Yes, each has it's pro's and con's. If you take the B11 out of the picture, then only choice would be something like a 820s type radio. B11 simply offers some very interesting options, and yes cost is one of the factors that we all have to work with.
B11's spectral efficiency, yes we can argue about this glass half full or half empty..... One has to keep in mind that B11's are introducing a very much needed technical element in the market... The ability to reuse the licensed channel in another direction, with gps sync. I believe that the Licensed Radio industry has not been innovative, and been stuck in their old ways... they have been tinkering with the same old FDD Radio concept with pretty much zero innovation.... In regards to AF11, my comments are, I am happy to see other folks realize that the artificial glass ceiling associated with licensed links is being challenged and broken......At the end of the day, bottom line is, FCC regulates / licenses Freq/Channel, they don't specify what flavor of protocol you can run on it !.... Personally speaking, we in this industry have been drinking too much of the marketing koolaid doled out by the mfg for too long... It is not about the white, purple , blue or green box that is moving packets... it is all about what can you do with it and how does this help you move packets and expand your network, without spending an arm and a leg. Let me be the first one to say this..... in regards to licensed freq. ... to hell with spectral efficiency... it is all about a land grab... if you can get it, and put it to use, go for it now... cause once is it is depleted.. .you are pretty much SOL !. 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] > From: "Gino Villarini" <[email protected]> > To: "Animal Farm" <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 3:19:47 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration > I beg to differ with you Faisal on the Mimosa statement. the B11 only > achievement is low cost, which is soon to be out priced by UBNT AF11. B11 are > inefficient Spectrum hogs > On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Erich Kaiser < [email protected] > > wrote: >> 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
