How stable of a structure do you need for 70/80Ghz? Self standing rohn 45 @ 55 ft too much? It's bracketed at 25ft.
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Kurt Fankhauser <[email protected]> wrote: > What price range is a Huawei link in? > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Eric Kuhnke <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> You cannot directly compare 11 to 80 GHz. Totally different market. I >> can't do beyond 2.5 km at real five to six nines uptime with 80 GHz (even >> with +18 Tx power radios). >> >> I can do 60 km with 11 if the link will tolerate some ACM. >> >> On Aug 9, 2016 9:31 PM, "John Blake" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> It's obviously pricier than the B11, but if you want true symmetrical >>> and a ton of throughput, you could look at the Huawei RTN-380 radios. >>> These will do 4Gbps (2Gbps symmetrical) at full licensing, or there are 1, >>> 2, 3Gbps licensing options. They use 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz and so are >>> super easy and cheap to get (lightly) licensed. These are very popular with >>> carriers outside the US, but not so much in the US because of all the >>> Huawei/Ciscolobby disputes, but that has largely been resolved and they >>> have been getting traction here. Let me know if you want more info, we are >>> Huawei VAR. >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:54 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Gino, >>>> >>>> That seems to be the only configuration that meets the requirement. >>>> The way I see it, in a traditional FDD system you would license an XPIC >>>> pair of frequencies, say 11075 H/V at point A and 11565 H/V at point B. >>>> Assuming an 820 running 256QAM you might get 500mbps per polarity per >>>> direction, for a two-way aggregate of 2gpbs. You would have licensed >>>> 160MHz at each end of the system, for a system efficiency of 2gbps/320MHz = >>>> 6 b/s/hz. >>>> If you operate a B11 on the same pair of frequencies, you have to use >>>> their FD mode which a typical PCN claims will deliver 736mbps. It would >>>> seem that this can be viewed as a two-way aggregate rate, because the >>>> radios still take turns transmitting as in a true TDMA system. So, the >>>> system efficiency here is 736mbps/320MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz -- below the >>>> requirement of 3 b/s/hz. >>>> >>>> If you switch the B11 to the normal TDMA mode you will need to transmit >>>> on the same frequency from each end of the link. So, in addition to >>>> licensing 11075 H and V transmitting from point A, you also need to license >>>> 11075 H and V transmitting from point B, which adds another 160MHz at each >>>> end. The PCNs show this configuration giving 1.47gbps (again assumed to be >>>> an aggregate figure due to the TDMA mode). This is an efficiency of >>>> 1.47gbps/640MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz again. However, because you have licensed two >>>> frequency pairs, each site can also transmit and receive on the unused >>>> 11565 H and V frequencies. If you do this then you get 2*1.47gbps/640MHz = >>>> 4.6 b/s/hz. This seems to be the only valid configuration, but does this >>>> take two radios at each end, or just one? >>>> >>>> Mike Black >>>> >>>> Black & Associates >>>> >>>> 727-773-9016 >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------- Original Message >>>> ---------------------------- >>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11 >>>> From: "Gino Villarini" <[email protected]> >>>> Date: Wed, August 3, 2016 3:38 pm >>>> To: "Animal Farm" <[email protected]> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> -------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> > but the radio tx in both channels in the both polarites in both ends >>>> ... >>>> > >>>> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> No, it is just as spectrally efficient as any 256QAM radio... One 80 >>>> MHz >>>> >> "low" channel in both polarities and one 80 MHz "high" channel in >>>> both >>>> >> polarities, as a typical FDD band plan such as you would use with a >>>> >> configuration with 2 dishes, 2 orthomode transducers and 4 radio >>>> heads >>>> >> (each radio operating in a single polarity) in a 2+0 configuration. >>>> >> >>>> >> You're arriving at the figure of 320 MHz by counting everything >>>> twice. >>>> >> >>>> >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 10:28 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >>> We haven't had the pleasure of coordinating a B11 link yet, but they >>>> >>> certainly seem to be popular based upon the number of PCNs we are >>>> >>> seeing. So, a dumb question hopefully based upon a simple >>>> misunderstanding >>>> >>> of the numbers: I don't see how this meets the FCC minimum >>>> efficiency >>>> >>> standards for wide channels at 11GHz: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> 80MHz channels x H and V = 160MHz, but with high/low pairing you >>>> double >>>> >>> this? to 320MHz occupied per end? So, to meet the 3 b/s/hz >>>> requirement at >>>> >>> 11GHz your symmetrical throughput would need to be >= 960mbps. What >>>> am I >>>> >>> missing? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Mike Black >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Black & Associates >>>> >>> >>>> >>> 727-773-9016 >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> ---------------------------- Original Message >>>> ---------------------------- >>>> >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11 >>>> >>> >>>> From: "Jaime Fink" <[email protected]> >>>> >>> Date: Tue, August 2, 2016 4:49 pm >>>> >>> To: "SmarterBroadband" <[email protected]> >>>> >>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> -------------- >>>> >>> >>>> >>> > The PHY is 1733 Mbps aggregate, so depending on the chosen window >>>> >>> sizes, the top real world TCP speeds we’ve seen are between >>>> 1200-1300 Mbps >>>> >>> aggregate (75/25 or 50/50 mode), or 600-650 Mbps symmetric (50/50). >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > For 11 GHz this assumes high/low pairing of 80 MHz and both >>>> >>> polarizations coordinated. >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > Jaime Fink • Mimosa<http://www.mimosa.co> • CPO & Co-Founder >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > On August 2, 2016 at 1:34:31 PM, SmarterBroadband ( >>>> >>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>) >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> > Can the B11 do 1Gbps Symmetrical? >>>> >>> > If not what is best Symmetrical? >>>> >>> > Thanks >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>> >
