Is there a new wtm version with better a2c performance? we have some 4100's that we need to deploy with a2c and those I believe have the a2c losses still?
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 10:34 AM Mathew Howard <[email protected]> wrote: > That's interesting, I didn't realize Aviat didn't support 4+0 with A2C... > that's good to know. > > You're correct that Bridgewave is limited to 1024QAM in that > configuration. I expected getting adjacent channels in 11ghz to be a > problem, but it turned out that it actually wasn't here, so it's definitely > worth looking into (at least if you're in a rural area). > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 12:05 PM Peter Kranz via AF <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof >> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 05, 2021 6:54 PM >> *To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <[email protected]> >> *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 <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard >> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 5, 2021 7:14 PM >> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]> >> *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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones >> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 5, 2021 5:36 PM >> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]> >> *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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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]> < >> [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] >> >> www.siaemic.com >> >> >> >> >>> Mathew Howard <[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]> 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]> >> Sent: 1/4/2021 1:30:45 PM >> To: [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]> >> > Sent: 1/4/2021 1:16:26 PM >> > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <[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] >> 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 >> >> -- >> 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
