Huh? Aren't these licensed and coordinated? On May 26, 2017 10:33 AM, "Mark Radabaugh" <m...@amplex.net> wrote:
> We have more problems finding clear channels due to our own links. Being > efficient up front is cheaper in the long run IMHO. Running dual pol > 80Ghz channels in scare 11Ghz spectrum is not really a good plan. > > Mark > > On May 26, 2017, at 12:20 PM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists <jeffl...@att.net> > wrote: > > 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 <(312)%20205-2519> Office > 574-220-7826 <(574)%20220-7826> 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 <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 > > 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> <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> > 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> >> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > > > > > >
