It sounds like there's plenty of money to play with, so I'd definitely do 11ghz wherever you can... but NLOS links running on 5 watt 900mhz radios could be difficult to replace (unless that's way over kill for what's actually needed).
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Jaime Solorza <[email protected]> wrote: > They have 24/7/365 monitoring...they have generators and UPS back up up > the wazoo. Key folks have cell and two way radio communication. Some > sites have cellular routers as back up in case radio links fail. They are > looking at fiber network electric Co has to possibly piggyback. > On Jun 9, 2016 10:35 AM, "Jaime Solorza" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > They don't like to hand over ownership > On Jun 9, 2016 10:00 AM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 design is obsolete 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. >> >
