Wondering what happened to wireless Inc. 450MHz solution?   I tested in a
refinery and kicked ass but they had no FCC certification..... it was true
Non Line of Sight
On Jan 16, 2016 7:36 PM, "George Skorup" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm looking at it this way. We have a lot of 900 FSK and the noise floor
> is already pretty bad. The power company will be rolling out smart grid
> soon. Cambium showed some real-world results in a high noise floor
> environment (like -50 across the band) and while the 450i worked,
> throughput was no better than FSK. So the 900 450i would be a very big
> investment for no performance gain.
>
> Now, take the Runcom TVWS, which is the only viable gear right now. If you
> have two adjacent channels open and can run 10MHz channel bandwidth, you'll
> probably see around 20Mbps of throughput per base station. That's 5 times
> better than FSK or the 450i in a high noise environment.
>
> On 1/16/2016 8:12 PM, David Milholen wrote:
>
> TVWS has its place for now in low demand environments ie telemetry,
> utility and industrial. As far as end user
> I would be prone to make a showing in places where dial up or satellite is
> the only option.
>  Plus with so many restrictions its about as good as 2.4 with no
> interference as far as range.
> Until restrictions on power and height are lifted and bit per hertz is
> increased I am not impressed with the band yet.
>
>
>
>
> On 1/16/2016 7:31 PM, George Skorup wrote:
>
> There's a thread going on the WISP members list about this very topic. Are
> you on that list? Someone said don't waste your time and money, but
> wouldn't say why. So I don't have a clue, but I'd like to put up a trial
> site this spring because 900 is shit.
>
> On 1/16/2016 6:00 PM, Craig House wrote:
>
> Anyone out there had experience with it.  Our is supposed to be all on
> site this week.  So far I haven't heard the greatest things but I know that
> bad experiences tend to make the rounds in the form of complaints more than
> the good experiences do so I'm trying to be optimistic still.
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>

Reply via email to