Get while the getting is good... it’s the American Way.
From: Daniel White
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 11:51 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave multi-carrier battle
Considering how little 11GHz spectrum you have available in Chicago land
already... why would you want to encourage people to license even larger chucks
of spectrum that they don't necessarily need?
80MHz channels came when the FCC opted to allow the previous max channel size
in 11GHz to double from 40MHz and to harmonize with 18GHz.
You could argue why have a maximum channel size/emission designator at all.
The answer is simple, to give as many people access to the band as possible and
make frequency coordination possible.
Daniel White
Co-Founder & Managing Director of Operations
phone: +1 (702) 470-2770
direct: +1 (702) 470-2766
Mike Hammett wrote on 6/11/20 08:37:
Generally, starting from a better-educated position is wise.
What are the reasons for what we have now? Just that no one asked?
What are the reasons it should stay the same?
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Hardy" mailto:[email protected]
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:[email protected]
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 9:24:30 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave multi-carrier battle
All I meant was that 112 MHz bandwidth is an “ETSI” configuration. There’s
nothing in Part 101 that allows bandwidths greater than 80 MHz, so that
particular configuration is not allowed in the US. Other ETSI configurations,
28 MHz or 56 MHz bandwidth are legal here and can be licensed.
Rules changes like this are not an easy process and require significant
backing. If this is required, you need to get WISPA lobbying it before the FCC
and it would help to get FWCC, NSMA, and CTIA as well. From start to finish,
it will likely take 2 or more years.
On Jun 11, 2020, at 10:00 AM, Ken Hohhof mailto:[email protected] wrote:
I suspect you have this backward. It's not so much a rule against using an
ETSI configuration, as the lack of that configuration in the FCC rules. It
would have to be added to Title 47, and manufacturers would have to (self)
certify their equipment to the new rule.
What convincing arguments would you put forward for a rules change? It seems
more like I want to buy European equipment designed for ETSI rules and use it
here. Perhaps not the best political climate for such an appeal. Do you want
Freedom Fries with that?
-----Original Message-----
From: AF mailto:[email protected] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 8:10 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:[email protected]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave multi-carrier battle
Recommendations for changing that rule?
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Hardy" mailto:[email protected]
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:[email protected]
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 6:49:30 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave multi-carrier battle
Daniel is correct, and the notion that one could coordinate and license an 80
MHz channel pair with a 40 MHz pair separated by 60 MHz to somehow block out a
120 MHz chunk to then operate a 112 MHz bandwidth ETSI configuration is
patently false. Any vendor (integrator, radio OEM or coordinator) that is
“pushing” this concept to licensees needs to cease. A potential FCC Enforcement
action would be against the operator, not the vendor that may have promoted
this illicit scheme, so buyer beware.
Just to reiterate the primary concern - The maximum allowable bandwidth for any
single transmit frequency in the 11 or 18 GHz bands in the US is 80 MHz. Any
use of larger bandwidths would require at least two significant rule waiver
requests with each FCC application. A recent review of FCC licensed records
found no (zero) frequencies with bandwidths greater than 80 MHz, therefore,
anyone using 112 MHz bandwidth (as discussed by at least one vendor in this
thread) would be doing so at their own peril.
On Jun 10, 2020, at 12:57 PM, Peter Kranz via AF < [email protected] > wrote:
Yes you can always couple two discrete radios together with a coupler to
achieve a 4+0, or 4 together for a 8+0 😊
My comparison is for all in one units from Bridgewave and Aviat.
Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-0000
[email protected]
From: AF < [email protected] > On Behalf Of Daniel White
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 8:10 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group < [email protected] >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave multi-carrier battle
I would be surprised if any dual-core radio didn't support 4+0... although it
may not aggregate the data streams. You will need to use a coupler, which will
give you 3.5dB of loss per side (or 7dB of total link budget).
To make what Tim wrote easier to explain (at least in my opinion), is you
license emission designators not channel widths. For instance, a 56MHz wide
channel doesn't use 60MHz... it uses 56MHz. The channel plan is basically a
recommendation.
So dual-carrier requires two distinct, carriers to be transmitted no one big
112MHz wide carrier. So you can transmit an 80MHz carrier and a 40MHz carrier
(or even a 32MHz carrier) but you cannot transmit a 112MHz carrier without the
waivers Tim mentioned.
photograph
Daniel White
Co-Founder & Managing Director of Operations
phone: +1 (702) 470-2770
direct: +1 (702) 470-2766
Peter Kranz via AF wrote on 6/9/20 10:50:
Welp.. more caveats have arisen as I’ve delved deeper..
Some more details on the delta between the Aviat WTM4200 WTM4100 (A2C not
supported in WTM4200) and Navigator Single& Dual sub-carrier support.. TL;DR
Which one you want to use to handle sub-carriers kinda depends on what license
you can get.
Basically, both support extended channels but they do it differently:
* Aviat allows the sub-channels to be non-adjacent, and even different
bandwidths , Navigator requires that they be adjacent.
* Each requires the sub-channel to be in the same polarity
* Aviat A2C has a ~5db power hit in A2C but this power hit goes away if the
Aviat disables A2C due to conditions, Navigator has a lower 1db power hit in
ACM
* Since A2C is not supported in the WTM4200, you really only get 2+0
operation.. so I’d prefer to just use a WTM4200 to get 2+0 operation without
the power constraints.
* The Navigator Dual allows 4+0 operation in the Dual model, making it
possible to get 4+0 operation in a single double header radio (double the
capacity of the WTM4200)
Navigator power table: (Subtract 1 from these numbers when in ACM mode
according to vendor)
<image001.png>
Aviat power table without A2C:
<image002.png>
Aviat power table with A2C running:
<image003.jpg>
Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-0000
[email protected]
From: AF < [email protected] > On Behalf Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2020 8:27 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group < [email protected] >
Subject: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz
Does anyone have any experience with the two of these (Aviat WTM4200 vs
Navigator Dual)? I'm having a hard time deciding.
-Jason
--
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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
