You're urban enough to feel the heat of the HFT guys.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 11:05:52 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Bridgewave Navigator 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] > 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] > On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 9:05 AM To: [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] 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 -- AF mailing list [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
