Thats why I said subsidized. For that volume of subsidized cellular data nodes the cost per unit (hardware, and service) can be negotiated. Use ptp, ptmp to interconnect the low hanging fruit, cellular to handle the problem children(where service exists), data bank to offset extended consumption.
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jaime Solorza <[email protected]> wrote: > For over 600 Wells, 50 pump stations, 15 boosters, 25 storm systems, 400 > lift stations and 8 wastewater plants? > On Jun 9, 2016 9:13 AM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Really, if its subsidized, depending on the actual current and realistic >> near term future bandwidth demands, a primarily bulk cellular data with on >> demand ptp and ptmp solution for gap fillers might be well worth looking >> into. Review the entire infrastructure and build some data banking >> locations to aggregate any non real time demand to off peak syncronization >> locations. >> >> owning a network is always ideal when conditions are ideal, but from the >> sounds of it, thats just not the case >> >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Jaime Solorza <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I would recommend 11GHz for ptp...I would test the Cambium and Ubiquiti >>> 900 since antennas are in place...but I am thinking of LTE MuMimo solutions >>> as well.. with all the tanks they have I would reduce long links to >>> closest one...right now most shoot to one tank....the original 1993 design >>> is obsolete >>> On Jun 9, 2016 8:07 AM, "Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Maybe 4.9 GHz LOS links between towers, and Cambium PMP450i and PTP450i >>>> in 900 MHz for the NLOS links? >>>> >>>> As long as they stick with cameras that have reasonable BW requirements. >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Jaime Solorza <[email protected]> >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 09, 2016 8:52 AM >>>> *To:* Animal Farm <[email protected]> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] If it was you... >>>> >>>> >>>> 4.9 is not a good option due to existing public safety links on both >>>> sides of border. The new PLCs from Allen Bradley are IP based as well >>>> other gear they are now using. Also heard they are considering cameras at >>>> Wells not just boosters and wastewater. >>>> On Jun 9, 2016 7:43 AM, "Cameron Crum" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> If they have to have the data throughput then I'd tell them to go with >>>>> 4.9 and leave the unlicensed guys alone. But, do they really need it? Is >>>>> this like using a backhoe to dig a fence post hole? >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Cassidy B. Larson <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Make sure the big ‘ol wall people want ends up blocking the RF? lol >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 8, 2016, at 9:49 PM, Jaime Solorza <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> While working at Storm Water site today, one of the water Co. SCADA >>>>>> guys came by... he discussed that they are looking at WiMax and also >>>>>> 4.9GHz >>>>>> to replace existing licensed 900mhz network for our 600 locations. They >>>>>> are using MDS SD9 radios for MAS and LEDR for ptp.... they want to move >>>>>> up >>>>>> to faster Ethernet based radios.... I listened and offered no >>>>>> comments....I >>>>>> was not about to tell them about WiMAX or that our sister city has over >>>>>> 200 >>>>>> 4.9GHz links in operation since 2010...I have ideas of what I would >>>>>> do...Some background.... .many remote links are NLOS...easy to do with >>>>>> their existing 5 Watt licensed radios and APs on 150 Ft elevated tanks >>>>>> or >>>>>> mountain. ptp links are easy for most of east and lower valley because >>>>>> of >>>>>> tanks available and mountain locations....let's see what you gurus >>>>>> suggest....we are on border and it is very noisy in all bands. I mean >>>>>> all >>>>>> bands >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> >> -- >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> > -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
