Yeah, I really don't see it as being an issue with the AF11. With Mimosas, the fact that you're having to license both channels both directions, certainly has the potential to cause problems trying to coordinate around your own stuff, and that's not really going to be particularly useful as far as the "reserving" channels argument goes. But with the AF11, they're operating exactly the same as a normal licensed radio with a (technically two channels, if you're using MIMO) transmit channel and a receive channel, so going to a more efficient radio is going to just be a direct drop in... it's really not the worst thing to use a spectrally inefficient radio on a link that's probably going to need to be upgraded to something faster in a few years from that point of view.
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com> wrote: > Mark, I can see your point in Mimosa units, but AF11x units do no operate > the same way > > From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh < > m...@amplex.net> > Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> > Date: Friday, May 26, 2017 at 12:07 PM > To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences > > 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 > > > > > *Gino A. Villarini* > President > Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 > > 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > > > > >
