The GPS method makes more sense if your in a 'uniquie' area where there's no traditional links on the same tower
Jon Langeler Michwave Technologies, Inc. > On May 26, 2017, at 1:09 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net> wrote: > > >>>>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 >> >> >> <aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png> >> >> 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. >
