I'm with you. I would also rather license the biggest possible channel.
------ Original Message ------
From: "Faisal Imtiaz" <fai...@snappytelecom.net>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 5/26/2017 1:09:58 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>>>>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
PresidentMetro 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>
<mailto: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 <
<mailto: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" <
<mailto: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.
