The Aviat radios do not support 4+0 like this, the only support up to 3+0 in a single radio. I.e. running A2C/A2C+ on a 11 or 18Ghz radio core for 2+0, and running 70/80Ghz on another core. I believe this is do to a limitation in their internally switching hardware only allowing up to 3 channels to be aggregated.
Bridgewave does support this, but their implementation is more restrictive in that the channels must be adjacent channels, and last I checked they are limited to 1024QAM. In my market I have had trouble getting the adjacent channels required to implement Bridgewave 4+0 links. From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2021 6:54 PM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <af@af.afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar Do these radios also let you do 4+0 with A2C+XPIC in one radio, rather than 2 radios and a combiner? From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf Of Mathew Howard Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 7:14 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar There's really not even a lot of good reasons to do it. If the Aviat radios are able to run full power now using A2C, you can accomplish pretty much the same that way (or using the equivalent feature with Bridgewave or SIAE). On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 6:26 PM Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com <mailto:af...@kwisp.com> > wrote: Yep. One more thought – Part 101 is one of the best things we have, where we are on identical footing with the big guys. We file the exact same paperwork, pay the same fees, get the same access, no sitting at the kids table. I’m not going to risk losing that. From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf Of Steve Jones Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 5:36 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar My coordinator told me no. Not a maybe no, but a flat no. Had to do primarily with the band edges. I'd love to do it, and the radios will do it. But the FCC gets involved and not only are you probably paying a massive fine, but you're losing substantial capacity you may be hinging your business on. The gain isnt worth the risk. I didnt push the issue to find out the specific rules prohibiting it, I represent a podunk wisp, the fcc is bigger than us. I'll lose. It's like the question of whether selling meth is illegal if you dont get caught. On Tue, Jan 5, 2021, 12:10 PM Ryan Ray <ryan...@gmail.com <mailto:ryan...@gmail.com> > wrote: 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:joseph.schr...@siaemic.com> > <joseph.schr...@siaemic.com <mailto: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 <mailto:joseph.schr...@siaemic.com> joseph.schr...@siaemic.com <http://www.siaemic.com/> www.siaemic.com >>> Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> > Sent: 1/4/2021 1:30:45 PM To: af@af.afmug.com <mailto: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 <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> > > Sent: 1/4/2021 1:16:26 PM > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <af@af.afmug.com > <mailto: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 <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto: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
