>>>> 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,
Would be in-correct, due to the fact that B11's will GPS Sync and allow for Freq Reuse with other B11's. I also beg to differ about 'being efficient' in terms of License Freq Usage.... I prescribe to the other theory of ... Get the biggest fattest channel you can use before someone else does.... you can always change out the radio for something more efficient later. This by no means is a commentary on what others feel on this topic, but more of a point that some operators think one way and others feel differently. I guess our thinking is shaped by the environment we are operating in. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net > From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com> > To: "af" <af@afmug.com> > Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 12:54:07 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences > 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 >>> 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.
