[time-nuts] The future of Telecom Frequency Standard surplus

[Mark Sims]

I was once tasked with building some building sway monitoring systems.  The 
People With the Bucks were rather tight lipped about why they wanted to monitor 
building sway,  but I think this was closely related to the reason... and yes, 
tall buildings wobble like a weeble (but don't fall down)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFzhjnjXc2o

---

> Higher carrier frequencies make things like Doppler more important - 
some of the high rate point to point links actually have problems with 
tall buildings moving in the wind
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] The future of Telecom Frequency Standard surplus

[Lincoln]

> On May 31, 2017, at 7:07 PM, Bob kb8tq  wrote:
> 
> Many systems are indeed going to much tighter holdover numbers. That is 
> requiring either a much better OCXO or an Rb as a holdover 


So sync limits are going down. 4G-TDD has a node to node limit of 3µs / node to 
UTC of 1.5µs. 5g is looking at ± 500 / 400 ns node to node but hasn’t really 
been deployed on a large scale that I know of. I don’t know that much about the 
workings of 5G to comment. 

The density of traffic (think how many cell phones would be in a mall or a 
stadium event. ) are requiring more nodes but that cover small geographic area. 

This is providing economic motivations to separate the eNode B (cell radio) in 
to two units. The analog radio and ADC / DAC into a head unit that gets mounted 
on a pole ( RRH ) and then a base band unit (BBU) that will take the radio I/Q 
data streams and process them into network traffic. The BBU can process the 
data form a number of RRHs, The sync between these to units needs to be very 
tight, MTIE of ± 100ns is so far the leading contender for MTIE limit. This is 
called the CRAN model. 

There are a couple of different factions that champion how to achieve this in 
the industry. Some say PTP and the use of transparent switches. Others say the 
use of syncE to transfer frequency with PTP on top to transfer time. Others 
champion non ethernet solutions.  

Another thing that is affecting deployment  is the cost of deploying GPS 
antennas. An average for one carrier in Asia was about 12000 USD to instal an 
antenna and maintain it for three years. In there network they would see 9~10% 
of the nodes serviced by GNSS would have some fault directly relating to the 
GNSS cable / Antenna.  They are using PTP / IEEE 1588 as a way to distribute 
sync. 

The old way of doing things was to have 3 / 4 good clocks in the core of the 
network (Cs) and the sync flows out to the edge. ITU G.8261 has test cases that 
are to simulate 10 hops between the master / slave. Yes, 8261 is really for 
frequency but the test cases are also used of phase because it is what we have. 
  Now most operators are interested in putting smaller masters at the edge. 
Rather than serving 1000’s of clients, serve less than 100, maybe a low as 16. 
The edge master will have a local GPS reference but will also use PTP / syncE / 
BITS as a backup to when GPS fails.  If all sources fail we are seeing hold 
overs in the 4~8 hours. 

Keep in mind a carrier will have a huge number of clocks. I visited a cell 
operator in Asia that had over 1e6 clocks in there network. The size of the 
networks are staggering. 

So what dose this mean? Carers do not want to deploy Rb, are looking at other 
tecnologies to extend the stability of OCXOs and TCXOs.  I don’t know how far 
out 5G service is. Its not 100 % clear to me how the deployments will actually 
happen, depend if the base station MFGs will get CRAN up and running. We should 
have surplus Rb etc up until G5 is fully deployed. 10~15 years after that it 
will be OCXO and other switching equipment, that will probably be up to the 
community to support. 





___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] The future of Telecom Frequency Standard surplus

[Chris Albertson]

I think there will be fewer useful parts.

The reason is integration.   In the old days they would buy off the shelf
equipment like a GPS receiver that was inside its own box and was cabled to
something else.  A better newer design would be to use a "GPS Chip" can
route the output not using a cable but with PCB traces.   An even better
design is to move the GPS on-chip And one day you get a "cell phone tower
on a chip"  THAT day may never come but you get the point.   The trend is
that the sub-parts will be be separable.

Going back a few years in technology.   I bought a broken 1950's vintage
Hammond organ (no, not a classic B2) because I wanted to build a guitar
amplifier.  The dead organ has good transformers, tubes and tube sockets
and so on.  In other words it was built entirely from generic parts that
could have been used to build their day to build any kind of audio
equipment.   50's vintage guitar amps used the same parts, just wired up
differently.

You can no longer to this with audio gear.  Just try taking an AV receiver
apart so you can build your own iPod.  Today all the parts are specialized
and there are few generic parts in most phones, TV sets and the like.

The good news is that making you own specialized parts is now much easier.
FPGAs are cheap and the actual designs are in software that can be pushed
around for free over the Internet, kept on GitHub or whatever.As an
example I needed a logic analyzer.  These used to be big expensive beasts
but today one can use a generic FPGA development board and somefware for
less than the cost to ship the beast via UPS.

In short, my prediction:  Less surplus gear but better ability to get new
gear so less need of the old stuff.

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Tom Knox  wrote:

> I think many of us Time-Nuts have played with the wide range of frequency
> standards surplussed from the Telecom market.
>
> My questions is, will the quality of future surplus offerings go up or
> down as 4G and in the more distant future 5G surplus Frequency Standards
> hit the market? It seems with higher data rates stability and phase noise
> demands will increase, but will other advances find ways around the expense
> of a high end Frequency Standard. I know some early telecom systems even
> want as far as Cesium Standards, but more robust network tolerances seems
> to have reduced the need for that level of performance. So which way are we
> headed?
>
> Any thought? I imagine some members are actually involved in design and
> implementation of the next generation telecom technologies and will have
> direct knowledge.
>
> Thanks;
>
>
> Thomas Knox
> 1-303-554-0307
> act...@hotmail.com
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>



-- 

Chris Albertson
Redondo Beach, California
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] The future of Telecom Frequency Standard surplus

[Bob kb8tq]

Hi

The flip side of this is that the number of hardware junkies is not increasing. 
The
world is moving to software as the way to do things. As we all move on, our 
giant
piles of stuff will have to go to somebody (or the landfill). Most of this 
stuff is built
to last a *long* time. There are a few exceptions (Cs tubes). I’d bet that the 
net 
result is a pretty good availability on all these gizmos for a very long time. 
You may
not be buying 3 year old stuff, but there will still be stuff to buy. 

Bob

> On May 31, 2017, at 10:07 PM, paul swed  wrote:
> 
> Jerry that is indeed the likely reality. As more and more components become
> integrated into super chips it becomes impossible to repair or replace
> them. They are custom and proprietary to a company. Best of all the
> supporting software will be a subscription and of course since the company
> no longer supports the equipment the $1000/year subscription will no longer
> be available.
> So the experience you and I have had of getting pennies on the dollar or
> $/pound simply will not occur again. Thats what my crystal ball says at
> least.
> Not to be all down though. You can buy some pretty reasonable things these
> days scopes network analyzers and such. I just like my power sucking HP and
> Tek gear.
> Regards
> Paul
> WB8TSL
> 
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Jerry Hancock  wrote:
> 
>> Tom, Another question is will the surplus equipment have the same value to
>> the hobbyist?  I have a lot of old gear like spectrum analyzers, scopes,
>> signal generators, etc that was outdated and sold for cheap.  I keep
>> wondering if the same economics will apply to the equipment that is for
>> instance, currently selling for 40k, 50k or even higher, meaning will it
>> drop to pennies on the dollar like I paid for my 8566B?  For some reason I
>> don’t think it will.  If it does, it will be because some board that is
>> impossible to repair went to smoke.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 31, 2017, at 8:47 AM, Tom Knox  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think many of us Time-Nuts have played with the wide range of
>> frequency standards surplussed from the Telecom market.
>>> 
>>> My questions is, will the quality of future surplus offerings go up or
>> down as 4G and in the more distant future 5G surplus Frequency Standards
>> hit the market? It seems with higher data rates stability and phase noise
>> demands will increase, but will other advances find ways around the expense
>> of a high end Frequency Standard. I know some early telecom systems even
>> want as far as Cesium Standards, but more robust network tolerances seems
>> to have reduced the need for that level of performance. So which way are we
>> headed?
>>> 
>>> Any thought? I imagine some members are actually involved in design and
>> implementation of the next generation telecom technologies and will have
>> direct knowledge.
>>> 
>>> Thanks;
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thomas Knox
>>> 1-303-554-0307
>>> act...@hotmail.com
>>> ___
>>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>>> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
>> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>>> and follow the instructions there.
>> 
>> ___
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
>> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
>> 
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] The future of Telecom Frequency Standard surplus

[jimlux]

On 5/31/17 8:47 AM, Tom Knox wrote:

I think many of us Time-Nuts have played with the wide range of
frequency standards surplussed from the Telecom market.

My questions is, will the quality of future surplus offerings go up
or down as 4G and in the more distant future 5G surplus Frequency
Standards hit the market? It seems with higher data rates stability
and phase noise demands will increase, but will other advances find
ways around the expense of a high end Frequency Standard. I know some
early telecom systems even want as far as Cesium Standards, but more
robust network tolerances seems to have reduced the need for that
level of performance. So which way are we headed?



In general, higher data rates don't have as stringent close in phase 
noise/ADEV requirements - if you look at published jitter specs, they 
use phase noise from something like 10kHz to several MHz.


We encounter this all the time with deep space telecom, where 
historically, they'd do radio science with the carrier.  When you're 
sending 8 bits/sec, you need a good quiet carrier so your receiver loop 
bandwidth can be small (to improve SNR). When you're sending 100 Mbps, 
not so much.


Higher carrier frequencies make things like Doppler more important - 
some of the high rate point to point links actually have problems with 
tall buildings moving in the wind. As a result, the modulation schemes 
and detection methods are moving towards more highly adaptive techniques 
which don't require as good performance for the oscillators.




Any thought? I imagine some members are actually involved in design
and implementation of the next generation telecom technologies and
will have direct knowledge.

Thanks;


Thomas Knox 1-303-554-0307 act...@hotmail.com
___ time-nuts mailing
list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow
the instructions there.



___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] The future of Telecom Frequency Standard surplus

[paul swed]

Jerry that is indeed the likely reality. As more and more components become
integrated into super chips it becomes impossible to repair or replace
them. They are custom and proprietary to a company. Best of all the
supporting software will be a subscription and of course since the company
no longer supports the equipment the $1000/year subscription will no longer
be available.
So the experience you and I have had of getting pennies on the dollar or
$/pound simply will not occur again. Thats what my crystal ball says at
least.
Not to be all down though. You can buy some pretty reasonable things these
days scopes network analyzers and such. I just like my power sucking HP and
Tek gear.
Regards
Paul
WB8TSL

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Jerry Hancock  wrote:

> Tom, Another question is will the surplus equipment have the same value to
> the hobbyist?  I have a lot of old gear like spectrum analyzers, scopes,
> signal generators, etc that was outdated and sold for cheap.  I keep
> wondering if the same economics will apply to the equipment that is for
> instance, currently selling for 40k, 50k or even higher, meaning will it
> drop to pennies on the dollar like I paid for my 8566B?  For some reason I
> don’t think it will.  If it does, it will be because some board that is
> impossible to repair went to smoke.
>
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 2017, at 8:47 AM, Tom Knox  wrote:
> >
> > I think many of us Time-Nuts have played with the wide range of
> frequency standards surplussed from the Telecom market.
> >
> > My questions is, will the quality of future surplus offerings go up or
> down as 4G and in the more distant future 5G surplus Frequency Standards
> hit the market? It seems with higher data rates stability and phase noise
> demands will increase, but will other advances find ways around the expense
> of a high end Frequency Standard. I know some early telecom systems even
> want as far as Cesium Standards, but more robust network tolerances seems
> to have reduced the need for that level of performance. So which way are we
> headed?
> >
> > Any thought? I imagine some members are actually involved in design and
> implementation of the next generation telecom technologies and will have
> direct knowledge.
> >
> > Thanks;
> >
> >
> > Thomas Knox
> > 1-303-554-0307
> > act...@hotmail.com
> > ___
> > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> > and follow the instructions there.
>
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] The future of Telecom Frequency Standard surplus

[Bob kb8tq]

HI

Simple answer is: That depends. 

A number of systems are going to network based sync. That moves the “good 
stuff” back to a central location. The local “mini tower” will 
have some pretty basic parts in it. The number of mini whatever’s goes way up 
compared to an old style system. The number of central 
bunkers is way down relative to an old style system. 

Many systems are indeed going to much tighter holdover numbers. That is 
requiring either a much better OCXO or an Rb as a holdover 
clock. The bad news is that the GPS functions and the tuning as well often move 
into the firmware in the base station. The GPSDO
as we know it goes away. The OCXO has no EFC so it’s utility outside a SDR 
setup is somewhat limited. 

The world of telecom is a pretty big arena. Roughly 99% of what we see as 
“telecom” standards are actually cellular base station devices. 
The comments above are thus targeted at that market. The stuff above will 
shrink the size of the wireless part of the market. As a percentage
the rest of the telecom world will go up as a result. We will see more unusual 
stuff in the 5,6,7,8,9 era and less wireless related precision
standards.

Lots of fun !!

Bob


> On May 31, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Tom Knox  wrote:
> 
> I think many of us Time-Nuts have played with the wide range of frequency 
> standards surplussed from the Telecom market.
> 
> My questions is, will the quality of future surplus offerings go up or down 
> as 4G and in the more distant future 5G surplus Frequency Standards hit the 
> market? It seems with higher data rates stability and phase noise demands 
> will increase, but will other advances find ways around the expense of a high 
> end Frequency Standard. I know some early telecom systems even want as far as 
> Cesium Standards, but more robust network tolerances seems to have reduced 
> the need for that level of performance. So which way are we headed?
> 
> Any thought? I imagine some members are actually involved in design and 
> implementation of the next generation telecom technologies and will have 
> direct knowledge.
> 
> Thanks;
> 
> 
> Thomas Knox
> 1-303-554-0307
> act...@hotmail.com
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] The future of Telecom Frequency Standard surplus

[Jerry Hancock]

Tom, Another question is will the surplus equipment have the same value to the 
hobbyist?  I have a lot of old gear like spectrum analyzers, scopes, signal 
generators, etc that was outdated and sold for cheap.  I keep wondering if the 
same economics will apply to the equipment that is for instance, currently 
selling for 40k, 50k or even higher, meaning will it drop to pennies on the 
dollar like I paid for my 8566B?  For some reason I don’t think it will.  If it 
does, it will be because some board that is impossible to repair went to smoke.




> On May 31, 2017, at 8:47 AM, Tom Knox  wrote:
> 
> I think many of us Time-Nuts have played with the wide range of frequency 
> standards surplussed from the Telecom market.
> 
> My questions is, will the quality of future surplus offerings go up or down 
> as 4G and in the more distant future 5G surplus Frequency Standards hit the 
> market? It seems with higher data rates stability and phase noise demands 
> will increase, but will other advances find ways around the expense of a high 
> end Frequency Standard. I know some early telecom systems even want as far as 
> Cesium Standards, but more robust network tolerances seems to have reduced 
> the need for that level of performance. So which way are we headed?
> 
> Any thought? I imagine some members are actually involved in design and 
> implementation of the next generation telecom technologies and will have 
> direct knowledge.
> 
> Thanks;
> 
> 
> Thomas Knox
> 1-303-554-0307
> act...@hotmail.com
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

[time-nuts] The future of Telecom Frequency Standard surplus

[Tom Knox]

I think many of us Time-Nuts have played with the wide range of frequency 
standards surplussed from the Telecom market.

My questions is, will the quality of future surplus offerings go up or down as 
4G and in the more distant future 5G surplus Frequency Standards hit the 
market? It seems with higher data rates stability and phase noise demands will 
increase, but will other advances find ways around the expense of a high end 
Frequency Standard. I know some early telecom systems even want as far as 
Cesium Standards, but more robust network tolerances seems to have reduced the 
need for that level of performance. So which way are we headed?

Any thought? I imagine some members are actually involved in design and 
implementation of the next generation telecom technologies and will have direct 
knowledge.

Thanks;


Thomas Knox
1-303-554-0307
act...@hotmail.com
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.