I think it is;
SSF 0: 39km (absolute max) SSF 1: 23km SSF 2: 16km SSF 3: 10km This is from the eNodeB Capacity estimator spreadsheet. Adam From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nathan Anderson Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 11:02 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Telrad] Issues I believe that max cell radius is determined entirely by the special subframe (regardless of main subframe profile) and follows this convention: SSF 0: 39km (absolute max) SSF 1: 30km SSF 2: 20km SSF 3: 10km -- Nathan From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Justin Davis Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 1:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Telrad] Issues Thanks Andreas! What is the max cell radius for 1/3 and how much of a difference are you seeing in upload? On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Andreas Wiatowski <[email protected]> wrote: We used to run 1/1 and switched to 1/3 … take a small hit on download for the better upload. Cheers, ______________________________ Andreas Wiatowski | CEO Silo Wireless Inc. Email [email protected] 19 Sage Court Brantford, Ontario N3R 7T4 (CANADA) Tel +1.519.449.5656 <tel:%2B1.519.449.5656%C2%A0%20Extension-600> Extension-600|Fax +1.519.449.5536 <tel:%2B1.519.449.5536> |Toll Free +1.866.727.4138 <tel:%2B1.866.727.4138> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of J Portman Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 11:22 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Telrad] Issues We use 2/2 subframe/special subframe. Limits us to 10 miles but _much_ better performance overall than 2/0. YMMV. JP On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:43:07 -0600, Matthew Carpenter wrote > From what I have seen running 4573: > > 1. 4x4TM4 is working good. I have 2 [UTF-8?]eNB’s using it with good > speeds through trees. In one location I saw 63Mbit x 7.3Mbit and a CINR of > 27. UBNT 5ghz at this same location was around 79db and we would not > install. > 2. Better performance. Jury is still out on this one. Like a few of you > have stated the Upload speeds are not where they should be 2/0 config and > only 1mbit of upload and I only see 700-800K on iperf test. > 3. There are some timer changes that extend the amount of time a action > happens. > > Stable, with 7000 and [UTF-8?]8000’s both working good, except for the > speed issues that I stated above. > Telrad support is working on them now. > > Matt Carpenter > Amarillo Wireless > > > > > On Nov 16, 2016, at 4:37 PM, Ian Fraser <[email protected]> wrote: > > > No release notes that I find (?) So what's the benefit ? > -- Ian Fraser goZoom.ca <http://gozoom.ca/> Inc. 195 Libby's Rd. McNab-Braeside K7S0E1 877(613) 622 0093 <tel:%28613%29%20622%200093> ext 21 > On 16/11/2016 4:39 PM, Jeremy Austin wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Ian Fraser <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm still on 4013. Has 4573 fixed anything for anyone ? Like the high > upload utilization ? I'm using sf2/ssf0. Changing subframe is not an option > for me - I need to co-exist with a another provider who will never change. 4573 seems fairly stable for us with 7ks running .105 and 8ks. Didn't fix the upload KPI or (as far as we can tell) performance. > -- > > Jeremy Austin > > (907) 895-2311 <tel:%28907%29%20895-2311> > (907) 803-5422 <tel:%28907%29%20803-5422> > [email protected] > > > Heritage NetWorks > Whitestone Power & Communications > Vertical Broadband, LLC > > Schedule a meeting: http://doodle.com/jermudgeon _______________________________________________ Telrad mailing list [email protected] _______________________________________________ Telrad mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/telrad Joe Portman Alamo Broadband Inc. www.alamobroadband.com <http://www.alamobroadband.com/> _______________________________________________ Telrad mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/telrad -- Sincerely, Justin Davis SkyWerx COO 970-731-9790
_______________________________________________ Telrad mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/telrad
