The lack of spectrum efficiency with the licensed bands is my biggest beef with the inexpensive licensed links on the market by Ubiquiti and Mimosa. Yes they transfer a lot of data, but they do it by using very large amounts of scarce spectrum in both H&V channels.
Mark > On May 26, 2017, at 9:57 AM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote: > > *sigh* I hate the FCC's web site. > > No, their site just sucks. Look up Test Report 1 for SWX-AF11 > > > > ----- > 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: "Nate Burke" <n...@blastcomm.com> > To: af@afmug.com > Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 8:56:31 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences > > 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 > <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> <mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com> > To: af@afmug.com <mailto: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 < > <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>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" < > <mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>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. > > > > > >
