Re: [AFMUG] Do you want to see this stuff here?

[Adam Moffett]

This might not be a concern in Florida or Texas, but if you do it that 
way in the north, the legs may burst due to filling with water and then 
freezing.

Tushar,
We buy Rohn 25G, with a landed cost of about $ 130 per section.  
Figure $ 80 in concrete (probably a little high) and we stick 3 ft. of 
the first section in the ground.  We do the first piece (dig hole, 
pour cement) in about 2 hours times 2 people (on average) then come 
back in a day after cement hardens and we stack the other pieces 
(sometimes 20 ft. at a time, sometimes 30 feet at a time, but figure 
another 3 hours on site times 2 guys.   That includes bracketing to 
the house.  However, that part is a big variable though because of 
home construction.  You shouldn’t just attach to an eve without 
beefing the eve up.  Rohn also makes various size stand offs that can 
go to the side of the house.

So, about 10 hours of labor on averages, and probably $ 650 to $ 750 
in materials for a tower of 37 feet.  If your highest attachment point 
is high enough and solid, you can stack another 10 foot section

There are some variables in there, but that should give you a decent 
estimate.

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Tushar Patel
*Sent:* Sunday, June 14, 2015 6:09 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Do you want to see this stuff here?

I guess we should also look at the tower install too. What is the 
rough cost to install 40 feet, Rohn 25?

Tushar


On Jun 14, 2015, at 12:02 PM, Paul McCall <pa...@pdmnet.net 
<mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net>> wrote:

    Its mostly financial considerations…  we do whatever we can
    (payments, etc.) to push them that direction.  It just makes the
    most sense.

    Paul

    *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof
    *Sent:* Sunday, June 14, 2015 1:00 PM
    *To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
    *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Do you want to see this stuff here?

    I don’t understand why customers don’t blink an eye signing 2 year
    contracts on cellphones and satellite service, but resist
    investing in a Rohn tower which is an asset with about a 30 year
    life and also gives them a place to mount things like an OTA TV
    antenna, security cameras, etc.  Not sure if they think it’s ugly,
    or just don’t make financial decisions for the long term.

    *From:*Paul McCall <mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net>

    *Sent:*Sunday, June 14, 2015 11:34 AM

    *To:*af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>

    *Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] Do you want to see this stuff here?

    I don’t know comparatively Tushar.  We have found that 50mph winds
    for an afternoon is all it takes to bend them.

    Being on the ocean, we also see them corrode rather quickly.  2
    different brands of poles and within 2 years they are almost
    unusual, parts break trying to loosen them to lower them etc. 
    They just don’t last and then whose responsibility is it to
    replace them.  The customer doesn’t want to pay twice that’s for
    sure.  The other problem is fine tuning… east/west is OK, but
    up/down angle of a dish is a PIA.  320 CPEs are not as bad on a
    pole for tuning, but the other issues really hurt us. We would
    rather try talking the customer into a Rohn 25 40 feet or a bit
    more depending on highest building attachment point so that we are
    not guyed.  Even if we do that at parts / labor cost, its much
    better long term, and easy to service the radio.  MOST of the
    time, we are able to sell that at a $ 500 REAL profit, and a
    win-win for all

    *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Tushar Patel
    *Sent:* Sunday, June 14, 2015 9:43 AM
    *To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
    *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Do you want to see this stuff here?

    I agree it is hard to service.  Most of the time we have two
    people to install but one person to service, some time two. But
    how is it be different in Florida than Texas?

    We get enough windstorms, we deal with pole bent etc too.

    Tushar


    On Jun 14, 2015, at 7:22 AM, Paul McCall <pa...@pdmnet.net
    <mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net>> wrote:

        Push up poles in Florida is a nightmare waiting to happen. We
        learned that the hard way.  Even with guy wires.  And, a pain
        to service. Kinda fits your description of NLOS customers below.

        *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Tushar
        Patel
        *Sent:* Saturday, June 13, 2015 11:52 PM
        *To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
        *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Do you want to see this stuff here?

        Your point on sector efficiency is the reason we no longer
        like NLOS installs. *Yes you may gain few customer with little
        less effort but in long run it hurts.*We try to install 40 to
        50 feet push-up poles and get better line of sight.

        Tushar


        On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:44 PM, George Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com
        <mailto:geo...@cbcast.com>> wrote:

            That's great that it works. I'm sure the Telrad stuff and
            other gear like it is excellent. For me, it's too
            expensive. Every way I run the numbers, I'm looking at
            16-18 months for break-even. And that's not including all
            of the extra stuff required for a large scale deployment.

            If I can't get 25-30 users per sector, the site is too
            small to deploy it. If I'm running a bunch of NLOS
            customers (which we would since we're about 55% 900MHz),
            lots of low modulation users really sucks for sector
            capacity. And those NLOS shots, like Ken says, will they
            continue to work? When the trees are soaked, covered in
            ice, etc., does it go to shit and I have to listen to
            customers bitching because they were getting 20+Mbps and
            now get <5Mbps? Which again is a hit on sector efficiency.

            On 6/13/2015 8:48 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

                One thing I experienced with 3.65 GHz WiMAX was an
                install that turned out to work only because of signal
                bouncing off the tall tree leaves, and stopped working
                in November when the leaves went away.  We should have
                been suspicious when aligning for best signal actually
                had the CPE pointed up at about a 30 degree angle.

                I have seen something similar with 900 MHz.

                *From:*TJ Trout <mailto:t...@voltbb.com>

                *Sent:*Saturday, June 13, 2015 8:15 PM

                *To:*af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>

                *Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] Do you want to see this stuff here?

                How does LTE penetrate hills? This is the second or
                third "through a hill" story in the last week?

                On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Patrick Leary
                <patrick.le...@telrad.com
                <mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>> wrote:

                RSRP, it is a measurement. It is a truer number than
                RSSI, which is only an estimate (so I'm told). As Ken
                said, basically add 30 to get an idea of the RSSI value.

                /Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID/

                On Jun 13, 2015 5:36 PM, Mathew Howard
                <mhoward...@gmail.com <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>>
                wrote:

                Yeah... something like that. Notice that is -108 CINR,
                not RSSI, like the numbers we're all used to.

                On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Ken Hohhof
                <af...@kwisp.com <mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:

                I think Patrick said to add 30 dB to Telrad signal
                numbers because they were “per subcarrier” or something?

                *From:*Colin Stanners <mailto:cstann...@gmail.com>

                *Sent:*Saturday, June 13, 2015 4:17 PM

                *To:*af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>

                *Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] Do you want to see this stuff here?

                Patrick, I haven't been following Telrad but that's
                too incredible - I can't see how -108, which is below
                the noise floor for any reasonable channel bandwidth
                (20mhz+?) could get any reasonable speed, much less
                those.

                On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Patrick Leary
                <patrick.le...@telrad.com
                <mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>> wrote:

                    Should I resist sharing this sort of thing? If
                    it's out of line, let me know Chuck.

                    <mime-attachment.png>

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: telrad-boun...@wispa.org
                    <mailto:telrad-boun...@wispa.org>
                    [mailto:telrad-boun...@wispa.org
                    <mailto:telrad-boun...@wispa.org>] On Behalf Of
                    Steve Discher
                    Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 7:51 PM
                    To: tel...@wispa.org <mailto:tel...@wispa.org>
                    Subject: [Telrad] Another Telrad success story

                    Not to flood the list with these but Zirkel is
                    having great results.

                    
************************************************************************************

                    This footnote confirms that this email message has
                    been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the
                    presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
                    viruses.

                    
************************************************************************************





                    
************************************************************************************
                    This footnote confirms that this email message has
                    been scanned by
                    PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious
                    code, vandals & computer viruses.
                    
************************************************************************************




                
************************************************************************************
                This footnote confirms that this email message has
                been scanned by
                PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious
                code, vandals & computer viruses.
                
************************************************************************************





                
************************************************************************************
                This footnote confirms that this email message has
                been scanned by
                PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious
                code, vandals & computer viruses.
                
************************************************************************************