Also, if you're not going to be paying the full license cost if you're just switching to different radios here. I think it should be well under $1k in licensing costs.
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote: > It's roughly 6x cheaper here compared to what you are paying. > > - Josh > > On May 26, 2017 12:07 PM, "Stefan Englhardt" <s...@genias.net> wrote: > >> Buying cheap is buying twice (and mounting). Dont know what your license >> cost is. In Germany it would be 6kEuro for 56MHz x 2 V+H for 10 years. >> Looking at cheap lastgen licensed gear like e.g. SIAE Alfo+ the difference >> is not that much. >> >> Blocking frequency does only make sense where regulations does allow >> inefficient/interfering gear. I would not get a licensed frequency for a >> Wifi-based Radio like Mimosa. With higher quality gear you could reuse the >> frequency every 30 degree. So there is more free spectrum to use. >> >> On Fri, 26 May 2017 16:54:07 +0000 >> Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> ----- GENIAS INTERNET -- www.genias.net ------ >> Stefan Englhardt Email: s...@genias.net >> Dr. Gesslerstr. 20 D-93051 Regensburg >> Tel: +49 941 942798-0 Fax: +49 941 942798-9 >> >
