well, an AF3X link could be a significant upgrade for a current, older 3.65 GHz band 64QAM link...
If you can get the AF3X stable and happy in a single 20 MHz wide TDD 256QAM-3/4 or 5/6 code rate channel, that's a lot more than what it would be replacing. Assuming there is not an equipment budget for a licensed band link. On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Joe Novak <[email protected]> wrote: > I've seen odd issues with af5x and high interference areas. I mostly have > it sorted but it was a pain and only in the upload direction so I was able > to stabilize it by dropping it to 6x and using split channels. > > I wouldn't want to put up a link that has no growth potential past 100mbit > with the variety of equipment out now. > > On Aug 31, 2016 6:36 PM, "Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I am going AF5X on the 5 GHz links. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: George Skorup Sent: Wednesday, August >> 31, 2016 6:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF3X vs 450PTP >> 3.65 >> Did Matt say if they did the PTP version of the integrated panel 3GHz SM >> yet? But no sync-over-power, timing port only on that. >> >> If it was me, I'd save the 3.65 spectrum and do ePTP mode in 5GHz. You >> can get the Force110 PTP/AP Lite radios and do sync if you want. >> >> >> On 8/31/2016 2:44 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >> >>> I have some 3.65 M series backhaul links to upgrade, I think it's 5 >>> Powerbridges and 1 Rocket. Not ready to go licensed on these links. >>> >>> Has anyone done a spec comparison or better yet field comparision >>> between Ubiquiti's AF3X and Cambium's 450PTP? They are fairly similar, the >>> AF3X is more expensive than the 450PTP because Ubiquiti prices it a lot >>> higher than the AF5X. Cambium has an integrated panel version of the 450SM >>> but doesn't seem to have the PTP version of that, otherwise it might be a >>> plus when replacing Powerbridges. And Ubiquiti doesn't seem to have a 3 >>> GHz version of their smallest airFiber dish, which would have been a plus >>> for AF3X. >>> >>> I don't see achieving max throughput on an AF3X since 30-50 MHz channels >>> don't seem usable. So that maybe takes away some of the airFiber secret >>> sauce. >>> >>> I guess another approach would be to use a 450 Lite AP and an SM, since >>> those are parts we already use and stock. Yet another approach would be to >>> use the lower 5 GHz bands instead of 3.65. >>> >>> >> >>
