I bitched at length about Ubiquiti's claims for AF11 in the past.
The thing I realized is that while their spec sheet numbers are
inconsistent with the rest of the industry, they're consistent with the
rest of the Ubiquiti ecosystem. They've chosen to be self consistent.
I still think they're wrong, but I'm not mad anymore.
-Adam
On 10/10/2018 12:05 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
One worry of course is that if someone can’t coordinate a link due to
your use of Cat B antennas, they can force you to upgrade to Cat A.
I’m not saying I’ve worried a lot about that, but I would worry more
if I was in a more urban area.
Re-using antennas sometimes works, it depends on the manufacturers,
and you probably need to buy adapters. And re-coordinate the link of
course for the new radios. I just finished changing an 11 GHz single
pol Trango link to dual pol PTP820C, and the adapters worked fine. I
will probably have to re-do a couple Exalt G2 links if only because
Exalt seems to be defunct. But in the Trango and Exalt cases, those
links have been in place around 5 years. In practice, I don’t think
you end up putting in a cheap link and then upgrading it in 1-2
years. Those links are going to be with you for 3-5 years, maybe more
if they are doing the job just fine. Meanwhile you may upgrade your
PtMP equipment on those towers multiple times, new batteries, new
routers, but the licensed links just keep on doing their job.
Please realize that any change to the radios or antennas requires a
frequency coordinator fee and a license modification fee, even if you
stay on the same channels.
If you select antennas with coax connectors, that will further limit
what radios will work with them. I don’t like that trend, and I don’t
see how it will extend to 18 or 23 GHz since you already need special
N connectors at 11 GHz. I also don’t like what Ubiquiti is doing with
the AF11 radios, advertising them as 1.3 GHz “aggregate” when
everybody else in the industry advertises one-way throughput. They
are not spectrally efficient radios, plus I don’t believe they can do
a true 80 MHz channel. I guess the good news is that your license has
basically locked up channels for 80 MHz CCDP, so even though you will
have to re-do coordination and modify your license, you are probably
guaranteed being able to use those frequencies for a higher throughput
more expensive radio in the future (as long as it can do XPIC, which
might involve paying for a key to unlock the feature.)
*From:* AF <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 10, 2018 10:17 AM
*To:* AFMUG <[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Bridgewave Navigator
Yeah, but the thing about not cheaping out is that you can buy link
now for $4k that you would have had to spend closer to $20k for the
equivalent of not that many years ago... of course that doesn't really
apply to antennas, since you should be able to re-use the same dish in
most cases.
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 9:50 AM Ken Hohhof <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
My gut tells me 2 conflicting things about licensed links.
On the one hand, I've learned over time not to cheap out on them.
They are critical infrastructure that last for years and require
minimal attention after the initial design and build. Do it right
the first time, and plan them for 5+ years down the road, not just
next month.
But on the other hand, we are being forced toward the fixed
wireless version of "small cells". We need max modulation on
every subscriber, and even so, to support peak time video
streaming and 25-100 Mbps speeds, we are limited to as little as
10 subscribers on an AP. So we need more towers, close to
customers, and with fewer customers per tower. The math doesn't
add up if you have a couple $10K links at a tower that only serves
maybe 20 customers total. So there will be a demand for cheaper
radios and antennas. Thinking we can do all these gigabit links
in unlicensed is unrealistic.
-----Original Message-----
From: AF <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 9:05 AM
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Bridgewave Navigator
On 10/10/18 5:20 AM, Tim Hardy wrote:
> 160 MHz Bw not legal in the US and would require rule waivers if
the
> channel pairs were available. Bear in-mind that the Jirous
antennas
> used on a lot of UBNT and Mimosa paths are only Cat B and don’t
lend
> themselves to a lot of frequency reuse. Even the Cat A antennas
(3’ -
> Commscope, RadioWaves, RFS) aren’t that great (Commscope’s Sentinel
> and RFS’ SC are better). There’s a reason why many of the Cellular
> and Public Safety systems use 4 or 6 foot shrouded high
performance or
> ultra-high performance antennas..
Anyone using a UBNT or Mimosa probably don't want to pay for (or can't
afford) a Class 4 Sentinel.
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
