Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium
I’m not sure why TVWS has to be based on WiMAX or LTE. Seems to me you need 4 things: - comply with the spectral mask including guardbands - work with the spectrum database - bond non-adjacent 6 MHz channels (preferably more than 2) - connectorized for an external antenna It will be interesting how close the FCC rules for 3550-3650 follow TVWS. If they are similar, and Cambium modifies their 3650 version of PMP450, that might be the critical mass for them to look at a TVWS version. That assumes they could meet the spectrum mask and do channel bonding. I don’t think there’s any obvious reason to an outsider why that would not be possible. I know, you’re going to say that you need the WiMAX/LTE voodoo. But do you? If you are just trying to go through trees, and you can operate at a frequency where the trees become translucent to RF, isn’t that enough voodoo? We’re not trying to do mobile voice+data with call handoffs and multipath from urban clutter. Let’s face it, if 900 MHz had enough spectrum for wider channels and wasn’t all polluted from FHSS mesh stuff like smartgrid, it would be fine without any magical supersauce from the cellular world. Maybe I’m wrong about the spectral mask, if the adjacent channel interference requirement is too tight to meet with DSP techniques alone. But with an SDR platform you’d certainly have an advantage over trying to do it with a WiFi chipset. Maybe Ubiquiti’s airPrism technology is an attempt to move in that direction, although that seems to be on the rcv side. From: Mike Hammett via Af Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2014 2:11 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium It's not great, but not as bad as you think. Only the NE most portion of your network doesn't have at least two channels available. That's all Runcom needs. It's not significantly more expensive than the PMP platform and delivers more (throughput and range) than PMP in 900. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 8:27:15 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium Don't you still have to get an experimental license for TVWS at this point? Part of the problem here is that we're too close to the Chicago metro broadcast area. There were no usable channels the last time I looked at one of the databases. Even in the more rural parts of our network farther away from Chicago, maybe there's a chance, but it would be too much investment for too little gains. Current cost of the available gear, and future gear probably won't be any cheaper. Plus the HAAT restrictions. If you can use it, great! I hope you do, and make lots of money at it. Seriously. But I have a genuine fear that the FCC, who has been throwing loads of poo at us recently, will change their minds and sunset our access to the spectrum while it's being auctioned behind our backs at the same time they control our transmitters via database. We'll see how the 3550-3700 thing goes. On 9/19/2014 7:35 PM, Matt Jenkins via Af wrote: You think TVWS is dead? I am curious why. I feel it's a hope on the next hill over not a dream on the distant horizon. We are going to trial the Runcom Wimax product ASAP in TVWS. For us, a lot of our area isn't even serviceable with 900mhz (assuming clean spectrum). Customer's less than a mile away would have too many trees for 900 to connect. Yes, even when that 900 was installed 150ft up a tree. TVWS has the chance to reach lots of those who don't have access to broadband or even cell service. For many people a 2mbps/256kbps is way better than satellite. They can VPN, game, and VOIP. They might not be able to stream high def all day but they can get satellite TV for that. Its the trade off for living so rural. For the past 6 months we have been deploying Telrad WiMAX in 3.65 and it's coverage and performance has been phenomenal. I am really excited to see what WiMAX applied to TVWS from Runcom can do. There has been talk about how the FSK is still a thriving product. In perfect conditions FSK provides 14mbps aggregate throughput. Runcom is estimating 15-20mbps aggregate throughput in average conditions. You also get 2 APs per Base Station with a built in ASN or use a gateway.
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium
Ooooh, that's a lot of xmt power. -Original Message- From: Matt Jenkins via Af Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2014 5:47 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium You don't need WiMAX/LTE voodoo for TVWS. Sure there are some advantages but there are also disadvantages. What you do need is a tight enough spectral mask and the TX power. Runcom already had a WiMAX product that operated from 700mhz to 5ghz built on an SDR designed to use 5mhz or 6mhz channels and supported channel bonding. They were able to modify their existing product to work within TVWS frequencies. Using 5mhz channels (or 10mhz for channel bonding) they were able to meet the spectral mask requirements for TVWS. Their product already had a call home feature for a central management system. I wouldn't be surprised if they leveraged most of that design to work with the database. They didn't have to bring an entirely new product to market. One of the other major consideration is TX power. Fixed stations can transmit 30dbm and have a 6db antenna (36db EIRP). There isn't a lot of antenna gain available without getting very large. So radios need to have very high TX power built in. If Cambium were to build a 450 product they would need to reevaluate their stance on TX power. I would want to see a radio with at least 28db of TX power available. 900mhz, even in clean spectrum, still doesn't provide the coverage a lot of this county needs to reach the rural areas. TVWS can go as low as 470mhz. Even the upper channels around 600mhz have significantly more foliage penetration than that of 900mhz. I would like to see a DSSS product whereby an AP can TX on two or four combined channels and RX on a different single channel. Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 On 09/20/2014 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: I’m not sure why TVWS has to be based on WiMAX or LTE. Seems to me you need 4 things: - comply with the spectral mask including guardbands - work with the spectrum database - bond non-adjacent 6 MHz channels (preferably more than 2) - connectorized for an external antenna It will be interesting how close the FCC rules for 3550-3650 follow TVWS. If they are similar, and Cambium modifies their 3650 version of PMP450, that might be the critical mass for them to look at a TVWS version. That assumes they could meet the spectrum mask and do channel bonding. I don’t think there’s any obvious reason to an outsider why that would not be possible. I know, you’re going to say that you need the WiMAX/LTE voodoo. But do you? If you are just trying to go through trees, and you can operate at a frequency where the trees become translucent to RF, isn’t that enough voodoo? We’re not trying to do mobile voice+data with call handoffs and multipath from urban clutter. Let’s face it, if 900 MHz had enough spectrum for wider channels and wasn’t all polluted from FHSS mesh stuff like smartgrid, it would be fine without any magical supersauce from the cellular world. Maybe I’m wrong about the spectral mask, if the adjacent channel interference requirement is too tight to meet with DSP techniques alone. But with an SDR platform you’d certainly have an advantage over trying to do it with a WiFi chipset. Maybe Ubiquiti’s airPrism technology is an attempt to move in that direction, although that seems to be on the rcv side. *From:* Mike Hammett via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Saturday, September 20, 2014 2:11 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium It's not great, but not as bad as you think. Only the NE most portion of your network doesn't have at least two channels available. That's all Runcom needs. It's not significantly more expensive than the PMP platform and delivers more (throughput and range) than PMP in 900. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com https://www.facebook.com/ICSILhttps://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalbhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutionshttps://twitter.com/ICSIL *From: *George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com *To: *af@afmug.com *Sent: *Friday, September 19, 2014 8:27:15 PM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium Don't you still have to get an experimental license for TVWS at this point? Part of the problem here is that we're too close to the Chicago metro broadcast area. There were no usable channels the last time I looked at one of the databases. Even in the more rural parts of our network farther away from Chicago, maybe there's a chance, but it would be too much investment for too little gains. Current cost of the available gear, and future gear probably won't be any cheaper. Plus the HAAT restrictions. If you can use it, great! I hope you do, and make lots of money
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium
What is the CPE cost on the Runcom gear? On Saturday, September 20, 2014, Matt Jenkins via Af af@afmug.com wrote: You don't need WiMAX/LTE voodoo for TVWS. Sure there are some advantages but there are also disadvantages. What you do need is a tight enough spectral mask and the TX power. Runcom already had a WiMAX product that operated from 700mhz to 5ghz built on an SDR designed to use 5mhz or 6mhz channels and supported channel bonding. They were able to modify their existing product to work within TVWS frequencies. Using 5mhz channels (or 10mhz for channel bonding) they were able to meet the spectral mask requirements for TVWS. Their product already had a call home feature for a central management system. I wouldn't be surprised if they leveraged most of that design to work with the database. They didn't have to bring an entirely new product to market. One of the other major consideration is TX power. Fixed stations can transmit 30dbm and have a 6db antenna (36db EIRP). There isn't a lot of antenna gain available without getting very large. So radios need to have very high TX power built in. If Cambium were to build a 450 product they would need to reevaluate their stance on TX power. I would want to see a radio with at least 28db of TX power available. 900mhz, even in clean spectrum, still doesn't provide the coverage a lot of this county needs to reach the rural areas. TVWS can go as low as 470mhz. Even the upper channels around 600mhz have significantly more foliage penetration than that of 900mhz. I would like to see a DSSS product whereby an AP can TX on two or four combined channels and RX on a different single channel. Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 On 09/20/2014 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: I’m not sure why TVWS has to be based on WiMAX or LTE. Seems to me you need 4 things: - comply with the spectral mask including guardbands - work with the spectrum database - bond non-adjacent 6 MHz channels (preferably more than 2) - connectorized for an external antenna It will be interesting how close the FCC rules for 3550-3650 follow TVWS. If they are similar, and Cambium modifies their 3650 version of PMP450, that might be the critical mass for them to look at a TVWS version. That assumes they could meet the spectrum mask and do channel bonding. I don’t think there’s any obvious reason to an outsider why that would not be possible. I know, you’re going to say that you need the WiMAX/LTE voodoo. But do you? If you are just trying to go through trees, and you can operate at a frequency where the trees become translucent to RF, isn’t that enough voodoo? We’re not trying to do mobile voice+data with call handoffs and multipath from urban clutter. Let’s face it, if 900 MHz had enough spectrum for wider channels and wasn’t all polluted from FHSS mesh stuff like smartgrid, it would be fine without any magical supersauce from the cellular world. Maybe I’m wrong about the spectral mask, if the adjacent channel interference requirement is too tight to meet with DSP techniques alone. But with an SDR platform you’d certainly have an advantage over trying to do it with a WiFi chipset. Maybe Ubiquiti’s airPrism technology is an attempt to move in that direction, although that seems to be on the rcv side. *From:* Mike Hammett via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Saturday, September 20, 2014 2:11 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium It's not great, but not as bad as you think. Only the NE most portion of your network doesn't have at least two channels available. That's all Runcom needs. It's not significantly more expensive than the PMP platform and delivers more (throughput and range) than PMP in 900. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com https://www.facebook.com/ICSILhttps://plus.google.com/+ IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalbhttps://www.linkedin. com/company/intelligent-computing-solutionshttps://twitter.com/ICSIL *From: *George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com *To: *af@afmug.com *Sent: *Friday, September 19, 2014 8:27:15 PM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium Don't you still have to get an experimental license for TVWS at this point? Part of the problem here is that we're too close to the Chicago metro broadcast area. There were no usable channels the last time I looked at one of the databases. Even in the more rural parts of our network farther away from Chicago, maybe there's a chance, but it would be too much investment for too little gains. Current cost of the available gear, and future gear probably won't be any cheaper. Plus the HAAT restrictions. If you can use it, great! I hope you do, and make lots of money at it. Seriously. But I have
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium
AP cost ? -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Jenkins via Af Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2014 8:44 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium I think its 350 each + Antenna. Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 On 09/20/2014 05:23 PM, Jason McKemie via Af wrote: What is the CPE cost on the Runcom gear? On Saturday, September 20, 2014, Matt Jenkins via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: You don't need WiMAX/LTE voodoo for TVWS. Sure there are some advantages but there are also disadvantages. What you do need is a tight enough spectral mask and the TX power. Runcom already had a WiMAX product that operated from 700mhz to 5ghz built on an SDR designed to use 5mhz or 6mhz channels and supported channel bonding. They were able to modify their existing product to work within TVWS frequencies. Using 5mhz channels (or 10mhz for channel bonding) they were able to meet the spectral mask requirements for TVWS. Their product already had a call home feature for a central management system. I wouldn't be surprised if they leveraged most of that design to work with the database. They didn't have to bring an entirely new product to market. One of the other major consideration is TX power. Fixed stations can transmit 30dbm and have a 6db antenna (36db EIRP). There isn't a lot of antenna gain available without getting very large. So radios need to have very high TX power built in. If Cambium were to build a 450 product they would need to reevaluate their stance on TX power. I would want to see a radio with at least 28db of TX power available. 900mhz, even in clean spectrum, still doesn't provide the coverage a lot of this county needs to reach the rural areas. TVWS can go as low as 470mhz. Even the upper channels around 600mhz have significantly more foliage penetration than that of 900mhz. I would like to see a DSSS product whereby an AP can TX on two or four combined channels and RX on a different single channel. Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 On 09/20/2014 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: I’m not sure why TVWS has to be based on WiMAX or LTE. Seems to me you need 4 things: - comply with the spectral mask including guardbands - work with the spectrum database - bond non-adjacent 6 MHz channels (preferably more than 2) - connectorized for an external antenna It will be interesting how close the FCC rules for 3550-3650 follow TVWS. If they are similar, and Cambium modifies their 3650 version of PMP450, that might be the critical mass for them to look at a TVWS version. That assumes they could meet the spectrum mask and do channel bonding. I don’t think there’s any obvious reason to an outsider why that would not be possible. I know, you’re going to say that you need the WiMAX/LTE voodoo. But do you? If you are just trying to go through trees, and you can operate at a frequency where the trees become translucent to RF, isn’t that enough voodoo? We’re not trying to do mobile voice+data with call handoffs and multipath from urban clutter. Let’s face it, if 900 MHz had enough spectrum for wider channels and wasn’t all polluted from FHSS mesh stuff like smartgrid, it would be fine without any magical supersauce from the cellular world. Maybe I’m wrong about the spectral mask, if the adjacent channel interference requirement is too tight to meet with DSP techniques alone. But with an SDR platform you’d certainly have an advantage over trying to do it with a WiFi chipset. Maybe Ubiquiti’s airPrism technology is an attempt to move in that direction, although that seems to be on the rcv side. *From:* Mike Hammett via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Saturday, September 20, 2014 2:11 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium It's not great, but not as bad as you think. Only the NE most portion of your network doesn't have at least two channels available. That's all Runcom needs. It's not significantly more expensive than the PMP platform and delivers more (throughput and range) than PMP in 900. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com https://www.facebook.com/ICSILhttps://plus.google.com/+IntelligentC omputingSolutionsDeKalbhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent- computing-solutionshttps://twitter.com/ICSIL
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium
Any idea what the latency is on these? On Saturday, September 20, 2014, Matt Jenkins via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Base Station is approx $6200. One Base Station can be more than one AP (see attached) Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 On 09/20/2014 06:13 PM, Paul McCall via Af wrote: AP cost ? -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Jenkins via Af Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2014 8:44 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium I think its 350 each + Antenna. Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 On 09/20/2014 05:23 PM, Jason McKemie via Af wrote: What is the CPE cost on the Runcom gear? On Saturday, September 20, 2014, Matt Jenkins via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: You don't need WiMAX/LTE voodoo for TVWS. Sure there are some advantages but there are also disadvantages. What you do need is a tight enough spectral mask and the TX power. Runcom already had a WiMAX product that operated from 700mhz to 5ghz built on an SDR designed to use 5mhz or 6mhz channels and supported channel bonding. They were able to modify their existing product to work within TVWS frequencies. Using 5mhz channels (or 10mhz for channel bonding) they were able to meet the spectral mask requirements for TVWS. Their product already had a call home feature for a central management system. I wouldn't be surprised if they leveraged most of that design to work with the database. They didn't have to bring an entirely new product to market. One of the other major consideration is TX power. Fixed stations can transmit 30dbm and have a 6db antenna (36db EIRP). There isn't a lot of antenna gain available without getting very large. So radios need to have very high TX power built in. If Cambium were to build a 450 product they would need to reevaluate their stance on TX power. I would want to see a radio with at least 28db of TX power available. 900mhz, even in clean spectrum, still doesn't provide the coverage a lot of this county needs to reach the rural areas. TVWS can go as low as 470mhz. Even the upper channels around 600mhz have significantly more foliage penetration than that of 900mhz. I would like to see a DSSS product whereby an AP can TX on two or four combined channels and RX on a different single channel. Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 On 09/20/2014 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: I’m not sure why TVWS has to be based on WiMAX or LTE. Seems to me you need 4 things: - comply with the spectral mask including guardbands - work with the spectrum database - bond non-adjacent 6 MHz channels (preferably more than 2) - connectorized for an external antenna It will be interesting how close the FCC rules for 3550-3650 follow TVWS. If they are similar, and Cambium modifies their 3650 version of PMP450, that might be the critical mass for them to look at a TVWS version. That assumes they could meet the spectrum mask and do channel bonding. I don’t think there’s any obvious reason to an outsider why that would not be possible. I know, you’re going to say that you need the WiMAX/LTE voodoo. But do you? If you are just trying to go through trees, and you can operate at a frequency where the trees become translucent to RF, isn’t that enough voodoo? We’re not trying to do mobile voice+data with call handoffs and multipath from urban clutter. Let’s face it, if 900 MHz had enough spectrum for wider channels and wasn’t all polluted from FHSS mesh stuff like smartgrid, it would be fine without any magical supersauce from the cellular world. Maybe I’m wrong about the spectral mask, if the adjacent channel interference requirement is too tight to meet with DSP techniques alone. But with an SDR platform you’d certainly have an advantage over trying to do it with a WiFi chipset. Maybe Ubiquiti’s airPrism technology is an attempt to move in that direction, although that seems to be on the rcv side. *From:* Mike Hammett via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Saturday, September 20, 2014 2:11 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium It's not great, but not as bad as you think. Only the NE most portion of your network doesn't have at least two channels available. That's all Runcom needs. It's not significantly more expensive
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium
Ah, that sucks, I was thinking it was LTE-based. On Saturday, September 20, 2014, Jon Langeler via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Wimax. 60ms ish. Not great but not bad... Jon Langeler Michwave Technologies, Inc. On Sep 20, 2014, at 10:13 PM, Jason McKemie via Af af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); wrote: Any idea what the latency is on these? On Saturday, September 20, 2014, Matt Jenkins via Af af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); wrote: Base Station is approx $6200. One Base Station can be more than one AP (see attached) Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 On 09/20/2014 06:13 PM, Paul McCall via Af wrote: AP cost ? -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Jenkins via Af Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2014 8:44 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium I think its 350 each + Antenna. Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 On 09/20/2014 05:23 PM, Jason McKemie via Af wrote: What is the CPE cost on the Runcom gear? On Saturday, September 20, 2014, Matt Jenkins via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: You don't need WiMAX/LTE voodoo for TVWS. Sure there are some advantages but there are also disadvantages. What you do need is a tight enough spectral mask and the TX power. Runcom already had a WiMAX product that operated from 700mhz to 5ghz built on an SDR designed to use 5mhz or 6mhz channels and supported channel bonding. They were able to modify their existing product to work within TVWS frequencies. Using 5mhz channels (or 10mhz for channel bonding) they were able to meet the spectral mask requirements for TVWS. Their product already had a call home feature for a central management system. I wouldn't be surprised if they leveraged most of that design to work with the database. They didn't have to bring an entirely new product to market. One of the other major consideration is TX power. Fixed stations can transmit 30dbm and have a 6db antenna (36db EIRP). There isn't a lot of antenna gain available without getting very large. So radios need to have very high TX power built in. If Cambium were to build a 450 product they would need to reevaluate their stance on TX power. I would want to see a radio with at least 28db of TX power available. 900mhz, even in clean spectrum, still doesn't provide the coverage a lot of this county needs to reach the rural areas. TVWS can go as low as 470mhz. Even the upper channels around 600mhz have significantly more foliage penetration than that of 900mhz. I would like to see a DSSS product whereby an AP can TX on two or four combined channels and RX on a different single channel. Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 On 09/20/2014 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: I’m not sure why TVWS has to be based on WiMAX or LTE. Seems to me you need 4 things: - comply with the spectral mask including guardbands - work with the spectrum database - bond non-adjacent 6 MHz channels (preferably more than 2) - connectorized for an external antenna It will be interesting how close the FCC rules for 3550-3650 follow TVWS. If they are similar, and Cambium modifies their 3650 version of PMP450, that might be the critical mass for them to look at a TVWS version. That assumes they could meet the spectrum mask and do channel bonding. I don’t think there’s any obvious reason to an outsider why that would not be possible. I know, you’re going to say that you need the WiMAX/LTE voodoo. But do you? If you are just trying to go through trees, and you can operate at a frequency where the trees become translucent to RF, isn’t that enough voodoo? We’re not trying to do mobile voice+data with call handoffs and multipath from urban clutter. Let’s face it, if 900 MHz had enough spectrum for wider channels and wasn’t all polluted from FHSS mesh stuff like smartgrid, it would be fine without any magical supersauce from the cellular world. Maybe I’m wrong about the spectral mask, if the adjacent channel interference requirement is too tight to meet with DSP techniques alone. But with an SDR platform you’d certainly have an advantage over trying to do it with a WiFi chipset. Maybe Ubiquiti’s airPrism technology is an attempt to move in that direction, although that seems to be on the rcv side. *From:* Mike Hammett via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Saturday
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium
I don't know how much you know about LTE vs WiMAX, but as a fixed operator there aren't many advantages to LTE. The biggest LTE advantage is 20mhz channels, which are unlikely in TVWS. You do get a bit of reduced latency (30ms), but by sacrificing link stability features. Also LTE adds a LOT of backend systems that are not needed for WiMAX. I personally would rather have TVWS in WiMAX over LTE for now. I see TVWS as a residential only service for those customers who have no other option. We have 900 Canopy FSK deployed on a 100ft tower here: 39.172642 -120.832321. Back when our noise floor was -90ish (6 years ago) we successfully installed 3 customers in the attached polygon. The three that were installed were all tree installs at least 120ft up, the rest didn't even connect. We have over 100 service requests we have mapped and attempted installs on at least half. We are hoping a few TVWS APs will let us provide service to those people. Once we try it, we will know for sure. Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 On 09/20/2014 08:04 PM, Jason McKemie via Af wrote: Ah, that sucks, I was thinking it was LTE-based. On Saturday, September 20, 2014, Jon Langeler via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Wimax. 60ms ish. Not great but not bad... Jon Langeler Michwave Technologies, Inc. On Sep 20, 2014, at 10:13 PM, Jason McKemie via Af af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); wrote: Any idea what the latency is on these? On Saturday, September 20, 2014, Matt Jenkins via Af af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); wrote: Base Station is approx $6200. One Base Station can be more than one AP (see attached) Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 On 09/20/2014 06:13 PM, Paul McCall via Af wrote: AP cost ? -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Jenkins via Af Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2014 8:44 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium I think its 350 each + Antenna. Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 On 09/20/2014 05:23 PM, Jason McKemie via Af wrote: What is the CPE cost on the Runcom gear? On Saturday, September 20, 2014, Matt Jenkins via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: You don't need WiMAX/LTE voodoo for TVWS. Sure there are some advantages but there are also disadvantages. What you do need is a tight enough spectral mask and the TX power. Runcom already had a WiMAX product that operated from 700mhz to 5ghz built on an SDR designed to use 5mhz or 6mhz channels and supported channel bonding. They were able to modify their existing product to work within TVWS frequencies. Using 5mhz channels (or 10mhz for channel bonding) they were able to meet the spectral mask requirements for TVWS. Their product already had a call home feature for a central management system. I wouldn't be surprised if they leveraged most of that design to work with the database. They didn't have to bring an entirely new product to market. One of the other major consideration is TX power. Fixed stations can transmit 30dbm and have a 6db antenna (36db EIRP). There isn't a lot of antenna gain available without getting very large. So radios need to have very high TX power built in. If Cambium were to build a 450 product they would need to reevaluate their stance on TX power. I would want to see a radio with at least 28db of TX power available. 900mhz, even in clean spectrum, still doesn't provide the coverage a lot of this county needs to reach the rural areas. TVWS can go as low as 470mhz. Even the upper channels around 600mhz have significantly more foliage penetration than that of 900mhz. I would like to see a DSSS product whereby an AP
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium
Don't you still have to get an experimental license for TVWS at this point? Part of the problem here is that we're too close to the Chicago metro broadcast area. There were no usable channels the last time I looked at one of the databases. Even in the more rural parts of our network farther away from Chicago, maybe there's a chance, but it would be too much investment for too little gains. Current cost of the available gear, and future gear probably won't be any cheaper. Plus the HAAT restrictions. If you can use it, great! I hope you do, and make lots of money at it. Seriously. But I have a genuine fear that the FCC, who has been throwing loads of poo at us recently, will change their minds and sunset our access to the spectrum while it's being auctioned behind our backs at the same time they control our transmitters via database. We'll see how the 3550-3700 thing goes. On 9/19/2014 7:35 PM, Matt Jenkins via Af wrote: You think TVWS is dead? I am curious why. I feel it's a hope on the next hill over not a dream on the distant horizon. We are going to trial the Runcom Wimax product ASAP in TVWS. For us, a lot of our area isn't even serviceable with 900mhz (assuming clean spectrum). Customer's less than a mile away would have too many trees for 900 to connect. Yes, even when that 900 was installed 150ft up a tree. TVWS has the chance to reach lots of those who don't have access to broadband or even cell service. For many people a 2mbps/256kbps is way better than satellite. They can VPN, game, and VOIP. They might not be able to stream high def all day but they can get satellite TV for that. Its the trade off for living so rural. For the past 6 months we have been deploying Telrad WiMAX in 3.65 and it's coverage and performance has been phenomenal. I am really excited to see what WiMAX applied to TVWS from Runcom can do. There has been talk about how the FSK is still a thriving product. In perfect conditions FSK provides 14mbps aggregate throughput. Runcom is estimating 15-20mbps aggregate throughput in average conditions. You also get 2 APs per Base Station with a built in ASN or use a gateway.
