My coordinator told me no. Not a maybe no, but a flat no. Had to do primarily with the band edges. I'd love to do it, and the radios will do it. But the FCC gets involved and not only are you probably paying a massive fine, but you're losing substantial capacity you may be hinging your business on. The gain isnt worth the risk. I didnt push the issue to find out the specific rules prohibiting it, I represent a podunk wisp, the fcc is bigger than us. I'll lose. It's like the question of whether selling meth is illegal if you dont get caught.
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021, 12:10 PM Ryan Ray <ryan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Tim, > > Does this rule have a reason? Or is it just a rule for rule's sake? > > > On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:47 AM Tim Hardy <thardy...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> A note of caution: Some vendors have been pushing the notion that at 11 >> GHz, one can coordinate and license an 80 MHz bandwidth pair along with a >> 40 MHz bandwidth pair separated by 60 MHz to in effect get a contiguous 120 >> MHz of spectrum. This is okay as long as you are transmitting two distinct >> frequency pairs - one with 80 MHz, and the other with 40 MHz. In the US it >> is NOT okay to unlock the radio to use ETSI 112 MHz bandwidth and transmit >> a single pair. Vendors that are pushing this concept need to stop as it >> violates at least two and possibly more FCC Rules. The licensee would be >> taking the risk - not the vendor. >> >> On Jan 4, 2021, at 3:54 PM, <joseph.schr...@siaemic.com> < >> joseph.schr...@siaemic.com> wrote: >> >> With the SIAE radio: >> - 2+0 XPIC - minimal loss using the built-in OMT branching unit on >> the order of 0.5 dB per end >> - 2+0 ACCP - 3.5 dB loss per end using the built-in Hybrid branching >> unit >> No TX power back-off required in either mode, nor do you need to back-off >> the TX power when using POE. >> >> The ALFOPlus2XG radio has independent modem & RF, so there is flexibility >> on how you could setup each radio. Each carrier can have its own channel >> bandwidth & modulation. >> >> The branching units are field changeable and allow the ODU to bolt >> directly to the back of the antenna. >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> <Mail Attachment.jpeg> >> >> Joe Schraml >> VP Sales Operations & Marketing >> SIAE Microelettronica, Inc. >> +1 (408) 832-4884 >> joseph.schr...@siaemic.com >> www.siaemic.com >> >> >>> Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> 1/4/2021 12:01 PM >>> >> Yeah, you can do 2 x 80mhz channels with a single core on some radios, >> but there are some limitations. Depending on the radio, my understanding is >> that they have to either be adjacent, or very near each other (definitely >> within the same sub-band). It seems to me that some radios can even do two >> different sizes of channels (like 1 80mhz + 1 40mhz), but I could be >> remembering that wrong. If I understand it right, the Aviat radios have a >> significant tx power hit when you activate that feature, which probably >> makes it unusable in a lot of cases. We're doing that on a Bridgewave 11ghz >> link (using 4x 80mhz on a dual core radio), and there's it works fine, with >> only a minor performance hit on those radios. SIAE does have that feature >> as well, but I don't remember if there was a significant performance hit or >> not... I think they may have been the ones that could use two different >> sizes of channels. >> >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 1:51 PM Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: >> >>> Probably, LinkPlanner is pretty smart. >>> I assume you don't want to use 2 antennas. >>> There are some licensed radios now that I think can do 2 x 80 MHz >>> channels in a single core, like from Aviat or SIAE maybe, I don't know if >>> this gets around the splitter cost and performance issues. I may have that >>> feature completely wrong, I haven't looked into it. There could also be a >>> performance hit by using the same xmt power amp for 160 MHz. >>> I also haven't checked out the full feature set of the new PTP850C, the >>> only thing I know it has is SFP+. >>> >>> ---- Original Message ---- >>> From: "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> >>> Sent: 1/4/2021 1:30:45 PM >>> To: af@af.afmug.com >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar >>> >>> Ok yeah, the Link Planner BOM shows some splitters. I wonder if Link >>> Planner already accounted for the additional losses when I selected "Co >>> Polar" on the dropdown. >>> >>> >>> On 1/4/2021 2:25 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >>> > I seem to remember that different channel different polarization is >>> the best, if your radio manufacturer charges for an XPIC license key. Next >>> best is XPIC. And that the problem with different channel same polarization >>> is you need a splitter which costs several dB of system gain. But that's >>> from memory, and mine is not so reliable. >>> > >>> > ---- Original Message ---- >>> > From: "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> >>> > Sent: 1/4/2021 1:16:26 PM >>> > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <af@af.afmug.com> >>> > Subject: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar >>> > >>> > I'm looking at a path where the coordinator can get me two 50mhz XPIC >>> > channels, or two 80mhz H-Pol channels. >>> > >>> > I've never installed co-polar. Do you need a lot of extra junk to make >>> > that work? >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> AF@af.afmug.com >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> AF@af.afmug.com >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
