Also max QAM level on B11 is 256 on the PTP820S it is 2048.
Erich Kaiser North Central Tower [email protected] Office: 630-621-4804 Cell: 630-777-9291 On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Erich Kaiser <[email protected]> wrote: > You actually need double the spectrum to accomplish the same thing as the > 2+0 config on PTP820S vs B11. The B11 is using both H and V PTP820S with > 2+0 could both be on Vertical or on Horizontal. This is one of the big > issues people have been running into is being able to find that type of > spectrum. > > > Erich Kaiser > North Central Tower > [email protected] > Office: 630-621-4804 > Cell: 630-777-9291 > > > On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Faisal Imtiaz <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I am not familiar with the hardware nor the intricate specifics.. However >> I would make a general statement .. >> >> There are a lot of old wives tales associated with licensed link, there >> may be some context to these old wives tails, most folks in the industry >> tend to take it for face value, very few end up examining it for merit of >> correctness. Comments made by folks in the public forums can be the best or >> the worst of such examples. >> >> From the sounds of it, you have done everything right, and you have the >> link working, then anything else would be an old wives tale. >> >> BTW, if you were able to get 2x80mhz channels in 11ghz, take a look at >> what Mimosa B11's can do with them.... and yes these folks did challenge >> the accepted status quo in licensed links.. >> >> Regards/ >> >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Snappy Internet & Telecom >> 7266 SW 48 Street >> Miami, FL 33155 >> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >> >> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: [email protected] >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Craig Baird" <[email protected]> >> > To: [email protected] >> > Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:32:09 AM >> > Subject: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration >> >> > So a few months ago we purchased an 11 GHz PTP820S 2+0 link. We >> > recently installed it, and it appears to be working fine, aside from a >> > little bit of frame loss that we are investigating. While looking >> > into this frame loss issue, I stumbled across something that concerns >> > me. On Cambium's support forum there is a post that states that when >> > dealing with 2+0 links both radios must be in the same sub-band. >> > There is no explanation of why this is the case. In our situation, >> > the radios are in separate sub-bands. When we did the frequency >> > coordination, the only two 80 MHz channels available were in different >> > sub-bands. I passed those channels along to our vendor who worked >> > with Cambium to get a BOM. At no point did anyone say that this was a >> > problem. So now, fast forward a few months, and I stumble across this >> > post, and now I'm wondering what the implications will be. Both links >> > are up and running. Signal on both is right where it should be (-39 >> > on one, -40 on the other). Both are running at maximum modulation. >> > There are no defective blocks shown on the radio interfaces. There is >> > no indication that this sub-band mismatch is causing any issues, aside >> > from possibly this frame loss thing. However, if I mute the radios on >> > one link, the frame loss persists, so I don't think it's related. >> > >> > In case it matters, the two links are oppositely polarized. On one >> > side we've got a 2 foot dish with an OMT combining the radios. On the >> > other side, we've got an 8 foot dual-pol dish. >> > >> > So I'm wondering if anyone knows why Cambium says that you can't use >> > radios from different sub-bands. Are we in for trouble at some point? >> > >> > Craig >> > >
