26 dBi ultra wide-band parabolic grid antenna

[xdavidx]

I heard back from the manufacturer. I asked them if the antennas support MIMO. I got the following response back:

"Thank you for contacting us.

Yes, you can use 2 of these antennas connecting to a single LTE modem as long as you use the correct connector based on your situation."

I tried again:

"Thanks for the reply. Does the mount allow for turning each antenna to be angled 90 degrees from each other for optimizing MIMO?

And just to be clear, you are saying 2 being used together will support spatial multiplexing in order to double the speed?"

Their response:

"Does the mount allow for turning each antenna to be angled 90 degrees from each other for optimizing MIMO?
- The mountig will allow you to adjust the direction of each antenna - you would to purchase an actual mount to go along with the antenna.

you are saying 2 being used together will support spatial multiplexing in order to double the speed?
- Not certain. Utilizing 2 antennas in our conventional application allow us to pull from 2 different towers into our system. Depending on your application the antennas can dial into the 2.5-5 GHz range and, in theory, allow you to achieve a better connection."

I tried again:

"-- Is there some way to find out this information from someone else at Bolton? If I decide to buy 2 antennas, it would be due to them working for MIMO Spatial Multiplexing on a single LTE modem, with each antenna getting signals from a single tower. I'm working in the 700 to 2300 MHz LTE spectrum space. If they support MIMO Spatial Multiplexing, through 90 degree polarization, then the speed should be X when one is plugged in and about 2X when both are plugged in, when both antennas are near each other and angled 90 degrees relative to each other.

There are other people who are interested in the answer as well who I'm in contact with."

I'll post when I get a response again.

In theory, if they are separated by enough space, then it shouldn't matter. The polarized antennas can be close to each other, because they are polarized. Antennas that aren't polarized differently from each other should be able to get uncorrelated signals if they are far enough apart. tgoodwin's test would seem to show that the one grid antenna is benefiting from spatial multiplexing when paired with an omni antenna. The antennas are spaced far apart.

My personal take is that one or two grid antennas are only cost effective if:

- You are a great distance away from a tower, with LOS, and want to pull in multiple bands (we haven't proven they are equally good for multiple LTE bands yet, only Band 4 has been empirically tested). If you want to lock onto a tower far away on a single band, then you can get Yagi antennas priced more reasonably (see: swwifty's setup). And if you aren't too far away, then there are other, more reasonably priced antennas, that will pull in multiple bands and still give you plenty of increased gain (like the 15 dBi panel antennas).

- You want to lock onto one tower out of multiple that are in a relatively close radius and possibly weed out some of the interference from the other towers too. Going with a single grid antenna as the primary would allow locking onto a specific tower and the secondary antenna, as long as it can hear the tower in question, will tag along. The interference improvement would only help the streams on the primary antenna, not the secondary. Going with 2 grid antennas would allow for both the locking benefit and the interference reduction on both primary and secondary connections.

Whether extra hundreds of dollars is cost effective for X Mbps improvement is also a personal decision.

I *might* consider getting one of these in the future and pairing it with one of the 15 dBi panel antennas that I already purchased. And if I get a 5G modem that supports 4x4 MIMO, I might get another 15 dBi panel antenna, for a total of 4 antennas, with the primary being the grid antenna and the other 3 being the panel antennas.

[tgoodwin]

I have the antenna mounted on a Channel Master CM-3090. It allows adjustment on 2 axes. The antenna itself has the standard U-bolt that clamps around a pole. There is no way to rotate it 45 degrees.

CM-3090-4.jpg

[xdavidx]

Ah, I took his statements to mean that it didn't even have the U-bolt with it. I suppose you can tilt the channel master left or right? But maybe that only provides 20 degrees or so of tilt in those directions?

[tgoodwin]

Yeah. The tilt is enough to level it from the roof pitch. The bracket is to wide for the fascia to mount it level. So I mounted it parallel then rotated it.

I should have looked earlier. See what you were looking for in the instructions? It's a pro tip.

[xdavidx]

Pro tip!! Good find!

For anyone who doesn't see it, it says to use 2 grids for MIMO.

I was thinking of the left to right adjustment grooves on the J-Mount, rather than the ones that allow you to adjust the mast forward and backward.

I'm not able to visualize the parallel/rotated fascia mount.

Thanks for posting that document for the antenna. Am I correct that you can only tilt the antenna up or down by changing which hole one of the u-bolts goes into in their bracket? I guess with an adjustable J-mount, you could move the mast forward and backward to do that too, but it won't necessarily be in line with the tower, so would cause side tilt of the antenna too. Maybe that side to side adjustment on the J-mount could be used to compensate for that. Not an easy adjustment for aiming the antenna up/down. It would be nice if the antenna bracket had a slot instead of just a fixed number of holes.

[JimHelms]

Here is a diagram that we prepared for a customer showing the two separate MIMO configurations for our Grid antennas.

Grid MIMO.jpg

[xdavidx]

Very nice. We still aren't clear on whether the Bolton antennas are polarized correctly and whether they can be that close together and still get uncorrelated signals for spacial multiplexing MIMO. They are too darn expensive to buy and test! Good to know the The Wireless Haven antennas are polarized properly.

I wasn't even aware The Wireless Haven had grid antennas. That looks like a nice solution for anyone needing that frequency range. And this is the proper way to supply an LTE mount (quoted from the The Wireless Haven website): "The antenna is supplied with a 60 degree tilt and swivel mast mount kit which allows installation at various degrees of incline for easy alignment. It can be adjusted up or down from 0 to 60deg."

The link to that antenna: https://thewirelesshaven.com/shop/antennas/wifi-a ... -n-female/

[xdavidx]

Final reply from Bolton, in response to these previous replies:

"-- Is there some way to find out this information from someone else at Bolton? If I decide to buy 2 antennas, it would be due to them working for MIMO Spatial Multiplexing on a single LTE modem, with each antenna getting signals from a single tower. I'm working in the 700 to 2300 MHz LTE spectrum space. If they support MIMO Spatial Multiplexing, through 90 degree polarization, then the speed should be X when one is plugged in and about 2X when both are plugged in, when both antennas are near each other and angled 90 degrees relative to each other.

There are other people who are interested in the answer as well who I'm in contact with."

"We checked with the RF engineer from the manufacturer and he said yes if set up correctly."

[coldknob]

Sorry to be so late to this party but I believe I have found the ultimate "need for speed" solution.
Time won't allow me to go into all of the details of my journey, but needless to say I have amassed quite a collection of antennas, amplifiers, cables etc.

My home is in the mountains, closest towers 6 mi. away. Predominately band 12, 5mhz. but 2 towers with band 2, 15mhz which provide much better speeds. Trouble is I couldn't pick up the band 2 signal at all.

Fast forward several months and I settled on a parabolic grid wifi antenna which gave me consistent speeds of 25 down on band 2 and effectively blocked the band 12 signal. A few months of tinkering with the cables, antenna placement, etc. got my top speed up to 45 down, 15 up which is more than I need.

However, I always wondered what I could get if I had a mimo setup but 2 grid antennas at 45 degree angles is a larger footprint than I wanted and I was satisfied...until I came across the existence of a mimo feed horn that replaces the one on your present antenna. Found a Chinese supplier on eBay and 1 month and $55 later got it and bolted it on.

MVIMG_20190708_101435541.jpg

The results were pretty amazing. 70 down 25 up consistently, 85+ down frequently. This is from a tower more than 7 miles away. $40 for 2.4mhz parabolic grid antenna, $55 for 1710-2710mhz feed horn = 24X2 gain for less than $100.

[swwifty]

nice setup! Based on the bands you're using it sounds like you're using AT&T?

Mind sharing links to the antenna and feed horn you got?

[xdavidx]

FYI, I contacted the seller to see if they have any feed horns that go down to 700 MHz too. I'll report back if they reply.

They sell different models, but the one that @coldknob bought is the widest frequency spread. That's the only problem I see with it is that you can't get any 700 MHz bands, or 600 MHz for that matter, if someone was using T-Mobile, or 800 MHz for Sprint. But 700 is common to AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon.

[xdavidx]

@coldknob: Are you saying you are getting a peak of 85+ Mbps from a single carrier Band 2, 15 MHz wide?

[coldknob]

Links to feed horns:
https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/ ... 18598.html

https://www.ebay.com/itm/LTE-Fixed-Para ... wL8xcf4iEz

The grid is any generic 2.4ghz wifi antenna. I believe this is the one I have.
https://www.altelix.com/2-4-GHz-24-dBi- ... g24g24.htm

This link is where I first ran across this setup. Check out the feedback!
http://www.uplift.ph/Skywave/Products/SkyWave-Zensei-Ultra-MIMO

[coldknob]

@coldknob: Are you saying you are getting a peak of 85+ Mbps from a single carrier Band 2, 15 MHz wide?

With an ethernet connection I get 85+ with the mimo setup, 45 max with a single antenna connection. I'm on ATT, very rural, lightly used tower. Although the tower is 7 miles away I have clear line-of-sight, not so much as a leaf between my antenna and the tower.

[xdavidx]

Those are some crazy setups!

How would you like to climb this one? http://i.imgur.com/5IYr8t7.jpg

The one in the top of the tree was fun too: https://i.imgur.com/FHxPVMb.jpg

[xdavidx]

With an ethernet connection I get 85+ with the mimo setup, 45 max with a single antenna connection. I'm on ATT, very rural, lightly used tower. Although the tower is 7 miles away I have clear line-of-sight, not so much as a leaf between my antenna and the tower.

That is darn good for 15MHz. You have to be pretty happy with that.

So it only has Band 2? No other bands available?

Which modem are you using?

[coldknob]

That is darn good for 15MHz. You have to be pretty happy with that.

So it only has Band 2? No other bands available?

Which modem are you using?

Previously I had satellite internet and with no other options you could say I'm pretty happy. Streamed a 4k movie the other day and it didn't buffer once.

Band 12/17 is available but only at 5mhz. Signal strength is generally better than band 2 but the highest speed I could
attain was 15 down with 2 antennas.

My experimentation and setup was done with a we826/MC7455 but I recently hooked up a zte mf279 (ATT home base) and was surprised to get even better speeds. I think the mf279 has a cat12 modem which may explain the increase.

[xdavidx]

Very nice.

So you don't see band 12 at all on this feed horn, or you are manually blocking it in the modem?

Maybe the mf279 is picking up some other bands. Are you able to see which bands it gets?

[coldknob]

Very nice.

So you don't see band 12 at all on this feed horn, or you are manually blocking it in the modem?

Maybe the mf279 is picking up some other bands. Are you able to see which bands it gets?

Well I can't verify exactly what the mf279 is doing because it only shows signal strength and 4g or 4gLTE. However it performs similar to the we826 so I assume it's using the same band.

The we826 would aggregate bands 2 and 12 when set on all bands but I never saw any improvement in speed versus being locked on band 2. Band 12 is only 5mhz in my area.
The problem with the all bands setting was that sometimes the modem would select band 12 as the primary band (even with a 1900mhz yagi) which would kill my speeds. Locking on band 2 solved that problem.
I haven't had that problem yet with the mf279, even though I can't lock bands. I'm hoping that my current signal strength on band 2 (-92dbm) will eliminate that occurrence.

I have no idea what algorithm AT&T uses to select what band you're on but I suspect it's based solely on signal strength which makes sense when you're driving around in order to seamlessly switch between towers.
For data use from a fixed location bandwidth is the key. -115db @ 15mhz=good speeds, -90db@5mhz=crappy speeds.

I should note that I'm in a very rural, mountainous location. Many hills and valleys and many dead zones. Also I'm located on the edge of the National Radio Quiet Zone where cell phone signals are prohibited.
Every area is different but this is what works for me in my specific location.

Also keep in mind these antennas are extremely directional (we're talking millimeters making a difference). I can't actually see the tower I'm connected to but I know it's exact location and elevation in relation to my house by using google earth and other resources. It's akin to aiming a satellite dish, you get a good signal or you get nothing.

[xdavidx]

I heard back from the ebay seller. He doesn't have any horns that go down to 700MHz.

[swwifty]

Well I can't verify exactly what the mf279 is doing because it only shows signal strength and 4g or 4gLTE. However it performs similar to the we826 so I assume it's using the same band.

The we826 would aggregate bands 2 and 12 when set on all bands but I never saw any improvement in speed versus being locked on band 2. Band 12 is only 5mhz in my area.
The problem with the all bands setting was that sometimes the modem would select band 12 as the primary band (even with a 1900mhz yagi) which would kill my speeds. Locking on band 2 solved that problem.
I haven't had that problem yet with the mf279, even though I can't lock bands. I'm hoping that my current signal strength on band 2 (-92dbm) will eliminate that occurrence.

I have no idea what algorithm AT&T uses to select what band you're on but I suspect it's based solely on signal strength which makes sense when you're driving around in order to seamlessly switch between towers.
For data use from a fixed location bandwidth is the key. -115db @ 15mhz=good speeds, -90db@5mhz=crappy speeds.

I should note that I'm in a very rural, mountainous location. Many hills and valleys and many dead zones. Also I'm located on the edge of the National Radio Quiet Zone where cell phone signals are prohibited.
Every area is different but this is what works for me in my specific location.

Also keep in mind these antennas are extremely directional (we're talking millimeters making a difference). I can't actually see the tower I'm connected to but I know it's exact location and elevation in relation to my house by using google earth and other resources. It's akin to aiming a satellite dish, you get a good signal or you get nothing.

Nice work on this. Band selection is indeed done based on signal, but they always try to push you to the higher frequency bands, as the lower frequency bands are more valuable due to range and penetration.

I'm tempted to try this setup my self, but I suspect my wife wouldn't be too happy about an antenna that large on the roof, lol. The tower I connect to for AT&T service is about 5 miles away NLOS.

I had never heard of the National Radio Quiet Zone, super fascinating after reading up on it online.

[coldknob]

I heard back from the ebay seller. He doesn't have any horns that go down to 700MHz.

My understanding of parabolic physics is limited but I believe for a grid antenna to give 24dbi gain at 700mhz it would have to be more than 6 ft. in diameter. That's probably why you don't see them.

[xdavidx]

My understanding of parabolic physics is limited but I believe for a grid antenna to give 24dbi gain at 700mhz it would have to be more than 6 ft. in diameter. That's probably why you don't see them.

Good point. Generally, not as much gain is needed for the lower frequencies, since they travel farther. The antenna this thread started with has the following gain for the low frequencies:

14-17 dBi
600-960 MHz

That would be fine. I'm just not quite ready to give up on the dream of having the lower frequencies available for carrier aggregation too. It might be a foolhardy dream, however, since as @swwifty pointed out, they like to withhold those bands. In my case, I'm not given the 700MHz bands unless it is late at night, when the towers aren't busy.

I even found a tower that has at least 4 bands: B2 20MHz, B30 10MHz, B12 10 MHz and B66 10MHz. It won't give me B12 until late at night. It will give me B2 and B30 all day long, and then adds B12 at night. The only time I got B66 is when I aimed away from the tower enough that it couldn't pick up the higher frequency B30. Then it would give me B66! I haven't tried locking out B30 to see if it will give me B66 when aimed correctly, but that's on my list of things to try. But what is weird is that it will give me B12 if I am physically right next to the tower.

My only guess at their algorithm is that it it will give 3 bands if you are close and have really good signal strength, since they want to maximize the resources for people who can make the most out of them. The rules change when you don't have as strong of a signal. In that case they seem to want to reserve the lower frequency bands for people farther out (except for B2, which is always the primary and has the most bandwidth, with 20 MHz).

In theory, the towers can use your distance in (estimated by a round trip ping time), to determine which resource blocks to give you vs other users on the same band from another, approximately equi-distant tower, in order to reduce interference for those users in the overlapping coverage areas between the towers. In practice, I'm really not sure how much that is utilized.

Thinking about this more, *if* they are only using signal strength and not using the estimated distance, then if I can get my signal strength high enough, it might treat me like I'm right next to the tower and give me the lower frequency bands, even during prime time usage hours. If it will do that, then it might make sense for me to try a grid antenna, if it could get my signal strength high enough. My problem isn't being too far away from the towers. My problem is having too many towers around and too many people. So even if I only get the signal strength high enough for the primary antenna, that might be good enough, since they probably only look at that, not at some average of the two. My panel antennas get good enough signals for reasonable speeds. I just "need" (want) more bands, so that I have more bandwidth, hence more speed.

Lots of "ifs" here, but if the above works out, I *could* use a cheaper grid antenna that doesn't go down to 700MHz as my primary and, either use one of my panel antennas as secondary, or use the second MIMO connection of the horn style antenna that @coldknob is using. Since I only have a 3CA modem currently, B2 + B30 + B66 would give me as much as I can use anyway, and I wouldn't need B12.

It is a price difference of about $150 between the wide band grid antenna and the feed horn variant. Of course, if someone doesn't have secondary antennas, or needs a very high gain for the secondary antennas to get MIMO, then the feed horn antenna is a greater bargain vs buying 2 of the wide band grid antennas.

This is another MIMO feed horn that is priced less, but it is made for parabolic dishes. Not sure if it could be made to work with a grid: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Dual-polarity- ... 2797598911

I'll add to my list of tests to see at what signal strength, physically getting farther and farther from the tower, it stops giving me Band 12 and 66. Using the gain specs on the panel antennas vs the grid antennas might allow me to do the math to figure out if I'll be able to get to a high enough signal strength to fake out the tower into giving me the lower frequency bands. I'll also need to see if it will give me B30 and B66 at the same time if I lock out Band 12 and I'm close to the tower. They could have some other rule about not giving those 2 bands to the same user, or not support all the allowable CA combinations (of which B2+B30+B66 is one).

The variables never end with this stuff.

[coldknob]

The variables never end with this stuff.

Especially when the carriers give out zero information on this stuff and you have to try and figure out what they're doing,
I know where all the towers are in my area (they're all on top of mountains) but do you think AT&T would tell me which towers were theirs and what bands they use? I had to spend a month driving around with 2 cellphones figuring it out for myself. The cell mapper websites/apps were pretty useless because a lot of them are based on user info and I guess there are not many users in my area.
The best I found was Network Cell Info Pro.

[xdavidx]

The cell mapper websites/apps were pretty useless because a lot of them are based on user info and I guess there are not many users in my area.

I have plenty of people around and they were still pretty useless -- at least regarding location of the towers. I didn't do a ton of comparing the bands they show vs reality.

[coldknob]

Nice work on this. Band selection is indeed done based on signal, but they always try to push you to the higher frequency bands, as the lower frequency bands are more valuable due to range and penetration.

I'm tempted to try this setup my self, but I suspect my wife wouldn't be too happy about an antenna that large on the roof, lol. The tower I connect to for AT&T service is about 5 miles away NLOS.

I had never heard of the National Radio Quiet Zone, super fascinating after reading up on it online.

Thanks, my location has a lot of similarities to yours and reading your posts verified a lot of my own experiences. Thanks for sharing your expertise.
When I first got my z700a home base I thought I was in heaven because I could get 5 down, 1 up on HSPA+. Little did I know then what I was getting myself in to.
My wife thinks I'm obsessed and she's probably right but its been fun.

[swwifty]

Thanks, my location has a lot of similarities to yours and reading your posts verified a lot of my own experiences. Thanks for sharing your expertise.
When I first got my z700a home base I thought I was in heaven because I could get 5 down, 1 up on HSPA+. Little did I know then what I was getting myself in to.
My wife thinks I'm obsessed and she's probably right but its been fun.

It literally is a rabbit hole for sure! So glad to hear I was able to help in some way.

My wife thinks I'm obsessed too, but all of this has lead me to start a WISP where I live, so I think it's a good thing

[xdavidx]

My wife thinks I'm obsessed too, but all of this has lead me to start a WISP where I live, so I think it's a good thing

Now *that* is an idea!

Wonder how long it would take for the cable company to get me shut down if I tried that. Our house and the handful around ours can't get cable, but a lot of other people on the street can. I'm sure the cable company would wonder what is going on when all their customers drop, since DSL is *horrible* here.

[swwifty]

Now *that* is an idea!

Wonder how long it would take for the cable company to get me shut down if I tried that. Our house and the handful around ours can't get cable, but a lot of other people on the street can. I'm sure the cable company would wonder what is going on when all their customers drop, since DSL is *horrible* here.

well I'm not trying to resell my internet. I'm doing a full blown ISP with a carrier grade whole sale connection

DSL is the only option for most people around here, and the average speed is about 3-5mbps. I'm fortunate and actually get about 20mbps where I live, but not the case for most folks as I live close to the high way and the DSLAM.

You could setup some Ubiquiti radios to give your neighbors internet that have LOS for "free" and they give you something else for "free" every month (You don't hear that idea from me )

[xdavidx]

well I'm not trying to resell my internet. I'm doing a full blown ISP with a carrier grade whole sale connection

I was saying the cable company could try to create problems (even if there weren't any FCC rules being broken) on the RF front through the long range wifi network being set up. And it wouldn't be reselling of a cable connection. I'm sure they'd *really* love that!

How are you getting the carrier grade wholesale connection? Cellular or some form of wired?

You could setup some Ubiquiti radios to give your neighbors internet that have LOS for "free" and they give you something else for "free" every month (You don't hear that idea from me )

Trust me, that has been discussed in the past with one neighbor. Then they got their DSL upgraded. Mine was upgraded a few days after that. It worked for a month with fewer issues than I had previously. Then it all fell apart. The phone company tech couldn't figure out how to fix it, so I had to have them put me back to a slower speed that has issues now and then.

[swwifty]

I was saying the cable company could try to create problems (even if there weren't any FCC rules being broken) on the RF front through the long range wifi network being set up. And it wouldn't be reselling of a cable connection. I'm sure they'd *really* love that!

How are you getting the carrier grade wholesale connection? Cellular or some form of wired?


Trust me, that has been discussed in the past with one neighbor. Then they got their DSL upgraded. Mine was upgraded a few days after that. It worked for a month with fewer issues than I had previously. Then it all fell apart. The phone company tech couldn't figure out how to fix it, so I had to have them put me back to a slower speed that has issues now and then.

The cable company is setting up a wireless network? That seems odd.

Carrier grade connections are almost always fiber. I'll have a 500-1G connection at first, and then add multiples for redundancy upstream.

If you give it away for free, shouldn't be a contract violation, just sayin.

[swwifty]

Good point. Generally, not as much gain is needed for the lower frequencies, since they travel farther. The antenna this thread started with has the following gain for the low frequencies:

14-17 dBi
600-960 MHz

That would be fine. I'm just not quite ready to give up on the dream of having the lower frequencies available for carrier aggregation too. It might be a foolhardy dream, however, since as @swwifty pointed out, they like to withhold those bands. In my case, I'm not given the 700MHz bands unless it is late at night, when the towers aren't busy.

I even found a tower that has at least 4 bands: B2 20MHz, B30 10MHz, B12 10 MHz and B66 10MHz. It won't give me B12 until late at night. It will give me B2 and B30 all day long, and then adds B12 at night. The only time I got B66 is when I aimed away from the tower enough that it couldn't pick up the higher frequency B30. Then it would give me B66! I haven't tried locking out B30 to see if it will give me B66 when aimed correctly, but that's on my list of things to try. But what is weird is that it will give me B12 if I am physically right next to the tower.

My only guess at their algorithm is that it it will give 3 bands if you are close and have really good signal strength, since they want to maximize the resources for people who can make the most out of them. The rules change when you don't have as strong of a signal. In that case they seem to want to reserve the lower frequency bands for people farther out (except for B2, which is always the primary and has the most bandwidth, with 20 MHz).

In theory, the towers can use your distance in (estimated by a round trip ping time), to determine which resource blocks to give you vs other users on the same band from another, approximately equi-distant tower, in order to reduce interference for those users in the overlapping coverage areas between the towers. In practice, I'm really not sure how much that is utilized.

Thinking about this more, *if* they are only using signal strength and not using the estimated distance, then if I can get my signal strength high enough, it might treat me like I'm right next to the tower and give me the lower frequency bands, even during prime time usage hours. If it will do that, then it might make sense for me to try a grid antenna, if it could get my signal strength high enough. My problem isn't being too far away from the towers. My problem is having too many towers around and too many people. So even if I only get the signal strength high enough for the primary antenna, that might be good enough, since they probably only look at that, not at some average of the two. My panel antennas get good enough signals for reasonable speeds. I just "need" (want) more bands, so that I have more bandwidth, hence more speed.

Lots of "ifs" here, but if the above works out, I *could* use a cheaper grid antenna that doesn't go down to 700MHz as my primary and, either use one of my panel antennas as secondary, or use the second MIMO connection of the horn style antenna that @coldknob is using. Since I only have a 3CA modem currently, B2 + B30 + B66 would give me as much as I can use anyway, and I wouldn't need B12.

It is a price difference of about $150 between the wide band grid antenna and the feed horn variant. Of course, if someone doesn't have secondary antennas, or needs a very high gain for the secondary antennas to get MIMO, then the feed horn antenna is a greater bargain vs buying 2 of the wide band grid antennas.

This is another MIMO feed horn that is priced less, but it is made for parabolic dishes. Not sure if it could be made to work with a grid: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Dual-polarity- ... 2797598911

I'll add to my list of tests to see at what signal strength, physically getting farther and farther from the tower, it stops giving me Band 12 and 66. Using the gain specs on the panel antennas vs the grid antennas might allow me to do the math to figure out if I'll be able to get to a high enough signal strength to fake out the tower into giving me the lower frequency bands. I'll also need to see if it will give me B30 and B66 at the same time if I lock out Band 12 and I'm close to the tower. They could have some other rule about not giving those 2 bands to the same user, or not support all the allowable CA combinations (of which B2+B30+B66 is one).

The variables never end with this stuff.

I think you have it a bit reversed. LTE is a very complex protocol, and the UE (Mobile phone or modem) and the Cell are always providing feedback in a loop to make very complex decisions about band connections/transmission modes and such. Resource blocks in LTE are assigned based on feedback as well and utilized OFDMA (I recommend reading about this very interesting) It's not only signal strength, but that is for sure a big factor. I'd recommend reading the following article, it's quite technical, but will help you understand one aspect of how complex LTE really is:

http://www.sharetechnote.com/html/Handbook_LTE_TransmissionMode.html

Carriers almost always want the UE to connect to the higher frequency bands for a few reasons.

1. They are typically wider bandwith, and less congested.
2. Preserve usage on the lower bands, so they can be used for customers with devices with poor antennas (think cell phones) or devices that are far away or shadowed by obstructions such as inside a building and such.
3. They paid a lot of money for the lower frequency bands, so the less utilized they are the better. This means less network density (they don't have to build out as many towers) and customers are not complaining about coverage and performance.

Typically I don't want to do CA with lower bands cause they are almost always congested especially in rural areas because they cover large areas and theres typically a lot of obstructions. This is why I originally used some band 2 specific yagis to lock only onto that band. I found later that band 2 had a lot of multipathing that was causing poor performance, so I opted to swap out for some antennas that covered 700-2700mhz, so I could band 12 signal in better to help CA with that. Fortunately where I live AT&Ts band 12 isn't super congested, so I can still get 40-50mbps just on that band. Combined with Band 2 i typically get 65-80mbps down.

I recommend now almost always using wide band antennas so you can use all available bands, and let the logic in the LTE modem / cell decide what you should use. Antenna diversity is a good thing which LTE provides, but frequency diversity through different bands is also good as well. It's what makes LTE work quite well in very difficult RF situations.

[xdavidx]

The cable company is setting up a wireless network? That seems odd.

No. What I am saying is that in my situation, if a competitor sprung up that was taking away cable customers, they could face harrassment from the cable company. The form of that harrassment could be trying to create legal problems on the RF front. That doesn't mean they would have anything legitimate to complain to the FCC or local government about, but they could still do it. They've (cable companies) been known to aggressively target competitors before.

Carrier grade connections are almost always fiber. I'll have a 500-1G connection at first, and then add multiples for redundancy upstream.

That is great you are able to get that type of connection in the mountains. I figured you meant fiber, but didn't know you could get that to your house. Unless you are getting it to some other location and setting up the wifi equipment there? Sounds like the start of a fun adventure.

If you give it away for free, shouldn't be a contract violation, just sayin.

The policies are different per provider. Some are no sharing and some are no reselling and no sharing. I know AT&T has a no reselling policy. I'm not sure of the sharing policy. But what is policy and what people do aren't necessarily the same thing. Either way, my main neighbor has a fast enough connection now, even though it is only 22 Mbps, that he wouldn't be interested in setting up a wireless link between houses. There are many who are stuck with 6 Mbps or less DSL that has reliability issues too. It will be a happy day when that crooked phone company (Frontier Communications) loses out to some other, new technology (cellular or low earth orbit satellite).

I have considered approaching the city to see about setting up some sort of coop for a wisp. That's about as far as I've ever gotten. That, and looking into the equipment a bit. My main concern, since it is a populated area (semi-rural, but still enough affected people), is interferring with personal wifi networks. Strategically placed links that go through area with fewer houses might mitigate some of this. Setting up towers or finding existing structures to use (no mountains here) seems problematic as well.

It will probably never happen, but fun to think about when your DSL service is out.

[xdavidx]

I think you have it a bit reversed.

All I can say is that theory is fine, but it doesn't trump what is done in practice. If you are saying they won't give out lower frequency bands to those users close to the towers (those with strong signal strengths), that isn't the case here. I have physically been to the towers and been given low frequency bands, during prime time.

How providers dole out resources is not a standard baked into LTE. It is up to the providers to implement resource allocation in whatever way they want. And that can vary from one area to another, even with the same provider. So what happens with the towers near me may not happen for other people.

I am not claiming that everyone will be able to use higher gain antennas and band locking in order to get their towers to give them extra bands. I am stating that my towers appear to give out lower frequency bands to high signal strength users and low signal strength users, but not give them out to medium signal strength users, during times of congestion. I intend to empirically test this further, and if testing proves it out, I may opt for using one or more higher gain antennas.

Regarding not wanting to use lower frequency bands... I would rather have 2 higher frequency bands aggregated with a congested lower frequency band than only have 2 higher frequency bands. I am dealing with a 3CA modem, not 2CA.

If someone has to pick between a lower frequency band and a higher frequency band of the same bandwidth, then it would generally make sense to *pick* the higher frequency band, as you said. That assumes there aren't other users camped out on the higher frequency band, with LTE modems, downloading torrents 24x7. There will always be exceptions.

But *adding* a low frequency band where no other band exists, for a higher carrier count, with carrier aggregation, can only increase speeds.

At the end of the day, the name of the game is to get the highest average number of resource blocks assigned to your modem during daytime hours, assuming that is when most people generally want to use their lte modems. And, in general, the most likey way to maximize resource blocks is to have access to more aggregate bandwidth, with carrier aggregation.

There is a cost to higher gain antennas and tweaking modem settings, both in terms of price of the equipment and time investment. Most people will opt for and be overjoyed with one of the options you laid out in your great reviews and comparisons of antennas and leaving all bands open in the modem. What we are discussing in this thread is hot-rodding.

[coldknob]

What we are discussing in this thread is hot-rodding.

Hot-rodding! I like it.

You're right that the vast majority could care less what their highest speed is as long as they can stream Netflix, etc.

[swwifty]

Hot-rodding! I like it.

You're right that the vast majority could care less what their highest speed is as long as they can stream Netflix, etc.

And honestly now days thats all we really need. Video conferencing software typically uses less than 5mb/sec.

The average household only uses about 10mb/sec at peak times.

[swwifty]

No. What I am saying is that in my situation, if a competitor sprung up that was taking away cable customers, they could face harrassment from the cable company. The form of that harrassment could be trying to create legal problems on the RF front. That doesn't mean they would have anything legitimate to complain to the FCC or local government about, but they could still do it. They've (cable companies) been known to aggressively target competitors before.


That is great you are able to get that type of connection in the mountains. I figured you meant fiber, but didn't know you could get that to your house. Unless you are getting it to some other location and setting up the wifi equipment there? Sounds like the start of a fun adventure.


The policies are different per provider. Some are no sharing and some are no reselling and no sharing. I know AT&T has a no reselling policy. I'm not sure of the sharing policy. But what is policy and what people do aren't necessarily the same thing. Either way, my main neighbor has a fast enough connection now, even though it is only 22 Mbps, that he wouldn't be interested in setting up a wireless link between houses. There are many who are stuck with 6 Mbps or less DSL that has reliability issues too. It will be a happy day when that crooked phone company (Frontier Communications) loses out to some other, new technology (cellular or low earth orbit satellite).

I have considered approaching the city to see about setting up some sort of coop for a wisp. That's about as far as I've ever gotten. That, and looking into the equipment a bit. My main concern, since it is a populated area (semi-rural, but still enough affected people), is interferring with personal wifi networks. Strategically placed links that go through area with fewer houses might mitigate some of this. Setting up towers or finding existing structures to use (no mountains here) seems problematic as well.

It will probably never happen, but fun to think about when your DSL service is out.

heh, I wish I could get fiber to my house, but that would cost tens of thousands of dollars.

I'll have fiber at a central location in downtown and backhaul it wireless to various towers in the area, which will then serve customers off of that.

While starting a WISP is not easy, I'm learning very quickly its not a technology problem. The main issue is spectrum, and competeing with the big carriers that want it all. Unfortunately, the government only makes this problem worse than it is buy making it hard for WISPS to effectively serve customers and be cost effective.

[swwifty]

All I can say is that theory is fine, but it doesn't trump what is done in practice. If you are saying they won't give out lower frequency bands to those users close to the towers (those with strong signal strengths), that isn't the case here. I have physically been to the towers and been given low frequency bands, during prime time.

How providers dole out resources is not a standard baked into LTE. It is up to the providers to implement resource allocation in whatever way they want. And that can vary from one area to another, even with the same provider. So what happens with the towers near me may not happen for other people.

I am not claiming that everyone will be able to use higher gain antennas and band locking in order to get their towers to give them extra bands. I am stating that my towers appear to give out lower frequency bands to high signal strength users and low signal strength users, but not give them out to medium signal strength users, during times of congestion. I intend to empirically test this further, and if testing proves it out, I may opt for using one or more higher gain antennas.

Regarding not wanting to use lower frequency bands... I would rather have 2 higher frequency bands aggregated with a congested lower frequency band than only have 2 higher frequency bands. I am dealing with a 3CA modem, not 2CA.

If someone has to pick between a lower frequency band and a higher frequency band of the same bandwidth, then it would generally make sense to *pick* the higher frequency band, as you said. That assumes there aren't other users camped out on the higher frequency band, with LTE modems, downloading torrents 24x7. There will always be exceptions.

But *adding* a low frequency band where no other band exists, for a higher carrier count, with carrier aggregation, can only increase speeds.

At the end of the day, the name of the game is to get the highest average number of resource blocks assigned to your modem during daytime hours, assuming that is when most people generally want to use their lte modems. And, in general, the most likey way to maximize resource blocks is to have access to more aggregate bandwidth, with carrier aggregation.

There is a cost to higher gain antennas and tweaking modem settings, both in terms of price of the equipment and time investment. Most people will opt for and be overjoyed with one of the options you laid out in your great reviews and comparisons of antennas and leaving all bands open in the modem. What we are discussing in this thread is hot-rodding.

What kind of antenna were you using up close at the base of the tower? I've noticed while switching antennas, that just the internal UFL cables and SMA connectors act as an antenna that is good enough to pickup the 700mhz band, heh.

[xdavidx]

What kind of antenna were you using up close at the base of the tower? I've noticed while switching antennas, that just the internal UFL cables and SMA connectors act as an antenna that is good enough to pickup the 700mhz band, heh.

I saw this both with some small omni antennas and the 15 dBi panel antennas. I got 3CA with both types, with one of the carriers being Band 12.

[swwifty]

I saw this both with some small omni antennas and the 15 dBi panel antennas. I got 3CA with both types, with one of the carriers being Band 12.

oh, but the PCC wasn't Band 12, right?

[xdavidx]

oh, but the PCC wasn't Band 12, right?

Nope. I've never gotten that. I haven't tried blocking all bands except 12, though. That might do it.

But that's not my goal. I just want Band 12 or 66 as a 3rd carrier, to go along with Band 2 and 30, or along with Band 2 and 4 on another tower.

[swwifty]

Nope. I've never gotten that. I haven't tried blocking all bands except 12, though. That might do it.

But that's not my goal. I just want Band 12 or 66 as a 3rd carrier, to go along with Band 2 and 30, or along with Band 2 and 4 on another tower.

Gotcha that makes more sense. I thought earlier you were saying that band 12 was a PCC when you were closer to the tower.

Sorry I'm trying to do too much right now, lol, working 2 full time jobs.

[xdavidx]

Gotcha that makes more sense. I thought earlier you were saying that band 12 was a PCC when you were closer to the tower.

No, I generally get Band 2 or Band 66 as primary. I do have one tower where my notes show a possibly Band 12 as primary, but I could have written that down in the wrong order.

Sorry I'm trying to do too much right now, lol, working 2 full time jobs.

I'm sure that WISP is a *lot* of work. Hopefully a fun type of work.

[swwifty]

I'm sure that WISP is a *lot* of work. Hopefully a fun type of work.

Yeah it is. Hopefully it'll be a bit more fun once I start building out the network and hook up customers who are going to be thrilled.

Right now it's a lot of business planning. Although, I am looking forward to doing some long range testing with a few various potential radios I'll be using this weekend.

[xdavidx]

Yeah it is. Hopefully it'll be a bit more fun once I start building out the network and hook up customers who are going to be thrilled.

Customers are a nice thing for a business to have!

Right now it's a lot of business planning. Although, I am looking forward to doing some long range testing with a few various potential radios I'll be using this weekend.

I bet.

So are these towers owned by the cellular companies? The rates they charge for antenna space must be pretty reasonable to not put you in the red?

How many wireless hops do you have to take to get from the fiber up to the first distribution node?

[swwifty]

Customers are a nice thing for a business to have!


I bet.

So are these towers owned by the cellular companies? The rates they charge for antenna space must be pretty reasonable to not put you in the red?

How many wireless hops do you have to take to get from the fiber up to the first distribution node?

Yes, customers are good lol. I'm just making sure there is an actual customer base before I build out a network.

The towers typically aren't owned by cellular companies despite common believe. Most cell towers in the states are owned by two companies. Crown Castle and American Tower. The rates are not too expensive to make it prohibitive, if you have a customer base before you build out or you're just rich and like throwing money away.

Only one wireless hop is needed to get to the first tower that can serve customers. It's not uncommon though for WISPs to have 4-5+ hops between the tower you as a customer connect to, and their core network.

We probably should create another thread to discuss this, and not hi-jack this thread anymore

[xdavidx]

We probably should create another thread to discuss this, and not hi-jack this thread anymore

Go for it! Interesting topic!

[Need4Speed]

Great read along in this topic! Seeing the results this guy pulled sold me right away on these parabolic grid antennas. https://youtu.be/xzqkoPL9t9A

I'm ~7 miles from my tower and knew I'd need highest gain possible. Also since it covers 600-6k it's pretty much universal in the event I'd ever want to switch carriers or towers were upgraded/changed.

The biggest drawback is the price. Not many people are willing to drop 360 on two antennas.

[Need4Speed]

Just got 2 of these(bolton technical ultragain 26) in the mail yesterday, assembled, and pole mounted. Pretty much trial and error as far as orientation and spacing of the 2 antennas go according to the Wilson antenna guy i spoke with. He said ppl don't normally buy 2. All he could really tell me about them is that they were extremely directional and they were pretty time consuming to hone in on the tower. Gonna take them out to my parents place and see if they'll reach a tower ~8 miles away to see if a setup like mine would be feasible for them.

[xdavidx]

There is a build of the WiFiX firmware that apparently has a login option where you can get the signal stats updated in near realtime instead of having to run the command manually in the misc modem screen. I think this would help you greatly in aiming the antennas. If you have a hand held signal meter, that would work too, but most people don't have those.

[David522]

Need4Speed, let us know how that goes. I was thinking about buying two myself, when I move the cell tower is going to be about 7.5 miles out from my location and its a highway tower so they might be pointed only at the highway but shall see.

[Need4Speed]

Testing at my parents place was a complete success. Mounted the antenna pole about chest high just because it was easier. Top antenna was around 15' from ground second probably about 10'. Base test was WG3526/EM7565 with stock antennas. Got basically dial up speeds.

SmartSelect_20190816-224113_Speedtest.jpg

There were 2 trees(a big maple and dense evergreen) we were pushing through in the yard and were able to go from about -105dbm to -95dbm. Also picked up 3CA. Wasn't able to grab any ss of the of the at!Gstatus =( was trying to explain everything to my pops. He's fully on board with getting my exact setup so The Wireless Haven definitely has another customer! His tv tower(40') is taller than mine(33') so he'll have no problem clearing the trees. Only drawback is he'll need some more expensive lmr600 vs my lmr400 since he'll need a longer run of cable. I'm already pushing it with my 50' runs. Here's the speed tests. I'll begin my permanent install tomorrow at my house.

SmartSelect_20190816-224220_Speedtest.jpg

SmartSelect_20190816-224302_Speedtest.jpg

SmartSelect_20190816-224454_Speedtest.jpg

[xdavidx]

That's called SUCCESS! Congratulations! And good luck at your place.

What is the last screenshot from? The one where it was only 4.64 Mbps down. Your test server was different then too.

Regarding coax cable, another option is powering the devices outside in weatherproof enclosures and then running ethernet cable from there to a router/wireless access point inside the house. Saves on money for the fancy coax and reduces line losses.

When you see the downloads drop down to the low 20+Mbps vs the upload staying the same, that generally means the tower is congested. More people are downloading than uploading, so the downloads are affected, but the uploads aren't affected as much.

Would love to see the signal stats and hear more about your aiming adventures!

[Need4Speed]

That's called SUCCESS! Congratulations! And good luck at your place.

What is the last screenshot from? The one where it was only 4.64 Mbps down. Your test server was different then too.

Regarding coax cable, another option is powering the devices outside in weatherproof enclosures and then running ethernet cable from there to a router/wireless access point inside the house. Saves on money for the fancy coax and reduces line losses.

When you see the downloads drop down to the low 20+Mbps vs the upload staying the same, that generally means the tower is congested. More people are downloading than uploading, so the downloads are affected, but the uploads aren't affected as much.

Would love to see the signal stats and hear more about your aiming adventures!

Last screenshot is his current internet. Yes I noticed that it was a different server although i had Chicago favorited. I had them run speedtest on their direct wired computer too and the results were similar. I told him about the POE setup but he preferred to have everything indoors. We get some pretty nasty weather here. I do have a little more tweaking on my antenna mast before permanently installing... Gonna use my laser level to make sure both are perfectly lined up together. I'll post some pictures tomorrow of the setup.

[Need4Speed]

This was an all day project! Just gotta tidy up some cables and bond my lighting arresters to the tower. I'll post up a more detailed tutorial on my setup sometime soon. I'll be doing this all again at my parents place soon I'm sure.

Here's my 4 gang junction box for lightning arresters, ethernet, and power. This took a while to build due to excessive ocd LoL

20190817_142926.jpg

20190817_152023.jpg

Here's it installed. Came out just as I'd hoped.

20190817_195024.jpg

Now for the antennas themselves...

20190817_194342.jpg

Locking in on tower didn't take too long since i pretty much knew exactly where tower is thanks to Google earth. Was challenging trying to twist the pole on the tower while watching my phone hahaha

SmartSelect_20190817-191610_Chrome.jpg

SmartSelect_20190818-101722_Speedtest.jpg

Unhooked second antenna to confirm MIMO.
Speeds tanked!

SmartSelect_20190818-101810_Speedtest.jpg

SmartSelect_20190817-192152_Chrome.jpg

[Need4Speed]

Best i could get was -89-90 so I locked it in there.

SmartSelect_20190817-195211_Chrome.jpg

SmartSelect_20190818-102746_Speedtest.jpg

Now if I could find a way better way on bridging the wg3526 and my asus at other end of the house I'll be happy!
Atm I'm using Jims work around. http://wirelessjoint.com/viewtopic.php?t=49

It's a bummer because i loose the wifi capabilities of the wg3526 at the other end of the house where the asus can't reach.

[xdavidx]

Congrats on the good results!

Something weird happened when you disconnected the second antenna. That wasn't just losing MIMO. Might want to try it again to see if those results repeat.

You have 20 MHz total bandwidth. Are there possibly other towers you can reach? They might have more bandwidth.

[Need4Speed]

Here's what it's pulling now...

Code: Select all

AT!GSTATUS? 
!GSTATUS: 
Current Time:  50776		Temperature: 49
Reset Counter: 1		Mode:        ONLINE         
System mode:   LTE        	PS state:    Attached     
LTE band:      B66    		LTE bw:      10 MHz  
LTE Rx chan:   0		LTE Tx chan: 132622
LTE SSC1 state:NOT ASSIGNED
LTE SSC2 state:NOT ASSIGNED
LTE SSC3 state:NOT ASSIGNED
LTE SSC4 state:NOT ASSIGNED
EMM state:     Registered     	Normal Service 
RRC state:     RRC Connected  
IMS reg state: No Srv  		

PCC RxM RSSI:  -56		PCC RxM RSRP:  -85
PCC RxD RSSI:  -48		PCC RxD RSRP:  -85
Tx Power:      -6		TAC:         4004 (16388)
RSRQ (dB):     -8.8		Cell ID:     0349a434 (55157812)
SINR (dB):     24.6


OK

Here's with 2nd antenna unhooked

Code: Select all

AT!GSTATUS? 
!GSTATUS: 
Current Time:  51069		Temperature: 47
Reset Counter: 1		Mode:        ONLINE         
System mode:   LTE        	PS state:    Attached     
LTE band:      B66    		LTE bw:      10 MHz  
LTE Rx chan:   0		LTE Tx chan: 132622
LTE SSC1 state:NOT ASSIGNED
LTE SSC2 state:NOT ASSIGNED
LTE SSC3 state:NOT ASSIGNED
LTE SSC4 state:NOT ASSIGNED
EMM state:     Registered     	Normal Service 
RRC state:     RRC Connected  
IMS reg state: No Srv  		

PCC RxM RSSI:  -58		PCC RxM RSRP:  -90
PCC RxD RSSI:  -96		PCC RxD RSRP:  -135
Tx Power:      --		TAC:         4004 (16388)
RSRQ (dB):     -15.0		Cell ID:     0349a434 (55157812)
SINR (dB):     21.6


OK

I do have another tower that's farther away (11 miles) and LOS isn't as good. I guess I could give that one a shot.

[xdavidx]

That is a different tower than your earlier tests. Look at the CID. Could be same tower and different transmitters, but the band is different too. If it is jumping between towers and the bands are mutually exclusive, you can lock out the band(s) of the one you don't want. You could lock out band 66 in this case, since you are only getting 10 MHz on this tower. That assumes band 66 is all you get. You want to grab stats while doing a download to see all the bands for carrier aggregation. The both antenna stats looks like there may have been some transmitting going on. If so, then that tower isn't as good for you as your earlier tower.

The speed test is what you want for the MIMO test. It is interesting that the signal strength for the primary antenna went down 5 points when the second was disconnected. But if there was a big enough time gap, other variables could have come into play.

[Need4Speed]

Glad you pointed out the cell id. I did some looking on cellmapper today. Couldn't find any towers until I zoomed way out. The tower I'm locked on is one that is 19.2 miles away! I'm blown away by the speed I'm getting this far away! Averaging 50-60/25-30. What's even crazier is that the cell is pointed east on the tower and I'm northwest of the tower.

SmartSelect_20190819-172513_Chrome.jpg

Time to climb the tower and do some re-aiming. Very glad to know i have almost 20 mile reach with these antennas. This opens up my tower choices a lot. Now to lock on the tower I was shooting for that's only 7 miles away.

[xdavidx]

That *is* a long way! lol

The online databases often have incorrect and missing information, so I wouldn't take too much stock in that. The locations, especially, are often very wrong. If you use google maps in satellite mode and find the tower there and get the coordinates from that, then you'll have the true location. Taking the router with smaller antennas to the tower is one way to really know what it can do. Parking a few blocks away is better than directly under.

What terrain is this in? Curious, since you can reach that far without too much attenuation from plants, apparently.

How did you manage to lock onto 2 different towers with those narrow beamwidth antennas. Did you change the aiming between or is one tower behind the other? I guess if you get far enough away from them, then that narrow beamwidth could still cover a wider physical area that encompasses towers to the side of each other.

Closer may not end up being better for speeds. The tower capabilities and congestion may play a bigger role, since you have the ability to get a good signal at a variety of distances. However, weather may lower the signal quality more at those longer distances, so you might want to test during rain before making any permanent mounting configurations. I'm guessing you can reaim at will, but just something to keep in mind.

Fun science experiment!

[Need4Speed]

Well I'm definitely making improvements. There's no information on the cell id I'm connected to on cellmapper but I believe it's definitely the same tower I'm aiming for since the first 4 numbers coincide, my first tweak on the mast jumped speeds way up...
Unfortunately I wasn't able to get the exact at!gstatus? On this first tweak to the mast of course i got a phone call so after climbing down was on the phone but did quick speed test and it was jaw dropping.

SmartSelect_20190819-201313_Speedtest.jpg

It had to have been band 2. That's the fastest bandwidth available in my area i believe(15mhz). Must have had 3CA to be able to pull that kind of dl. So after getting off the phone i was able to get back to business tweaking for the best signal. Dumb me should've left it alone after getting that kind of dl speed but the chase for best possible got the best of me. Speeds got better but imo the live network status is somewhat flawed. It'll tell you the best dbm but that's not necessarily the best for speeds as i tweaked my mast to the best possible dbm, the speed was worse. So I'll need to go up the tower to do some more testing based on just speed tests. Also I'm not able to grab b2, it keeps giving me b66 on the unknown cell id. I'm deathly afraid of tweaking the router to band locking in any way especially when things are just working at this point. After locking down the mast and calling it a night I've been monitoring the debugging info I'm noticing b2 occasionally pop up under 3CA from just 2CA(both b66). So i definitely have some more tweaking to get dialed in. Here's the final lock in stats for tonight... I did a speed test via my ethernet on pc then pulled stats via my phone to see 3CA stats.

Code: Select all

AT!GSTATUS?
!GSTATUS: 
Current Time:  10873		Temperature: 55
Reset Counter: 1		Mode:        ONLINE         
System mode:   LTE        	PS state:    Attached     
LTE band:      B12    		LTE bw:      5 MHz   
LTE Rx chan:   5145		LTE Tx chan: 23145
LTE SSC1 state:ACTIVE      	LTE SSC1 band: B2     
LTE SSC1 bw  : 15 MHz  		LTE SSC1 chan: 675
LTE SSC2 state:ACTIVE      	LTE SSC2 band: B4     
LTE SSC2 bw  : 10 MHz  		LTE SSC2 chan: 2200
LTE SSC3 state:NOT ASSIGNED
LTE SSC4 state:NOT ASSIGNED
EMM state:     Registered     	Normal Service 
RRC state:     RRC Connected  
IMS reg state: No Srv  		

PCC RxM RSSI:  -53		PCC RxM RSRP:  -69
PCC RxD RSSI:  -46		PCC RxD RSRP:  -67
SCC1 RxM RSSI: -53		SCC1 RxM RSRP: -84
SCC1 RxD RSSI: -40		SCC1 RxD RSRP: -75
SCC2 RxM RSSI: -54		SCC2 RxM RSRP: -85
SCC2 RxD RSSI: -42		SCC2 RxD RSRP: -80
Tx Power:      -1		TAC:         4004 (16388)
RSRQ (dB):     -11.1		Cell ID:     0349a411 (55157777)
SINR (dB):     12.6


OK

I can't pull up any information on that 55157777 cell. The one I'm trying to grab is 55157770 that has b2.

Here's the speed test ran on laptop via ethernet during stat capture. Still unsure how to lock in Chicago as favorable server as its never been available to favorite.

20190819_223844.jpg

Terrain in my area is pretty flat. Open corn fields all around with little foliage. Here's the Google earth comparison of the 2 towers. Definitely confirmed that the big old grid antennas are doing thier job.

Towers.jpg

A few pics from the top of my tv tower pointing toward lte tower.

20190819_194537.jpg

20190819_194547.jpg

[xdavidx]

HA! So you don't *know* which tower the 166 Mbps came from. That is damn fast, and at such a distance. But it does make me think of searching for Walter in On Golden Pond: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_h8C_rCbgU You know he's out there somewhere now!

Your uploads are suffering with only 5MHz available, but the downloads sure lover that tower. It must be a very underutilized tower. 6:36 PM isn't the hottest time of the night usually (at least around here), but it also isn't the slowest time.

As for a band coming and going, the towers can do that based on congestion, on purpose. Just didn't want you driving yourself crazy with aiming. It *is* possible aiming is the reason too, but your signal stats are very good, so good chance it is the tower doing it. And there isn't much you can do about that, other than block the other bands. One way to get a better idea if it is the tower doing this is to run the at!gstatus? command, during a speed test, between 3 and 4 AM. Or maybe in farm country, 2 and 3 AM would work better. The idea is to run it when most people are sleeping. If it consistently gives you the extra band then, but doesn't during waking hours, then it is probably the tower taking it away in an effort to share resources among consumers.

Not sure how your tower mast is set up, but if if you mark a line on whatever is clamping the mast, to use as your zero, and then draw a line on the mast each time you get a spot you want to keep (that lines up with the zero), then you can get back to it easy enough.

The speed can jump around based on congestion. The RSRP won't. So you *should* get the best average speed when you have it set to the best RSRP (for a given CID). What is theoretically possible is for your antennas to be hearing two towers and getting some interference from the one you aren't connected to. If so, then aiming to the side of your target tower that is on the other side from the interfering tower, could, in theory, lower your RSRP, but increase your speeds. I'd bet more on congestion, however.

You definitely don't want to go off just one speed test or even 10 in a short period of time. If you find multiple towers with good speeds, you could mark them off on the mast (at lowest RSRP) and then set it at one of them and use this tool to automate running the speed tests every N minutes for a day: https://testmy.net/auto Of course, if you are *using* the connection (phones, computers, etc. connected to it, especially if Windows is doing Windows Updates), that will skew the results. Best would be just a single computer with firewall set to not allow outbound connections except for the speedtest.net app. Or Linux, if you have that available.

Anyway, you'll get an idea of what times of day are best and how much the speed varies at certain times of day, what your top speed is, your minimum speed and your average. Then you can try one of the other towers too. However, to be 100% sure you know what the tests are testing, you'd want to run the at!gstatus? command periodically to make sure you aren't jumping CIDs. That would invalidate the tests somewhat. On the other hand, if you have two towers (or CIDS on the same tower) that close together and *if* they both get great speeds, then you have redundancy built into the system in case one tower goes dark.

Your primary and secondary antenna signal strengths for a given carrier are off by more than a little bit. Either the antennas aren't aimed in the same exact direction (which would be magnified at these distances and with that narrow beamwidth) or the lower one is hitting some obstacles or reflections off metal roofs are affecting it more than the top one. Moving it up closer to the top one may improve the situation.

**CORRECTION: I looked at the RSRP values wrong the first time. The primary antenna is worse than the secondary. So either they aren't in sync for aiming and the lower antenna is pointed better, or you have the top antenna plugged into the secondary antenna port on the router and the bottom antenna plugged into the primary antenna port on the router. More info in my next post on this.

Having said all that, I'm just talking about if you really want to eek out the last Mbps for fun. You are getting signal strengths and speeds that most people only dream about, especially at those distances.

Congrats on an awesome setup! And thanks for sharing the details and the pictures.

[Need4Speed]

Grabbed a quick look before heading out the door this morning. It's finally giving me "walter" this is the cell id I've been trying for. So I'm guessing that it's only going to give it to me when there's no congestion.

Code: Select all

AT!GSTATUS?
!GSTATUS: 
Current Time:  42753		Temperature: 48
Reset Counter: 1		Mode:        ONLINE         
System mode:   LTE        	PS state:    Attached     
LTE band:      B2     		LTE bw:      15 MHz  
LTE Rx chan:   675		LTE Tx chan: 18675
LTE SSC1 state:INACTIVE    	LTE SSC1 band: B66    
LTE SSC1 bw  : 10 MHz  		LTE SSC1 chan: 0
LTE SSC2 state:INACTIVE    	LTE SSC2 band: B66    
LTE SSC2 bw  : 10 MHz  		LTE SSC2 chan: 0
LTE SSC3 state:NOT ASSIGNED
LTE SSC4 state:NOT ASSIGNED
EMM state:     Registered     	Normal Service 
RRC state:     RRC Connected  
IMS reg state: No Srv  		

PCC RxM RSSI:  -53		PCC RxM RSRP:  -76
PCC RxD RSSI:  -50		PCC RxD RSRP:  -75
SCC1 RxM RSSI: -104		SCC1 RxM RSRP: -126
SCC1 RxD RSSI: -66		SCC1 RxD RSRP: -111
SCC2 RxM RSSI: -102		SCC2 RxM RSRP: -125
SCC2 RxD RSSI: -59		SCC2 RxD RSRP: -103
Tx Power:      --		TAC:         4004 (16388)
RSRQ (dB):     -10.0		Cell ID:     0349a40a (55157770)
SINR (dB):     -3.4


OK

SmartSelect_20190820-080339_Speedtest.jpg

I'm definitely pleased with the results. Huge upgrade compared to the 6mbps/2 my old isp gave me at almost double the price. If it can produce consistent results switching between the two cells I think I'll just leave it be. Definitely don't want to over tweak and loose these results. I'll have to monitor over the next few days.

[xdavidx]

You caught Walter!!!

Interesting that Walter's signal strength is worse than the other CID. The strengths of the primary CIDs may be close enough that it is a toss of the dice which one you get. It doesn't use secondaries for deciding that. It is also possible that it is taking away the other CID's primary to give it to other people. You would then be left with its secondary vs Walter's primary and Walter's primary has a stronger signal, so you get it. That does make perfect sense, since the other CID's primary is B12. I get B12 taken away here during peak times, although it is a secondary carrier for me. It is probably giving B12 to other users who it thinks are farther away. You are treated as if you are close to the tower, since your signal strength is so good. B12's lower frequency travels farther, so it reserves it for outlying users who can't get the higher frequencies.

It is interesting that you are able to get those speeds with the poor signal strengths of the two B66 carriers. They probably aren't operating optimally at that strength, but still give you a bit of a boost over the 15 MHz of the primary band.

Also, I realized that I looked at your RSRP values wrong in my previous post. Your primary antenna is worse than the secondary. So that most likely means either a poor connection in the cable, or the antennas aren't aimed in sync. That could be left to right aiming or up and down. If you are able to get them in sync (or fix the cable connection), your speeds should increase for Walter. It may not affect the other CID speeds as much, since they are super strong regardless.

It is possible that you have the top antenna plugged into the secondary antenna port on your router too. And the bottom antenna, if it is the primary, may be hitting some trees or roof reflections. Swapping the ports on the router should bump up your upload speeds a little bit, since only the primary is used for uploads.

At first glance, I'd think Walter and the other one are on different towers, due to signal strengths. However, given the CID numbers only vary by the last digit, they are probably on the same tower. You may be near the sector boundary, so you are able to get both CIDs. There is enough overlap for you to get Walter's primary carrier strong enough to make it switch to that CID, but the secondaries are pointing away more for Walter, hence the poorer strengths for those carriers. B66 (Walter secondaries) would normally be stronger than B2 (Walter primary and non-Walter primary when B12 is taken away), since B66 is a lower frequency. It makes sense in the case of Walter vs non-Walter, if Walter is pointing away from you more. It doesn't make a lot of sense for Walter primary vs Walter secondary carriers. Maybe they have the transmitters for B66 aimed down more than for B2 on Walter. Or there are some reflections going on and you are bouncing your antennas off the ground the way they are aimed (up/down aiming), which would introduce more variables.

If you take the router to the tower, or even a phone on AT&T to the tower, you'll find out if both CIDs are on the tower and which direction they point, by hitting it from different sides.

Yes, you have a good system, with 2 good CIDs. The only downside to the non-Walter CID is the weak upload from the 5MHz primary. The only downside to Walter is his poorer second and third carrier signal strengths. Those could become a problem in rain and snow. You would still have a solid 15MHz of bandwidth on Walter even if the B66 carriers drop off, however.

Also, regarding speedtest, I forgot to reply that you have to scroll way down in the list to find the speedtest server sometimes to mark it as a favorite.

You aren't using an amplifier with these, right? Just the antennas?

[Need4Speed]

LoL! CID is officially dubbed Walter!

Yes just antennas, no amplifier. The way I synced the antennas on the mast was placing the mount brackets flat on the floor then clamp them down.

20190817_103211.jpg

I definitely have the top antenna hooked to primary on router. This was confirmed when I unhooked secondary to test MIMO. Guess I could try swapping them and see if there's any improvement. Can't hurt anything.

Before I put the knot on the mast clamps I used a level to make sure it was straight.

I have yet to test if decreasing the space between them will help. Atm they're 28" apart from the edges of the grids. Feed hornes are ~5.5' apart. I also have the feed horns adjusted all the way in(slot 4) which is supposed to be +1-2dbi gain on 1700-6500mhz.

I'm slowly getting more comfortable making adjustments... At first I was afraid to mess with anything but the more I tinker with it the better it gets. So far each adjustment has made speed improvements so I think I'm heading down the right path.

I sure hope there's no connection issues under my butyl rubber tape, that stuff was a major PIA to put on due to the mounting bracket u bolts.

20190817_174957.jpg

If there is a connection issue i should be able to swap primary and secondary to see it. I really cranked those n fittings down before taping. I'll have to double check my junction box fittings. It's possible after the install one came loose as I fed excess coax back into the attic. The Never-ending chase for more speed!

[xdavidx]

Can you provide a mapping table of CID and distance to the tower and max speed achieved up and down? That would make it easier to see how far you are going for a given speed. With your ultra flat, and mostly clear, terrain, and these high gain antennas, the distance isn't as big of a factor as it is for most people. Seems like your biggest obstacle is the curvature of the earth!

Another tool that is helpful is on ubiquiti's website: https://link.ui.com

Using that tool, you can map things out like this and see the terrain for each link:

towers_as_of_20190614.png

In your case, that curve of the earth at the bottom of the screen may start intersecting with the fresnel zone of the radios. It is free to create an account and then you can save your maps and reload them later.

[xdavidx]

I am guessing, at that distance, any minor variations in the mounts or the antennas themselves will be magnified and can result in RSRP differences. If you swap them at the router, then if the problem is aiming of the top antenna or anything in the cabling between the antennas and the router, you'll get better upload speeds. But swapping won't tell you if it is a cable issue or aiming issue between the antennas and the router. If the problem is the connector inside the router, to the modem, then it shouldn't change things *if* the antennas are *exactly* in sync (pointing-wise) and you swap the connectors on the outside of the router. So if the primary is still weaker than the secondary after swapping at the router, I'd check the connectors on the modem inside the router.

Another thing you can do is twist the mast a *tiny* bit to the left and then a tiny bit to the right. If you can get the primary antenna to have a stronger signal strength than the secondary, then you know it is pointing issues and not wiring issues.

You did a great job on the taping. It would be a shame to have to redo that!

I am trying to visualize that mount and how it is used to aim up and down. You put the bolt through other holes to adjust the up/down angle? Can you only adjust one way, since you are already at the last hole?

[Need4Speed]

20190820_214824.jpg

Here's what I got playing with that ubiquiti tool.

Very slick tool! Checked that tower thats 19.23mi away. Like how it shows curvature of the earth.

20190820_220703.jpg

I'll open up the router and check out the connections tomorrow. Shockingly I got better ping times(25ms) on the tower further away vs the one closer(45ms). I pulled up the tower heights off of antenna search.

The mounts are adjustable in 2 ways as far as angle. The single slotted holes or the open curved slot. Looking at these charts it almost looks like I may actually benefit from angling them up a few degrees.

[swwifty]

FYI the EM7565 has a firmware bug that shows the main signal stats on B66 to be weaker than they really are. I noticed that in a couple of your screenshots. It's not an actual problem.

[Need4Speed]

FYI the EM7565 has a firmware bug that shows the main signal stats on B66 to be weaker than they really are. I noticed that in a couple of your screenshots. It's not an actual problem.

Thanks! I'm 100% positive about my connections being tight. Gonna crack open the router today and just double check that they're fully clipped on the modem pins. I do recall reading that some had issues with them popping off. I'm pretty sure this isn't the case here but opening up the router just to double check is a breeze and will confirm. I think my next tweak will be to close the distance between the two and see if I can get any improvement. I'm just nervous that it's gonna be extremely difficult to get them back in sync once I loosen up a mount.

[swwifty]

Thanks! I'm 100% positive about my connections being tight. Gonna crack open the router today and just double check that they're fully clipped on the modem pins. I do recall reading that some had issues with them popping off. I'm pretty sure this isn't the case here but opening up the router just to double check is a breeze and will confirm. I think my next tweak will be to close the distance between the two and see if I can get any improvement. I'm just nervous that it's gonna be extremely difficult to get them back in sync once I loosen up a mount.

honestly, with the speeds you are showing I wouldn't bother. I did alot of experimentation and found very little difference.

The only thing I'd be worried about is big signal differences between the two antennas. This is a sign of multipath, and can severely degrade the performance of the link, but it doesn't seem you have any issues with your setup.

[Need4Speed]

Thanks. I'm getting very consistent speeds with the current setup. I'll average 50-60dl/25-30up during congestion times and when it's not congested it'll give me the faster band 2 that pulls 100-130dl/35-40up. It's operating in QMI since that's how it came. You think switching to MBIM would help any? I'm probably just fine as is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it! LoL

[swwifty]

Thanks. I'm getting very consistent speeds with the current setup. I'll average 50-60dl/25-30up during congestion times and when it's not congested it'll give me the faster band 2 that pulls 100-130dl/35-40up. It's operating in QMI since that's how it came. You think switching to MBIM would help any? I'm probably just fine as is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it! LoL

I wouldn't bother. I did notice with Verizon that when I changed between QMI and MBIM modes I got connected to different bands. You could try that to see what happens, but your connection already sounds really good for LTE.

[xdavidx]

FYI the EM7565 has a firmware bug that shows the main signal stats on B66 to be weaker than they really are. I noticed that in a couple of your screenshots. It's not an actual problem.

Wow, that's a crazy, specific bug. Do you have a link to a source on this bug from the Sierra website, or was it in some release notes?