That tracks nicely with what I've been told, which is a minimum of 3X over FSK, and up to 7X.
Jeff Broadwick ConVergence Technologies, Inc. 312-205-2519 Office 574-220-7826 Cell [email protected] > On Dec 18, 2015, at 12:23 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: > > So yesterday I did some tweaking on the sync parameters and was able to get > better results. I'll put the details in a second post, but I wanted to > update the grim picture I painted the other day. > > As initially set up, I was only getting 1X MIMO-A, even on a 5 MHz channel > and after trying a bunch of frequencies, and the SMs would not reliably stay > registered. > > After tweaking the sync parameters and channel, I was able to get one sub to > 4X MIMO-B and the other to 2X MIMO-B, and increase the channel width to 7 > MHz. They have stayed registered now for 18 hours and while the speed varies > a bit they hold 4X and 2X. Here are linktest results I just ran: > > subscriber #1 > 2 miles with a few bare trees and apparently some multipath issues > 2X MIMO-B > 8.6M down, 4.4M up, 13.0M aggregate > > subscriber #2 > 8 miles with 2 lines of trees and a house in the path > 4X MIMO-B > 14.6M down, 4.6M up, 19.3M aggregate > > The AP and subscriber #1 have bad interference across the band, interference > is not as bad at subscriber #2. > > These numbers may not look great compared to 100M aggregate capacity, but > they are around a 6 times improvement over what we had with FSK. I'm sure we > would see better results at another site with less interference, in fact I > have another tower where we can run 2X FSK but 4M aggregate just isn't enough > capacity. >
