SIAE was $2k / radio when I was buying direct (before they had US distributors). Not sure where they are now that they've had a price drop. Their service has been very good.
On Friday, April 14, 2017, Mathew Howard <[email protected]> wrote: > Single polarity, I believe. If I remember correctly, they're also only > 256QAM, but they app 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] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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] >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
