Do you have to have some sort of Login for that? I just return a plain
'You are not authorized to access this page.' when following the link.
On 5/26/2017 8:42 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=3152229
Page 60
-----
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: *"Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, May 25, 2017 9:20:42 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
My theory is that the AF11FX "40 MHz" channel used in the previous
example I posted is actually something like 33 or 34 MHz wide if you
look at it on a $15,000 bench test spectrum analyzer.
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com
<mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:
It is significantly worse... Look at the spec sheets. Our old SAF
Lumina can do 366mbps in a single polarity 256qam 56mhz channel...
an AF11 doesn't even match that running at 1024qam - it will
theoretically do somewhere around 340mbps at 1024qam and somewhere
around 275mbps at 256qam.
On May 25, 2017 9:06 PM, "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com
<mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
If all you can get on a particular path is a theoretical
single 40 MHz wide FDD channel pair, one polarity, I don't see
how the 1024QAM bps/Hz efficiency would be significantly worse
than a competing single polarity product (SAF Integra, etc)
running in the same channel size. Unless you are counting more
expensive competing products that advertise header compression
and very different Mbps rates for 64-byte vs much larger
packet sizes.
It's very cost effective so I will forgive it many things, my
main problem is that it can't actually /use/ near the full
width of an 80 MHz channel.
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:26 PM, George Skorup
<george.sko...@cbcast.com <mailto:george.sko...@cbcast.com>>
wrote:
Yeah. Cost is one thing, but if all you can get is a
single polarity on a particular path, the AF11 is probably
one of the last things I'd look at. Congestion is a
problem around here.
On 5/25/2017 8:21 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 5/25/17 18:12, Mathew Howard wrote:
We're running the full 56mhz/MIMO... I haven't
been able to get them to run at 1024qam yet
(antennas still need to be fine tuned, it wasn't
ideal weather conditions when we put them up, so
I'm hoping we'll be able to get a bit more out
them), so they're only at around 550Mbps capacity
(and I've verified the link will do around 500Mbps
with real traffic).
Only 500 meg with two channels? Crap, I have an old
Exalt that can do that with only one channel at 256QAM.
