"I'm just wondering whether that quality exists outside of Patrick Leary's imagination. At the moment I don't see it. " I could have save time typing lol John Woodfield, President Delmarva WiFi Inc. 410-870-WiFi
-----Original Message----- From: "Adam Moffett" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 4:53pm To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] I need a valium I wasn't going to bring up cost. The cost of LTE is high, but there's nothing wrong with paying more to get quality. I'm just wondering whether that quality exists outside of Patrick Leary's imagination. At the moment I don't see it. On 3/16/2016 4:46 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote: Both are possible scenarios, but 1480 MTU is still just wrong when a pair of $48 ubnt nanostation m5 loco can do a cross-the-street 1600 byte MTU bridge. On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Josh Reynolds <[ [email protected] ]( mailto:[email protected] )> wrote: If they're wanting a layer2 tunnel, vpls it up. If they're wanting a layer3 ptmp/etree/eline/elan design (which is a much better solution anyway), why not just VRF it? On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Eric Kuhnke <[ ]( mailto:[email protected] )[ [email protected] ]( mailto:[email protected] )> wrote: > The small MTU immediately removes it from contention for certain > small/medium business last mile connections (sites that are too small for > their own PTP link, but more valuable in $$$/mo than a residential user). > This is because 1480 makes it impossible to do MPLS. > > There are all kinds of things that could require an EoMPLS tunnel such as a > centralized wifi captive portal system, or branch offices of the same small > government entity in a county (ex: Libraries, schools, whatever). > > Radio systems functioning as layer 2 bridges need to support 1600 byte MTU. > That's pretty much standard for all equipment these days. Even ubnt got > their act together and fixed the MTU issue, I believe it used to be not > larger than 1500 on the very earliest series of AirMax/N radios. Issue has > been fixed for a few years now. > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Adam Moffett <[ ]( > mailto:[email protected] )[ [email protected] ]( > mailto:[email protected] )> wrote: >> >> >> RSRP is how LTE systems measure signal. I don't believe it's an >> intentional skewing on Telrad's part, but I'm sure it leads to plenty of >> misunderstandings. >> >> My experience over time has been that every vendor says their stuff works >> NLOS. They can say that because they all DO work NLOS depending on how >> strictly you define "working". I do believe that Telrad LTE works better >> than average at NLOS, but yeah I don't believe it would work everywhere, and >> I hope nobody believes that it makes extra signal power appear out of >> nowhere simply by being LTE. >> >> I'm actually more worried about...well...everything else. There's so much >> focus on their NLOS claims that I think it has drowned out other discussion >> on the product. For example: >> >> Is anyone else bothered that there is no documentation? >> Is anyone else bothered that the Gemtek CPE provides no status or control >> of the ethernet port? >> Has anyone else had the CPE lose configuration values after a firmware >> update (like the Wimax channel scan table and radius username, which you >> can't fix without a damn truckroll)? >> Has anyone else had to RMA BTS's that weren't particularly old? I had >> two with RH alarms that were each less than a year old. One with a corrupt >> file system after 3 days in the field. >> Has anyone had success using the ACS for automatic firmware updates of >> CPE? Ours download the firmware, then lose contact with the server until >> they're rebooted (through the web GUI, or power plug). After a reboot they >> do have the new firmware version, but it's no help if I have to touch them >> all. >> Anyone had tech support issues? They've closed our ticket about the ACS >> issue TWICE. Both times saying, "Oh sorry, we thought that was working >> now." This has been an ongoing investigation since September by the way. >> Is anyone else troubled by the small MTU (max is 1480 I think)? >> >> I have tons of other complaints that are specific to the wimax firmware. >> Are we so impressed by NLOS that we don't need to discuss whether it's good >> at anything else? >> >> >> >> >> >> On 3/16/2016 3:01 PM, John Woodfield wrote: >> >> If you expect LTE 3ghz to be the silver NLOS bullet it is not. >> >> >> >> Putting speeds aside for the moment. Lets just talk signal. Same tower, >> same height Telrad 3ghz LTE with the Alpha dual-slant sector within 1db >> signal as 2.4 NBM2 on a UBNT 10db omni. >> >> >> >> LTE does not change physics. The sales guys want you to believe that. It >> ain't so. >> >> >> >> So, if you can attain a -75 on a 2.4 omni on a tower it won't work worth >> anything. That same signal on LTE will rock. >> >> >> >> If you think it was have equal penetration to 900mhz and be a replacement >> for your old FSK system, you are sorely mistaken. >> >> >> >> Near line of site? Yes. >> >> >> >> We had a very specific application that Patrick said without question >> would work. When it didn't it was a bad antenna, then it was bad jumpers, >> then it was a bad compact, finally they flew someone in who argued with it >> for a day and at the end of the day? You can't argue with physics. >> >> >> >> The whole "watch it work at -110" is garbage too. They skewed the numbers >> by 30db. Yes, it will work at -80, will it work well? YMMV. >> >> >> >> In the end it was too expensive for the limited benefits we observed. They >> swear I'm the only one in the world it didn't work for in the same breath >> they swore it would work without any doubt. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> John Woodfield, President >> >> Delmarva WiFi Inc. >> >> 410-870-WiFi >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: "Ty Featherling" <[ ]( mailto:[email protected] )[ >> [email protected] ]( mailto:[email protected] )> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 2:46pm >> To: "[ [email protected] ]( mailto:[email protected] )" <[ ]( mailto:[email protected] )[ >> [email protected] ]( mailto:[email protected] )> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] I need a valium >> >> Ditto. Hell, onlist would be fine too. I'm sure many of us would like to >> hear your experience. >> -Ty >> >> >> -Ty >> >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:49 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller >> <[ [email protected] ]( mailto:[email protected] )> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I would like to know your complaints as well, please. Thanks. (offlist >>> is fine) >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Adam Moffett >>> To: [ [email protected] ]( mailto:[email protected] ) >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 9:30 AM >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] I need a valium >>> If I may ask John, what were your complaints? >>> >>> >>> On 3/16/2016 10:17 AM, John Woodfield wrote: >>> >>> I wouldn't touch Telrad again if you paid me. That is a week of my life >>> I'll never get back. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> John Woodfield, President >>> >>> Delmarva WiFi Inc. >>> >>> 410-870-WiFi >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: "CBB - Jay Fuller" <[ ]( mailto:[email protected] )[ >>> [email protected] ]( mailto:[email protected] )> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 10:14am >>> To: [ [email protected] ]( mailto:[email protected] ) >>> Subject: [AFMUG] I need a valium >>> >>> Hate being a decision maker sometimes. >>> Love the cambium pmp450 roadmap. I know several people are using pmp450 >>> in 3.65 and it works. I also see now that a panel antenna is available >>> based on the 450i in 3.65 >>> I may have fallen in love with lte. Haven't seen the telrad talk yet. >>> Hear the new vendor does lte for roughly what we started our 900 network >>> for >>> back in 2004. >>> Why would I choose lte over cambium ? >>> Would I? I think the cambium pmp450 (in 3.65) has a better >>> roadmap....one gig aps by like 2017..... >>> What if I choose the wrong product? >>> Convince me..... >>> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone >>> >>> ----- Reply message ----- >>> From: "Jeff Broadwick - Lists" <[ ]( mailto:[email protected] )[ >>> [email protected] ]( mailto:[email protected] )> >>> To: <[ [email protected] ]( mailto:[email protected] )> >>> Subject: [AFMUG] 450M >>> Date: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 10:02 AM >>> >>> 450i is backwards compatible with 450 today. >>> >>> Jeff Broadwick >>> ConVergence Technologies, Inc. >>> 312-205-2519 Office >>> 574-220-7826 Cell >>> [ [email protected] ]( mailto:[email protected] ) >>> >>> On Mar 16, 2016, at 9:36 AM, Brian Sullivan <[ [email protected] >>> ]( mailto:[email protected] )> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Just like FSK? >>> >>> On 3/16/2016 7:40 AM, Chuck McCown wrote: >>> >>> Backwards compatibility. >>> >>> With existing 450 >> >> >
