You can still add new 3.65 AP locations from any of the currently available manufacturers, as long as you already have a 3.65 license.
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Paul McCall <[email protected]> wrote: > Interesting. I agree with the dream of having someone re-write the > firmware to interface 320 stuff with the FCC database. Probably just a > dream though. > > > > On the 450, you mention being able to sync with customers down the road. > The way I understand it, there is no standard being proposed that would > make that happen… if you have 5 other people with like or unlike platforms > playing in “your” RF space, they can still have the same frequency > contention challenges that you have now. Its just that they would be > restricted from competing with the known higher priority users in the > database. > > > > I was curious to see what the consensus is on 320 use moving forward for > those that have found it to be the only way to service certain NLOS > customers. > > > > The considerations seem to be… > > > > 1) Replace with 450 series gear at 3.65 and loose some of the > customers that were tough NLOS problems that the 320 series solved. > > (if your were using the 320 only because it was a cleaner freq. band > (3.65), then the 450 seems to make sense for that. > > 2) Replace with Telrad gear at 3.65 (pricey) and sell off their old > 320 series for whatever they can get. > > 3) Deploy MORE 320 gear because it is working well and solves the > specific problem. BW limited but works pretty well (*some might debate > that) > > > > *At this moment, can you add ANY new 3.65 AP locations (from any > manufacturer) or forced to wait until the “next” thing comes to play with > the FCC rules?* > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy > /sarcasm > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:09 PM > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using > > > > Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a > dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some > creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing > the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us > 320 CPEs to redeploy. > > > > The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary > server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the > 320 APs to small sites. > > > > We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up > there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and > our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent > been able to test the 1x magic out. > > > > I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to > sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential > nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with > competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an > AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, > but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings. > > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 > series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 > product? > > > > Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding > SMs to what you already have? > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > -- > > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >
