I’m curious also. I have 13 ExtremeAir links, and a few G2 and ExploreAir.
On Jan 19, 2015, at 12:15 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: > What kind of problems, and what model? > > The G2 links we put in just worked. Granted that is their entry level model, > maybe less to go wrong. > > > From: Steve Utick > Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 12:46 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 6 or 11ghz best option for higher capacity ? > > My problem is at this point, I've had so many problems with Exalt that I'm > not sure I'd buy another one of their radios period.... > > > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:31 AM, SmarterBroadband > <[email protected]> wrote: > You could also look at the Exalt ExtremeAir. > > 2 x 80 Mhz channels with X-Pic all in one all-outdoor unit. > > Does a Gig. > > Adam > > > > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of TJ Trout > Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 1:48 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 6 or 11ghz best option for higher capacity ? > > > > What is my least expensive option for getting more bandwidth in 6ghz or > 11ghz ? Right now I have 366mbps (56mhz 256qam) would like double or better? > > > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Jon Langeler <[email protected]> > wrote: > > compression yields a lot at 64byte packet, but yields much less at 256byte > and larger...it's a curve. > > > > Also if your upgrading a long 5GHz link with 6Ghz, you'll probably be > slightly better off even if the calcs say 'low uptime'. 11GHz will 'swing' > during rains more than 6GHz obviously so the higher gain from the same size > dishes helps there. Licensing a wide single polarity is always cheapest... > > > > -Jon > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jan 16, 2015, at 3:13 PM, Josh Luthman <[email protected]> wrote: > That sounds backwards. Why would smaller packets net you greater throughput? > > > > > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's really 60. Ours does 1.4Gbps, 700Mbps full duplex (if every packet was > a VoIP packet)...500Mbps FDX is a more realistic real-world TCP throughput > that you can expect. > > > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Hardy, Tim <[email protected]> wrote: > > It’s really 60! > > > > 60 MHz > > CH > > N( > > G( > > 1 > > 5960.0250 > > 6212.0650 > > 2 > > 6019.3250 > > 6271.3650 > > 3 > > 6078.6250 > > 6330.6650 > > 4 > > 6137.9250 > > 6389.9650 > > > > As far as XPIC on 30 MHz vs. 60 MHz it all depends on the environment. If > x-pol is needed to clear a channel, it isn’t going to be available on the > orthogonal polarization. > > > > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof > Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 2:59 PM > > > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 6 or 11ghz best option for higher capacity ? > > > > In 6 GHz, is 60 really 60, or is it 30+30 contiguous? > > > > I’m thinking it might be easier to do XPIC on the same 30 MHz channel than to > find 60 MHz of available spectrum, but I haven’t done anything in 6 GHz, > mainly because of antenna size. Yes the FCC did relax the antenna rules to > allow down to a 3 ft dish, but realistically that won’t give you enough gain > unless it’s a short link, especially given that 6 GHz is subject to multipath > fades. So bottom line I haven’t kept up with what you can do in 6 GHz, so I > could easily be wrong or behind the times. > > > > From: Mike Hammett > > Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 1:24 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 6 or 11ghz best option for higher capacity ? > > > > 30 MHz in the 7 GHz band, 30 MHz in some 6 GHz, 60 MHz in the rest of 6 > GHz... IIRC. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > From: "Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 1:18:19 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 6 or 11ghz best option for higher capacity ? > > I would first talk to your frequency coordinator about what FCC channel > widths can be licensed in what bands. I’m not sure 40 MHz channels exist in > 6 GHz, and I believe you’ll find an 80 MHz channel width means you need to > license 2 adjacent channels. There is no benefit to having a radio that does > 80 MHz channels if that’s not what you license, other than maybe having > consistent equipment across your network to simplify sparing. > > > > > > From: TJ Trout > > Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 1:05 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 6 or 11ghz best option for higher capacity ? > > > > 11ghz integra doesn't exist, and when it does in april it's just 60mhz! > Should I even be considering a 60mhz radio? Seems like 80 is the way to go? > > > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Gino Villarini <[email protected]> wrote: > > 11 ghz integra > > > > > > > > Gino A. Villarini > > President > > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > > www.aeronetpr.com > > @aeronetpr > > > > > > > > From: TJ Trout <[email protected]> > Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, January 16, 2015 at 2:57 PM > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 6 or 11ghz best option for higher capacity ? > > > > I guess what I'm interested in is what is the cheapest 6 or 11ghz 80mhz radio > in terms of bits/hz or should I just use the lumina in 2+0? > > On Jan 16, 2015 10:54 AM, "TJ Trout" <[email protected]> wrote: > > So I have a lumina on 11ghz 56mhz that I need to upgrade, what is the most > economical option for more capacity ? Saf doesn't really have much besides > 2+0 right now (maybe that's my best option?) So I was thinking about trying > another brand something with maybe 80mhz channels ? What are my options that > won't cost an arm and a leg ? > > > > > > > > > > > >
