But, if you are going to need the spectrum over time, it's an inexpensive way to lock it up.
Jeff Broadwick ConVergence Technologies, Inc. 312-205-2519 Office 574-220-7826 Cell jbroadw...@converge-tech.com > On May 26, 2017, at 12:07 PM, Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net> wrote: > > 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 >> >> Midwest Internet Exchange >> >> The Brothers WISP >> >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> Page 60 >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> >> Midwest Internet Exchange >> >> The Brothers WISP >> >> >> >> >> 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> 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> 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> >>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> >
