That latency is a bit of a bummer though. I wasn't aware what the latency on the LTE stuff was, 30 is still pretty high IMO.
On Saturday, September 20, 2014, Matt Jenkins via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > 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 <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Any idea what the latency is on these? >> >> On Saturday, September 20, 2014, Matt Jenkins via Af <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Base Station is approx $6200. One Base Station can be more than one AP >>> (see attached) >>> >>> Matthew Jenkins >>> SmarterBroadband >>> [email protected] >>> 530.272.4000 >>> >>> On 09/20/2014 06:13 PM, Paul McCall via Af wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >
