why does small channel have to be limited to SCADA, small channel synced higher capacity in 900mhz gives us the option to pick up some outliers. Granted with 900mhz gear historically costing more than other gear, I dont know how effective it would be costwise.
How about this cambium, you give us a fully software defined 450 synced AP radio with 10 outputs, We define their purpose from 10 individual FSK type single pol all the way up to 5x5 MIMO. We already know if we buy 900gear, we are going to get fresh inmate raped on the price, why not make that higher price well worth it, we can chooses whether we are putting it in as last gasp survival or just to be dicks and kill the spectrum for everybody. The key is no matter how its configured, there is an option to sync it amongst configurations so say george wants to put up a full spectrum 5x5 and I want to put up 10 small sectors, we have the option to work together still, understanding one or both of us will suffer a performance hit to achieve sync, considering the alternative is he puts up his canopy 5x5 and I put up my small channel ubnt, and neither of us work. 900 will always be its own entity, I dont think anybody here will argue that fact On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Chuck McCown via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > > (28) Licensees that obtain authorizations in the 928/952/956 MHz MAS bands > subsequent to July 1, 1999 are limited to private internal services, as > defined in § 101.1305. Incumbent operations in the 928/952/956 MHz MAS > bands, as defined in § 101.1331(a), are subject to grandfather rights > pursuant to § 101.1331. The 928.85-929.0 MHz and 959.85-960.0 MHz bands are > licensed on a geographic area basis with no eligibility restrictions. The > 928.0-928.85 MHz band paired with the 952.0-952.85 MHz band, in addition to > unpaired frequencies in the 956.25-956.45 MHz band, are licensed on a > site-by-site basis and used for terrestrial point-to-point and > point-to-multipoint fixed and limited mobile operations. The 928.85-929.0 > MHz band paired with the 959.85-960.0 MHz band is licensed by Economic Area > and used for terrestrial point-to-point and point-to-multipoint fixed > operations. > > § 101.1305 Private internal service. A private internal service is a > service where entities utilize frequencies purely for internal business > purposes or public safety communications and not on a for-hire or > for-profit basis. > > I am guessing radio STL links would be an example. > > *From:* Ken Hohhof via Af <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, October 06, 2014 12:56 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz Survey - Request for Info > > I don’t suppose you can license ALL of 952-960 as a single 8 MHz > channel? Probably more like 100 kHz channels. > > *From:* Chuck McCown via Af <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, October 06, 2014 1:54 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz Survey - Request for Info > > 932.5 – 935 > 941.5 – 944 > 952 - 960 > > *From:* Ken Hohhof via Af <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, October 06, 2014 12:48 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz Survey - Request for Info > > I remember seeing a Part 101 PCN for a railway (BNSF) that included > some licensed 900 MHz links. Unfortunately I didn’t save it. But I know > at the sites I typically see a paraflector antenna. What I don’t remember > is the frequency and channel width. I think there is licensed 900 MHz > above 902-928. > > Can you get a big enough channel to be useful for broadband, or is this > pretty much for SCADA? > > > *From:* Paul Conlin via Af <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, October 06, 2014 1:35 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz Survey - Request for Info > > > Channel flexibility is going to be key for the 900 band. Some want > smaller channels to avoid noise. Some want larger for more throughput. We > want both. Ability to move those channels around will be necessary. > Separate channels for Tx and Rx would be really helpful in some cases. > > > > PC > > Blaze Broadband > > > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Chuck McCown via > Af > *Sent:* Monday, October 6, 2014 2:25 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz Survey - Request for Info > > > > How about one wide channel that takes up the whole band. Then you could > get 430 type of throughput. Be great for areas with 50 customers that can > all be served from one AP. > > > > *From:* That One Guy via Af <[email protected]> > > *Sent:* Monday, October 06, 2014 12:13 PM > > *To:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz Survey - Request for Info > > > > smaller channels, higher throughput ala UBNT, and unicorn farts > > > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Adam Moffett via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > > Survey done....I'm going to address a question you didn't ask in the > survey: > > There are two things I hate about 900mhz: First is the lower capacity, > and a lot of the survey questions were pertinent to that. The second is > there is a ton of interference and that makes it unreliable. I think it > would be nice if a product could deliver higher capacity in 900mhz, but I > also think it would be nice if we could get some rock solid IP connectivity > without line of sight, even if it was at a low speed. I won't presume to > tell Cambium how to do that, but maybe your next product could have an > option for very small channels, or FHSS, or maybe tx and rx on different > channels so I can avoid listening on a noisy channel at the tower but still > transmit on it. > > I'd love to have more options in the toolbox to make a NLOS link keep on > chugging along for telemetry, or remote desktop, or a single camera, or > whatever. > > > > As some of you may already be aware, we are conducting some inquiries > surrounding the 900 MHz band in order to properly address concerns in using > this band, and help provide us the information needed to develop the > product that you need to deliver service to your customers. The survey is > just over 20 questions, and is located here: > https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XNS38W6 > > > > Please help us help you! > > > > Any information we gather will help us to make sure we’re developing the > right product for your needs, and this info will not be used for any > commercial or solicitation purposes. It’s optional to fill in the contact > info at the end, but I encourage you to do so, in case further exploration > of a few of the responses could help even more. > > > > The survey will stay open for about 2 weeks, so try to get to it soon. > > > > Let me know if you have any questions or problems accessing the survey. > > > > Thanks, > > > > *Matt Mangriotis* > > Senior Product Manager > *Cambium Networks* > 3800 Golf Road, Suite 360 > > Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 > > > > www.cambiumnetworks.com > *O: *847-439-6379 > > *M: *630-308-9394 > *E: *[email protected] > > [image: CN_logo_horizontal_blueIcon_blackName] > > > > > > > > > > -- > > All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the > parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you > can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not > use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 > -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
