The SAS doesn't even exist yet, right? Seems like the FCC got paralyzed for awhile by Carrier desire to use 3.65 for LTE-U On Apr 15, 2016 8:43 PM, "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com> wrote:
> OK, fair warning, I am going by memory, but I thought the FCC was very > specific that PALs would be 10 MHz licenses. > > So if you had 2 PALs in the same area, or were using GAA, could you > request and receive a 20 MHz contiguous allocation from the SAS? I guess > maybe, although I would be very surprised. And if you got lucky and the > SAS assigned you 2 x 10 MHz adjacent channels, I think that could change at > any time. > > > *From:* Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> > *Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2016 8:16 AM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs > > Have we actually heard anything official on 10 MHz vs. more or is that > just a WAG based on 10 MHz licenses? I would assume the SAS would support > larger channels. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com> > *To: *af@afmug.com > *Sent: *Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:10:45 AM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs > > Are you talking licensed spectrum, or 3.65 GHz? > > Going forward, I don't think we should plan on 20 MHz channels in > 3550-3700 > MHz, even now under Part 90 rules it is somewhat unrealistic. If you are > talking about aggregating non contiguous 10 MHz channels, that's different. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Moffett > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:05 AM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs > > Are we talking about LTE or Wimax? > > Of the 4 Wimax systems I've used, the Compact is probably the worst. > I'm assured that all of my problems are fixed when we upgrade to LTE. > > I'm not sure I trust the opinions on LTE. People are very focused on > the NLOS performance, and they are still experiencing the "wow" factor > of getting a connection working in a weird place that seems like it > shouldn't work. I haven't seen much conversation about whether the > connection you get is something supportable. Wimax always had the > problem that if the customer tells you something is wrong you have a > hard time proving whether there is or isn't a problem without going on > site. I don't know if LTE on the compact really changes that > situation. I do know the Gemtek CPE still has no damn ethernet stats. > > In LTE the AP can use a 20mhz channel at 64QAM and get close to a > hundred meg aggregate on that. You can pay a license fee for dual > carrier mode and use 2 x 20mhz channels to double that. With MU-MIMO at > some future date they expect to double that. So best case is 400meg (I > believe). Since using 40mhz might not be practical, divide that by what > you can actually use. > > They do have a capacity planning spreadsheet if you can get in touch > with someone who has it. > > > > On 4/13/2016 1:08 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote: > > > > Sorry for the on topic content. > > > > Would those of you here who have played enough with the telrad gear > please > > explain to me the realities of things like capacity per ap/channel/mhz, > > distance capability (ie link budget), and the like? Ie what should > really > > be on a spec sheet. > > > > I'm still trying to dig through the marketing spin to understand the > real > > capabilities of these units. > > > > > >
