I think that’s just for one basestation, right? So imagine 3 of them at a site.
From: Bill Prince Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 12:20 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320SMs Gathering ethernet Error stats Wow. 90 watts? Gulp. Even 85 would be hard to swallow. I blanch with AF24 at 50 watts. Takes a lot of infrastructure to run that kind of stuff on a solar site. bp <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> On 2/17/2015 10:14 AM, Adam Moffett wrote: If I recall correctly, the 1000 was the only choice that made any sense. Though I haven't looked lately and I can't remember why. The power consumption is a bitch. When you're used to 7 watt PMP100, which would run all day on a stack of little alarm panel batteries, going to 90 watts is a big deal. They say 125W peak on the spec sheet btw, but actual measurements say 85-90. On new sites I'm figuring four group31 batteries. Then consider the bigger charger, bigger PDU, bigger box to hold all this bigger stuff..... Basically TCO just keeps going up, and I'm glad I'm not writing the checks. ....I'm still not selling this am I? Looking at the datasheet, the 1000 is the only version I would call “compact”. Compared to the PW basestation we have, it is a much nicer physical design the way the BS and antenna mount and cable up. Still the guy in the installation video must be as strong as an ox to hold it with one hand while using a wrench with the other. I think a downside to all the WiMAX and LTE gear is it’s designed for licensed bands where you can run higher xmt power than we are allowed, so the power consumption and physical size are bigger than I suspect a 3.65 only product would be. The SDR approach no doubt increases size and power consumption as well compared to something built around ASICs. But at least Telrad/Alvarion has 3 different sizes, not sure exactly what the tradeoffs are between the 1000, 2000 and 3000. From: Adam Moffett Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 10:54 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320SMs Gathering ethernet Error stats LTE is the light at the end of my tunnel right now, bro....don't ruin the magic. I don't know about "hasn't yet been tested". The LTE firmware is basically beta, but it's said to be functional. Functional enough that they offered to let me run it anyway. I might still take them up on the offer, but for their sake and mine I hope it blows my mind with how awesome it is. The only smoke and mirrors I'm aware of is that whenever they tell you about the awesome-sauce they have, they're definitely talking about LTE and the near future. What they have right now is not the Corvette they're trying to sell you. What they have now is equally quirky as the 320, but 10x harder to use. It does have 4 antenna ports and if you want to, you can run two base stations out of one unit, using two different channels and two BSID's. So you do get two base stations for the price of two base stations. Or the four antenna ports give you antenna diversity at the base station....which they say gives you a little more margin in the upload direction. They claim better performance, but I can't point to any of the Compact base stations and say, "ah, this one is doing more than a 320 could have." It's a good thing I'm not in sales. I would be terrible at it. It's not a bad product, it's just not the awesome product I would like it to be. I was all about the Telrad koolaid until I sat in on a webinar and saw the plethora of smoke and mirrors. Im concerned when a company has a product with attached promises of greatness based on standards based technology that hasnt yet been tested on their own hardware and the promises have the caveat of no longer being standards based. But I do like the promises of the magic they will have like being able to use what would have been interference from another AP in the system as usable client signal, however im not sure how much IP likes traversing to isolated sites at once. I really hate not having any ethernet stats or control on the 320, I never understood that being locked out On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: Did they promise you it's going to get better? Buying Wimax feels like buying a Chevy Cobalt for the price of a Corvette, based on the promise that they're delivering the Corvette next year. Moto never delivered the Corvette.� Alvarion/Telrad still says the Corvette is coming. I would have to check the MIB for the basestation, that was not something I ever tried to graph.� The CPE was generic Gemtek and Greenpacket stuff, so no, very little remote monitoring capability. � I dread every time I have to log into the Purewave GUI and do anything, it is so cumbersome.� I guess actually the Greenpacket GUI is easy to use, just lacking in functionality. � � From: Adam Moffett Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 9:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320SMs Gathering ethernet Error stats � Did any of your Purewave stuff give you ethernet error counters? So much for 4G stuff being �carrier class�.� Or maybe in that world, CPE is customer-owned-equipment and not the responsibility of the network operator to monitor. � � From: Adam Moffett Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 9:12 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320SMs Gathering ethernet Error stats � If you figure it out, let me know.� It's one of my biggest pet peeves about the 320. I'm sad to report that none of the Telrad CPE to seem to have it either.....so maybe a Gemtek chipset limitation? Is there an OID to gather Ethernet errors from the 320SMs in either bridge and/or NAT mode? � Paul � Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.com [email protected] � -- 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
