An announcement is probably a bit of a stretch, a release that soon would be a dream.
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Chuck McCown via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > And you will release them at AnimalFarm, right...? > > *From:* Chuck Macenski via Af <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 2:57 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium > > We are working on a couple of thing you are going to like :) > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Eric Kuhnke via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Any plans for a 3.5 or 3.65 GHz AirFiber, using a similar system to the >> AF5? >> >> With integrated antennas, it'd be pretty big, but I could see it being >> useful in some applications where an AF24 won't reach far enough (8-9km and >> 99.999% max modulation over one year). >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Chuck Macenski via Af <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Why not Zoidburg (airFiber)? >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Sean Heskett via Af <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite licensed PTP >>>> vendor). >>>> >>>> we keep all the unlicensed bands available for PMP...we use licensed >>>> for PTP. >>>> >>>> the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed backhaul is like >>>> the difference between a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are >>>> both cars that drive on roads but that's about where the similarities end. >>>> same thing with backhauls. >>>> >>>> 2 cents >>>> >>>> -sean >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Cambium, >>>> > >>>> > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you >>>> recommend to us for this type of problem/solution? >>>> > >>>> > Paul >>>> > >>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>> > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via >>>> Af >>>> > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM >>>> > To: [email protected] >>>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force >>>> > >>>> > For Cambium.... we have a very remote tower that feeds several other >>>> towers. Everything is OSPF but logically... >>>> > >>>> > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several >>>> anti-twist devices) is "fed" by... >>>> > Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a >>>> Mikrotik RB912 5 Ghz >>>> > This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of >>>> usable bandwidth and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A >>>> > Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 >>>> > This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G >>>> > >>>> > Tower R then feeds... >>>> > Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of >>>> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>>> > Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >>>> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>>> > Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >>>> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>>> > Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >>>> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>>> > >>>> > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling >>>> act. There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect >>>> (chain) to each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT >>>> radios on the backside links. >>>> > >>>> > The challenge... >>>> > >>>> > First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, >>>> I need better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect >>>> and then I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. >>>> > >>>> > So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other >>>> than a ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is >>>> inexpensive. >>>> > >>>> > The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsynced.... can it sync, now or >>>> tomorrow? Latency with sync? >>>> > >>>> > Paul >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>> > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt via Af >>>> > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM >>>> > To: [email protected] >>>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force >>>> > >>>> > > Hi, >>>> > > >>>> > > Please allow me to clarify. >>>> > > >>>> > > The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two >>>> 10/100 FE ports. >>>> > > >>>> > > The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the >>>> > > single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to >>>> proprietary PoE. GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still >>>> use the on board GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). >>>> > > >>>> > > The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in >>>> Release 2.4 and will apply to both products. >>>> > >>>> > Reading this spec sheet. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/files/PRODUCTS/ePMP/FORCE/Force%20110%20PTP_Oct2014.pdf >>>> > >>>> > >>>LATENCY (nominal, one way) < 2 ms (PTP Mode), 6 ms (Flexible Frame >>>> > >>>Mode) , 17 ms (GPS Sync Mode) >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
