Single polarity, I believe. If I remember correctly, they're also only
256QAM, but they appear to only around $2k per radio. I haven't seen
pricing on the SIAE, so I'm not sure how that compares.
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe Alcoma is working hard to compete with the SIAE AlfoPlus 1024QAM
> product. Both in the lower price category. But is that Alcoma a dual
> polarity or single polarity radio?
>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Speaking of cheap-ish licensed radios, does anyone have any experience
>> with Alcoma? The pricing I got appeared to only be slightly higher than a
>> B11, and they'll support full 80mhz channels... they also aren't limited to
>> just 11ghz.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Regardless of what BS Mimosa gives you or obfuscates around, their B11
>>> does not do FDX. Period. It chews up a gob of spectrum, and none of the
>>> links we've tried were capable of full throughput.
>>>
>>> The AF11 is similar, but different, and DOES do FDX, and that is
>>> something significant. So even on links that "look" like they are providing
>>> less throughput than the B11, the AF11 will perform better.
>>>
>>> If you want (or need) full spectrum efficiency, you're best going to
>>> SAF, or Trango, or Dragonwave, or Ceragon, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> bp
>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/12/2017 8:41 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>> we are looking to drop some dough on these guys if the sales pitch is
>>>> true
>>>>
>>>> does the website handle the FCC stuff? I personally find that hard to
>>>> believe, considering the FCC itself has a fee, unless the reseller
>>>> (unnamed) is building it into the price. Still less than SAF
>>>> Im not looking to move away from SAF, my only complaint with SAF is
>>>> that it works too well, so much that I altered routing the other day before
>>>> I realized the winds a while back turned the 800 plus pound ballast NPM and
>>>> the signal drop wasnt weather fade and that up until essentially nothing
>>>> the beast runs at full modulation
>>>>
>>>> Literally, the only reason for looking at mimosa is the low cost, and
>>>> comparing the low cost of mimosa to SAF, its alot, considering SAF is
>>>> relatively cheap.
>>>>
>>>> from what Ive seen, mimosa is like running mikrotik routers, you pay a
>>>> shit ton less in exchange for a little more poking, not constant diddling,
>>>> just occasional poking.
>>>>
>>>> I have no interest in looking at ubnt noisy crickets on our licensed
>>>> gear, but mimosa seems promising
>>>>
>>>> I need a good teeth kick now before we commit to at least 3 links
>>>> locked into this gear
>>>>
>>>> SAF presales engineering is on the cautious side, a good example is our
>>>> first licensed link, our partner told us could be done with cambium at 2
>>>> foot antennas on each side
>>>>
>>>> the reseller told use with SAF it required a 3 and a 4, and that
>>>> (without saying it) our partner was smoking crack cocain after they took
>>>> bath salts. I have no doubt at 2 foot the link would have come up, but not
>>>> to a degree that a 30 db drop caused by a turned NPM would still result in
>>>> full modulation until failure,
>>>>
>>>> I dont want to have an "It will link" solution at the end of the day
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
