trees :(

anyone use the 3.65 gear around trees?

we are looking to make the jump to 3.65 for the speed but we have a lot of subs in the woods, most are not to far in just 4 or 5 trees in the 900mhz SMs are locked at 60 to 70 DB but we are hoping to get a good chunk of these people to something faster 4MB agro just doesn’t cut it anymore :frowning:

no dis to moto thier, 900 is a great product just got hungry customers who want more and for us its between going slowly to GEPON and and reducing our moto network or moving to 3.65

I’ve used it around trees, it doesn’t really penetrate as much as it does bounce around them.
If you’re dealing with coniferous trees with heavy foliage then it doesn’t work nearly as well,
as it does with regular deciduous trees where it can bounce around the trunks.

You can expect higher throughput through the 3.65 gear because there is really no noise floor at this point. other than the celestial background noise. (-100,-110dB)
I’ve had a radio assocaited at a -92 pulling multiple megabits through it. But that’s the exception rather than the rule.

A larger thing to consider is the current firmware on the AP’s and CPE’s leaves a bad taste in your mouth.
The DHCP server on the AP end stops working after a few days, so you’re better off just setting everything up statically.
You only have an option of Routing at this time, no bridging (this may or may not be an issue for you)
By 802.16 design the latency is higher than normal PMP100 FSK gear. from AP to SM it’s around 60-80ms , just add that to your nominal network latency. (again this may be a non issue)
Telnet access to the equipment is reserved for support use only so you will have no access.
SNMP has serious limitations
CPE’s can only NAT, you can not route to a sub network behind the radio, only do port forwarding and DMZ.
Trying to get port 80 to forward to a DMZ’ed server behind a CPE after disabling the web interface results in a radio that you can no longer get to except from on the client end. Apart from the fact the DMZ won’t forward port 80.

Other than that, it’s a good gear and when it works, it works well. Just Motorola need to get on Gemtek to get the firmware out of the alpha stage.

Just wanted to post a bit of an update on all this.

Since my previous work with the PMP320 series I have started to deploy it a lot more, I may not have a ton of SM’s online at this point but I’ve learned leaps and bounds about the technology and how to configure it to work better.
The firmware may still be far from perfect, but in bridge mode it does work well. setting up the correct QoS flows is imperative to proper operation!

Signal propogation is very good, even around foliage, I’ve done my furthest non line-of-sight install at just over 4 miles from the transmitter at this point and I’m quite impressed.

The more I use this product, the more I like it!

Previous caveats still apply with certain software features.

What kind of round trip latency are you getting?

From client -> google -> client about 90-100ms
from client -> core -> client about 70-80ms
from core -> AP -> Core about 20ms
from core -> Google -> core about 24ms
so from AP -> Client -> AP about 50-60ms

That’s not tooooo bad the latency has been the deal breaker for us… the 5ms on the los gear is pretty nice we have cable and dsl under us now but they can’t seem to keep there hardware running. Thanks for the info

It may not be enough to be considered a LPB in online gaming, but for the majority of my customers it’s a non-issue.
Prioritizing interactive traffic over non-interactive traffic & providing a good quality reliable service are truly what will win over and keep customers.

Oh yes. We have been using the canopy system for 5 years and love it never a problem. You wouldn’t have any NLOS comparison experience with the 900 mhz system compared to the 320 system?

I do actually,

The person at 4Miles was installed with a Canopy 900, on a 17dBi yagi antenna at -67dBi. Due a horrible noise floor caused by a irresponsible competitor, it was completely unusable. On the pmp320 they are at a -69 with QAM64-ctc-5/6 Matrix A modulation for uplink and downlink.

For near field links(sub 1mi) propogation varies depending on the type of obstruction, but seems fairly close to 900mhz levels. But the big change is, signals that would be all but unusable on 900 (even with no interference) are viable on this system (-80 and below) We just have to take fade margin into account.

how low can you run the gear? -90 ish ?

Good to hear. Can you post some examples of how you setup your AP frequencies and Service flows?

we have setup a few of the 320 basestations, and as noted above the penitration seems to be very close to the 900, better in a few places with houses and hills as obstructions