Kinda depends on your objective Lewis. The lower priced gear is great if you don't need big bandwidth today, but you need to lock up a couple of 80MHz channels for the future. The spectrum is the really big deal at this point.
Jeff Broadwick ConVergence Technologies, Inc. 312-205-2519 Office 574-220-7826 Cell [email protected] > On Apr 13, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Lewis Bergman <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >>> >>> Midwest Internet Exchange >>> >>> The Brothers WISP >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> 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 >>>> >>>>
