Sean, We have a 12 mile 11 Ghz link engineered by SAF for 99.994 with 3 ft. dishes (again in Florida – heavy humidity ALL the time) . It is installed within 1 dB of the calculated spec. And, we lose it completely a couple times complete a few times each year with heavy rains. And, we do get some VERY heavy rains during the summer.
So, for me to plan on any longer distance than 12 miles at 11 Ghz with 3ft. dishes would not make sense to me. I can explore the 6 Ghz smaller dish option. 3 ft. dishes is about the max I can imagine using on the Rohn 25G 190 ft. tower even though it has multiple custom anti-twist supports. Paul From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sean Heskett via Af Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 10:04 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium 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]<mailto:[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)
