The minimum gain / beam width in 11 GHz requires a 2.6’ or 3’ minimum dish size. All Jirous antennas regardless of size only meet Category B.
Also, on radio changes - if everything is the same (emission designator, EIRP, frequency tolerance, etc.) this change would be classified as a minor change. Most coordinators will do these for greatly reduced fees and the FCC even allows these types of changes to be made prior to filing an application, as long as the application is filed within 30-days of implementation. Your coordinator should be able to help you with all of this. Sent from my iPad > On Oct 10, 2018, at 12:28 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yeah, AF11 radios can only use up to a 56mhz channel, but as I understand it, > the signal is messy enough that it has to be licensed as 80mhz... I guess you > can look at that as an advantage of keeping that full channel clear. > > I was wondering if you had to go through the whole coordination process to > change radios, even if you're staying on the same channels and power levels. > It doesn't surprise me that you do, but I was kind of hoping it would only be > the FCC fees that would apply. > > The thing about coax connectors is a good point, I'm trying to decide what > antennas to go with for a couple of new AF11 links right now... I'm leaning > towards going with Jirous dishes rather than the UBNT mainly for that reason, > but now I'm starting to wonder if I should be looking at something else. On > some of these towers, I'm probably going to be limited to 2' dishes for wind > loading reasons (the UBNT dishes are somewhere around 32", which would > already be a bit more than I probably want to put up), so I'm not sure if it > really matters too much - pretty much all 2' dishes are cat B, aren't they? > >> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:07 AM Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> 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 <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Mathew Howard >> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 10:17 AM >> To: AFMUG <af@af.afmug.com> >> 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 <af...@kwisp.com> 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 <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen >> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 9:05 AM >> To: af@af.afmug.com >> 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 >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
