The update to FSK Canopy is going to be Canopy 300. It will be the new FSK product, next to the OFDM Canopy 400.
Canopy 300 will have more packet per second capability and it will introduce an FSK 3X mode.
yadda yadda yadda
Oh and it will also add a hardware reference point for the signal meter. So this “P11” hardware or whatever it will be called will have very accurate dBm/RSSI readings across SMs/APs. Right now there could be a 10-15dB difference in signals measured across different hardware!
I’d love to see APs with antenna diversity but I won’t hold my breath.
Sounds Great! Do you have inside information or is there a public reference to it?
Any timing, pricing, backwards capability info for older SMs, etc.?
Sorry, no literature. This was straight from the Motorola reps.
The new 300 line is meant to replace the current FSK line so I would imagine pricing would be equivalent. The new APs will be backwards compatible with existing SMs, obviously only in 1x-2x mode.
From my perspective, the upgrade will be “worth it” for larger tower sites as each sector will have more packet-per-second capability. Oh, and 3x mode for more total airtime, if you happen to have a really low noise floor.
twinkletoes wrote: Sorry, no literature. This was straight from the Motorola reps.
The new 300 line is meant to replace the current FSK line so I would imagine pricing would be equivalent. The new APs will be backwards compatible with existing SMs, obviously only in 1x-2x mode.
From my perspective, the upgrade will be "worth it" for larger tower sites as each sector will have more packet-per-second capability. Oh, and 3x mode for more total airtime, if you happen to have a really low noise floor.
More aggregate bandwidth at 900MHz will definitely be welcome, assuming this band isn't being abandoned in the 300 line.
what would make you think motorola wants to abandon the 900 mhz line ?!
twinkletoes wrote: what would make you think motorola wants to abandon the 900 mhz line ?!
The Canopy 400 system. They seem to be making some good strides with nLOS/NLOS performance on other bands, so it would only seem logical that they're working to phase out older technology.
I very well could be (and hope) I am wrong. In any event, 3x will certainly throw RF balancing out the window in terms of a 10db window.
I forgot that Canopy 300 FSK will also introduce connectorized 2.4, 5.4, 5.8 APs. No more Last Mile Gear or FDDI or EZlinx or anyone else connectorizing APs for $300 each. Last Mile Gear will really be pissed off about this one because it will destroy sales of their overpriced Cyclone line.
“RF balancing” makes a lot of sense on shitbox 802.11 based systems (like most everything but Canopy) because of the hidden node problem with 802.11. RF balancing is probably only helpful on Canopy for one reason - you are using the same freq with 2 sectors on both sides of a tower site. An SM that’s transmitting to an AP on the north side of the tower is heard by the AP on the south side of the tower as well, even through you don’t necessarily want that. “RF balancing” generally causes you to lower your SMs output power. That’s what is really improving the situation for Jerry and others who preach about its virtues. It make the SMs lower power to the remote AP (following my example, that would be the one on the south side that doesn’t need to hear the customer anyways), therefore interfering less. On a site with no frequency re-use, I doubt RF balancing makes a lick of difference!
Anyways I seriously doubt Motorola would get rid of the 900 MHz product line. I don’t see any reason for it. It makes them money, that’s the important piece.
On a site with no frequency re-use, I doubt RF balancing makes a lick of difference!
I wish it were true. We don't reuse channels and still see the benefits of balancing.
Canopy's term "non-overlapping" is relative. If an SM is hitting the tower with -50dB @ 906, I can guarantee it is adversely affecting the ability of an AP at 915 to hear an SM with -74.
As you pointed out, the more radios on the tower the more critical is becomes, especially in situations where there are 6 AP's on a tower.
Jerry Richardson wrote:
On a site with no frequency re-use, I doubt RF balancing makes a lick of difference!
I wish it were true. We don't reuse channels and still see the benefits of balancing.
Canopy's term "non-overlapping" is relative. If an SM is hitting the tower with -50dB @ 906, I can guarantee it is adversely affecting the ability of an AP at 915 to hear an SM with -74.
As you pointed out, the more radios on the tower the more critical is becomes, especially in situations where there are 6 AP's on a tower.
Going to agree with Jerry on this one. I've seen it first hand. I was on omnis when I started having issues and after RF balancing it was a night and day difference with the number of re-regs per day as well as overall system stability.
Jerry Richardson wrote: Canopy's term "non-overlapping" is relative. If an SM is hitting the tower with -50dB @ 906, I can guarantee it is adversely affecting the ability of an AP at 915 to hear an SM with -74.
Ahh yes. I've seen it on a spectrum analyzer. The 8MHz wide signal just describes the high power peaks. It becomes 20MHz wide when you are very close to it. That's a damn good point/justification for RF balancing....
I just got in some Airspan 3.65ghz micromax gear. It automatically turns up and down tx power based on the received signal strength. It's 802.16e mode gear, so i would expect the behavior. That would be nice for canopy!