6ghz is now able to use smaller antenna sizes.

Also 11ghz with adaptive modulation should be just fine during heavy rain
events.

We have a 30 mile 11ghz shot in CO and it's never dropped during a rain
event.  And we had some massive downpours that dropped a couple inches of
rain in less than an hour.



On Monday, November 24, 2014, Paul McCall via Af <[email protected]> wrote:

>  Unfortunately, the 14, 15, 16 mile links in Florida would be fairly
> difficult at 11 ghz, even with 4ft dishes, which I cant load up on a Rohn
> 25G tower.
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] *On Behalf Of *Sean
> Heskett via Af
> *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 2:25 PM
> *To:* [email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
>
>
>
> 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]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] On Behalf Of Paul
> McCall via Af
> > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM
> > To: [email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] On Behalf Of Matt
> via Af
> > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM
> > To: [email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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)
>

Reply via email to