I believe Alcoma is working hard to compete with the SIAE AlfoPlus 1024QAM product. Both in the lower price category. But is that Alcoma a dual polarity or single polarity radio?
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Mathew Howard <[email protected]> wrote: > Speaking of cheap-ish licensed radios, does anyone have any experience > with Alcoma? The pricing I got appeared to only be slightly higher than a > B11, and they'll support full 80mhz channels... they also aren't limited to > just 11ghz. > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Bill Prince <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Regardless of what BS Mimosa gives you or obfuscates around, their B11 >> does not do FDX. Period. It chews up a gob of spectrum, and none of the >> links we've tried were capable of full throughput. >> >> The AF11 is similar, but different, and DOES do FDX, and that is >> something significant. So even on links that "look" like they are providing >> less throughput than the B11, the AF11 will perform better. >> >> If you want (or need) full spectrum efficiency, you're best going to SAF, >> or Trango, or Dragonwave, or Ceragon, etc. >> >> >> bp >> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >> >> >> On 4/12/2017 8:41 PM, Steve Jones 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >
