They'll do 1024 QAM. They have an SFP slot.
IIRC, they had a punchdown block for the copper port. I forget if they had separate DC. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mathew Howard" <[email protected]> To: "af" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 8:32:52 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] mimosa Single polarity, I believe. If I remember correctly, they're also only 256QAM, but they appear to only around $2k per radio. I haven't seen pricing on the SIAE, so I'm not sure how that compares. On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Eric Kuhnke < [email protected] > wrote: 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: <blockquote> 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: <blockquote> 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: <blockquote> 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 </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote>
