I wonder if you have thought about the possibilty to include 80MHz for the epmp force 180 or epmp 110, or epmp 200. In order to provide 400 MBPS for the end user? I know that other companies such as Mimosa are doing already with SM that cost 99dls and capable of doing it.
http://www.mimosa.co/Products/Client/client-specs/C5c-Specifications
I really don't think this is going to happen for a few reasons...
1. I don't believe the 802.11n chipset that Cambium is using natevly supports channel widths higher then 40MHz.
2. They'd have to custom engineer an 80MHz channel mask for 802.11n, which, from what I understand, is far more difficult to implement then a channel mask that's already supported by the chipset (like 802.11ac).
3. It would mean that all these products would have to be re-certified by the FCC for use with this channel width, which is very time consuming and expensive.
4. All of the manufacturers that are supporting those larger channel widths are using an 802.11ac chipset, which in most cases, already supports channel widths that size.
5. Cambium's emphasis and goals for ePMP and PMP450 have been to provide better/more consistent performance in high noise, high density PtMP deployments, using smaller, more easily accessible channel widths, and not to provide (or encourage) raw, high throughput, large channel widths that for many operators would be unusable in many areas.
Ok, the reason that I brought that up, is because I've got a ePMP 2000 AP with 800 MBPS and was trying to get close to 200 MBPS downlink and 200 MBPS up on a ePMP Force 180 SM. I bought the equipment Force 180 thinking about the specs that stated that 200 MBPS of real throughput. The maximum that I've got on my sm was 104/100 MBPS down with a 40 MHZ channel. I called the tech support team and the engineer checked my configuration and said that everything looked good. He ran the link test and showed that I was supposed to pass 189/100. But once we use speakeasy or speedtest to find out how much was I getting it gave me 104/100 MBPS only. He suggested for me to test with the iperf, which I did and got the same average of low 100's MBPS.
I am sold to the Cambium technology I have epmp 200,110, now the ePMP 2000 Ap and have PMP 450, 450i and I am about to jump into the PMP 450M. But the reality is users are asking for more bandwidth, the demand it's growing fast for residential and business as well.
What do you mean that you 'got a ePMP 2000 AP with 800 MBPS'? All ePMP products (including the new ePMP 2000 AP) have the same RF throughput capabilities, which top out at 200mbps HALF DUPLEX, under ideal conditions, using a 40MHz channel width, in point to point mode.
My ePMP 2000 AP is fed by 800MBPS Internet connection
Do you have flow control enabled on your switch(es) and ePMP radios? If you have a switch in place what is it?
I don't have switches in between
if your radios are in 50/50 mode, your dead on for through put.
thats 200 meg aggrogate. if you use flex mode, you'll see about 170 to 180 in either direction, one at a time. to use up all 800 meg of band width (assuming its full duplex) you'll need a bigger point to point radio, or use LAGs with switches to pull it accross. the EPMP 2000 is the same speed as the other gear, 200 meg aggrogate, meaning you need to add up your up and down speed, if you've got it in a fixed frame link 50/50 or 75/25.
if you want to carry all 800 meg in a PTP radio link, you'll need something bigger. cambiums 650 will move 450 meg.
the 820c will carry 866 one way.
Thanks for your help, we are trying to make it for PMP service
Since we mentioned the competition… Just got done testing a Mimosa A5-14 on a 1Gbps connection in good RF environment with the SM ~500 feet away (1 SM).
At 20 Mhz: 90/90
At 40 Mhz: 140/120
At 80 Mhz: 280/160
That is to a speedtest.net node hosted by the ISP.
Don’t always believe the hype…
I'm just curius how 80Mhz channels are even usable in real world multi sector envirments without interference from others as well. 80mhz channels pretty much suck up all of the 5.7-5.8 good frequencys. Im trying to understand this 80Mhz hype. To me if your doing a single sector you MAY be able to, but I thought 40Mhz was still pushing it in the real world.
@MarioL wrote:I'm just curius how 80Mhz channels are even usable in real world multi sector envirments without interference from others as well. 80mhz channels pretty much suck up all of the 5.7-5.8 good frequencys. Im trying to understand this 80Mhz hype. To me if your doing a single sector you MAY be able to, but I thought 40Mhz was still pushing it in the real world.
I agree completely. using 80 mhz of spectrum to me, is very irresponsible. I was hoping the FCC wouldn't allow channel widths that large in the unlicensed bands. irresponsible users can cause some massive problems. the SNR needs mixed with RX requirements make 80 mhz worthless in most deployment situations. in the middle of Kansas it would problably work, but then again what is using that much bandwidth?
like 900 mhz, I'm not a fan of 20mhz channels because it consumes nearly the entire band.
If you have a very small town and only want to deploy two 80 MHz APs and all your subscribers are within 300 meters of an AP, great solution for speed. Assuming you don't need 5 Ghz for your backhauls... Since there are only 2 usable 80 Mhz channels available, this looks great in a lab but is terrible in deployment. DFS is not an option unless you are out of the US or really in the middle of nowhere. I can't imagine 80 MHz of DFS that is clear of any radar signals. I have a hard time finding 20 MHz of DFS that does not see radar in our environment. Having an AP serving 20 customers get taken down for a radar hit is not really an option.
Now, add to this the need for GPS sync, you further cut your available bandwidth to the customer. In an effort to compete with fiber or DOCSIS 3, you destroy the airwaves trying to do more than current technology will really support.
We do use 20 MHz and some 40 MHz channels in our deployment. The 40's are on omni antennas on lower powered APs serving neighborhoods. They are GPS synchronized and we use geography to separate APs (hills). Is it a great solution for an urban or city environment? No.
I just read a speed test and case study done on an indoor WiFi product from a Cambium competitor. It was using a 160 MHz channel. They were touting how fast it was. 600 Mbps over WiFi! How far from the AP was the test computer? 5 feet. Yep, the usable distance for 5 GHz at 160 MHz. If you need that speed 5 feet from the AP, how about running a cable and getting 1 Gbps?
Marketing tells us these speeds are possible. Real world deployments tend to show otherwise. But, we try to compete with an increasing need for speed.
Ok, so I was not crazy trying to wrap my brain around this. You are correct, why on earth did the FCC allow this? Now Im not a wireless engeneer here, I know what I know for my ISP and deployment, but cant they figure out how to stuff more bandwidth through a 20 mhz channel? Its not a dumb question, they did it with DOCIS 3.1. If somone could explain what the moores law is on frequency.
@MarioL wrote:Ok, so I was not crazy trying to wrap my brain around this. You are correct, why on earth did the FCC allow this? Now Im not a wireless engeneer here, I know what I know for my ISP and deployment, but cant they figure out how to stuff more bandwidth through a 20 mhz channel? Its not a dumb question, they did it with DOCIS 3.1. If somone could explain what the moores law is on frequency.
You can 'stuff more bandwidth' through 20MHz channels, but the SnR required to support such high level modulation (DOCSIS 3.1 supports up to 4096QAM!) in an unlicensed spectrum via RF is extremely expensive and difficult to achieve. Even with the PMP450 radios supporting 256QAM, it's very difficult to achieve that on a regular basis. One way to get around this is to try to use additional streams (mimo) on different polarities, but as you continue to add more streams, there are diminishing gains, this also drives up the subscriber cost significantly as well. In the wireless world, it seems like shifts toward MU-MIMO (or Massive MU-MIMO as demonstrated by Cambium's cnMedusa technology) is the best way forward to enable more capacity at the AP.
Wow, very detailed explanation. Thanks man.