Unlike 5Ghz the 3Ghz band has a slightly less chance of surface
reflection which helps tremendously with propagation thru
folage and the such much like 2.4 but 2.4 has a lower eirp and can be
absorbed by foliage more easily. This is why u see 5Ghz being used by
radar because it has a much better reflective property than any of the
bands. 900 not only has a reflective property on certain surfaces but can
burn thru most foliage interestingly enough when I was in the army
signal core at 12yrs we would use a high power ptp 900mhz system to burn
across
lakes and rivers to link up sites . It was more effective than the 1Ghz
stuff we used.
maybe mostly theory but this is what I learned from real world experience.
On 2/27/20 11:28 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
Lots of wishful thinking combined with a little bit of LTE magic. 5
on your list would be my vote - receiver sensitivity and lack of
interference.
You left out the other adder - running at illegal power output levels
at the base station for the NN licenses.
LTE certainly has significantly better receiver sensitivity than our
normal solutions - but it comes at a pretty high cost in throughput.
So yeah, you can run NLOS in 3.65 and it works as long as the noise
floor stays low and you don’t care much about the overall capacity of
the base station.
Under CBRS running at even higher power levels makes it push through
into NLOS a bit more, but the noise floor overall is also going to
come up so it may be something of a wash in the end.
Mark
On Feb 27, 2020, at 12:03 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
For years there has been enthusiasm for the idea that 3.5 GHz is
suitable for NLOS propagation in a way that doesn’t apply to other
mid band spectrum like 2.4, 2.5 or 5 GHz. Initially is wasn’t clear
what type of NLOS people meant – urban clutter or foliage – but I
think it’s pretty clear people are talking about foliage.
Why do people expect this? Is it the frequency, or the protocol like
WiMAX and now LTE? Or no theoretical basis, just it works don’t ask why?
I can think of several possible explanations, not sure if any of
these are why people associate 3.65 GHz LTE with NLOS.
- 3.65 GHz somehow is absorbed less by foliage than other mid band
frequencies
- some feature of the LTE protocol that overcomes NLOS
- LTE equipment has more sensitive receivers
- 3.65 GHz has less interference due to being semi licensed
- some combination of receiver sensitivity and lack of interference
- none of the above but LTE equipment is just made better
Maybe it’s real world experience with no theoretical basis. But I
always like to know why something works, or doesn’t. You’d prefer
that the reason it works isn’t some temporary anomaly. Like service
is really good at this new restaurant, because nobody knows about it yet.
*From:*AF <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>*On Behalf Of*Eric Muehleisen
*Sent:*Thursday, February 27, 2020 10:29 AM
*To:*AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE
Still in winter. I'd like to see how it performs when the leaves are
full in May.
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:26 AM dave <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
We R starting to see some real world impressive results with just the
pmp450i CBRS radios on a 20Mhz channels
This guy is nearLOS about 2.5 miles of some tree and pointing into
edge of panel
Current Results Status
Stats for LUID: 65 Test Duration: 10 Pkt Length: 1714 Test
Direction Bi-Directional
*Link Test without Bridging*
*Data
Channel
Priority*
*Downlink*
*Uplink*
*Aggregate*
*Packet Transmit*
*Packet Receive*
*Actual*
*Actual*
Low
50.01 Mbps
32.97 Mbps
82.98 Mbps, 6008 pps
23887 (2388 pps)
36207 (3620 pps)
*Efficiency*
*Downlink*
*Uplink*
*Efficiency*
*Fragments
count*
*Efficiency*
*Fragments
count*
*Actual*
*Missed*
*Actual*
*Missed*
99%
984301
7409
99%
647582
3593
Link Test ran on 15:20:50 02/27/2020 UTC
*Currently transmitting at:*
8X/6X MIMO-B
Current Contention Mode Status: No Piggyback of data in contention
<image001.jpg>
On 2/25/20 3:59 PM, Matt Mangriotis via AF wrote:
I completely understand your skepticism Ken. However, Cambium did
design the 3 GHz 450m with every intention of being able to support
a transition to LTE (specifically, as a RRH with cnRanger). The
intent is for this device to be a fully capable 8x8 MU-MIMO. Yes,
you’ve got that right though, you’ll need new CPE devices and a BBU
for each sector.
We don’t have a target date when this will be developed yet… right
now, we’re focused on getting the cnRanger CBRS 2x2 RRH and High
Gain Cat 6 CPE devices out in August!
With respect to NLOS coverage, I will agree that 450 is not quite on
par with some of the things that LTE brings to the table (regarding
range and the ability to maintain the downlink). However, with the
increased power limits of CBRS, the 450m does an admirable job. In
fact, in comparing equipment cost and performance, I would suggest
that the 450 platform outperforms anything out there. That is, it’s
less expensive to get bandwidth where it needs to be (at a higher
rate, and to more customers). If the customer density can support
the cost of cnMedusa, you’re going to be better off from total cost
of ownership (both CapEx and OpEx) perspective.
The new 3GHz 450b High Gain has 29 dBm Tx Pwr, and a 20 dBi dish
integrated antenna… this is pretty impressive for CBRS CPE equipment
(most of the high gain/high power LTE stuff I see is only going to
be 23 dBm Tx, plus 15 dBi antenna).
There are several customers out there that have done these
comparisons… hopefully, they can chime in.
Matt
*From:*AF<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>*On Behalf Of*Ken Hohhof
*Sent:*Monday, February 24, 2020 7:06 PM
*To:*'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:*[ External ] Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE
You should probably talk to someone at Cambium, unless someone here
has already done that. There was talk 1-2 years ago about 450m is
software defined so maybe they could use it as a remote radio head
with their cnRanger LTE BaseBand Unit (BBU). It has been pretty
quiet since then, but I haven’t been able to make it to the shows.
Without an update directly from the horse’s mouth like Matt at
Cambium, or some kind of announcement, I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Back in 2018 it was in the realm of “it would be nice”. That’s
pretty tentative. Plus you’d still have to buy the BBU and new CPE,
so it doesn’t sound like a huge savings anyway, still 2/3 of a
forklift upgrade. I mean, if it turned out that the 3 GHz cnRanger
RRH was literally a 450m, that would probably be the best case, but
how likely do you think that is?
This is just my personal speculation, if it’s an important part of a
decision you’re making now, you probably need to get hold of your
Cambium regional sales manager, or the 450 or cnRanger product
manager. If you’re going to WISPAmerica, you can probably do it there.
*From:*AF <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>*On Behalf Of*Jason McKemie
*Sent:*Monday, February 24, 2020 6:03 PM
*To:*AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE
So the 450M is supposed to be LTE upgradable?
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 3:45 PM Steve Jones
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Something aboit the medusa top can be used with cnranger
potentially with a fiber run and a software update
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 3:38 PM Adam Moffett <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
In my opinion, 450 is better than Baicells or Telrad LTE at
everything except NLOS performance.
....Except that NLOS performance is so useful that one can be
tempted to ignore all of the other features of the 450. I do
understand that tradeoff because I've had to make it myself.
On 2/24/2020 4:30 PM, David Williamson wrote:
450 3.65Ghz vs. Baicells 3.65Ghz LTE = no comparison. All but
one of the 450 APs are already removed from our network. I am
just trying to determine if the SMs will be usable on Cambium LTE
once they roll it out, or if it will require a completely
different SM.
David
*From:*AF [mailto:[email protected]]*On Behalf Of*Jason McKemie
*Sent:*Monday, February 24, 2020 4:28 PM
*To:*AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE
Why are you getting rid of 3.65 Cambium in favor of LTE?
On Monday, February 24, 2020, David Williamson
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Will the Cambium 3.65 LTE have a completely new SM or will it use
the existing 450SM's? Trying to determine if I should keep our
450SM's or just go ahead and sell them to one of our secondary
market distributors along with our 450 AP's.
Thanks!
David Williamson
-----Original Message-----
From: AF [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 1:57 PM
To:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE
I think I heard next quarter for the 3.5.
On 2/24/2020 1:48 PM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists wrote:
> 3.5 isn’t available yet.
>
> I believe that 2.5 can be purchased.
>
> Jeff Broadwick
> CTIconnect
> 312-205-2519 Office
> 574-220-7826 Cell
>[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>
>> On Feb 24, 2020, at 12:44 PM, Avatar Davis
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone have experience with Cambium LTE? I am highly
dissatisfied with my current manufacturer and was wondering if
anyone had experience using/demoing their product line. Cambium
products seem consistently good in my experience.
>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>>[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cb86add20912747adc42b08d7b98f079e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637181896280372524&sdata=sDEJMwg%2FrUeE9YW6GqIDR1XzERRWkE%2F6XePPnWoPmRg%3D&reserved=0>
>
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cb86add20912747adc42b08d7b98f079e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637181896280382518&sdata=pP5xMGSatWmczFjAPjC1wEXnNEcBOceklsDEIeHxs6c%3D&reserved=0>
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cb86add20912747adc42b08d7b98f079e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637181896280382518&sdata=pP5xMGSatWmczFjAPjC1wEXnNEcBOceklsDEIeHxs6c%3D&reserved=0>
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cb86add20912747adc42b08d7b98f079e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637181896280392515&sdata=%2BbZTwYPdzPsYWDRGoWDCC16Kx5oRKh7VKuFLS8xZ%2Bek%3D&reserved=0>
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cb86add20912747adc42b08d7b98f079e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637181896280392515&sdata=%2BbZTwYPdzPsYWDRGoWDCC16Kx5oRKh7VKuFLS8xZ%2Bek%3D&reserved=0>
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
