Everyone's financial position is different but I wouldn't consider either the AF11 or B11. For my money neither of them does enough. Put something big up there you won't have to think about for a couple years.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 6:48 AM [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote: > I prefer the AF11 to the B11 and am thinking of replacing the B11 with the > AF11 as well. > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The web site will send your information over to Liz, though, IIRC. >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> >> >> >> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> >> > *From: *"Mathew Howard" <[email protected]> >> *To: *"af" <[email protected]> >> *Sent: *Wednesday, April 12, 2017 11:50:31 PM >> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] mimosa >> > >> >> The website does not handle FCC stuff... you still have to go through a >> coordinator, same as any other 11ghz link. >> >> They work, and they get a ton of throughput for cheap, but don't expect >> them to work like a SAF. Between the two, I think I actually prefer the >> AF11... they can't quite match the speed of the B11, but they behave more >> like a normal licensed radio than the B11... they just lack an SFP port and >> 80mhz channels. >> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Steve Jones <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > we are looking to drop some dough on these guys if the sales pitch is true >>> >>> does the website handle the FCC stuff? I personally find that hard to >>> believe, considering the FCC itself has a fee, unless the reseller >>> (unnamed) is building it into the price. Still less than SAF >>> Im not looking to move away from SAF, my only complaint with SAF is that >>> it works too well, so much that I altered routing the other day before I >>> realized the winds a while back turned the 800 plus pound ballast NPM and >>> the signal drop wasnt weather fade and that up until essentially nothing >>> the beast runs at full modulation >>> >>> Literally, the only reason for looking at mimosa is the low cost, and >>> comparing the low cost of mimosa to SAF, its alot, considering SAF is >>> relatively cheap. >>> >>> from what Ive seen, mimosa is like running mikrotik routers, you pay a >>> shit ton less in exchange for a little more poking, not constant diddling, >>> just occasional poking. >>> >>> I have no interest in looking at ubnt noisy crickets on our licensed >>> gear, but mimosa seems promising >>> >>> I need a good teeth kick now before we commit to at least 3 links locked >>> into this gear >>> >>> SAF presales engineering is on the cautious side, a good example is our >>> first licensed link, our partner told us could be done with cambium at 2 >>> foot antennas on each side >>> >>> the reseller told use with SAF it required a 3 and a 4, and that >>> (without saying it) our partner was smoking crack cocain after they took >>> bath salts. I have no doubt at 2 foot the link would have come up, but not >>> to a degree that a 30 db drop caused by a turned NPM would still result in >>> full modulation until failure, >>> >>> I dont want to have an "It will link" solution at the end of the day >>> >>> >>>
