Just because it traditionally hasn't been done that way doesn't mean
that it's not allowed.
From what I've heard, B11 will have a FDD mode, just slower.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Stefan Englhardt" <[email protected]>
*To: *[email protected]
*Sent: *Tuesday, October 20, 2015 12:14:42 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11: Exactly what does the mounting look
like?
We often get the same TX-frequency assigned at the same tower. This
would not be possible with both
sides using this frequency. So I guess our regulations will not allow
TDD usage in 11GHz and we will not be
allowed to use B11.
----- GENIAS INTERNET -- www.genias.net <http://www.genias.net>------
Stefan Englhardt Email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Dr. Gesslerstr. 20 D-93051 Regensburg
Tel: +49 941 942798-0 Fax: +49 941 942798-9
*Von:*Af [mailto:[email protected]] *Im Auftrag von *Mike Hammett
*Gesendet:* Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2015 16:04
*An:* [email protected]
*Betreff:* Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11: Exactly what does the mounting look
like?
Yes, I know I'm arguing with someone that does this as their job.
How is a TDD system any different from a licensing and interference
perspective than licensing all channels in use in both directions?
Instead of one high and one low, each in opposing directions you
license one high and one low in both directions (for 1x 80)? When
calculating interference in the future, you just see that channel at
that site in that direction is Tx and treat it as such.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Tim Hardy" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*To: *[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent: *Tuesday, October 20, 2015 8:56:01 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11: Exactly what does the mounting look
like?
It is completely different. FDD systems rely on frequency separation
not time to mitigate interference. If a TDD system transmits and
receives the same frequency from a given site, it (and possibly
adjacent channels to it) cannot be re-used from that site by another
FDD system. With FDD systems, frequency re-use is generally a
function of difference in path azimuth and antenna performance. As
long as the high/low plan is maintained, all interference cases will
be limited to the far-end site where there’s at least some free space
loss and antenna discrimination to reduce the interfering signal.
When TDD is introduced as proposed here (transmitting and receiving
the same frequency at each site), the interference potential is
co-located. Let’s not forget that 99.99999% of everything licensed
and installed today is FDD.
*From:*Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 20, 2015 7:57 AM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11: Exactly what does the mounting look
like?
Agreed. I don't see how it's any different. You license any channel +
polarity + direction you would Tx on and the standard interference
checks have you taken care of.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Faisal Imtiaz" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*To: *[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent: *Tuesday, October 20, 2015 6:06:48 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11: Exactly what does the mounting look
like?
>>>Instead, the challenge is in assessing and accepting the risk of
possibly bucking your own 11GHz links or other operator's 11GHz links
on or near your two endpoints. As there is no reliable way to
calculate this type of interference, you may only become aware of the
problem after you have installed and turned up your TDMA system.
Call me stupid, and please explain how that is ......I can understand
the issue of channel/polarity availability...however how is this
potential interference different from current ..... Today, one cannot
use the same channel/polarity on the same site anyway...
The B11, actually opens up the possibility of channel reuse, on the
same site with angular separtion ...(possibility being a key word).
Regards
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Mike Black" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*To: *[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent: *Tuesday, October 20, 2015 12:45:25 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11: Exactly what does the mounting
look like?
+1 to Tim's remarks in this thread. The challenge isn't in
coordinating the same frequency pair in H and V between two sites,
in both directions. Instead, the challenge is in assessing and
accepting the risk of possibly bucking your own 11GHz links or
other operator's 11GHz links on or near your two endpoints. As
there is no reliable way to calculate this type of interference,
you may only become aware of the problem after you have installed
and turned up your TDMA system.
If there are no other 11GHz systems within about a half km of
either site and you don't plan to expand either site with
additional 11GHz equipment from other vendors, you may be ok. If
not, then ?
Mike Black
Black & Associates
727-773-9016
www.bamicrowave.com <http://www.bamicrowave.com>
logo.png
/black////&////associates/
Frequency Coordination ●FCC Licensing ●Engineering Design
-----Original Message-----
From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Hardy, Tim
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 8:29 PM
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11: Exactly what does the mounting
look like?
In the olden golden days building the MCI route with full block
systems, we would have "bucks" or "bumps" in frequency plans when
required, and we learned first hand how important it was to use
ultra high performance antennas or better in such situations.
With very little free space loss, antenna performance is key and
there is very little reliable data on close-coupling antenna
performance, so it is extremely difficult to accurately calculate
expected interference levels in these situations. With the
prevalence of 2&3' antennas these days, antenna isolation will be
an even larger challenge.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 19, 2015, at 8:03 PM, Seth Mattinen <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>> On 10/19/15 16:56, George Skorup wrote:
>> To make Tim's point, we're co-located on a couple towers with other
>> 11GHz users and using both the high and low of a channel pair at both
>> ends is unpossible. (yes, that's a word :)
>
> It's a perfectly cromulent word.
>
> ~Seth
