Yes....it would be a feather in my Stetson if I got design gig.... On Jun 9, 2016 11:30 AM, "Mathew Howard" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. >>>> >>> >> >
