Harris and Nera On Oct 28, 2017 10:23 AM, "Mike Hammett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dragonwave, SIAE, and BridgeWave. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > ------------------------------ > *From: *[email protected] > *To: *[email protected] > *Sent: *Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:19:17 AM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link > > I want maximum throughput for the biggest channel I can get licensed on a > link in most cases. > So that requires the most efficient radio. > > *From:* Rory Conaway > *Sent:* Saturday, October 28, 2017 10:09 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link > > > Why does that matter? It’s about the economics and the ROI. I’m in > business to make money, not to worry how efficiently I’m using my > spectrum. It’s the 80/20 problem. If I can achieve 80 percent of my goal > with 20% of the budget, then I’m not going to spend additional funds until > it produces a return on that investment. When I need to be more efficient > and it makes sense financially, then it will be addressed. For example, we > now need more bandwidth in the spectrum I have with the B11’s, time to > spend the additional capital. If the financial return had not panned out, > then I would have wasted $40K dollars. > > > > Rory > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Bill Prince > *Sent:* Saturday, October 28, 2017 8:51 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link > > > > The B11 will eat the most spectrum for the least throughput of any 11 GHz > radios I have found. > > bp > > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > > > On 10/28/2017 8:31 AM, Mathew Howard wrote: > > That would be nice. Other than the AF11 and B11, I think most of the > licensed radios will get pretty similar capacity at any given channel BW > and modulation, so it pretty much just comes down to what modulations and > channel sizes they support. The B11 can get particularly confusing being > the only half-duplex radio out there, and having several different ways it > can be configured. > > > > On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:14 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > I wish someone would make a chart showing the max of each radio per > channel BW size. The radio charts have way to many modulation options. > Like some kind of apples to apples comparisons for these different radios > per BW channel size. > > > > *From:* Mathew Howard > > *Sent:* Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:11 AM > > *To:* af > > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link > > > > Yeah, but to use the same channels that a SAF lumina is using, you > wouldn't be able to transmit on both channels... you'd have to use FD mode, > which if I remember right, means you'd also have to use a fixed traffic > split (although I may be wrong on that... ), so you're going to get more > like 300Mbps, at best. But since it's MIMO, that still wouldn't be using > the same channels anyway... if the B11 could run in SISO mode, then you'd > have to cut that in half again. > > But since Paul said there were sufficient channels available to license, > none of that is really relevant anyway. > > If it were my link, I think I'd look into what it would take to adapt the > B11's to the existing dishes... if that could be done fairly cheaply, then > I would more than likely just go with the B11's... especially if I already > had them. If using B11's with those dishes is going to be too costly or too > much of a pain, then I'd look at other options. If you don't have to > replace, remount and realign the dishes, you can spend a lot more on radios > and still come out ahead. > > I probably wouldn't use AF11's on this link, because they need to be able > to do 1024qam to match the capacity of most 256qam radios, and if the SAFs > can't do 256qam on this link, it's a pretty safe bet that an AF11 isn't > going to be able to do 1024qam. > > > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Rory Conaway <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Just ran a test we have on a 16 mile link and pulling 420-435Mbps on a > 40MHz link. > > > > Rory > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Rory Conaway > *Sent:* Friday, October 27, 2017 8:07 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link > > > > A B11 can transmit on both channels simultaneously in the same direction > and it’s MIMO. > > > > Rory > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard > *Sent:* Friday, October 27, 2017 5:50 PM > *To:* af > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link > > > > Well, no, a B11 wouldn't get more capacity using the same channels... I'm > pretty sure it would do quite a bit less, actually. We're assuming he'd be > able to license new channels. > > > > On Oct 27, 2017 7:23 PM, "Eric Kuhnke" <[email protected]> wrote: > > If he wants to keep his existing FDD band plan license and channel sizes, > I don't see how a B11 would be any more capacity at all, since it would be > replacing a 256QAM radio link with a 256QAM radio link. The B11 is only > high capacity when you give it huge channel sizes or let it do its special > weird pseudo-FDD band plan. > > > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 7:30 AM, Mathew Howard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > B11's are going to get you the most capacity for the least amount of > money, but don't expect them to be as stable as the SAF link. I've been > pretty happy with our AF-11FX link, but you're only going to get around > double the capacity you have now, and I don't know if there's currently a > way to do multiples on one dish... it might make more sense to do like > Lewis suggested and add a second Lumina. > > There are lots of options for higher capacity licensed links, but they > start to get pricey. > > You could probably get Chuck to make you some adapters to hook up just > about anything to the SAF dishes. > > > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paul McCall <[email protected]> wrote: > > We have a 4 year old Lumina link from our core, 12.9 miles, 11Ghz with 3ft > dishes on each end, that doesn’t have enough BW for us long term, as we > are going to do another hop from there (7.3 miles), then FTTH. > > > > I get around 270Mbit from it, and we already use 120Mit pretty > consistently and if another tower OSPFs to it, more than that. Sooo, I am > looking for alternatives. Its mainly one-way traffic of course, so a > solution that favored that would be acceptable. > > > > Cost is a factor of course, as I also have a “parallel path” a few miles > south to do the same on very soon. Something that could use the same > dishes from the SAF would be good also. > > > > I have some undeployed Mimosa B11’s that we bought for a project and are > still waiting on some tower rights to get settled. I could use those, or > maybe AF-11X or multiples thereof. I might as well plan for the future > since this is a “main artery” link. We have sufficient 11 Ghz channels > available to license. > > > > Thoughts and suggestions are appreciated ! > > > > Paul > > > > Paul McCall, President > > PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc. > > 658 Old Dixie Highway > <https://maps.google.com/?q=658+Old+Dixie+Highway%0D+Vero+Beach,+FL+32962%0D+772&entry=gmail&source=g> > > Vero Beach, FL 32962 > <https://maps.google.com/?q=658+Old+Dixie+Highway%0D+Vero+Beach,+FL+32962%0D+772&entry=gmail&source=g> > > 772-564-6800 <%28772%29%20564-6800> > > [email protected] > > www.pdmnet.com > > www.floridabroadband.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
