I’ll let Tim respond, but here’s my take. It’s not a rule saying you can’t do it, but rather a license to do something else. Frequency coordinators and other users of the band rely on you following the license you obtained. To do something else, based on a totally different ETSI standard that isn’t even valid in this country, is not what you’re licensed for.
Reducing the equipment certification and frequency coordination process down to just the channel width from the brochure oversimplifies things. Your license specifies a certain modulation, and the radio will have certain out of band emissions, when used according to the license. The coordinated EIRP also assumes the 2 separate channels, not one wide channel. Before you got the license, you weren’t allowed to use the band at all. Once you get the license, you are authorized to use the band as specified in the license. Not something you feel is equivalent. From: AF <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Ryan Ray Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 12:09 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar Hey Tim, Does this rule have a reason? Or is it just a rule for rule's sake? On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:47 AM Tim Hardy <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: A note of caution: Some vendors have been pushing the notion that at 11 GHz, one can coordinate and license an 80 MHz bandwidth pair along with a 40 MHz bandwidth pair separated by 60 MHz to in effect get a contiguous 120 MHz of spectrum. This is okay as long as you are transmitting two distinct frequency pairs - one with 80 MHz, and the other with 40 MHz. In the US it is NOT okay to unlock the radio to use ETSI 112 MHz bandwidth and transmit a single pair. Vendors that are pushing this concept need to stop as it violates at least two and possibly more FCC Rules. The licensee would be taking the risk - not the vendor. On Jan 4, 2021, at 3:54 PM, <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: With the SIAE radio: - 2+0 XPIC - minimal loss using the built-in OMT branching unit on the order of 0.5 dB per end - 2+0 ACCP - 3.5 dB loss per end using the built-in Hybrid branching unit No TX power back-off required in either mode, nor do you need to back-off the TX power when using POE. The ALFOPlus2XG radio has independent modem & RF, so there is flexibility on how you could setup each radio. Each carrier can have its own channel bandwidth & modulation. The branching units are field changeable and allow the ODU to bolt directly to the back of the antenna. Thanks, <Mail Attachment.jpeg> Joe Schraml VP Sales Operations & Marketing SIAE Microelettronica, Inc. +1 (408) 832-4884 <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <http://www.siaemic.com/> www.siaemic.com >>> Mathew Howard <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >>> 1/4/2021 12:01 PM >>> Yeah, you can do 2 x 80mhz channels with a single core on some radios, but there are some limitations. Depending on the radio, my understanding is that they have to either be adjacent, or very near each other (definitely within the same sub-band). It seems to me that some radios can even do two different sizes of channels (like 1 80mhz + 1 40mhz), but I could be remembering that wrong. If I understand it right, the Aviat radios have a significant tx power hit when you activate that feature, which probably makes it unusable in a lot of cases. We're doing that on a Bridgewave 11ghz link (using 4x 80mhz on a dual core radio), and there's it works fine, with only a minor performance hit on those radios. SIAE does have that feature as well, but I don't remember if there was a significant performance hit or not... I think they may have been the ones that could use two different sizes of channels. On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 1:51 PM Ken Hohhof <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Probably, LinkPlanner is pretty smart. I assume you don't want to use 2 antennas. There are some licensed radios now that I think can do 2 x 80 MHz channels in a single core, like from Aviat or SIAE maybe, I don't know if this gets around the splitter cost and performance issues. I may have that feature completely wrong, I haven't looked into it. There could also be a performance hit by using the same xmt power amp for 160 MHz. I also haven't checked out the full feature set of the new PTP850C, the only thing I know it has is SFP+. ---- Original Message ---- From: "Adam Moffett" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: 1/4/2021 1:30:45 PM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar Ok yeah, the Link Planner BOM shows some splitters. I wonder if Link Planner already accounted for the additional losses when I selected "Co Polar" on the dropdown. On 1/4/2021 2:25 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > I seem to remember that different channel different polarization is the best, > if your radio manufacturer charges for an XPIC license key. Next best is > XPIC. And that the problem with different channel same polarization is you > need a splitter which costs several dB of system gain. But that's from > memory, and mine is not so reliable. > > ---- Original Message ---- > From: "Adam Moffett" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > Sent: 1/4/2021 1:16:26 PM > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > Subject: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar > > I'm looking at a path where the coordinator can get me two 50mhz XPIC > channels, or two 80mhz H-Pol channels. > > I've never installed co-polar. Do you need a lot of extra junk to make > that work? > > > -- 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] <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
