I saw this was released in the newsletter today. Is built in LTE designed to be used as a fail-over/aggregation in addition to a traditional broadband connection? I am surprised it does not have an external LTE antenna option.

"A huge advantage where there are a lot of LTE users in the area..." Don't they mean LTE service providers?

Wouldn't a better solution be a hAP ac2 with an outdoor mounted wAP LTE modem for fail-over, aggregation, or simple broadband connection?

"A huge advantage where there are a lot of LTE users in the area..." Don't they mean LTE service providers?

No, users indeed. You have to read the previous sentences properly:

It enables carrier aggregation, allowing you to use the LTE connection with speed up to 300 Mbps. It works by using multiple LTE bands at the same time. A huge advantage when there are a lot of LTE users in the area.

Carrier doesn't mean "operator" or "service provider" here but "carrier radio frequency". And "using multiple LTE bands at the same time" means that the same service provider must cover the area in at least two frequency bands. And even if they do, the carrier aggregation must be supported at their side, which may not be the case. So all in all - the advantage exists as long as the service provider offers it in their network. If the same number of users in the same geographical area, all of them with the same bandwidth requirements as before, becomes served by two or three times more base station sectors, then of course the "available megabits per user" doubles or triples.

Since there is a single slot for a SIM, simultaneous use of two providers, let alone aggregating the traffic through them into a single logical pipe, is not possible.

Wouldn't a better solution be a hAP ac2 with an outdoor mounted wAP LTE modem for fail-over, aggregation, or simple broadband connection?

I have the same opinion, provided that the LTE modem used in the hAP ac³ is a plug-in one which will be available also for use in the wAP LTE kit. But some people prefer less boxes and cables to LTE signal quality.

"A huge advantage where there are a lot of LTE users in the area..." Don't they mean LTE service providers?

No, users indeed. You have to read the previous sentences properly:

It enables carrier aggregation, allowing you to use the LTE connection with speed up to 300 Mbps. It works by using multiple LTE bands at the same time. A huge advantage when there are a lot of LTE users in the area.

Carrier doesn't mean "operator" or "service provider" here but "carrier radio frequency". And "using multiple LTE bands at the same time" means that the same service provider must cover the area in at least two frequency bands. And even if they do, the carrier aggregation must be supported at their side, which may not be the case. So all in all - the advantage exists as long as the service provider offers it in their network. If the same number of users in the same geographical area, all of them with the same bandwidth requirements as before, becomes served by two or three times more base station sectors, then of course the "available megabits per user" doubles or triples.

Since there is a single slot for a SIM, simultaneous use of two providers, let alone aggregating the traffic through them into a single logical pipe, is not possible.

Wouldn't a better solution be a hAP ac2 with an outdoor mounted wAP LTE modem for fail-over, aggregation, or simple broadband connection?

I have the same opinion, provided that the LTE modem used in the hAP ac³ is a plug-in one which will be available also for use in the wAP LTE kit. But some people prefer less boxes and cables to LTE signal quality.

Again sindy - a sincere thank you. I understand now. I appreciate your clear and concise responses.

Wouldn't a better solution be a hAP ac2 with an outdoor mounted wAP LTE modem for fail-over, aggregation, or simple broadband connection?

I have the same opinion, provided that the LTE modem used in the hAP ac³ is a plug-in one which will be available also for use in the wAP LTE kit. But some people prefer less boxes and cables to LTE signal quality.

There are a few almost orthogonal cases where customer has to use LTE as uplink ... one is deep rural environment without any other possibility and cell tower at a distance. In this case a big (ugly) LTE antenna is a huge bonus or a must. The other use case is suburban area without decent fixed infrastructure but with (very) decent LTE coverage - both signal-strength and capacity wise ... possibly exactly due to the fact there's no fixed infrastructure but there are plenty of customers. And in the second case (signal strength not being a problem) an indoor LTE device without external (ugly) antenna is a viable option as well. This concept does hurt my soul of a humble ex-radio-engineer, IMHO fixed wireless broadband without using a big (ugly) antenna should be banned by constitution. But sadly I'm not in position to dictate contents of constitution or write an amendment.

| sed 's/ugly/sexy/g'

IMHO fixed wireless broadband without using a big (ugly) antenna should be banned by constitution.

In some countries, it's the reverse, use of the network designed to serve mobile users to provide service for fixed equipment was even prohibited by telecommunication law, and use of directional antennas was prohibited by network providers' terms of use (because at the times of just 2G, the maximum BTS to MS distance was 30 km not for signal level reasons but for timing reasons).

I've always thought that the solutions using a satellite parabolic antenna (because these pieces of sheet metal are widely available) with a 3G modem in its focal point are clever DIY ones... until I've found out that Mikrotik offers a professionally manufactured solution for WiFi links based on the same design concept.

So in the light of this, a parabolic antenna with an LTE modem built in is no surprise.

IMHO fixed wireless broadband without using a big (ugly) antenna should be banned by constitution.

In some countries, it's the reverse, use of the network designed to serve mobile users to provide service for fixed equipment was even prohibited by telecommunication law

Probably you're right, but quite probably that's not the case any more anywhere. And since use of PLMN as broadband uplink is not prohibited any more, everybody should be using big (ugly) LTE antennae for fixed installations. Either dish-type antenna or some ugly-looking Yagi / log-periodic ones, it's up to individual's taste to choose, however my experience is that Yagi / log-periodic ones are much better for multi-band deployments.

... at the times of just 2G, the maximum BTS to MS distance was 30 km not for signal level reasons but for timing reasons

Sure, when technology uses TDMA, you can't do things differently. Actually, there was a hack (and worked quite well for a few countries near the ocean, e.g. for Norway) where the max distance could be doubled at the expense of loosing half the capacity (each user was allocated two sequential time slots). But with move away from TDMA (e.g. towards W-CDMA in 3G) this timing limitation went away (almost).
I remember of performing some measurements of network coverage ... we were doing connected mode test (voice service, no PS data) both for GSM and UMTS. Sailing the sea with a fishing vessel. We started off near the coast and sailed away from BTS. Sure enough, GSM connection dropped when we were 30km away from BTS (TA value 63), but UMTS voice call kept on to distance of 92km. Then the mobile drained the battery and died (the power source was not powerful enough and mobile consumed more energy than PS could provide thus draining battery). Would we expect this to be a problem, we'd start off with better power adapter and I guess we could pull of a few 10kms more before the voice call would drop due to signal loss (it was already at the limit of mobile's sensitivity). Mind that after the voice call dropped, mobile lost the network and only recovered when we approached BTS to a few km.

Thanks again for the feedback.

@sindy @mkx - If you two could chime in on my other post I would appreciated it.

I was hoping @anva would have some colorful input

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=160551