speaking
> of Wimax in general here, not Telrad specificallyand I've used Wimax
> from three different vendors now.  I have no fear about LTE working.  I
> *am* afraid it will turn out to be cut from the same cloth as Wimax.
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 9/23/2016 8:04:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
> Aren't you doing Telrad? Please let us know if it works at all.
>
> On 9/23/2016 4:05 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>
> I'll let you know in a few weeks.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: ch...@wbmfg.com
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 9/23/2016 5:01:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
> I wonder what LTE would do with the same RSSI.
>
> *From:* Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 2:46 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
> Oh I also have somebody with a -88 who gets about half that.
> 900 was the last ditch effort for both of these.
> With wimax from the same tower we got a big fat nothing at both locations.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 9/23/2016 4:44:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
> On the other end of the quality spectrum:
>
>
> *Link Test with Bridging*
> VC Downlink Uplink Aggregate Packet Transmit Packet Receive
> Actual Actual
> 19 6.07 Mbps 1.32 Mbps 7.39 Mbps,  474 pps 821 (410 pps) 128(64 pps)
> That's a -85 on a 5mhz channel.  On any wider channel I lose this guy.
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Dave" <dmilho...@wletc.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 9/23/2016 4:17:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
> This is from one of ours
> Current Results StatusStats for LUID: 3   Test Duration: 5   Pkt Length:
> 1714   Test Direction Bi-Directional
>
> *RF Link Test*
> VC Downlink Uplink Aggregate Packet Transmit Packet Receive
> Actual Actual
> 19 26.13 Mbps 6.78 Mbps 32.92 Mbps,  2367 pps 2389 (477 pps) 9450(1890
> pps)
> *Efficiency*
> Downlink Uplink
> Efficiency Fragments
> count Efficiency Fragments
> count
> Actual Expected Actual Expected
> 100% 255254 255254 78% 84124 66231
> Link Test ran on 03:59:48 01/09/2011 UTC
>
> *Currently transmitting at:*
> VC 19 Rate 8X/8X MIMO-B
>
>
> On 09/23/2016 03:12 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
>
> We're looking at doing a forklift on a couple of 900 MHz FSK APs. What are
> real world throughput numbers that any of you pioneers are getting? We
> would probably want to do 10 MHz channels at first, and I would hope that
> we could get > 15 Mbps in download, but maybe I'm being too conservative?
>
> The places we are looking at do not have Smart Meter issues.
>
> --
> bp
> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>
>
> --
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Adam Moffett]

We've had Telrad Compact 1000's for around 2.5 years, but they're 
running Wimax firmware because we were replacing older 16e 
installations.  We have a number of sites now that have entirely dual 
mode CPE so we're about to pull the trigger on LTE.  We're installing 
four LTE base stations next week on brand new sites, and assuming those 
go well we'll upgrade some existing Wimax sites.


So yeah, within the next few weeks I'll know more.  I'll definitely 
report back.


It's interesting that you phrase it as "if it works at all."  The issue 
with Wimax has never been it "working", it's just that it comes with a 
lot of quirks and it sucks at administration and troubleshooting.  I'm 
speaking of Wimax in general here, not Telrad specificallyand I've 
used Wimax from three different vendors now.  I have no fear about LTE 
working.  I am afraid it will turn out to be cut from the same cloth as 
Wimax.




-- Original Message --
From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 8:04:34 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


Aren't you doing Telrad? Please let us know if it works at all.

On 9/23/2016 4:05 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

I'll let you know in a few weeks.


-- Original Message --
From: ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 5:01:02 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


I wonder what LTE would do with the same RSSI.

From:Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 2:46 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Oh I also have somebody with a -88 who gets about half that.
900 was the last ditch effort for both of these.
With wimax from the same tower we got a big fat nothing at both 
locations.



-- Original Message --
From: "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 4:44:21 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


On the other end of the quality spectrum:

Link Test with Bridging
VCDownlinkUplinkAggregatePacket TransmitPacket 
ReceiveActualActual196.07 Mbps1.32 Mbps7.39 Mbps,  474 pps821 (410 
pps)128(64 pps)
That's a -85 on a 5mhz channel.  On any wider channel I lose this 
guy.




-- Original Message --
From: "Dave" <dmilho...@wletc.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 4:17:36 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


This is from one of ours
Current Results StatusStats for LUID: 3   Test Duration: 5   Pkt 
Length: 1714   Test Direction Bi-Directional


RF Link Test
VCDownlinkUplinkAggregatePacket TransmitPacket 
ReceiveActualActual1926.13 Mbps6.78 Mbps32.92 Mbps,  2367 pps2389 
(477 pps)9450(1890 pps)

Efficiency
DownlinkUplinkEfficiencyFragments
countEfficiencyFragments
countActualExpectedActualExpected100%25525425525478%8412466231
Link Test ran on 03:59:48 01/09/2011 UTC

Currently transmitting at:VC 19 Rate 8X/8X MIMO-B


On 09/23/2016 03:12 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
We're looking at doing a forklift on a couple of 900 MHz FSK APs. 
What are real world throughput numbers that any of you pioneers 
are getting? We would probably want to do 10 MHz channels at 
first, and I would hope that we could get > 15 Mbps in download, 
but maybe I'm being too conservative?


The places we are looking at do not have Smart Meter issues.

--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com


--

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[George Skorup]

Aren't you doing Telrad? Please let us know if it works at all.

On 9/23/2016 4:05 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

I'll let you know in a few weeks.
-- Original Message --
From: ch...@wbmfg.com <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: 9/23/2016 5:01:02 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

I wonder what LTE would do with the same RSSI.
*From:* Adam Moffett <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 2:46 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
Oh I also have somebody with a -88 who gets about half that.
900 was the last ditch effort for both of these.
With wimax from the same tower we got a big fat nothing at both 
locations.

-- Original Message --
From: "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>>
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: 9/23/2016 4:44:21 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

On the other end of the quality spectrum:
*Link Test with Bridging
*
VC  DownlinkUplink  Aggregate   Packet Transmit Packet 
Receive
Actual  Actual
19 	6.07 Mbps 	1.32 Mbps 	7.39 Mbps, 474 pps 	821 (410 pps) 	128(64 
pps)


That's a -85 on a 5mhz channel.  On any wider channel I lose this guy.
-- Original Message --
From: "Dave" <dmilho...@wletc.com <mailto:dmilho...@wletc.com>>
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: 9/23/2016 4:17:36 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

This is from one of ours


Current Results Status

Stats for LUID: 3   Test Duration: 5   Pkt Length: 1714   Test 
Direction Bi-Directional


*RF Link Test*
VC  DownlinkUplink  Aggregate   Packet Transmit Packet 
Receive
Actual  Actual
19 	26.13 Mbps 	6.78 Mbps 	32.92 Mbps,  2367 pps 	2389 (477 pps) 
9450(1890 pps)



*Efficiency*
DownlinkUplink
Efficiency  Fragments
count   Efficiency  Fragments
count
Actual  ExpectedActual  Expected
100%255254  255254  78% 84124   66231


Link Test ran on 03:59:48 01/09/2011 UTC

*Currently transmitting at:*
VC 19 Rate 8X/8X MIMO-B



On 09/23/2016 03:12 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
We're looking at doing a forklift on a couple of 900 MHz FSK APs. 
What are real world throughput numbers that any of you pioneers 
are getting? We would probably want to do 10 MHz channels at 
first, and I would hope that we could get > 15 Mbps in download, 
but maybe I'm being too conservative?

The places we are looking at do not have Smart Meter issues.
--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com


--

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Dave]

All configs are set to 5ms and 7Mhz channel size due to co-lo with fisk


On 09/23/2016 03:22 PM, Bill Prince wrote:

What size channel are you using Dave?

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Dave > wrote:


This is from one of ours


Current Results Status

Stats for LUID: 3   Test Duration: 5   Pkt Length: 1714   Test
Direction Bi-Directional

*RF Link Test*
VC  DownlinkUplink  Aggregate   Packet Transmit Packet 
Receive
Actual  Actual
19  26.13 Mbps  6.78 Mbps   32.92 Mbps,  2367 pps   2389 (477 pps)
9450(1890 pps)


*Efficiency*
DownlinkUplink
Efficiency  Fragments
count   Efficiency  Fragments
count
Actual  ExpectedActual  Expected
100%255254  255254  78% 84124   66231


Link Test ran on 03:59:48 01/09/2011 UTC

*Currently transmitting at:*
VC 19 Rate 8X/8X MIMO-B



On 09/23/2016 03:12 PM, Bill Prince wrote:

We're looking at doing a forklift on a couple of 900 MHz FSK APs.
What are real world throughput numbers that any of you pioneers
are getting? We would probably want to do 10 MHz channels at
first, and I would hope that we could get > 15 Mbps in download,
but maybe I'm being too conservative?

The places we are looking at do not have Smart Meter issues.

--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com


-- 





--
--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com


--

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Mathew Howard]

15Mbps is certainly possible with 10mhz channels...

​
That one is actually working at 8X, which doesn't happen most of the
time... but even if most of the SMs are only running at 4X, 15Mbps is
doable on 10mhz channels.

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'll let you know in a few weeks.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: ch...@wbmfg.com
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 9/23/2016 5:01:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
> I wonder what LTE would do with the same RSSI.
>
> *From:* Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 2:46 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
> Oh I also have somebody with a -88 who gets about half that.
> 900 was the last ditch effort for both of these.
> With wimax from the same tower we got a big fat nothing at both locations.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 9/23/2016 4:44:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
> On the other end of the quality spectrum:
>
>
> *Link Test with Bridging*
> VC Downlink Uplink Aggregate Packet Transmit Packet Receive
> Actual Actual
> 19 6.07 Mbps 1.32 Mbps 7.39 Mbps,  474 pps 821 (410 pps) 128(64 pps)
> That's a -85 on a 5mhz channel.  On any wider channel I lose this guy.
>
>
>
> ------ Original Message --
> From: "Dave" <dmilho...@wletc.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 9/23/2016 4:17:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
> This is from one of ours
> Current Results StatusStats for LUID: 3   Test Duration: 5   Pkt Length:
> 1714   Test Direction Bi-Directional
>
> *RF Link Test*
> VC Downlink Uplink Aggregate Packet Transmit Packet Receive
> Actual Actual
> 19 26.13 Mbps 6.78 Mbps 32.92 Mbps,  2367 pps 2389 (477 pps) 9450(1890
> pps)
> *Efficiency*
> Downlink Uplink
> Efficiency Fragments
> count Efficiency Fragments
> count
> Actual Expected Actual Expected
> 100% 255254 255254 78% 84124 66231
> Link Test ran on 03:59:48 01/09/2011 UTC
>
> *Currently transmitting at:*
> VC 19 Rate 8X/8X MIMO-B
>
>
> On 09/23/2016 03:12 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
>
> We're looking at doing a forklift on a couple of 900 MHz FSK APs. What are
> real world throughput numbers that any of you pioneers are getting? We
> would probably want to do 10 MHz channels at first, and I would hope that
> we could get > 15 Mbps in download, but maybe I'm being too conservative?
>
> The places we are looking at do not have Smart Meter issues.
>
> --
> bp
> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>
>
> --
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Adam Moffett]

I'll let you know in a few weeks.


-- Original Message --
From: ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 5:01:02 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


I wonder what LTE would do with the same RSSI.

From:Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 2:46 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Oh I also have somebody with a -88 who gets about half that.
900 was the last ditch effort for both of these.
With wimax from the same tower we got a big fat nothing at both 
locations.



-- Original Message --
From: "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 4:44:21 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


On the other end of the quality spectrum:

Link Test with Bridging
VCDownlinkUplinkAggregatePacket TransmitPacket 
ReceiveActualActual196.07 Mbps1.32 Mbps7.39 Mbps,  474 pps821 (410 
pps)128(64 pps)

That's a -85 on a 5mhz channel.  On any wider channel I lose this guy.



-- Original Message --
From: "Dave" <dmilho...@wletc.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 4:17:36 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


This is from one of ours
Current Results StatusStats for LUID: 3   Test Duration: 5   Pkt 
Length: 1714   Test Direction Bi-Directional


RF Link Test
VCDownlinkUplinkAggregatePacket TransmitPacket 
ReceiveActualActual1926.13 Mbps6.78 Mbps32.92 Mbps,  2367 pps2389 
(477 pps)9450(1890 pps)

Efficiency
DownlinkUplinkEfficiencyFragments
countEfficiencyFragments
countActualExpectedActualExpected100%25525425525478%8412466231
Link Test ran on 03:59:48 01/09/2011 UTC

Currently transmitting at:VC 19 Rate 8X/8X MIMO-B


On 09/23/2016 03:12 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
We're looking at doing a forklift on a couple of 900 MHz FSK APs. 
What are real world throughput numbers that any of you pioneers are 
getting? We would probably want to do 10 MHz channels at first, and 
I would hope that we could get > 15 Mbps in download, but maybe I'm 
being too conservative?


The places we are looking at do not have Smart Meter issues.

--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com


--

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[chuck]

I wonder what LTE would do with the same RSSI.

From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 2:46 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Oh I also have somebody with a -88 who gets about half that.
900 was the last ditch effort for both of these.
With wimax from the same tower we got a big fat nothing at both locations.


-- Original Message --
From: "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 4:44:21 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

  On the other end of the quality spectrum:

  Link Test with Bridging

VC Downlink Uplink Aggregate Packet Transmit Packet Receive 
Actual Actual 
19 6.07 Mbps 1.32 Mbps 7.39 Mbps,  474 pps 821 (410 pps) 128(64 pps) 

  That's a -85 on a 5mhz channel.  On any wider channel I lose this guy.



  -- Original Message --
  From: "Dave" <dmilho...@wletc.com>
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: 9/23/2016 4:17:36 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

This is from one of ours

Current Results StatusStats for LUID: 3   Test Duration: 5   Pkt Length: 
1714   Test Direction Bi-Directional

RF Link Test
  VC Downlink Uplink Aggregate Packet Transmit Packet Receive 
  Actual Actual 
  19 26.13 Mbps 6.78 Mbps 32.92 Mbps,  2367 pps 2389 (477 pps) 
9450(1890 pps) 

Efficiency
  Downlink Uplink 
  Efficiency Fragments
  count Efficiency Fragments
  count 
  Actual Expected Actual Expected 
  100% 255254 255254 78% 84124 66231 

Link Test ran on 03:59:48 01/09/2011 UTC 

Currently transmitting at: VC 19 Rate 8X/8X MIMO-B
 



On 09/23/2016 03:12 PM, Bill Prince wrote:

  We're looking at doing a forklift on a couple of 900 MHz FSK APs. What 
are real world throughput numbers that any of you pioneers are getting? We 
would probably want to do 10 MHz channels at first, and I would hope that we 
could get > 15 Mbps in download, but maybe I'm being too conservative? 

  The places we are looking at do not have Smart Meter issues.


  --

  bp

  part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com



-- 

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Adam Moffett]

Oh I also have somebody with a -88 who gets about half that.
900 was the last ditch effort for both of these.
With wimax from the same tower we got a big fat nothing at both 
locations.



-- Original Message --
From: "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 4:44:21 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


On the other end of the quality spectrum:

Link Test with Bridging
VCDownlinkUplinkAggregatePacket TransmitPacket 
ReceiveActualActual196.07 Mbps1.32 Mbps7.39 Mbps,  474 pps821 (410 
pps)128(64 pps)

That's a -85 on a 5mhz channel.  On any wider channel I lose this guy.



-- Original Message --
From: "Dave" <dmilho...@wletc.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 4:17:36 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


This is from one of ours
Current Results StatusStats for LUID: 3   Test Duration: 5   Pkt 
Length: 1714   Test Direction Bi-Directional


RF Link Test
VCDownlinkUplinkAggregatePacket TransmitPacket 
ReceiveActualActual1926.13 Mbps6.78 Mbps32.92 Mbps,  2367 pps2389 (477 
pps)9450(1890 pps)

Efficiency
DownlinkUplinkEfficiencyFragments
countEfficiencyFragments
countActualExpectedActualExpected100%25525425525478%8412466231
Link Test ran on 03:59:48 01/09/2011 UTC

Currently transmitting at:VC 19 Rate 8X/8X MIMO-B


On 09/23/2016 03:12 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
We're looking at doing a forklift on a couple of 900 MHz FSK APs. 
What are real world throughput numbers that any of you pioneers are 
getting? We would probably want to do 10 MHz channels at first, and I 
would hope that we could get > 15 Mbps in download, but maybe I'm 
being too conservative?


The places we are looking at do not have Smart Meter issues.

--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com


--

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Adam Moffett]

On the other end of the quality spectrum:

Link Test with Bridging
VCDownlinkUplinkAggregatePacket TransmitPacket ReceiveActualActual196.07 
Mbps1.32 Mbps7.39 Mbps,  474 pps821 (410 pps)128(64 pps)

That's a -85 on a 5mhz channel.  On any wider channel I lose this guy.



-- Original Message --
From: "Dave" <dmilho...@wletc.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 4:17:36 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


This is from one of ours
Current Results StatusStats for LUID: 3   Test Duration: 5   Pkt 
Length: 1714   Test Direction Bi-Directional


RF Link Test
VCDownlinkUplinkAggregatePacket TransmitPacket 
ReceiveActualActual1926.13 Mbps6.78 Mbps32.92 Mbps,  2367 pps2389 (477 
pps)9450(1890 pps)

Efficiency
DownlinkUplinkEfficiencyFragments
countEfficiencyFragments
countActualExpectedActualExpected100%25525425525478%8412466231
Link Test ran on 03:59:48 01/09/2011 UTC

Currently transmitting at:VC 19 Rate 8X/8X MIMO-B


On 09/23/2016 03:12 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
We're looking at doing a forklift on a couple of 900 MHz FSK APs. What 
are real world throughput numbers that any of you pioneers are 
getting? We would probably want to do 10 MHz channels at first, and I 
would hope that we could get > 15 Mbps in download, but maybe I'm 
being too conservative?


The places we are looking at do not have Smart Meter issues.

--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com


--

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Bill Prince]

What size channel are you using Dave?

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Dave  wrote:

> This is from one of ours
> Current Results Status Stats for LUID: 3   Test Duration: 5   Pkt Length:
> 1714   Test Direction Bi-Directional
>
> *RF Link Test*
> VC Downlink Uplink Aggregate Packet Transmit Packet Receive
> Actual Actual
> 19 26.13 Mbps 6.78 Mbps 32.92 Mbps,  2367 pps 2389 (477 pps) 9450(1890
> pps)
> *Efficiency*
> Downlink Uplink
> Efficiency Fragments
> count Efficiency Fragments
> count
> Actual Expected Actual Expected
> 100% 255254 255254 78% 84124 66231
> Link Test ran on 03:59:48 01/09/2011 UTC
>
> *Currently transmitting at:*
> VC 19 Rate 8X/8X MIMO-B
>
>
> On 09/23/2016 03:12 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
>
> We're looking at doing a forklift on a couple of 900 MHz FSK APs. What are
> real world throughput numbers that any of you pioneers are getting? We
> would probably want to do 10 MHz channels at first, and I would hope that
> we could get > 15 Mbps in download, but maybe I'm being too conservative?
>
> The places we are looking at do not have Smart Meter issues.
>
> --
> bp
> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>
>
> --
>



-- 
--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Dave]

This is from one of ours


   Current Results Status

Stats for LUID: 3   Test Duration: 5   Pkt Length: 1714   Test Direction 
Bi-Directional


*RF Link Test*
VC  DownlinkUplink  Aggregate   Packet Transmit Packet 
Receive
Actual  Actual
19 	26.13 Mbps 	6.78 Mbps 	32.92 Mbps,  2367 pps 	2389 (477 pps) 
9450(1890 pps)



*Efficiency*
DownlinkUplink
Efficiency  Fragments
count   Efficiency  Fragments
count
Actual  ExpectedActual  Expected
100%255254  255254  78% 84124   66231


Link Test ran on 03:59:48 01/09/2011 UTC

*Currently transmitting at:*
VC 19 Rate 8X/8X MIMO-B



On 09/23/2016 03:12 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
We're looking at doing a forklift on a couple of 900 MHz FSK APs. What 
are real world throughput numbers that any of you pioneers are 
getting? We would probably want to do 10 MHz channels at first, and I 
would hope that we could get > 15 Mbps in download, but maybe I'm 
being too conservative?


The places we are looking at do not have Smart Meter issues.

--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com


--

[AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Bill Prince]

We're looking at doing a forklift on a couple of 900 MHz FSK APs. What are
real world throughput numbers that any of you pioneers are getting? We
would probably want to do 10 MHz channels at first, and I would hope that
we could get > 15 Mbps in download, but maybe I'm being too conservative?

The places we are looking at do not have Smart Meter issues.

--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com