CableFree FOR3 includes 11GHz (as well as versions covering from 4 up to 26GHz, inc 24GHz UL) 1024QAM, full duplex up to 880Mbps (depending on channel width) in a single polarity www.cablefree.net/for3
This is a carrier-grade design with full duplex modem. SFP/fibre options as well as RJ45/GBE. Prices are competitive. Best regards Stephen On 15 April 2017 at 04:25, Jason McKemie <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> >> 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: >>> >>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
