Exactly, this diagram illustrates the issue perfectly. Thanks Adam!
> On Jan 6, 2021, at 10:54 AM, Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: > > Right....your license says you're the red lines. You're actually the blue > line. Somebody coordinating another link the area might conclude there's no > interference on their new path and be wrong because you're not transmitting > what you are licensed for. There might never be a problem, but if there is > then that's exactly when you'll get in trouble. > > <higmlhdoeedepoge.png> > > Not a perfect sketch, but it's the right general idea. > > > > On 1/6/2021 10:43 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >> You could be interfering with other licensed users on the same frequency >> that frequency coordination showed would not be affected based on EIRP, >> distance, antenna sidelobes, etc. It’s not like you have a nationwide >> license to use that frequency. >> >> From: AF <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> On >> Behalf Of Mike Hammett >> Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 9:17 AM >> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar >> >> Not from a legal perspective, but from a technical perspective. >> >> If an 80+40 = 112 setup was no worse at the channel edges, why would it >> matter what happened in the middle? >> >> >> More asking than arguing. >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> >> >> >> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> >> From: "Tim Hardy" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 8:49:17 AM >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar >> >> Part 101 was derived from the old Part 21 that was developed in the late 60s >> / early 70s to facilitate equal sharing of the bands between the incumbents >> (AT&T, Bell System, WU, GTE, United, Continental) and the newly approved >> Specialized Common Carriers (MCI et al). Prior to 21.100(d) - the Prior >> Coordination rule and requirement (now 101.103d) - the FCC acted as sole >> arbiter of all interference related issues. New proposals would be filed, >> placed on Public Notice and all incumbents had 30-days to file formal >> petitions or let them go. The FCC was inundated with these filings, and >> processing ground to a complete halt. The FCC did not have a database, the >> license data was kept on paper in large filing cabinets, and they certainly >> didn’t have programs (let alone computers) to calculate all of these cases. >> It was recognized early in this process that the FCC should get out of the >> process and leave this pre-filing analysis and assignment to industry so >> they convened a meeting with incumbents (affectionally known as “The Gang of >> Twelve” by those of us that were there) to develop rules and requirements to >> promote efficiency and enable access to the spectrum to all qualified >> applicants. >> >> Spectrum efficiency in fixed bands is dependent on standardized frequency >> plans, standard transmit - receive separations, required antenna >> performance, required loading or bit efficiency, maximum power levels, etc. >> etc. and all of the rules were developed with these thoughts in-mind. Bear >> in-mind that everything was analog at the time and there are still vestiges >> of these differing requirements in the rules. There have been at least two >> or three major NPRMs with updates and changes over the years, but the basic >> framework really hasn't changed much as it was based on sound EMI-EMC >> principles. >> >> Sorry for the long-winded history lesson, but I hope it helps give some >> background behind Part 101. The specific issue discussed here, coordinating >> and licensing an 80 MHz channel pair along with a 40 MHz pair in an effort >> to block out 120 MHz chunk, and then use one radio at 112 MHz bandwidth >> within that 120 MHz, does indeed violate at least two and possibly three >> major rule parts. The rules involved here would be 101.103, 101.109 & >> 101.147, plus the scheme would result in an actual transmit frequency that >> has not been coordinated and more importantly, is not on the station >> license. As an example, the path is coordinated with 80 MHz channel pair >> 10835.0 / 11325.0 MHz & 40 MHz channel pair 10895.0 / 11385.0 MHz to cover >> 120 MHz of contiguous spectrum. The actual transmit frequency using 112 MHz >> bandwidth cannot be any of the above channel pairs since the emission would >> extend beyond the edge of that 120 MHz chunk. In this example, the user >> would have to operate on 10855.0 / 11345.0 MHz, a channel pair that has not >> been coordinated and is not on the license, and subject to substantial fine >> and forfeiture if caught. >> >> If someone is hell-bent on doing this, the only legal way is to coordinate >> the actual transmit frequency along with the actual emission bandwidth and >> designator (112M0D7W). The applications would all require at least two rule >> waivers (there are fees for waivers and these are the kind that would >> require assistance from a law firm that regularly works on Communications >> law - $$) along with a substantial technical showing why these waivers are >> required (financial reasons are usually dismissed). Rule waivers >> automatically eliminate conditional authorization and the applicant must >> wait for formal FCC license grant before beginning operation. These kinds of >> substantial rule waivers can take years to make their way through the system >> and at the end of the day, most are denied. >> >> The better way to attack this, if there really is a pressing need, is to get >> enough licensees, trade associations, etc. interested in it and file a >> request for rule making. This process also takes years unless it has a ton >> of support along with political influence. Good Luck! >> >> On Jan 5, 2021, at 1:23 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> On >> Behalf Of Ryan Ray >> Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 12:09 PM >> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected] >> <mailto:[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 >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> www.siaemic.com <http://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 >> <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 >> <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 >> <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 >> <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 >> <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 >> <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
