When the polar icecaps melt and everything turns into Waterworld, we will be posting about reflections off water instead of flat cropland.
From: That One Guy /sarcasm Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 3:31 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 320 Revisited 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.
