LTE will nickel and dime you with licensing costs no matter who you buy
it from. With Baicells it's a trickle of $/month/user. With Telrad
it'll add up to something like $25/user* but only a one time expense
(until you need to license more users). They both say they have to pay
the 3GPP who owns the intellectual property for LTE, so allegedly
there's no avoiding it.
I think I figured that after 3 years you were better off buying
Telrad...at least as far as cash flow. I can't speak to performance
between the two.
Telrad might be the only one offering a smooth transition since they
have a dual mode CPE and dual mode base station. That said.....I would
not recommend buying the Telrad Compact for Wimax. It "supports" Wimax
in the same sense that the ePMP "supports" wifi. It's there to help you
make a transition, but I think you'll find it's worse at being a wimax
base station than your old wimax base station is. **
Cambium 450 900mhz compared to Wimax has been hit or miss. The 900 will
connect in more places, but in terms of connections you would actually
want from a support & capacity perspective it's not obvious which is the
winner.
We still don't have LTE up because we have to buy so much crap to switch
from wimax to LTE and we don't really know whether it's going to be
worth it.
I'm afraid I don't have a clear answer to your question as I'm
struggling with the same question myself. I will say that in my
post-wimax world I'm not keen to buy promises anymore. I don't think
any wimax vendor delivered on what their original promises were.
* but much more complicated than a flat $25/user. Depends how many BTS,
EPC appliances, licensed features, etc etc.
** I can go on at length about this topic. You probably don't have time
to hear it, but trust me. It's not a great at Wimax.
------ Original Message ------
From: "Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: 8/2/2016 4:11:40 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 320 Revisited
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
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 2:43 PM
To:[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]>
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]> 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]>
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]> 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]> 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]>
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
[email protected]
www.pdmnet.com
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.
