yeah, but a guy with a good deal on towers for those who had insurance could make a killing
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Robert Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: > The fires are clearing a lot of foliage away from the west right now... > Unfortunately it is also clearing away the houses that would have used said > service... > > On 08/02/2016 01:22 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote: > >> 2.4FHSS was a different beast, for whatever reason at distance it >> penetrated better than 900mhz, maybe the higher power, maybe how the >> frequency hopping worked, I dont know. just sucks it was 1.5mbps. 900mhz >> failed 50% of the time where 320 would pick them up, and there were just >> some that only worked on the FHSS, so we are stuck with 3 operational >> systems that all suck. >> >> A little more power will buy us some time with the 320 where we can >> deliver a 3/2 and occasional 6/2 reliably until global warming...erpp >> climate change, burns off all the trees and turns us in the midwest into >> a desert and we dont have to worry about foliage or rain fade anymore >> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> So what are people using to replace their 3.65 WiMAX equipment like >> Cambium 320 and Purewave/Mercury? Is Bai Cells the answer? In any >> case, it seems like a forklift upgrade. I would like to say some >> other frequency band, but what? If not 900 MHz, it seems there is >> no unlicensed band that can do what we need. >> My original trip down the WiMAX rabbit hole was actually intended to >> be a preliminary step toward licensed 2.5 GHz, until I found out >> that was not feasible for us. But now I’ve got a lonely Purewave >> basestation that I don’t want to add customers to, I don’t think the >> latest Mercury help, and I don’t know what to do with the existing >> customers. Some are LOS so maybe the NLOS subs just need to go >> bye-bye? >> We are using Cambium 450 in 3.65 GHz and it is working out great for >> us as a 2.4 GHz replacement, but only for LOS or through a tree or >> two. Can’t afford low modulation clients <4X. >> *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm <mailto:[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 02, 2016 2:43 PM >> *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 320 Revisited >> one of the documents i was reading said 20% throughput loss from >> extended range, thats what i was asking about real word experience >> from, 320 documentation across the board was always questionable. >> I would love to not use it, but 320 was the (dont start the >> penetration argument) only thing at distance we could pick customers >> up through foliage to get them off 2.4fhss, even 900mhz wouldnt >> work, I assumed it was wimax and multipath that allowed it to happen >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Eric Muehleisen <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> See attached link budget sheet. Back in the day, 5%-8% capacity >> loss was the number thrown around with extended range enabled. >> IMO, disable extended range and deny those distance subs. You'll >> increase your overall capacity as a result. >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:05 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >> at 10mhz we get 40 eirp correct? >> Anyone using the extended range know how much real world >> sector capacity loss we have? is the aggregate with loss on >> 10mhz going to be less than the throughput at 7mhz? >> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Eric Muehleisen >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Yes, but there is an extended range config parameter >> that overcomes that limitation. >> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:24 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> at 10 mhz isnt the max distance dramatically limited >> over 7mhz? >> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Eric Muehleisen >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >> We do it like this... >> A = 3655 >> B = 3682 >> C = 3669 >> D = 3695 >> It'll give you at least 1mhz separation between >> sectors (which is required). >> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Paul McCall >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >> Can the Cambium 320 radios operate in ABCD >> fashion (10 Mhz channels using covering from >> 3650 to 3700) with 4 Cambium sectors? I >> know AABB with splitters is common and we >> did some that way, but we had to remove >> splitters to get extra gain in some areas. >> ____ >> >> ____ >> >> I seem to recall there was some “edge >> issues” or something like that?? We always >> lock the customer down to a given >> frequency/basestation, for what that’s >> worth.____ >> >> ____ >> >> Paul____ >> >> ____ >> >> Paul McCall, President____ >> >> PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.____ >> >> 658 Old Dixie Highway____ >> >> Vero Beach, FL 32962____ >> >> 772-564-6800 <tel:772-564-6800> ____ >> >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected] >> >____ >> >> www.pdmnet.com <http://www.pdmnet.com>____ >> >> www.floridabroadband.com >> <http://www.floridabroadband.com>____ >> >> ____ >> >> ____ >> >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> > -- 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.
