That is really nice compared to what the other option is for many 900 MHz-viable-only customers: consumer grade VSAT...
I would much rather offer somebody a 2 Mbps downstream x 1 Mbps upstream connection that has consistent latency of 5 to 25ms to its gateway, and <1% packet loss, than the satellite option. With TDMA oversubscribed satellite the typical experience is 750 to 1100ms latency which makes things useless for VoIP. When people are faced with a cumulative total quota of only 8 to 10GB/month transfer on satellite, for $100 a month, 900 MHz can be a great option. On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:23 AM, 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. > >
