Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
A theorem is stronger than a theory, as it is based on established facts that can lead to a logical explanation. A theory is just a theory. There may be facts, but there is also a lot of gap filling (usually) involved. bp On 6/23/2020 11:32 AM, Adam Moffett wrote: In this case you could call it a law because it's nothing more than a formally stated observation. A theory tries to explain why things happen, a law is just stating what happens. One isn't better or stronger; they're just different things. A "theory" about why gravity works is different from the direct observational "law" of gravitational attraction attested by Isaac Newton. Maybe everyone here knows that already, but a lot of people were never told and just make an assumption based on the literal words. On 6/23/2020 12:08 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: I was actually repeating your advice from past threads. Maybe we can call it "McCown's Theorem". Nope, better make that "McCown's Law". The anti-science segment of society takes the word "theorem" to mean "unsubstantiated nonsense". -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 10:46 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility I calculated it once. Always good to go up in frequency if antenna gain and path loss are the only considerations. If you increase the frequency, it works out that the system margin increases by the increase of gain of one of the antennas assuming identical antennas at both ends. -Original Message- From: Ken Hohhof Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 9:21 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Lower frequencies do have lower free space loss, but for the same size antenna you have less antenna gain. And with 2 antennas (xmt and rcv), antenna gain wins. All else being equal, higher frequency usually wins. Of course with TVWS you usually accept using ginormous antennas. I think people are telling you that TVWS is a niche technology, one that isn't even a clear winner in its niche, and shouldn't be used outside its niche. If you have clear LOS, use something else. If you have 99 NLOS customers and 1 who happens to have LOS, I guess you could put him on the TVWS system too. -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of D. Bernardi Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 10:09 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Clearly RF isn't my specialty... Instead of SNR I guess I really meant noise. If the noise floor is equal wouldn't there be less attenuation of the signal in an open environment (resulting in a better SNR)? At 10:41 AM 6/23/2020, you wrote: On Jun 23, 2020, at 10:32 AM, D. Bernardi wrote: I was thinking more in terms of foliage or other object density, or mountains/hills, to help estimate range. Wouldn't TVWS still have better performance in an open area compared to dense forest given equal SNR? If SNR is identical then you will get identical performance, assuming the same channel size and modulation. TVWS channel size is considerably smaller than the higher frequency alternatives and has lower modulation levels (at least that I have seen). Mark -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
And they're both stronger than a WAG. Lots of people don't understand the "scientific method", or how science differs from religion or faith. Science is based on usefulness, how well it can explain observations and make predictions. Quantum mechanics didn't prove Newtonian mechanics wrong or destroy anyone's faith. Scientists thought cool, a new theory that explains and predicts more things. But Newton is still very useful unless you live next to a black hole. Or want to build a nuke. -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Adam Moffett Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 1:33 PM To: af@af.afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility In this case you could call it a law because it's nothing more than a formally stated observation. A theory tries to explain why things happen, a law is just stating what happens. One isn't better or stronger; they're just different things. A "theory" about why gravity works is different from the direct observational "law" of gravitational attraction attested by Isaac Newton. Maybe everyone here knows that already, but a lot of people were never told and just make an assumption based on the literal words. On 6/23/2020 12:08 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > I was actually repeating your advice from past threads. Maybe we can > call it "McCown's Theorem". > > Nope, better make that "McCown's Law". The anti-science segment of > society takes the word "theorem" to mean "unsubstantiated nonsense". > > -Original Message- > From: AF On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 10:46 AM > To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility > > I calculated it once. Always good to go up in frequency if antenna > gain and path loss are the only considerations. > > If you increase the frequency, it works out that the system margin > increases by the increase of gain of one of the antennas assuming > identical antennas at both ends. > > -Original Message----- > From: Ken Hohhof > Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 9:21 AM > To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility > > Lower frequencies do have lower free space loss, but for the same size > antenna you have less antenna gain. And with 2 antennas (xmt and > rcv), antenna gain wins. All else being equal, higher frequency > usually wins. Of course with TVWS you usually accept using ginormous > antennas. > > I think people are telling you that TVWS is a niche technology, one > that isn't even a clear winner in its niche, and shouldn't be used > outside its niche. If you have clear LOS, use something else. If you > have 99 NLOS customers and 1 who happens to have LOS, I guess you > could put him on the TVWS system too. > > > -Original Message- > From: AF On Behalf Of D. Bernardi > Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 10:09 AM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility > > > > Clearly RF isn't my specialty... Instead of SNR I guess I really meant > noise. If the noise floor is equal wouldn't there be less attenuation > of the signal in an open environment (resulting in a better SNR)? > > > > At 10:41 AM 6/23/2020, you wrote: > >>> On Jun 23, 2020, at 10:32 AM, D. Bernardi > wrote: >>> >>> >>> I was thinking more in terms of foliage or other object density, >> or mountains/hills, to help estimate range. Wouldn't TVWS still have >> better performance in an open area compared to dense forest given >> equal SNR? >> If SNR is identical then you will get identical performance, >> assuming the same channel size and modulation.TVWS channel size >> is considerably smaller than the higher frequency alternatives and >> has lower modulation levels (at least that I have seen). >> >> Mark >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
That's a good point. With 700Mhz you might be better off with the ol' Langley-Rice prediction from Towercoverage.com or Radio Mobile. On 6/23/2020 10:06 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: I’m a little confused by your question.LIDAR data is going to show you line-of-site locations which is not what TVWS gear is best used for servicing. LIDAR data only makes sense in identifying the areas you can’t serve with other gear. I suppose it gives you a ’negative’ view of the area to identify area you might want to serve with TVWS. Mark On Jun 23, 2020, at 10:02 AM, D. Bernardi wrote: Hi, I appreciate all the feedback. RADWIN is still in beta and will not have product until Q4. Redline does have production gear and I'm still gathering their information. Would it make sense to build/buy an analyzer for collecting site specific data over a few days and couple that with LiDAR data to try to classify an area as potentially serviceable. In addition if there are identifiable discrepancies with real data and the database, can these be corrected? At 10:19 AM 6/17/2020, you wrote: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_NextPart_000_0CCB_01D64490.D14AADC0" Content-Language: en-us Spectrum is always going to be a challenge in TVWS. The recent FCC TV channel auction/repack has eliminated some of the channels so now there is less. Some manufacturers are doing channel bonding to improve performance and throughput. The problem with the databases and channel availability is that they only report where your base station is located and how many channels you can use. You could get a great list of channels for use at the tower, then reality can kick in and when you try to install CPE devices, those same channels may not be available to transmit on for the client end. This could really become a pain when it breaks your planned use of bonded/adjacent channels. Just losing one available channel on the client end (because the client location is now within a channel contour area) can kill your thoughts on viability. With fewer not adjacent channels available after the repack it takes some serious investigation for your planned deployment to see if things will work for you. The CPE equipment is still quite expensive, most prices you see quoted do not include an antenna. TVWS CPE antennas with any amount of gain are expensive and physically large. Good rule of thumb for CPE, antenna and labor usually comes in between $800-$1000. There is just not enough production runs from any manufacturer to get the price point lower. Thank you, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 9:03 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Using redline gear I get 40 meg completely non line of site through about 3/4 of a forest. But yeah. It all sucks. I have three links deployed. They serve specific purposes. Nothing I would do on a grand scale. On Jun 17, 2020, at 8:47 AM, Eric Nielsen wrote:  Comsearch offers TVWS maps that show channel availability. If there's a specific area that's of particular interest to you, try reaching out to them to see if they could give you an idea of encumbrances. On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 2:01 PM D. Bernardi <<mailto:dberna...@zitomedia.net>dberna...@zitomedia.net> wrote: Howdy folks, I'm looking into solutions to deliver Internet to very rural small pockets of NLOS subscribers where fiber, copper or tower/structure deployments are not practical or cost effective. If I'm to believe vendor briefs, TVWS technology seems to be making recent advancements. Anyone have practical experience or advice on using TVWS? Thanks in advance. Dave B. -- AF mailing list <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
In this case you could call it a law because it's nothing more than a formally stated observation. A theory tries to explain why things happen, a law is just stating what happens. One isn't better or stronger; they're just different things. A "theory" about why gravity works is different from the direct observational "law" of gravitational attraction attested by Isaac Newton. Maybe everyone here knows that already, but a lot of people were never told and just make an assumption based on the literal words. On 6/23/2020 12:08 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: I was actually repeating your advice from past threads. Maybe we can call it "McCown's Theorem". Nope, better make that "McCown's Law". The anti-science segment of society takes the word "theorem" to mean "unsubstantiated nonsense". -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 10:46 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility I calculated it once. Always good to go up in frequency if antenna gain and path loss are the only considerations. If you increase the frequency, it works out that the system margin increases by the increase of gain of one of the antennas assuming identical antennas at both ends. -Original Message- From: Ken Hohhof Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 9:21 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Lower frequencies do have lower free space loss, but for the same size antenna you have less antenna gain. And with 2 antennas (xmt and rcv), antenna gain wins. All else being equal, higher frequency usually wins. Of course with TVWS you usually accept using ginormous antennas. I think people are telling you that TVWS is a niche technology, one that isn't even a clear winner in its niche, and shouldn't be used outside its niche. If you have clear LOS, use something else. If you have 99 NLOS customers and 1 who happens to have LOS, I guess you could put him on the TVWS system too. -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of D. Bernardi Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 10:09 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Clearly RF isn't my specialty... Instead of SNR I guess I really meant noise. If the noise floor is equal wouldn't there be less attenuation of the signal in an open environment (resulting in a better SNR)? At 10:41 AM 6/23/2020, you wrote: On Jun 23, 2020, at 10:32 AM, D. Bernardi wrote: I was thinking more in terms of foliage or other object density, or mountains/hills, to help estimate range. Wouldn't TVWS still have better performance in an open area compared to dense forest given equal SNR? If SNR is identical then you will get identical performance, assuming the same channel size and modulation.TVWS channel size is considerably smaller than the higher frequency alternatives and has lower modulation levels (at least that I have seen). Mark -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
If you have Line of Site paths to a client location you probably can get away with some of the existing bands in 2.4 or 5 GHz and have a lot more throughput capacity and not have to deal with the database. Unless you have horrendous noise levels because of other users the typical unlicensed bands should work fine. If you do have noise problems you are likely in a more populated area and the TVWS channels available for use may be a lot fewer or none available (especially for channel bonding or aggregation). TVWS frequencies are usually looked at for those longer distance links that also have foliage issues. Those frequencies are less susceptible to attenuation by the trees than the upper bands WISP's traditionally use. LIDAR data in those cases won't be on much value, a traditional RF propagation program will suit you well as it can be tuned for the tree clutter loses in TVWS bands just fine. I personally did some testing with 6 Harmonics a few years ago where we really pushed the limits with tree loss and test signals. The field collected data verified that the RF prediction tools are very capable of making accurate coverage maps for those bands. Thank you, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 11:18 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Yes - an open area will give you a stronger signal. As long as a radio signal is above the detection threshold (the signal is strong enough for the radio to detect) and the SNR is high enough to support the modulation it will perform to specification (assuming the manufacturer provided accurate specifications). Keep in mind that wooded areas generally attenuate both noise and signal equally. At the customer side receive sensitivity can quickly become important due to the attenuated signals you are trying to detect.At the access point (AP) side (which is presumably not in the trees) SNR is usually a bigger concern.The AP is going to have to be sensitive enough to detect the (tree attenuated) signal coming from the client while still hearing all of the noise that exists in the open areas. Mark > On Jun 23, 2020, at 11:09 AM, D. Bernardi wrote: > > > > Clearly RF isn't my specialty... Instead of SNR I guess I really meant noise. If the noise floor is equal wouldn't there be less attenuation of the signal in an open environment (resulting in a better SNR)? > > > > At 10:41 AM 6/23/2020, you wrote: > >> > On Jun 23, 2020, at 10:32 AM, D. Bernardi wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > I was thinking more in terms of foliage or other object density, or mountains/hills, to help estimate range. Wouldn't TVWS still have better performance in an open area compared to dense forest given equal SNR? >> > >> >> If SNR is identical then you will get identical performance, assuming the same channel size and modulation.TVWS channel size is considerably smaller than the higher frequency alternatives and has lower modulation levels (at least that I have seen). >> >> Mark >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
At this point, the so-called "development" of TVWS is little more than an extremely long-duration beta test. I would now be looking toward Starlink as being a viable alternative as long as the service area(s) is/are not absolutely buried in trees. I am expecting Starlink service to be demonstrably better than geo-stationary satellite service, and close to competitive to land-based wireless service. Time will tell, and we may know by the end of the year. I don't expect TVWS to become viable in my lifetime. bp On 6/23/2020 9:22 AM, D. Bernardi wrote: The areas I'm initially considering are NLOS and this exercise was just for considering TVWS only so I wasn't necessarily referring to frequency/gain impacts. If TVWS has the same level of performance (and resulting range) with 1 tree or a dense forest between base station and CPE, that would make modelling easier. And since most folks are saying the TVWS database can be problematic, does anyone know if there are ways to correct inconsistencies? Again, thanks for all the input. At 11:45 AM 6/23/2020, you wrote: I calculated it once. Always good to go up in frequency if antenna gain and path loss are the only considerations. If you increase the frequency, it works out that the system margin increases by the increase of gain of one of the antennas assuming identical antennas at both ends. -Original Message- From: Ken Hohhof Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 9:21 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Lower frequencies do have lower free space loss, but for the same size antenna you have less antenna gain. And with 2 antennas (xmt and rcv), antenna gain wins. All else being equal, higher frequency usually wins. Of course with TVWS you usually accept using ginormous antennas. I think people are telling you that TVWS is a niche technology, one that isn't even a clear winner in its niche, and shouldn't be used outside its niche. If you have clear LOS, use something else. If you have 99 NLOS customers and 1 who happens to have LOS, I guess you could put him on the TVWS system too. -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of D. Bernardi Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 10:09 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Clearly RF isn't my specialty... Instead of SNR I guess I really meant noise. If the noise floor is equal wouldn't there be less attenuation of the signal in an open environment (resulting in a better SNR)? At 10:41 AM 6/23/2020, you wrote: > On Jun 23, 2020, at 10:32 AM, D. Bernardi wrote: > > > > I was thinking more in terms of foliage or other object density, or mountains/hills, to help estimate range. Wouldn't TVWS still have better performance in an open area compared to dense forest given equal SNR? > If SNR is identical then you will get identical performance, assuming the same channel size and modulation. TVWS channel size is considerably smaller than the higher frequency alternatives and has lower modulation levels (at least that I have seen). Mark -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
That makes sense. Thank you. At 11:17 AM 6/23/2020, you wrote: Yes - an open area will give you a stronger signal. As long as a radio signal is above the detection threshold (the signal is strong enough for the radio to detect) and the SNR is high enough to support the modulation it will perform to specification (assuming the manufacturer provided accurate specifications). Keep in mind that wooded areas generally attenuate both noise and signal equally. At the customer side receive sensitivity can quickly become important due to the attenuated signals you are trying to detect.At the access point (AP) side (which is presumably not in the trees) SNR is usually a bigger concern.The AP is going to have to be sensitive enough to detect the (tree attenuated) signal coming from the client while still hearing all of the noise that exists in the open areas. Mark > On Jun 23, 2020, at 11:09 AM, D. Bernardi wrote: > > > > Clearly RF isn't my specialty... Instead of SNR I guess I really meant noise. If the noise floor is equal wouldn't there be less attenuation of the signal in an open environment (resulting in a better SNR)? > > > > At 10:41 AM 6/23/2020, you wrote: > >> > On Jun 23, 2020, at 10:32 AM, D. Bernardi wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > I was thinking more in terms of foliage or other object density, or mountains/hills, to help estimate range. Wouldn't TVWS still have better performance in an open area compared to dense forest given equal SNR? >> > >> >> If SNR is identical then you will get identical performance, assuming the same channel size and modulation.TVWS channel size is considerably smaller than the higher frequency alternatives and has lower modulation levels (at least that I have seen). >> >> Mark >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
The areas I'm initially considering are NLOS and this exercise was just for considering TVWS only so I wasn't necessarily referring to frequency/gain impacts. If TVWS has the same level of performance (and resulting range) with 1 tree or a dense forest between base station and CPE, that would make modelling easier. And since most folks are saying the TVWS database can be problematic, does anyone know if there are ways to correct inconsistencies? Again, thanks for all the input. At 11:45 AM 6/23/2020, you wrote: I calculated it once. Always good to go up in frequency if antenna gain and path loss are the only considerations. If you increase the frequency, it works out that the system margin increases by the increase of gain of one of the antennas assuming identical antennas at both ends. -Original Message- From: Ken Hohhof Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 9:21 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Lower frequencies do have lower free space loss, but for the same size antenna you have less antenna gain. And with 2 antennas (xmt and rcv), antenna gain wins. All else being equal, higher frequency usually wins. Of course with TVWS you usually accept using ginormous antennas. I think people are telling you that TVWS is a niche technology, one that isn't even a clear winner in its niche, and shouldn't be used outside its niche. If you have clear LOS, use something else. If you have 99 NLOS customers and 1 who happens to have LOS, I guess you could put him on the TVWS system too. -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of D. Bernardi Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 10:09 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Clearly RF isn't my specialty... Instead of SNR I guess I really meant noise. If the noise floor is equal wouldn't there be less attenuation of the signal in an open environment (resulting in a better SNR)? At 10:41 AM 6/23/2020, you wrote: > On Jun 23, 2020, at 10:32 AM, D. Bernardi wrote: > > > > I was thinking more in terms of foliage or other object density, or mountains/hills, to help estimate range. Wouldn't TVWS still have better performance in an open area compared to dense forest given equal SNR? > If SNR is identical then you will get identical performance, assuming the same channel size and modulation.TVWS channel size is considerably smaller than the higher frequency alternatives and has lower modulation levels (at least that I have seen). Mark -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
I was actually repeating your advice from past threads. Maybe we can call it "McCown's Theorem". Nope, better make that "McCown's Law". The anti-science segment of society takes the word "theorem" to mean "unsubstantiated nonsense". -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 10:46 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility I calculated it once. Always good to go up in frequency if antenna gain and path loss are the only considerations. If you increase the frequency, it works out that the system margin increases by the increase of gain of one of the antennas assuming identical antennas at both ends. -Original Message- From: Ken Hohhof Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 9:21 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Lower frequencies do have lower free space loss, but for the same size antenna you have less antenna gain. And with 2 antennas (xmt and rcv), antenna gain wins. All else being equal, higher frequency usually wins. Of course with TVWS you usually accept using ginormous antennas. I think people are telling you that TVWS is a niche technology, one that isn't even a clear winner in its niche, and shouldn't be used outside its niche. If you have clear LOS, use something else. If you have 99 NLOS customers and 1 who happens to have LOS, I guess you could put him on the TVWS system too. -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of D. Bernardi Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 10:09 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Clearly RF isn't my specialty... Instead of SNR I guess I really meant noise. If the noise floor is equal wouldn't there be less attenuation of the signal in an open environment (resulting in a better SNR)? At 10:41 AM 6/23/2020, you wrote: > > On Jun 23, 2020, at 10:32 AM, D. Bernardi wrote: > > > > > > > > I was thinking more in terms of foliage or other object density, > or mountains/hills, to help estimate range. Wouldn't TVWS still have > better performance in an open area compared to dense forest given > equal SNR? > > > >If SNR is identical then you will get identical performance, >assuming the same channel size and modulation.TVWS channel size >is considerably smaller than the higher frequency alternatives and has >lower modulation levels (at least that I have seen). > >Mark >-- >AF mailing list >AF@af.afmug.com >http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
I calculated it once. Always good to go up in frequency if antenna gain and path loss are the only considerations. If you increase the frequency, it works out that the system margin increases by the increase of gain of one of the antennas assuming identical antennas at both ends. -Original Message- From: Ken Hohhof Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 9:21 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Lower frequencies do have lower free space loss, but for the same size antenna you have less antenna gain. And with 2 antennas (xmt and rcv), antenna gain wins. All else being equal, higher frequency usually wins. Of course with TVWS you usually accept using ginormous antennas. I think people are telling you that TVWS is a niche technology, one that isn't even a clear winner in its niche, and shouldn't be used outside its niche. If you have clear LOS, use something else. If you have 99 NLOS customers and 1 who happens to have LOS, I guess you could put him on the TVWS system too. -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of D. Bernardi Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 10:09 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Clearly RF isn't my specialty... Instead of SNR I guess I really meant noise. If the noise floor is equal wouldn't there be less attenuation of the signal in an open environment (resulting in a better SNR)? At 10:41 AM 6/23/2020, you wrote: > On Jun 23, 2020, at 10:32 AM, D. Bernardi wrote: > > > > I was thinking more in terms of foliage or other object density, or mountains/hills, to help estimate range. Wouldn't TVWS still have better performance in an open area compared to dense forest given equal SNR? > If SNR is identical then you will get identical performance, assuming the same channel size and modulation.TVWS channel size is considerably smaller than the higher frequency alternatives and has lower modulation levels (at least that I have seen). Mark -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
Lower frequencies do have lower free space loss, but for the same size antenna you have less antenna gain. And with 2 antennas (xmt and rcv), antenna gain wins. All else being equal, higher frequency usually wins. Of course with TVWS you usually accept using ginormous antennas. I think people are telling you that TVWS is a niche technology, one that isn't even a clear winner in its niche, and shouldn't be used outside its niche. If you have clear LOS, use something else. If you have 99 NLOS customers and 1 who happens to have LOS, I guess you could put him on the TVWS system too. -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of D. Bernardi Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 10:09 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Clearly RF isn't my specialty... Instead of SNR I guess I really meant noise. If the noise floor is equal wouldn't there be less attenuation of the signal in an open environment (resulting in a better SNR)? At 10:41 AM 6/23/2020, you wrote: > > On Jun 23, 2020, at 10:32 AM, D. Bernardi wrote: > > > > > > > > I was thinking more in terms of foliage or other object density, > or mountains/hills, to help estimate range. Wouldn't TVWS still have > better performance in an open area compared to dense forest given > equal SNR? > > > >If SNR is identical then you will get identical performance, >assuming the same channel size and modulation.TVWS channel size >is considerably smaller than the higher frequency alternatives and has >lower modulation levels (at least that I have seen). > >Mark >-- >AF mailing list >AF@af.afmug.com >http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
Yes - an open area will give you a stronger signal. As long as a radio signal is above the detection threshold (the signal is strong enough for the radio to detect) and the SNR is high enough to support the modulation it will perform to specification (assuming the manufacturer provided accurate specifications). Keep in mind that wooded areas generally attenuate both noise and signal equally. At the customer side receive sensitivity can quickly become important due to the attenuated signals you are trying to detect.At the access point (AP) side (which is presumably not in the trees) SNR is usually a bigger concern.The AP is going to have to be sensitive enough to detect the (tree attenuated) signal coming from the client while still hearing all of the noise that exists in the open areas. Mark > On Jun 23, 2020, at 11:09 AM, D. Bernardi wrote: > > > > Clearly RF isn't my specialty... Instead of SNR I guess I really meant noise. > If the noise floor is equal wouldn't there be less attenuation of the signal > in an open environment (resulting in a better SNR)? > > > > At 10:41 AM 6/23/2020, you wrote: > >> > On Jun 23, 2020, at 10:32 AM, D. Bernardi wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > I was thinking more in terms of foliage or other object density, or >> > mountains/hills, to help estimate range. Wouldn't TVWS still have better >> > performance in an open area compared to dense forest given equal SNR? >> > >> >> If SNR is identical then you will get identical performance, assuming the >> same channel size and modulation.TVWS channel size is considerably >> smaller than the higher frequency alternatives and has lower modulation >> levels (at least that I have seen). >> >> Mark >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
Clearly RF isn't my specialty... Instead of SNR I guess I really meant noise. If the noise floor is equal wouldn't there be less attenuation of the signal in an open environment (resulting in a better SNR)? At 10:41 AM 6/23/2020, you wrote: > On Jun 23, 2020, at 10:32 AM, D. Bernardi wrote: > > > > I was thinking more in terms of foliage or other object density, or mountains/hills, to help estimate range. Wouldn't TVWS still have better performance in an open area compared to dense forest given equal SNR? > If SNR is identical then you will get identical performance, assuming the same channel size and modulation.TVWS channel size is considerably smaller than the higher frequency alternatives and has lower modulation levels (at least that I have seen). Mark -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
> On Jun 23, 2020, at 10:32 AM, D. Bernardi wrote: > > > > I was thinking more in terms of foliage or other object density, or > mountains/hills, to help estimate range. Wouldn't TVWS still have better > performance in an open area compared to dense forest given equal SNR? > If SNR is identical then you will get identical performance, assuming the same channel size and modulation.TVWS channel size is considerably smaller than the higher frequency alternatives and has lower modulation levels (at least that I have seen). Mark -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
I was thinking more in terms of foliage or other object density, or mountains/hills, to help estimate range. Wouldn't TVWS still have better performance in an open area compared to dense forest given equal SNR? At 10:06 AM 6/23/2020, you wrote: Iâm a little confused by your question.LIDAR data is going to show you line-of-site locations which is not what TVWS gear is best used for servicing. LIDAR data only makes sense in identifying the areas you canât serve with other gear. I suppose it gives you a ânegativeâ view of the area to identify area you might want to serve with TVWS. Mark > On Jun 23, 2020, at 10:02 AM, D. Bernardi wrote: > > > Hi, > > I appreciate all the feedback. > > RADWIN is still in beta and will not have product until Q4. Redline does have production gear and I'm still gathering their information. > > Would it make sense to build/buy an analyzer for collecting site specific data over a few days and couple that with LiDAR data to try to classify an area as potentially serviceable. > > In addition if there are identifiable discrepancies with real data and the database, can these be corrected? > > > > At 10:19 AM 6/17/2020, you wrote: >> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >> boundary="=_NextPart_000_0CCB_01D64490.D14AADC0" >> Content-Language: en-us >> >> Spectrum is always going to be a challenge in TVWS. The recent FCC TV channel auction/repack has eliminated some of the channels so now there is less. Some manufacturers are doing channel bonding to improve performance and throughput. >> >> The problem with the databases and channel availability is that they only report where your base station is located and how many channels you can use. You could get a great list of channels for use at the tower, then reality can kick in and when you try to install CPE devices, those same channels may not be available to transmit on for the client end. This could really become a pain when it breaks your planned use of bonded/adjacent channels. Just losing one available channel on the client end (because the client location is now within a channel contour area) can kill your thoughts on viability. With fewer not adjacent channels available after the repack it takes some serious investigation for your planned deployment to see if things will work for you. >> >> The CPE equipment is still quite expensive, most prices you see quoted do not include an antenna. TVWS CPE antennas with any amount of gain are expensive and physically large. Good rule of thumb for CPE, antenna and labor usually comes in between $800-$1000. There is just not enough production runs from any manufacturer to get the price point lower. >> >> >> >> Thank you, >> Brian Webster >> www.wirelessmapping.com >> >> From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes >> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 9:03 AM >> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility >> >> Using redline gear I get 40 meg completely non line of site through about 3/4 of a forest. >> >> >> But yeah. It all sucks. >> >> I have three links deployed. They serve specific purposes. Nothing I would do on a grand scale. >> >> >> On Jun 17, 2020, at 8:47 AM, Eric Nielsen wrote: >>  >> Comsearch offers TVWS maps that show channel availability. If there's a specific area that's of particular interest to you, try reaching out to them to see if they could give you an idea of encumbrances. >> >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 2:01 PM D. Bernardi <<mailto:dberna...@zitomedia.net>dberna...@zitomedia.net> wrote: >> >> Howdy folks, >> >> I'm looking into solutions to deliver Internet to very rural small >> pockets of NLOS subscribers where fiber, copper or tower/structure >> deployments are not practical or cost effective. If I'm to believe >> vendor briefs, TVWS technology seems to be making recent advancements. >> >> Anyone have practical experience or advice on using TVWS? >> >> Thanks in advance. >> Dave B. >> >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
I’m a little confused by your question.LIDAR data is going to show you line-of-site locations which is not what TVWS gear is best used for servicing. LIDAR data only makes sense in identifying the areas you can’t serve with other gear. I suppose it gives you a ’negative’ view of the area to identify area you might want to serve with TVWS. Mark > On Jun 23, 2020, at 10:02 AM, D. Bernardi wrote: > > > Hi, > > I appreciate all the feedback. > > RADWIN is still in beta and will not have product until Q4. Redline does have > production gear and I'm still gathering their information. > > Would it make sense to build/buy an analyzer for collecting site specific > data over a few days and couple that with LiDAR data to try to classify an > area as potentially serviceable. > > In addition if there are identifiable discrepancies with real data and the > database, can these be corrected? > > > > At 10:19 AM 6/17/2020, you wrote: >> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >>boundary="=_NextPart_000_0CCB_01D64490.D14AADC0" >> Content-Language: en-us >> >> Spectrum is always going to be a challenge in TVWS. The recent FCC TV >> channel auction/repack has eliminated some of the channels so now there is >> less. Some manufacturers are doing channel bonding to improve performance >> and throughput. >> >> The problem with the databases and channel availability is that they only >> report where your base station is located and how many channels you can use. >> You could get a great list of channels for use at the tower, then reality >> can kick in and when you try to install CPE devices, those same channels may >> not be available to transmit on for the client end. This could really become >> a pain when it breaks your planned use of bonded/adjacent channels. Just >> losing one available channel on the client end (because the client location >> is now within a channel contour area) can kill your thoughts on viability. >> With fewer not adjacent channels available after the repack it takes some >> serious investigation for your planned deployment to see if things will work >> for you. >> >> The CPE equipment is still quite expensive, most prices you see quoted do >> not include an antenna. TVWS CPE antennas with any amount of gain are >> expensive and physically large. Good rule of thumb for CPE, antenna and >> labor usually comes in between $800-$1000. There is just not enough >> production runs from any manufacturer to get the price point lower. >> >> >> >> Thank you, >> Brian Webster >> www.wirelessmapping.com >> >> From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes >> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 9:03 AM >> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility >> >> Using redline gear I get 40 meg completely non line of site through about >> 3/4 of a forest. >> >> >> But yeah. It all sucks. >> >> I have three links deployed. They serve specific purposes. Nothing I would >> do on a grand scale. >> >> >> On Jun 17, 2020, at 8:47 AM, Eric Nielsen wrote: >>  >> Comsearch offers TVWS maps that show channel availability. If there's a >> specific area that's of particular interest to you, try reaching out to them >> to see if they could give you an idea of encumbrances. >> >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 2:01 PM D. Bernardi >> <<mailto:dberna...@zitomedia.net>dberna...@zitomedia.net> wrote: >> >> Howdy folks, >> >> I'm looking into solutions to deliver Internet to very rural small >> pockets of NLOS subscribers where fiber, copper or tower/structure >> deployments are not practical or cost effective. If I'm to believe >> vendor briefs, TVWS technology seems to be making recent advancements. >> >> Anyone have practical experience or advice on using TVWS? >> >> Thanks in advance. >> Dave B. >> >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
Hi, I appreciate all the feedback. RADWIN is still in beta and will not have product until Q4. Redline does have production gear and I'm still gathering their information. Would it make sense to build/buy an analyzer for collecting site specific data over a few days and couple that with LiDAR data to try to classify an area as potentially serviceable. In addition if there are identifiable discrepancies with real data and the database, can these be corrected? At 10:19 AM 6/17/2020, you wrote: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_NextPart_000_0CCB_01D64490.D14AADC0" Content-Language: en-us Spectrum is always going to be a challenge in TVWS. The recent FCC TV channel auction/repack has eliminated some of the channels so now there is less. Some manufacturers are doing channel bonding to improve performance and throughput. The problem with the databases and channel availability is that they only report where your base station is located and how many channels you can use. You could get a great list of channels for use at the tower, then reality can kick in and when you try to install CPE devices, those same channels may not be available to transmit on for the client end. This could really become a pain when it breaks your planned use of bonded/adjacent channels. Just losing one available channel on the client end (because the client location is now within a channel contour area) can kill your thoughts on viability. With fewer not adjacent channels available after the repack it takes some serious investigation for your planned deployment to see if things will work for you. The CPE equipment is still quite expensive, most prices you see quoted do not include an antenna. TVWS CPE antennas with any amount of gain are expensive and physically large. Good rule of thumb for CPE, antenna and labor usually comes in between $800-$1000. There is just not enough production runs from any manufacturer to get the price point lower. Thank you, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 9:03 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Using redline gear I get 40 meg completely non line of site through about 3/4 of a forest. But yeah. It all sucks. I have three links deployed. They serve specific purposes. Nothing I would do on a grand scale. On Jun 17, 2020, at 8:47 AM, Eric Nielsen wrote:  Comsearch offers TVWS maps that show channel availability. If there's a specific area that's of particular interest to you, try reaching out to them to see if they could give you an idea of encumbrances. On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 2:01 PM D. Bernardi <<mailto:dberna...@zitomedia.net>dberna...@zitomedia.net> wrote: Howdy folks, I'm looking into solutions to deliver Internet to very rural small pockets of NLOS subscribers where fiber, copper or tower/structure deployments are not practical or cost effective. If I'm to believe vendor briefs, TVWS technology seems to be making recent advancements. Anyone have practical experience or advice on using TVWS? Thanks in advance. Dave B. -- AF mailing list <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
If the LEO satellite services work, these should be the first customers to sign up. Assuming they haven’t chosen to build their house so deeply in a forest they can’t see the sky. From: AF On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 9:20 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Spectrum is always going to be a challenge in TVWS. The recent FCC TV channel auction/repack has eliminated some of the channels so now there is less. Some manufacturers are doing channel bonding to improve performance and throughput. The problem with the databases and channel availability is that they only report where your base station is located and how many channels you can use. You could get a great list of channels for use at the tower, then reality can kick in and when you try to install CPE devices, those same channels may not be available to transmit on for the client end. This could really become a pain when it breaks your planned use of bonded/adjacent channels. Just losing one available channel on the client end (because the client location is now within a channel contour area) can kill your thoughts on viability. With fewer not adjacent channels available after the repack it takes some serious investigation for your planned deployment to see if things will work for you. The CPE equipment is still quite expensive, most prices you see quoted do not include an antenna. TVWS CPE antennas with any amount of gain are expensive and physically large. Good rule of thumb for CPE, antenna and labor usually comes in between $800-$1000. There is just not enough production runs from any manufacturer to get the price point lower. Thank you, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com <http://www.wirelessmapping.com> From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 9:03 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Using redline gear I get 40 meg completely non line of site through about 3/4 of a forest. But yeah. It all sucks. I have three links deployed. They serve specific purposes. Nothing I would do on a grand scale. On Jun 17, 2020, at 8:47 AM, Eric Nielsen mailto:ericlniel...@gmail.com> > wrote: Comsearch offers TVWS maps that show channel availability. If there's a specific area that's of particular interest to you, try reaching out to them to see if they could give you an idea of encumbrances. On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 2:01 PM D. Bernardi mailto:dberna...@zitomedia.net> > wrote: Howdy folks, I'm looking into solutions to deliver Internet to very rural small pockets of NLOS subscribers where fiber, copper or tower/structure deployments are not practical or cost effective. If I'm to believe vendor briefs, TVWS technology seems to be making recent advancements. Anyone have practical experience or advice on using TVWS? Thanks in advance. Dave B. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
Spectrum is always going to be a challenge in TVWS. The recent FCC TV channel auction/repack has eliminated some of the channels so now there is less. Some manufacturers are doing channel bonding to improve performance and throughput. The problem with the databases and channel availability is that they only report where your base station is located and how many channels you can use. You could get a great list of channels for use at the tower, then reality can kick in and when you try to install CPE devices, those same channels may not be available to transmit on for the client end. This could really become a pain when it breaks your planned use of bonded/adjacent channels. Just losing one available channel on the client end (because the client location is now within a channel contour area) can kill your thoughts on viability. With fewer not adjacent channels available after the repack it takes some serious investigation for your planned deployment to see if things will work for you. The CPE equipment is still quite expensive, most prices you see quoted do not include an antenna. TVWS CPE antennas with any amount of gain are expensive and physically large. Good rule of thumb for CPE, antenna and labor usually comes in between $800-$1000. There is just not enough production runs from any manufacturer to get the price point lower. Thank you, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 9:03 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Using redline gear I get 40 meg completely non line of site through about 3/4 of a forest. But yeah. It all sucks. I have three links deployed. They serve specific purposes. Nothing I would do on a grand scale. On Jun 17, 2020, at 8:47 AM, Eric Nielsen wrote: Comsearch offers TVWS maps that show channel availability. If there's a specific area that's of particular interest to you, try reaching out to them to see if they could give you an idea of encumbrances. On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 2:01 PM D. Bernardi wrote: Howdy folks, I'm looking into solutions to deliver Internet to very rural small pockets of NLOS subscribers where fiber, copper or tower/structure deployments are not practical or cost effective. If I'm to believe vendor briefs, TVWS technology seems to be making recent advancements. Anyone have practical experience or advice on using TVWS? Thanks in advance. Dave B. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
Using redline gear I get 40 meg completely non line of site through about 3/4 of a forest. But yeah. It all sucks. I have three links deployed. They serve specific purposes. Nothing I would do on a grand scale. > On Jun 17, 2020, at 8:47 AM, Eric Nielsen wrote: > > > Comsearch offers TVWS maps that show channel availability. If there's a > specific area that's of particular interest to you, try reaching out to them > to see if they could give you an idea of encumbrances. > >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 2:01 PM D. Bernardi wrote: >> >> Howdy folks, >> >> I'm looking into solutions to deliver Internet to very rural small >> pockets of NLOS subscribers where fiber, copper or tower/structure >> deployments are not practical or cost effective. If I'm to believe >> vendor briefs, TVWS technology seems to be making recent advancements. >> >> Anyone have practical experience or advice on using TVWS? >> >> Thanks in advance. >> Dave B. >> >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
Comsearch offers TVWS maps that show channel availability. If there's a specific area that's of particular interest to you, try reaching out to them to see if they could give you an idea of encumbrances. On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 2:01 PM D. Bernardi wrote: > > Howdy folks, > > I'm looking into solutions to deliver Internet to very rural small > pockets of NLOS subscribers where fiber, copper or tower/structure > deployments are not practical or cost effective. If I'm to believe > vendor briefs, TVWS technology seems to be making recent advancements. > > Anyone have practical experience or advice on using TVWS? > > Thanks in advance. > Dave B. > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
Thanks for all the comments and input. I'll do some more digging and post any results here. At 09:43 PM 6/16/2020, you wrote: Lord I hope not. That company did more damage to whitespace than the FCC. Mark On Jun 16, 2020, at 3:38 PM, <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: Does Carlson still make it? From: Adam Moffett Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:27 PM To: <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>af@af.afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility So that's a fair point, but who has tried TVWS recently? All I hear is the rules suck, the database sucks, the equipment sucks, and it's expensive. If someone has anything positive to say I'd love to hear it, but I haven't yet. On 6/16/2020 2:04 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Make sure that you only heed technical experience from modern, recent platforms. Someone that tried gen 1 year 8 years ago may have had a valid experience, but that experience is no longer relevant... unless it's more about the company than the product. - Mike Hammett <http://www.ics-il.com/>Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>The Brothers WISP <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> -- From: "D. Bernardi" <mailto:dberna...@zitomedia.net>mailto:dberna...@zitomedia.net To: <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>af@af.afmug.com Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:01:10 PM Subject: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Howdy folks, I'm looking into solutions to deliver Internet to very rural small pockets of NLOS subscribers where fiber, copper or tower/structure deployments are not practical or cost effective. If I'm to believe vendor briefs, TVWS technology seems to be making recent advancements. Anyone have practical experience or advice on using TVWS? Thanks in advance. Dave B. -- AF mailing list <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- -- AF mailing list <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
Lord I hope not. That company did more damage to whitespace than the FCC. Mark > On Jun 16, 2020, at 3:38 PM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: > > Does Carlson still make it? > > From: Adam Moffett <> > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:27 PM > To: <>af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility > > So that's a fair point, but who has tried TVWS recently? > > All I hear is the rules suck, the database sucks, the equipment sucks, and > it's expensive. If someone has anything positive to say I'd love to hear it, > but I haven't yet. > > > > On 6/16/2020 2:04 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: >> Make sure that you only heed technical experience from modern, recent >> platforms. Someone that tried gen 1 year 8 years ago may have had a valid >> experience, but that experience is no longer relevant... unless it's more >> about the company than the product. >> >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> >> >> >> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> >> From: "D. Bernardi" <>mailto:dberna...@zitomedia.net >> <mailto:dberna...@zitomedia.net> >> To: <>af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:01:10 PM >> Subject: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility >> >> >> Howdy folks, >> >> I'm looking into solutions to deliver Internet to very rural small >> pockets of NLOS subscribers where fiber, copper or tower/structure >> deployments are not practical or cost effective. If I'm to believe >> vendor briefs, TVWS technology seems to be making recent advancements. >> >> Anyone have practical experience or advice on using TVWS? >> >> Thanks in advance. >> Dave B. >> >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> <>AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> >> >> >> > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
Title: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Chuck, Don't get me started on that one. Lost about $5k on that experiment. -- Best regards, Mark mailto:m...@mailmt.com Myakka Technologies, Inc. www.Myakka.com -- Tuesday, June 16, 2020, 3:38:10 PM, you wrote: Does Carlson still make it? From: Adam Moffett Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:27 PM To: af@af.afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility So that's a fair point, but who has tried TVWS recently? All I hear is the rules suck, the database sucks, the equipment sucks, and it's expensive. If someone has anything positive to say I'd love to hear it, but I haven't yet. On 6/16/2020 2:04 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Make sure that you only heed technical experience from modern, recent platforms. Someone that tried gen 1 year 8 years ago may have had a valid experience, but that experience is no longer relevant... unless it's more about the company than the product. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP From: "D. Bernardi" mailto:dberna...@zitomedia.net To: af@af.afmug.com Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:01:10 PM Subject: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Howdy folks, I'm looking into solutions to deliver Internet to very rural small pockets of NLOS subscribers where fiber, copper or tower/structure deployments are not practical or cost effective. If I'm to believe vendor briefs, TVWS technology seems to be making recent advancements. Anyone have practical experience or advice on using TVWS? Thanks in advance. Dave B. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
That is a big issue in some areas. Most places it works great. One of our biggest movers. Jeff Broadwick CTIconnect 312-205-2519 Office 574-220-7826 Cell jbroadw...@cticonnect.com > On Jun 16, 2020, at 2:57 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > > And then the power company deploys smartmeters or smartgrid and you're > screwed. If they haven't already. > > -Original Message- > From: AF On Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick - Lists > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:40 PM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility > > I’d stay away from it until they fix the database. It’s notoriously > inaccurate. > > Cambium 450 900 will give you good speeds if the noise floor is anything > approaching decent. > > Jeff Broadwick > CTIconnect > 312-205-2519 Office > 574-220-7826 Cell > jbroadw...@cticonnect.com > >>> On Jun 16, 2020, at 2:22 PM, D. Bernardi wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm considering building an analyzer to get some basic spectral use. Given >>> the rural nature I assume spectrum could be fairly clean but yes, cellular >>> operators gobbling up spectrum is a concern. >>> >>> >>> At 02:13 PM 6/16/2020, you wrote: >>> Don't hold your breath. The availability of TVWS spectrum varies (a lot) by >>> region, and many areas do not have enough usable spectrum available to make >>> it anything more than a curiosity. Add to the fact, that they keep >>> "chipping away" at the spectrum and selling it off to the big cellular >>> operators, the odds look increasingly long for anything reasonable to >>> happen. There has been almost zero development of equipment designed to use >>> the spectrum as well. The paltry equipment that I've seen has also been >>> upside down in terms of value too. TVWS, or the promise of it has been >>> "just around the corner" now for over half a decade. I do not believe it >>> will ever work out. Of course, we can always revert to magical thinking >>> like "It will appear in August, like magic.". Naw. That ain't gonna happen. >>> bp On 6/16/2020 11:01 AM, D. Bernardi wrote: > >>> > Howdy folks, > > I'm looking into solutions to deliver Internet to very >>> rural small > pockets of NLOS subscribers where fiber, copper or >>> tower/structure > deployments are not practical or cost effective. If I'm >>> to believe > vendor briefs, TVWS technology seems to be making recent >>> advancements. > > Anyone have practical experience or advice on using TVWS? >>> > > Thanks in advance. > Dave B. > > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
I have some hope for Radwin’s new gear. Jeff Broadwick CTIconnect 312-205-2519 Office 574-220-7826 Cell jbroadw...@cticonnect.com > On Jun 16, 2020, at 3:28 PM, Adam Moffett wrote: > > > So that's a fair point, but who has tried TVWS recently? > > > > All I hear is the rules suck, the database sucks, the equipment sucks, and > it's expensive. If someone has anything positive to say I'd love to hear it, > but I haven't yet. > > > > > > > > On 6/16/2020 2:04 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: >> Make sure that you only heed technical experience from modern, recent >> platforms. Someone that tried gen 1 year 8 years ago may have had a valid >> experience, but that experience is no longer relevant... unless it's more >> about the company than the product. >> >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> >> Midwest Internet Exchange >> >> The Brothers WISP >> >> >> >> >> From: "D. Bernardi" >> To: af@af.afmug.com >> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:01:10 PM >> Subject: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility >> >> >> Howdy folks, >> >> I'm looking into solutions to deliver Internet to very rural small >> pockets of NLOS subscribers where fiber, copper or tower/structure >> deployments are not practical or cost effective. If I'm to believe >> vendor briefs, TVWS technology seems to be making recent advancements. >> >> Anyone have practical experience or advice on using TVWS? >> >> Thanks in advance. >> Dave B. >> >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> >> > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
Does Carlson still make it? From: Adam Moffett Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:27 PM To: af@af.afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility So that's a fair point, but who has tried TVWS recently? All I hear is the rules suck, the database sucks, the equipment sucks, and it's expensive. If someone has anything positive to say I'd love to hear it, but I haven't yet. On 6/16/2020 2:04 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Make sure that you only heed technical experience from modern, recent platforms. Someone that tried gen 1 year 8 years ago may have had a valid experience, but that experience is no longer relevant... unless it's more about the company than the product. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP -- From: "D. Bernardi" mailto:dberna...@zitomedia.net To: af@af.afmug.com Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:01:10 PM Subject: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Howdy folks, I'm looking into solutions to deliver Internet to very rural small pockets of NLOS subscribers where fiber, copper or tower/structure deployments are not practical or cost effective. If I'm to believe vendor briefs, TVWS technology seems to be making recent advancements. Anyone have practical experience or advice on using TVWS? Thanks in advance. Dave B. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
So that's a fair point, but who has tried TVWS recently? All I hear is the rules suck, the database sucks, the equipment sucks, and it's expensive. If someone has anything positive to say I'd love to hear it, but I haven't yet. On 6/16/2020 2:04 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Make sure that you only heed technical experience from modern, recent platforms. Someone that tried gen 1 year 8 years ago may have had a valid experience, but that experience is no longer relevant... unless it's more about the company than the product. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> *From: *"D. Bernardi" *To: *af@af.afmug.com *Sent: *Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:01:10 PM *Subject: *[AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Howdy folks, I'm looking into solutions to deliver Internet to very rural small pockets of NLOS subscribers where fiber, copper or tower/structure deployments are not practical or cost effective. If I'm to believe vendor briefs, TVWS technology seems to be making recent advancements. Anyone have practical experience or advice on using TVWS? Thanks in advance. Dave B. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
Radwin are supposed to have a new TVWS product in Beta testing. -Original Message- From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of D. Bernardi Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 11:01 AM To: af@af.afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Howdy folks, I'm looking into solutions to deliver Internet to very rural small pockets of NLOS subscribers where fiber, copper or tower/structure deployments are not practical or cost effective. If I'm to believe vendor briefs, TVWS technology seems to be making recent advancements. Anyone have practical experience or advice on using TVWS? Thanks in advance. Dave B. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
And then the power company deploys smartmeters or smartgrid and you're screwed. If they haven't already. -Original Message- From: AF On Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick - Lists Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:40 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility I’d stay away from it until they fix the database. It’s notoriously inaccurate. Cambium 450 900 will give you good speeds if the noise floor is anything approaching decent. Jeff Broadwick CTIconnect 312-205-2519 Office 574-220-7826 Cell jbroadw...@cticonnect.com > On Jun 16, 2020, at 2:22 PM, D. Bernardi wrote: > > > > I'm considering building an analyzer to get some basic spectral use. Given > the rural nature I assume spectrum could be fairly clean but yes, cellular > operators gobbling up spectrum is a concern. > > > At 02:13 PM 6/16/2020, you wrote: >> Don't hold your breath. The availability of TVWS spectrum varies (a lot) by >> region, and many areas do not have enough usable spectrum available to make >> it anything more than a curiosity. Add to the fact, that they keep "chipping >> away" at the spectrum and selling it off to the big cellular operators, the >> odds look increasingly long for anything reasonable to happen. There has >> been almost zero development of equipment designed to use the spectrum as >> well. The paltry equipment that I've seen has also been upside down in terms >> of value too. TVWS, or the promise of it has been "just around the corner" >> now for over half a decade. I do not believe it will ever work out. Of >> course, we can always revert to magical thinking like "It will appear in >> August, like magic.". Naw. That ain't gonna happen. bp >> On 6/16/2020 11:01 AM, D. Bernardi wrote: > > >> Howdy folks, > > I'm looking into solutions to deliver Internet to very >> rural small > pockets of NLOS subscribers where fiber, copper or >> tower/structure > deployments are not practical or cost effective. If I'm >> to believe > vendor briefs, TVWS technology seems to be making recent >> advancements. > > Anyone have practical experience or advice on using TVWS? >> > > Thanks in advance. > Dave B. > > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
I’d stay away from it until they fix the database. It’s notoriously inaccurate. Cambium 450 900 will give you good speeds if the noise floor is anything approaching decent. Jeff Broadwick CTIconnect 312-205-2519 Office 574-220-7826 Cell jbroadw...@cticonnect.com > On Jun 16, 2020, at 2:22 PM, D. Bernardi wrote: > > > > I'm considering building an analyzer to get some basic spectral use. Given > the rural nature I assume spectrum could be fairly clean but yes, cellular > operators gobbling up spectrum is a concern. > > > At 02:13 PM 6/16/2020, you wrote: >> Don't hold your breath. The availability of TVWS spectrum varies (a lot) by >> region, and many areas do not have enough usable spectrum available to make >> it anything more than a curiosity. Add to the fact, that they keep "chipping >> away" at the spectrum and selling it off to the big cellular operators, the >> odds look increasingly long for anything reasonable to happen. There has >> been almost zero development of equipment designed to use the spectrum as >> well. The paltry equipment that I've seen has also been upside down in terms >> of value too. TVWS, or the promise of it has been "just around the corner" >> now for over half a decade. I do not believe it will ever work out. Of >> course, we can always revert to magical thinking like "It will appear in >> August, like magic.". Naw. That ain't gonna happen. bp >> On 6/16/2020 11:01 AM, D. Bernardi wrote: > > >> Howdy folks, > > I'm looking into solutions to deliver Internet to very >> rural small > pockets of NLOS subscribers where fiber, copper or >> tower/structure > deployments are not practical or cost effective. If I'm >> to believe > vendor briefs, TVWS technology seems to be making recent >> advancements. > > Anyone have practical experience or advice on using TVWS? >> > > Thanks in advance. > Dave B. > > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
I would study the crap out of it using this new lidar tool. Even with RM you can do two overlapping polar heat maps. Where it turns black that is a repeater site. A solar powered repeater at the mid point may be no more cost and work a heck of a lot better than any NLOS product. -Original Message- From: D. Bernardi Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 12:01 PM To: af@af.afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Howdy folks, I'm looking into solutions to deliver Internet to very rural small pockets of NLOS subscribers where fiber, copper or tower/structure deployments are not practical or cost effective. If I'm to believe vendor briefs, TVWS technology seems to be making recent advancements. Anyone have practical experience or advice on using TVWS? Thanks in advance. Dave B. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
On 6/16/20 11:22, D. Bernardi wrote: I'm considering building an analyzer to get some basic spectral use. Given the rural nature I assume spectrum could be fairly clean but yes, cellular operators gobbling up spectrum is a concern. That's determined by the TVWS database. There used to be some sites years ago that you could put in a location and it'd show you what you can use in that area. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
I'm considering building an analyzer to get some basic spectral use. Given the rural nature I assume spectrum could be fairly clean but yes, cellular operators gobbling up spectrum is a concern. At 02:13 PM 6/16/2020, you wrote: Don't hold your breath. The availability of TVWS spectrum varies (a lot) by region, and many areas do not have enough usable spectrum available to make it anything more than a curiosity. Add to the fact, that they keep "chipping away" at the spectrum and selling it off to the big cellular operators, the odds look increasingly long for anything reasonable to happen. There has been almost zero development of equipment designed to use the spectrum as well. The paltry equipment that I've seen has also been upside down in terms of value too. TVWS, or the promise of it has been "just around the corner" now for over half a decade. I do not believe it will ever work out. Of course, we can always revert to magical thinking like "It will appear in August, like magic.". Naw. That ain't gonna happen. bp On 6/16/2020 11:01 AM, D. Bernardi wrote: > > Howdy folks, > > I'm looking into solutions to deliver Internet to very rural small > pockets of NLOS subscribers where fiber, copper or tower/structure > deployments are not practical or cost effective. If I'm to believe > vendor briefs, TVWS technology seems to be making recent advancements. > > Anyone have practical experience or advice on using TVWS? > > Thanks in advance. > Dave B. > > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
Good point. I'm definitely just interested in most recent technology and/or deployments. At 02:04 PM 6/16/2020, you wrote: Make sure that you only heed technical experience from modern, recent platforms. Someone that tried gen 1 year 8 years ago may have had a valid experience, but that experience is no longer relevant... unless it's more about the company than the product. - Mike Hammett <http://www.ics-il.com/>Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>The Brothers WISP <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> -- From: "D. Bernardi" To: af@af.afmug.com Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:01:10 PM Subject: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Howdy folks, I'm looking into solutions to deliver Internet to very rural small pockets of NLOS subscribers where fiber, copper or tower/structure deployments are not practical or cost effective. If I'm to believe vendor briefs, TVWS technology seems to be making recent advancements. Anyone have practical experience or advice on using TVWS? Thanks in advance. Dave B. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
Don't hold your breath. The availability of TVWS spectrum varies (a lot) by region, and many areas do not have enough usable spectrum available to make it anything more than a curiosity. Add to the fact, that they keep "chipping away" at the spectrum and selling it off to the big cellular operators, the odds look increasingly long for anything reasonable to happen. There has been almost zero development of equipment designed to use the spectrum as well. The paltry equipment that I've seen has also been upside down in terms of value too. TVWS, or the promise of it has been "just around the corner" now for over half a decade. I do not believe it will ever work out. Of course, we can always revert to magical thinking like "It will appear in August, like magic.". Naw. That ain't gonna happen. bp On 6/16/2020 11:01 AM, D. Bernardi wrote: Howdy folks, I'm looking into solutions to deliver Internet to very rural small pockets of NLOS subscribers where fiber, copper or tower/structure deployments are not practical or cost effective. If I'm to believe vendor briefs, TVWS technology seems to be making recent advancements. Anyone have practical experience or advice on using TVWS? Thanks in advance. Dave B. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
Make sure that you only heed technical experience from modern, recent platforms. Someone that tried gen 1 year 8 years ago may have had a valid experience, but that experience is no longer relevant... unless it's more about the company than the product. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "D. Bernardi" To: af@af.afmug.com Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:01:10 PM Subject: [AFMUG] TVWS feasibility Howdy folks, I'm looking into solutions to deliver Internet to very rural small pockets of NLOS subscribers where fiber, copper or tower/structure deployments are not practical or cost effective. If I'm to believe vendor briefs, TVWS technology seems to be making recent advancements. Anyone have practical experience or advice on using TVWS? Thanks in advance. Dave B. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
[AFMUG] TVWS feasibility
Howdy folks, I'm looking into solutions to deliver Internet to very rural small pockets of NLOS subscribers where fiber, copper or tower/structure deployments are not practical or cost effective. If I'm to believe vendor briefs, TVWS technology seems to be making recent advancements. Anyone have practical experience or advice on using TVWS? Thanks in advance. Dave B. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
