AP cost ? -----Original Message----- From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt Jenkins via Af Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2014 8:44 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS Alive or Dead? Was: Re: Dear Cambium
I think its 350 each + Antenna. Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband [email protected] 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 <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 > [email protected] > 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:[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, September 20, 2014 2:11 PM > *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > *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/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentC > omputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent- > computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *"George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af" <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected] > *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. > >
