Under the old rules - if I understand right, we'll eventually have to register existing stuff with an SAS, but nothing has really changed for now. You can keep operating under the old rules until some time in 2020.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:31 AM, Paul McCall <[email protected]> wrote: > OK, but under what rule set, for how long before you have to comply with > the new rules coming out? > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 9:51 PM > *To:* af > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using > > > > 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. > > >
