I just woke up, so maybe my reading comprehension isn't the best yet.
Can't you use a spectrum analyzer to track down the sources of the interference
and then work with the tower owner on who it is that's on that tower and
contact information?
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tyson Burris" <t...@franklinisp.net>
To: af@af.afmug.com
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2021 5:24:25 AM
Subject: [AFMUG] T-Mobile PALs and CBRS GAA
Good morning AF Geeks-
Someone help me understand this better. Several questions below.
We operate in six counties in Indiana. Some rural some not so much.
In our main county (johnson) we are starting to get interference even when we
are connected to the SAS.
While we cannot prove anything yet, each tower we are seeing this on recently
had new T-Mobile equipment deployed.
I reached out to our attorney, Steve Coran, this week and asked him to pulled
the county PAL winners. Listed here:
PAL winners for Johnson County, IN:
XF Wireless Investment, LLC (Comcast) -- 20 MHz
Actel, LLC (CenturyLink) -- 20 MHz
Wetterhorn Wireless L.L.C. (DISH) – 30 MHz
-Century Link has zero cell services of any kind in our county and currently
not deploying in fixed wireless.
-Comcast floats off Verizon
-Dish also has zero cell services of any kind in our count
So what we ended up with is PAL winners who have nothing to offer locally yet
unless subleasing.
Questions are:
is T-Mobile subleasing PAL’s from any of these three?
Is T-Mobile illegally just rotating PAL’s anywhere they want in the country
instead of just local counties?
Anyway to clearly isolate the offending carrier sucking up so much spectrum and
causing all the interference?
Another member brought up T-Mobile as a possible offender. Did any data come
from that?
What time of the day do the SAS databases sync with each other and does this
force other carriers to cut back on total GAA – share nicely?
Has anyone found the other SAS providers to be better then GOOGLE. Starting to
think their system is worthless or inaccurate. Truth is I think this whole
concept of spectrum sharing is poorly handled and not fully tested on 3g.
If a carrier is on the same tower, how will that affect sync? I ask because we
found some very interesting work arounds and results with upload when we
started playing with sync settings…ie distance, frame, channel.
If the customer SM is moved from one spot to another or from a roof to a post
how badly does this affect the calculations on the SAS side?
Things we have discovered:
* Even when we find noise floors on spectrum analysis in a reasonable range
and move to the cleaner channel on the SAS the interference still trashes the
uplinks.
* In some cases the SAS is blocking the cleanest of channels which could be
PAL related.
* In some cases customer SM’s going off other ‘unaffected’ sites nearby may
get knocked offline by the new noise.
* In some cases we have had to drop off the SAS and found switching to
other regulatory has allowed us to switch to cleaner channels and stabilized
subs. (which is exactly what we shouldn’t be doing)
* We have a ton of 450m units going on towers as both new and upgrades. I
am concerned that the more urban areas will struggle with capacity since we
have to break this up across multiple sectors.
History and Equipment:
Again this seems very isolated to our more urban deployments which have
historically been awesome in the 50Mhz channels prior to CBRS turn ups.
Our more rural areas are not seeing this issue at all.
All three locations have very specific and brand new T-Mobile equipment so this
has been our assumption of the cause without such proof.
Equipment on these commercial towers has been no more then two 450i AP’s with
KP 120’ sectors (pending 450m upgrades).
Tyson Burris, President
Internet Communications Inc.
739 Commerce Dr.
Franklin, IN 46131
Office # 317-738-0320
Cell/Direct # 317-412-1540
Online: www.surfici.net
ICI
What can ICI do for you?
Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP Cameras -
Fiber - Towers - Infrastructure.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the
addressee shown. It contains information that is
confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,
dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by
unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly
prohibited.
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
