I understand and I'm not trying to argue. I'm not even in the USA but just wanting to understand more.
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 10:24 AM Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: > 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 <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of *Ryan Ray > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 5, 2021 12:09 PM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> > *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 <thardy...@gmail.com> 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, <joseph.schr...@siaemic.com> < > joseph.schr...@siaemic.com> 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 > > joseph.schr...@siaemic.com > > www.siaemic.com > > > > >>> Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> 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 <af...@kwisp.com> 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" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> > Sent: 1/4/2021 1:30:45 PM > To: af@af.afmug.com > 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" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> > > Sent: 1/4/2021 1:16:26 PM > > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <af@af.afmug.com> > > 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 > 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 >
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
