Mimosa now is in the hungry market position ubnt was in at early 2010. On Apr 19, 2016 7:09 AM, "Mike Hammett" <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
> Let's not forget that at the Ubiquiti show last October, Robert had no > intentions of making anything licensed or in the higher (60, 80, etc.) > bands. Later that week, Mimosa announces the B11. Now we get an AF11x. > > Reactive, not proactive... or even responding to customer requests (in > something measured in less than years). > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Gino Villarini" <ginovi...@gmail.com> > *To: *"Animal Farm" <af@afmug.com> > *Sent: *Saturday, April 16, 2016 2:19:47 PM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration > > I beg to differ with you Faisal on the Mimosa statement. the B11 only > achievement is low cost, which is soon to be out priced by UBNT AF11. B11 > are inefficient Spectrum hogs > > > On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Erich Kaiser <er...@northcentraltower.com > > wrote: > >> Also max QAM level on B11 is 256 on the PTP820S it is 2048. >> >> >> Erich Kaiser >> North Central Tower >> er...@northcentraltower.com >> Office: 630-621-4804 >> Cell: 630-777-9291 >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Erich Kaiser < >> er...@northcentraltower.com> wrote: >> >>> You actually need double the spectrum to accomplish the same thing as >>> the 2+0 config on PTP820S vs B11. The B11 is using both H and V PTP820S >>> with 2+0 could both be on Vertical or on Horizontal. This is one of the >>> big issues people have been running into is being able to find that type of >>> spectrum. >>> >>> >>> Erich Kaiser >>> North Central Tower >>> er...@northcentraltower.com >>> Office: 630-621-4804 >>> Cell: 630-777-9291 >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Faisal Imtiaz < >>> fai...@snappytelecom.net> wrote: >>> >>>> I am not familiar with the hardware nor the intricate specifics.. >>>> However I would make a general statement .. >>>> >>>> There are a lot of old wives tales associated with licensed link, there >>>> may be some context to these old wives tails, most folks in the industry >>>> tend to take it for face value, very few end up examining it for merit of >>>> correctness. Comments made by folks in the public forums can be the best or >>>> the worst of such examples. >>>> >>>> From the sounds of it, you have done everything right, and you have the >>>> link working, then anything else would be an old wives tale. >>>> >>>> BTW, if you were able to get 2x80mhz channels in 11ghz, take a look at >>>> what Mimosa B11's can do with them.... and yes these folks did challenge >>>> the accepted status quo in licensed links.. >>>> >>>> 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: supp...@snappytelecom.net >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> > From: "Craig Baird" <cr...@xpressweb.com> >>>> > To: af@afmug.com >>>> > Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:32:09 AM >>>> > Subject: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration >>>> >>>> > So a few months ago we purchased an 11 GHz PTP820S 2+0 link. We >>>> > recently installed it, and it appears to be working fine, aside from a >>>> > little bit of frame loss that we are investigating. While looking >>>> > into this frame loss issue, I stumbled across something that concerns >>>> > me. On Cambium's support forum there is a post that states that when >>>> > dealing with 2+0 links both radios must be in the same sub-band. >>>> > There is no explanation of why this is the case. In our situation, >>>> > the radios are in separate sub-bands. When we did the frequency >>>> > coordination, the only two 80 MHz channels available were in different >>>> > sub-bands. I passed those channels along to our vendor who worked >>>> > with Cambium to get a BOM. At no point did anyone say that this was a >>>> > problem. So now, fast forward a few months, and I stumble across this >>>> > post, and now I'm wondering what the implications will be. Both links >>>> > are up and running. Signal on both is right where it should be (-39 >>>> > on one, -40 on the other). Both are running at maximum modulation. >>>> > There are no defective blocks shown on the radio interfaces. There is >>>> > no indication that this sub-band mismatch is causing any issues, aside >>>> > from possibly this frame loss thing. However, if I mute the radios on >>>> > one link, the frame loss persists, so I don't think it's related. >>>> > >>>> > In case it matters, the two links are oppositely polarized. On one >>>> > side we've got a 2 foot dish with an OMT combining the radios. On the >>>> > other side, we've got an 8 foot dual-pol dish. >>>> > >>>> > So I'm wondering if anyone knows why Cambium says that you can't use >>>> > radios from different sub-bands. Are we in for trouble at some point? >>>> > >>>> > Craig >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
