It sounds like it would be a fun project. Well, fun to design a new system... putting it up just sounds like a lot of work.
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Jaime Solorza <[email protected]> wrote: > Yep current design has 6 MAS base stations with a few unlicensed 900 are > repeater links....one site has two base stations....another has 4.....now > with so many elevated tanks, we would make small cells to improve link > budgets and coordinate spectrum usage. Right now if one of those two > main sites failed they would be in trouble. They have a "broadcast" type > system... they need a multi site network with redundant path$! > On Jun 9, 2016 11:07 AM, "Mathew Howard" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. >>> >> >
