They still operate with less efficiency than last-generation traditional
radios.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gino A. Villarini" <g...@aeronetpr.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 11:39:13 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
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
----- Original Message -----
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:
<blockquote>
https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=3152229
Page 60
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
----- Original Message -----
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:
<blockquote>
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:
<blockquote>
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:
<blockquote>
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:
<blockquote>
On 5/25/17 18:12, Mathew Howard wrote:
<blockquote>
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.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
