Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik 1072 Frustrations

[Steven Kenney]

Looks like 6.48 was a big update and had some fixes that could potentially 
improve the issue. We shall see. Support still isn't helping but I hope I make 
enough of a stink about it they look deeply into the issue. You don't see 
people getting random reboots from 1036's and other units. 

Check out the threads about this.. 

Back to 2017!! [ https://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?p=790406 | 
https://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?p=790406 ] 

[ https://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=3=122525=100 | 
https://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=3=122525=100 ] 

There are a few newer ones too. Just keeps falling on deaf ears. 



[ https://www.wavedirect.net/ |] 
[ https://www.facebook.com/ruralhighspeed ] [ 
https://www.instagram.com/wave.direct/ ] [ 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/wavedirect-telecommunication/ ] [ 
https://twitter.com/wavedirect1 ] [ https://www.youtube.com/user/WaveDirect ] 
STEVEN KENNEY 
DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY & CONTINUITY A: 158 Erie St. N | Leamington ON 
E: st...@wavedirect.org | P: 519-737-9283 
W: www.wavedirect.net 


From: "Josh Luthman"  
To: "af"  
Sent: Friday, January 1, 2021 6:00:29 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik 1072 Frustrations 

Been a while but I think 5 years is probably a stretch now that I think about 
it... 

Josh Luthman 
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St 
Suite 1337 
Troy, OH 45373 


On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 12:09 PM Mark - Myakka Technologies < [ 
mailto:m...@mailmt.com | m...@mailmt.com ] > wrote: 



Josh, 

5 years ago, I don't think CHR existed 


-- 
Best regards, 
Mark [ mailto:m...@mailmt.com | mailto:m...@mailmt.com ] 

Myakka Technologies, Inc. 
[ http://www.myakka.com/ | www.Myakka.com ] 

-- 

Thursday, December 31, 2020, 12:02:54 PM, you wrote: 


Oh so you went legit x86 instead of CHR? 

Josh Luthman 
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St 
Suite 1337 
Troy, OH 45373 

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 11:58 AM Mark - Myakka Technologies < [ 
mailto:m...@mailmt.com | m...@mailmt.com ] > wrote: 

Josh, 

Did some tweaking to the IRQ stuff. These are BGP routers so majority of 
traffic is limited to two ports. Did some manual assignments of CPU instead of 
auto. 

Also went to multi-queue-ethernet-default as interface queue type. 

I don't think fastpath or fasttrack are supported on x86 


-- 
Best regards, 
Mark [ mailto:m...@mailmt.com | mailto:m...@mailmt.com ] 

Myakka Technologies, Inc. 
[ http://www.myakka.com/ | www.Myakka.com ] 

-- 

Thursday, December 31, 2020, 11:44:49 AM, you wrote: 


What kind of tweaking for greater speeds? Did you just disable 
services/packages? Or did you enable fastpath? 

Josh Luthman 
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St 
Suite 1337 
Troy, OH 45373 

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 9:53 AM Mark - Myakka Technologies < [ 
mailto:m...@mailmt.com | m...@mailmt.com ] > wrote: 

Tushar, 

I have two that I bought back in 2015. Have the 4 port SFP+ card in it. Using 
them as BGP routers taking full routes. Both have a 10G uplink to my providers. 
Took a bit of tweak with MT config, but I can move 8-9 Gig of live traffic on 
them if needed. Most of the time they are doing anywhere between 2 - 5 Gig. 

Going to need another one in the near future. Debating if I want to roll my own 
or just buy one from Baltic. With past performance, I'm leading on just buying 
one. 


-- 
Best regards, 
Mark [ mailto:m...@mailmt.com | mailto:m...@mailmt.com ] 

Myakka Technologies, Inc. 
[ http://www.myakka.com/ | www.Myakka.com ] 

-- 

Thursday, December 31, 2020, 9:24:25 AM, you wrote: 


Allows two, four ports SFP+ modules 

Tushar 



On Dec 31, 2020, at 8:19 AM, Tushar Patel < [ mailto:tpa...@ecpi.com | 
tpa...@ecpi.com ] > wrote: 
Has anyone tried Maxwave from Baltic networks? 

[ 
https://www.balticnetworks.com/manufacturers/maxxwave/maxxwave-routermaxx-vengeance-8-port-gigabit-core-i7-i7-8700k-hexa-core-router
 | 
https://www.balticnetworks.com/manufacturers/maxxwave/maxxwave-routermaxx-vengeance-8-port-gigabit-core-i7-i7-8700k-hexa-core-router
 ] 

They have bunch of cards options which can be added 


Tushar 



On Dec 30, 2020, at 12:28 PM, Steven Kenney < [ 
mailto:st...@wavedirect.org | st...@wavedirect.org ] > wrote: 

Welp replacing it with a brand new 1072 with new transceivers etc lasted about 
a week before it rebooted itself. 

Mikrotik basically said RMA it or it may be faulty hardware. Well I ruled that 
out with a unit that came from the factory with a pretty recent firmware. 

Mikrotik if you read this. Get off your ass and lab this up. If you are happy 
dealing with residential equipment for the rest of your lives keep doing what 
you are doing. If you want to move up into the enterprise level you better get 
on top of this. 

STEVEN KENNEY 
DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY & CONTINUITY A: 158 Erie St. N | Leamington ON 

Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

[Mathew Howard]

Yeah, they do - we just put in a bridgewave link doing that exact thing.

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021, 8:54 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> Do these radios also let you do 4+0 with A2C+XPIC in one radio, rather
> than 2 radios and a combiner?
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 5, 2021 7:14 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar
>
>
>
> There's really not even a lot of good reasons to do it. If the Aviat
> radios are able to run full power now using A2C, you can accomplish pretty
> much the same that way (or using the equivalent feature with Bridgewave or
> SIAE).
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 6:26 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
> Yep.
>
> One more thought – Part 101 is one of the best things we have, where we
> are on identical footing with the big guys.  We file the exact same
> paperwork, pay the same fees, get the same access, no sitting at the kids
> table.  I’m not going to risk losing that.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 5, 2021 5:36 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar
>
>
>
> My coordinator told me no. Not a maybe no, but a flat no. Had to do
> primarily with the band edges. I'd love to do it, and the radios will do
> it. But the FCC gets involved and not only are you probably paying a
> massive fine, but you're losing substantial capacity you may be hinging
> your business on. The gain isnt worth the risk. I didnt push the issue to
> find out the specific rules prohibiting it, I represent a podunk wisp, the
> fcc is bigger than us. I'll lose.
>
> It's like the question of whether selling meth is illegal if you dont get
> caught.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021, 12:10 PM Ryan Ray  wrote:
>
> Hey Tim,
>
>
>
> Does this rule have a reason? Or is it just a rule for rule's sake?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:47 AM Tim Hardy  wrote:
>
> A note of caution: Some vendors have been pushing the notion that at 11
> GHz, one can coordinate and license an 80 MHz bandwidth pair along with a
> 40 MHz bandwidth pair separated by 60 MHz to in effect get a contiguous 120
> MHz of spectrum. This is okay as long as you are transmitting two distinct
> frequency pairs - one with 80 MHz, and the other with 40 MHz. In the US it
> is NOT okay to unlock the radio to use ETSI 112 MHz bandwidth and transmit
> a single pair. Vendors that are pushing this concept need to stop as it
> violates at least two and possibly more FCC Rules. The licensee would be
> taking the risk - not the vendor.
>
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2021, at 3:54 PM,  <
> joseph.schr...@siaemic.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> With the SIAE radio:
>
> - 2+0 XPIC - minimal loss using the built-in OMT branching unit on the
> order of 0.5 dB per end
>
> - 2+0 ACCP - 3.5 dB loss per end using the built-in Hybrid branching
> unit
>
> No TX power back-off required in either mode, nor do you need to back-off
> the TX power when using POE.
>
>
>
> The ALFOPlus2XG radio has independent modem & RF, so there is flexibility
> on how you could setup each radio. Each carrier can have its own channel
> bandwidth & modulation.
>
>
>
> The branching units are field changeable and allow the ODU to bolt
> directly to the back of the antenna.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Joe Schraml
>
> VP Sales Operations & Marketing
>
> SIAE Microelettronica, Inc.
>
> +1 (408) 832-4884
>
> joseph.schr...@siaemic.com
>
> www.siaemic.com
>
>
>
> >>> Mathew Howard  1/4/2021 12:01 PM >>>
>
> Yeah, you can do 2 x 80mhz channels with a single core on some radios, but
> there are some limitations. Depending on the radio, my understanding is
> that they have to either be adjacent, or very near each other (definitely
> within the same sub-band). It seems to me that some radios can even do two
> different sizes of channels (like 1 80mhz + 1 40mhz), but I could be
> remembering that wrong. If I understand it right, the Aviat radios have a
> significant tx power hit when you activate that feature, which probably
> makes it unusable in a lot of cases. We're doing that on a Bridgewave 11ghz
> link (using 4x 80mhz on a dual core radio), and there's it works fine, with
> only a minor performance hit on those radios. SIAE does have that feature
> as well, but I don't remember if there was a significant performance hit or
> not... I think they may have been the ones that could use two different
> sizes of channels.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 1:51 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
> Probably, LinkPlanner is pretty smart.
> I assume you don't want to use 2 antennas.
> There are some licensed radios now that I think can do 2 x 80 MHz channels
> in a single core, like from Aviat or SIAE maybe, I don't know if this gets
> around the splitter cost and performance issues. I may have that feature
> completely wrong, I haven't looked into it. There could also be a
> performance hit by using the same xmt power amp for 160 MHz.
> I also haven't checked out the full feature set 

Re: [AFMUG] Keep Americans Connected Pledge and nonpaying customers

[Darin Steffl]

We didn't take the pledge and very glad we didn't. No one should work for
free and that's basically what the pledge was. When you let people get too
far behind, the remaining balance becomes daunting and they just ditch and
ignore you so you never get paid.

If you value yourselves and the work you do, never work for free. I'm
pretty sure they couldn't run up a tab at McDonald's, Costco, the gas
station, etc for free so why let them do it with you? The way they can pay
for things they don't have cash for is called a credit card. Let them
finance it so you're not the lender.


On Tue, Jan 5, 2021, 7:49 PM Adam Moffett  wrote:

> Here in the "hood" delinquent customers are just par for the course.  If
> there were 10% more we probably wouldn't have noticed.
>
> We didn't shut anyone off for non-payment through the end of the summer,
> and we gave people a lot of breaks.  At some point you have to shut them
> down or just give it away because if you're letting the balance build up
> too long then they'll never be able to get back on top of it.
>
> I don't think we have any boilerplate to share.  I'm pretty sure each
> one got their own little conversation.
>
> -Adam
>
>
> On 1/5/2021 6:37 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
>
> It's weird, I think we have had less delinquent customers than before the
> pandemic.
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021, 12:50 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have a letter or other notice that you can share, that you
>> sent out to customers regarding nonpayment during the pandemic?
>>
>>
>>
>> The FCC “pledge” went through June 30, 2020.  Many large ISPs extended
>> things like late payments and overusage fees through the end of the year,
>> but many of those have expired now.  Also it seems that many people
>> misunderstood the terms, that it was voluntary not mandated by the
>> government, and that customers were supposed to contact the ISP about their
>> financial hardship, not just stop paying.
>>
>>
>>
>> Most of our customers have paid as usual.  A few have made sporadic
>> payments.  Then there are the ones that just stopped paying.  A couple of
>> those who were on higher speed plans I have changed to a lower plan, one
>> that should still allow their kids to do Zoom classes and to watch one
>> video stream in the evening.  We didn’t pledge to give them our highest
>> speed plan for free.
>>
>>
>>
>> The customers who haven’t contacted us about hardship, or made at least
>> partial payments, I want to send out some kind of notice.  Tony Fauci is
>> saying we might see some normalcy by fall of this year, some people are
>> saying it’s going to be as long as until 2023, so we really don’t know.
>> Fauci isn’t an economist, but I would take his estimate as a best case,
>> meaning we are looking at another 6-9 months of nonpayers unless we start
>> shutting them off.  Plus I assume most of them won’t be able to pay the
>> past due balance and we’ll have to write some of it off.  We do cash not
>> accrual based accounting, otherwise I would have written a whole bunch of
>> it off before year end for tax purposes.  Just because we sent an invoice
>> doesn’t mean we got paid.
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyway, anybody have an example of something you mailed or emailed to
>> customers, stuffed in bills, posted on your website, etc. on this issue?
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

[Ken Hohhof]

Do these radios also let you do 4+0 with A2C+XPIC in one radio, rather than 2 
radios and a combiner?

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 7:14 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

 

There's really not even a lot of good reasons to do it. If the Aviat radios are 
able to run full power now using A2C, you can accomplish pretty much the same 
that way (or using the equivalent feature with Bridgewave or SIAE).

 

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 6:26 PM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com> > wrote:

Yep.

One more thought – Part 101 is one of the best things we have, where we are on 
identical footing with the big guys.  We file the exact same paperwork, pay the 
same fees, get the same access, no sitting at the kids table.  I’m not going to 
risk losing that.

 

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Steve Jones
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 5:36 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

 

My coordinator told me no. Not a maybe no, but a flat no. Had to do primarily 
with the band edges. I'd love to do it, and the radios will do it. But the FCC 
gets involved and not only are you probably paying a massive fine, but you're 
losing substantial capacity you may be hinging your business on. The gain isnt 
worth the risk. I didnt push the issue to find out the specific rules 
prohibiting it, I represent a podunk wisp, the fcc is bigger than us. I'll 
lose. 

It's like the question of whether selling meth is illegal if you dont get 
caught. 

 

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021, 12:10 PM Ryan Ray mailto:ryan...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Hey Tim,

 

Does this rule have a reason? Or is it just a rule for rule's sake?

 

 

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:47 AM Tim Hardy mailto:thardy...@gmail.com> > wrote:

A note of caution: Some vendors have been pushing the notion that at 11 GHz, 
one can coordinate and license an 80 MHz bandwidth pair along with a 40 MHz 
bandwidth pair separated by 60 MHz to in effect get a contiguous 120 MHz of 
spectrum. This is okay as long as you are transmitting two distinct frequency 
pairs - one with 80 MHz, and the other with 40 MHz. In the US it is NOT okay to 
unlock the radio to use ETSI 112 MHz bandwidth and transmit a single pair. 
Vendors that are pushing this concept need to stop as it violates at least two 
and possibly more FCC Rules. The licensee would be taking the risk - not the 
vendor.

 

On Jan 4, 2021, at 3:54 PM, mailto:joseph.schr...@siaemic.com> > mailto:joseph.schr...@siaemic.com> > wrote:

 

With the SIAE radio:

- 2+0 XPIC - minimal loss using the built-in OMT branching unit on the 
order of 0.5 dB per end

- 2+0 ACCP - 3.5 dB loss per end using the built-in Hybrid branching unit

No TX power back-off required in either mode, nor do you need to back-off the 
TX power when using POE.

 

The ALFOPlus2XG radio has independent modem & RF, so there is flexibility on 
how you could setup each radio. Each carrier can have its own channel bandwidth 
& modulation.

 

The branching units are field changeable and allow the ODU to bolt directly to 
the back of the antenna.

 

 

Thanks,

 



 

Joe Schraml

VP Sales Operations & Marketing

SIAE Microelettronica, Inc.

+1 (408) 832-4884

  joseph.schr...@siaemic.com

  www.siaemic.com

 

>>> Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com> > 
>>> 1/4/2021 12:01 PM >>>

Yeah, you can do 2 x 80mhz channels with a single core on some radios, but 
there are some limitations. Depending on the radio, my understanding is that 
they have to either be adjacent, or very near each other (definitely within the 
same sub-band). It seems to me that some radios can even do two different sizes 
of channels (like 1 80mhz + 1 40mhz), but I could be remembering that wrong. If 
I understand it right, the Aviat radios have a significant tx power hit when 
you activate that feature, which probably makes it unusable in a lot of cases. 
We're doing that on a Bridgewave 11ghz link (using 4x 80mhz on a dual core 
radio), and there's it works fine, with only a minor performance hit on those 
radios. SIAE does have that feature as well, but I don't remember if there was 
a significant performance hit or not... I think they may have been the ones 
that could use two different sizes of channels.

 

On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 1:51 PM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com> > wrote:

Probably, LinkPlanner is pretty smart.
I assume you don't want to use 2 antennas.
There are some licensed radios now that I think can do 2 x 80 MHz channels in a 
single core, like from Aviat or SIAE maybe, I don't know if this gets around 
the splitter cost and performance issues. I may have that feature completely 
wrong, I haven't looked into it. There could also be a performance hit by using 
the same xmt power amp for 160 MHz.
I also haven't checked out the full feature set of the new 

Re: [AFMUG] Keep Americans Connected Pledge and nonpaying customers

[Adam Moffett]

Here in the "hood" delinquent customers are just par for the course.  If 
there were 10% more we probably wouldn't have noticed.


We didn't shut anyone off for non-payment through the end of the summer, 
and we gave people a lot of breaks.  At some point you have to shut them 
down or just give it away because if you're letting the balance build up 
too long then they'll never be able to get back on top of it.


I don't think we have any boilerplate to share.  I'm pretty sure 
each one got their own little conversation.


-Adam


On 1/5/2021 6:37 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
It's weird, I think we have had less delinquent customers than before 
the pandemic.


On Tue, Jan 5, 2021, 12:50 PM Ken Hohhof > wrote:


Does anyone have a letter or other notice that you can share, that
you sent out to customers regarding nonpayment during the pandemic?

The FCC “pledge” went through June 30, 2020.  Many large ISPs
extended things like late payments and overusage fees through the
end of the year, but many of those have expired now.  Also it
seems that many people misunderstood the terms, that it was
voluntary not mandated by the government, and that customers were
supposed to contact the ISP about their financial hardship, not
just stop paying.

Most of our customers have paid as usual.  A few have made
sporadic payments.  Then there are the ones that just stopped
paying.  A couple of those who were on higher speed plans I have
changed to a lower plan, one that should still allow their kids to
do Zoom classes and to watch one video stream in the evening.  We
didn’t pledge to give them our highest speed plan for free.

The customers who haven’t contacted us about hardship, or made at
least partial payments, I want to send out some kind of notice. 
Tony Fauci is saying we might see some normalcy by fall of this
year, some people are saying it’s going to be as long as until
2023, so we really don’t know.  Fauci isn’t an economist, but I
would take his estimate as a best case, meaning we are looking at
another 6-9 months of nonpayers unless we start shutting them
off.  Plus I assume most of them won’t be able to pay the past due
balance and we’ll have to write some of it off.  We do cash not
accrual based accounting, otherwise I would have written a whole
bunch of it off before year end for tax purposes.  Just because we
sent an invoice doesn’t mean we got paid.

Anyway, anybody have an example of something you mailed or emailed
to customers, stuffed in bills, posted on your website, etc. on
this issue?

-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com



-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

[Mathew Howard]

There's really not even a lot of good reasons to do it. If the Aviat radios
are able to run full power now using A2C, you can accomplish pretty much
the same that way (or using the equivalent feature with Bridgewave or SIAE).

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 6:26 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> Yep.
>
> One more thought – Part 101 is one of the best things we have, where we
> are on identical footing with the big guys.  We file the exact same
> paperwork, pay the same fees, get the same access, no sitting at the kids
> table.  I’m not going to risk losing that.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 5, 2021 5:36 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar
>
>
>
> My coordinator told me no. Not a maybe no, but a flat no. Had to do
> primarily with the band edges. I'd love to do it, and the radios will do
> it. But the FCC gets involved and not only are you probably paying a
> massive fine, but you're losing substantial capacity you may be hinging
> your business on. The gain isnt worth the risk. I didnt push the issue to
> find out the specific rules prohibiting it, I represent a podunk wisp, the
> fcc is bigger than us. I'll lose.
>
> It's like the question of whether selling meth is illegal if you dont get
> caught.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021, 12:10 PM Ryan Ray  wrote:
>
> Hey Tim,
>
>
>
> Does this rule have a reason? Or is it just a rule for rule's sake?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:47 AM Tim Hardy  wrote:
>
> A note of caution: Some vendors have been pushing the notion that at 11
> GHz, one can coordinate and license an 80 MHz bandwidth pair along with a
> 40 MHz bandwidth pair separated by 60 MHz to in effect get a contiguous 120
> MHz of spectrum. This is okay as long as you are transmitting two distinct
> frequency pairs - one with 80 MHz, and the other with 40 MHz. In the US it
> is NOT okay to unlock the radio to use ETSI 112 MHz bandwidth and transmit
> a single pair. Vendors that are pushing this concept need to stop as it
> violates at least two and possibly more FCC Rules. The licensee would be
> taking the risk - not the vendor.
>
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2021, at 3:54 PM,  <
> joseph.schr...@siaemic.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> With the SIAE radio:
>
> - 2+0 XPIC - minimal loss using the built-in OMT branching unit on the
> order of 0.5 dB per end
>
> - 2+0 ACCP - 3.5 dB loss per end using the built-in Hybrid branching
> unit
>
> No TX power back-off required in either mode, nor do you need to back-off
> the TX power when using POE.
>
>
>
> The ALFOPlus2XG radio has independent modem & RF, so there is flexibility
> on how you could setup each radio. Each carrier can have its own channel
> bandwidth & modulation.
>
>
>
> The branching units are field changeable and allow the ODU to bolt
> directly to the back of the antenna.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Joe Schraml
>
> VP Sales Operations & Marketing
>
> SIAE Microelettronica, Inc.
>
> +1 (408) 832-4884
>
> joseph.schr...@siaemic.com
>
> www.siaemic.com
>
>
>
> >>> Mathew Howard  1/4/2021 12:01 PM >>>
>
> Yeah, you can do 2 x 80mhz channels with a single core on some radios, but
> there are some limitations. Depending on the radio, my understanding is
> that they have to either be adjacent, or very near each other (definitely
> within the same sub-band). It seems to me that some radios can even do two
> different sizes of channels (like 1 80mhz + 1 40mhz), but I could be
> remembering that wrong. If I understand it right, the Aviat radios have a
> significant tx power hit when you activate that feature, which probably
> makes it unusable in a lot of cases. We're doing that on a Bridgewave 11ghz
> link (using 4x 80mhz on a dual core radio), and there's it works fine, with
> only a minor performance hit on those radios. SIAE does have that feature
> as well, but I don't remember if there was a significant performance hit or
> not... I think they may have been the ones that could use two different
> sizes of channels.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 1:51 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
> Probably, LinkPlanner is pretty smart.
> I assume you don't want to use 2 antennas.
> There are some licensed radios now that I think can do 2 x 80 MHz channels
> in a single core, like from Aviat or SIAE maybe, I don't know if this gets
> around the splitter cost and performance issues. I may have that feature
> completely wrong, I haven't looked into it. There could also be a
> performance hit by using the same xmt power amp for 160 MHz.
> I also haven't checked out the full feature set of the new PTP850C, the
> only thing I know it has is SFP+.
>
>  Original Message 
> From: "Adam Moffett" 
> Sent: 1/4/2021 1:30:45 PM
> To: af@af.afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar
>
> Ok yeah, the Link Planner BOM shows some splitters. I wonder if Link
> Planner already accounted for the additional losses when I selected "Co
> Polar" on the dropdown.
>
>
> On 1/4/2021 2:25 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> 

Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

[Ken Hohhof]

Yep.

One more thought – Part 101 is one of the best things we have, where we are on 
identical footing with the big guys.  We file the exact same paperwork, pay the 
same fees, get the same access, no sitting at the kids table.  I’m not going to 
risk losing that.

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 5:36 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

 

My coordinator told me no. Not a maybe no, but a flat no. Had to do primarily 
with the band edges. I'd love to do it, and the radios will do it. But the FCC 
gets involved and not only are you probably paying a massive fine, but you're 
losing substantial capacity you may be hinging your business on. The gain isnt 
worth the risk. I didnt push the issue to find out the specific rules 
prohibiting it, I represent a podunk wisp, the fcc is bigger than us. I'll 
lose. 

It's like the question of whether selling meth is illegal if you dont get 
caught. 

 

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021, 12:10 PM Ryan Ray mailto:ryan...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Hey Tim,

 

Does this rule have a reason? Or is it just a rule for rule's sake?

 

 

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:47 AM Tim Hardy mailto:thardy...@gmail.com> > wrote:

A note of caution: Some vendors have been pushing the notion that at 11 GHz, 
one can coordinate and license an 80 MHz bandwidth pair along with a 40 MHz 
bandwidth pair separated by 60 MHz to in effect get a contiguous 120 MHz of 
spectrum. This is okay as long as you are transmitting two distinct frequency 
pairs - one with 80 MHz, and the other with 40 MHz. In the US it is NOT okay to 
unlock the radio to use ETSI 112 MHz bandwidth and transmit a single pair. 
Vendors that are pushing this concept need to stop as it violates at least two 
and possibly more FCC Rules. The licensee would be taking the risk - not the 
vendor.





On Jan 4, 2021, at 3:54 PM, mailto:joseph.schr...@siaemic.com> > mailto:joseph.schr...@siaemic.com> > wrote:

 

With the SIAE radio:

- 2+0 XPIC - minimal loss using the built-in OMT branching unit on the 
order of 0.5 dB per end

- 2+0 ACCP - 3.5 dB loss per end using the built-in Hybrid branching unit

No TX power back-off required in either mode, nor do you need to back-off the 
TX power when using POE.

 

The ALFOPlus2XG radio has independent modem & RF, so there is flexibility on 
how you could setup each radio. Each carrier can have its own channel bandwidth 
& modulation.

 

The branching units are field changeable and allow the ODU to bolt directly to 
the back of the antenna.

 

 

Thanks,

 



 

Joe Schraml

VP Sales Operations & Marketing

SIAE Microelettronica, Inc.

+1 (408) 832-4884

  joseph.schr...@siaemic.com

  www.siaemic.com

 

>>> Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com> > 
>>> 1/4/2021 12:01 PM >>>

Yeah, you can do 2 x 80mhz channels with a single core on some radios, but 
there are some limitations. Depending on the radio, my understanding is that 
they have to either be adjacent, or very near each other (definitely within the 
same sub-band). It seems to me that some radios can even do two different sizes 
of channels (like 1 80mhz + 1 40mhz), but I could be remembering that wrong. If 
I understand it right, the Aviat radios have a significant tx power hit when 
you activate that feature, which probably makes it unusable in a lot of cases. 
We're doing that on a Bridgewave 11ghz link (using 4x 80mhz on a dual core 
radio), and there's it works fine, with only a minor performance hit on those 
radios. SIAE does have that feature as well, but I don't remember if there was 
a significant performance hit or not... I think they may have been the ones 
that could use two different sizes of channels.

 

On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 1:51 PM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com> > wrote:

Probably, LinkPlanner is pretty smart.
I assume you don't want to use 2 antennas.
There are some licensed radios now that I think can do 2 x 80 MHz channels in a 
single core, like from Aviat or SIAE maybe, I don't know if this gets around 
the splitter cost and performance issues. I may have that feature completely 
wrong, I haven't looked into it. There could also be a performance hit by using 
the same xmt power amp for 160 MHz.
I also haven't checked out the full feature set of the new PTP850C, the only 
thing I know it has is SFP+.

 Original Message 
From: "Adam Moffett" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> >
Sent: 1/4/2021 1:30:45 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com  
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

Ok yeah, the Link Planner BOM shows some splitters. I wonder if Link 
Planner already accounted for the additional losses when I selected "Co 
Polar" on the dropdown.


On 1/4/2021 2:25 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> I seem to remember that different channel different polarization is the best, 
> if your radio manufacturer charges for an XPIC license key. Next best is 
> XPIC. And that the problem 

Re: [AFMUG] Keep Americans Connected Pledge and nonpaying customers

[Steve Jones]

It's weird, I think we have had less delinquent customers than before the
pandemic.

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021, 12:50 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> Does anyone have a letter or other notice that you can share, that you
> sent out to customers regarding nonpayment during the pandemic?
>
>
>
> The FCC “pledge” went through June 30, 2020.  Many large ISPs extended
> things like late payments and overusage fees through the end of the year,
> but many of those have expired now.  Also it seems that many people
> misunderstood the terms, that it was voluntary not mandated by the
> government, and that customers were supposed to contact the ISP about their
> financial hardship, not just stop paying.
>
>
>
> Most of our customers have paid as usual.  A few have made sporadic
> payments.  Then there are the ones that just stopped paying.  A couple of
> those who were on higher speed plans I have changed to a lower plan, one
> that should still allow their kids to do Zoom classes and to watch one
> video stream in the evening.  We didn’t pledge to give them our highest
> speed plan for free.
>
>
>
> The customers who haven’t contacted us about hardship, or made at least
> partial payments, I want to send out some kind of notice.  Tony Fauci is
> saying we might see some normalcy by fall of this year, some people are
> saying it’s going to be as long as until 2023, so we really don’t know.
> Fauci isn’t an economist, but I would take his estimate as a best case,
> meaning we are looking at another 6-9 months of nonpayers unless we start
> shutting them off.  Plus I assume most of them won’t be able to pay the
> past due balance and we’ll have to write some of it off.  We do cash not
> accrual based accounting, otherwise I would have written a whole bunch of
> it off before year end for tax purposes.  Just because we sent an invoice
> doesn’t mean we got paid.
>
>
>
> Anyway, anybody have an example of something you mailed or emailed to
> customers, stuffed in bills, posted on your website, etc. on this issue?
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

[Steve Jones]

My coordinator told me no. Not a maybe no, but a flat no. Had to do
primarily with the band edges. I'd love to do it, and the radios will do
it. But the FCC gets involved and not only are you probably paying a
massive fine, but you're losing substantial capacity you may be hinging
your business on. The gain isnt worth the risk. I didnt push the issue to
find out the specific rules prohibiting it, I represent a podunk wisp, the
fcc is bigger than us. I'll lose.
It's like the question of whether selling meth is illegal if you dont get
caught.

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021, 12:10 PM Ryan Ray  wrote:

> Hey Tim,
>
> Does this rule have a reason? Or is it just a rule for rule's sake?
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:47 AM Tim Hardy  wrote:
>
>> A note of caution: Some vendors have been pushing the notion that at 11
>> GHz, one can coordinate and license an 80 MHz bandwidth pair along with a
>> 40 MHz bandwidth pair separated by 60 MHz to in effect get a contiguous 120
>> MHz of spectrum. This is okay as long as you are transmitting two distinct
>> frequency pairs - one with 80 MHz, and the other with 40 MHz. In the US it
>> is NOT okay to unlock the radio to use ETSI 112 MHz bandwidth and transmit
>> a single pair. Vendors that are pushing this concept need to stop as it
>> violates at least two and possibly more FCC Rules. The licensee would be
>> taking the risk - not the vendor.
>>
>> On Jan 4, 2021, at 3:54 PM,  <
>> joseph.schr...@siaemic.com> wrote:
>>
>> With the SIAE radio:
>> - 2+0 XPIC - minimal loss using the built-in OMT branching unit on
>> the order of 0.5 dB per end
>> - 2+0 ACCP - 3.5 dB loss per end using the built-in Hybrid branching
>> unit
>> No TX power back-off required in either mode, nor do you need to back-off
>> the TX power when using POE.
>>
>> The ALFOPlus2XG radio has independent modem & RF, so there is flexibility
>> on how you could setup each radio. Each carrier can have its own channel
>> bandwidth & modulation.
>>
>> The branching units are field changeable and allow the ODU to bolt
>> directly to the back of the antenna.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> 
>>
>> Joe Schraml
>> VP Sales Operations & Marketing
>> SIAE Microelettronica, Inc.
>> +1 (408) 832-4884
>> joseph.schr...@siaemic.com
>> www.siaemic.com
>>
>> >>> Mathew Howard  1/4/2021 12:01 PM >>>
>> Yeah, you can do 2 x 80mhz channels with a single core on some radios,
>> but there are some limitations. Depending on the radio, my understanding is
>> that they have to either be adjacent, or very near each other (definitely
>> within the same sub-band). It seems to me that some radios can even do two
>> different sizes of channels (like 1 80mhz + 1 40mhz), but I could be
>> remembering that wrong. If I understand it right, the Aviat radios have a
>> significant tx power hit when you activate that feature, which probably
>> makes it unusable in a lot of cases. We're doing that on a Bridgewave 11ghz
>> link (using 4x 80mhz on a dual core radio), and there's it works fine, with
>> only a minor performance hit on those radios. SIAE does have that feature
>> as well, but I don't remember if there was a significant performance hit or
>> not... I think they may have been the ones that could use two different
>> sizes of channels.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 1:51 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>
>>> Probably, LinkPlanner is pretty smart.
>>> I assume you don't want to use 2 antennas.
>>> There are some licensed radios now that I think can do 2 x 80 MHz
>>> channels in a single core, like from Aviat or SIAE maybe, I don't know if
>>> this gets around the splitter cost and performance issues. I may have that
>>> feature completely wrong, I haven't looked into it. There could also be a
>>> performance hit by using the same xmt power amp for 160 MHz.
>>> I also haven't checked out the full feature set of the new PTP850C, the
>>> only thing I know it has is SFP+.
>>>
>>>  Original Message 
>>> From: "Adam Moffett" 
>>> Sent: 1/4/2021 1:30:45 PM
>>> To: af@af.afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar
>>>
>>> Ok yeah, the Link Planner BOM shows some splitters. I wonder if Link
>>> Planner already accounted for the additional losses when I selected "Co
>>> Polar" on the dropdown.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/4/2021 2:25 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>> > I seem to remember that different channel different polarization is
>>> the best, if your radio manufacturer charges for an XPIC license key. Next
>>> best is XPIC. And that the problem with different channel same polarization
>>> is you need a splitter which costs several dB of system gain. But that's
>>> from memory, and mine is not so reliable.
>>> >
>>> >  Original Message 
>>> > From: "Adam Moffett" 
>>> > Sent: 1/4/2021 1:16:26 PM
>>> > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>>> > Subject: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar
>>> >
>>> > I'm looking at a path where the coordinator can get me two 50mhz XPIC
>>> > channels, or two 80mhz H-Pol channels.
>>> >
>>> > I've never installed co-polar. Do you need a lot of 

Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

[Peter Kranz via AF]

Aviat..

 

Peter Kranz
  www.UnwiredLtd.com
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
  pkr...@unwiredltd.com

 

From: TJ Trout  
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2021 2:01 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Cc: Peter Kranz 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

 

Sorry which vendor has a2c+? Google fu not worky

 

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021, 1:32 PM Peter Kranz via AF mailto:af@af.afmug.com> > wrote:

A2C power hit at higher modulations is resolved by the newly released A2C+ 
hardware. So you can do a 2x80Mhz in the same polarity, single core, without a 
splitter or other downsides now.

 

Peter Kranz
  www.UnwiredLtd.com
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
  pkr...@unwiredltd.com

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Tim Hardy
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2021 12:21 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

 

The dual-core WTM-4200 radio only suffers a coupler loss hit. I think you’re 
referencing the single-core WTM-4100 using Adaptive Dual Carrier (A2C) which 
has a significant power hit at 1024 QAM and above.

 

On Jan 4, 2021, at 3:01 PM, Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Yeah, you can do 2 x 80mhz channels with a single core on some radios, but 
there are some limitations. Depending on the radio, my understanding is that 
they have to either be adjacent, or very near each other (definitely within the 
same sub-band). It seems to me that some radios can even do two different sizes 
of channels (like 1 80mhz + 1 40mhz), but I could be remembering that wrong. If 
I understand it right, the Aviat radios have a significant tx power hit when 
you activate that feature, which probably makes it unusable in a lot of cases. 
We're doing that on a Bridgewave 11ghz link (using 4x 80mhz on a dual core 
radio), and there's it works fine, with only a minor performance hit on those 
radios. SIAE does have that feature as well, but I don't remember if there was 
a significant performance hit or not... I think they may have been the ones 
that could use two different sizes of channels.

 

On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 1:51 PM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com> > wrote:

Probably, LinkPlanner is pretty smart.
I assume you don't want to use 2 antennas.
There are some licensed radios now that I think can do 2 x 80 MHz channels in a 
single core, like from Aviat or SIAE maybe, I don't know if this gets around 
the splitter cost and performance issues.  I may have that feature completely 
wrong, I haven't looked into it.  There could also be a performance hit by 
using the same xmt power amp for 160 MHz.
I also haven't checked out the full feature set of the new PTP850C, the only 
thing I know it has is SFP+.

 Original Message 
From: "Adam Moffett" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> >
Sent: 1/4/2021 1:30:45 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com  
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

Ok yeah, the Link Planner BOM shows some splitters.  I wonder if Link 
Planner already accounted for the additional losses when I selected "Co 
Polar" on the dropdown.


On 1/4/2021 2:25 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> I seem to remember that different channel different polarization is the best, 
> if your radio manufacturer charges for an XPIC license key.  Next best is 
> XPIC.  And that the problem with different channel same polarization is you 
> need a splitter which costs several dB of system gain.  But that's from 
> memory, and mine is not so reliable.
>
>  Original Message 
> From: "Adam Moffett" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> >
> Sent: 1/4/2021 1:16:26 PM
> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"   >
> Subject: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar
>
> I'm looking at a path where the coordinator can get me two 50mhz XPIC
> channels, or two 80mhz H-Pol channels.
>
> I've never installed co-polar.  Do you need a lot of extra junk to make
> that work?
>
>
>

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com  
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com  
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com  
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com  
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

[TJ Trout]

Sorry which vendor has a2c+? Google fu not worky

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021, 1:32 PM Peter Kranz via AF  wrote:

> A2C power hit at higher modulations is resolved by the newly released A2C+
> hardware. So you can do a 2x80Mhz in the same polarity, single core,
> without a splitter or other downsides now.
>
>
>
>
> *Peter Kranz*www.UnwiredLtd.com 
> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
> Mobile: 510-207-
> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Tim Hardy
> *Sent:* Monday, January 04, 2021 12:21 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar
>
>
>
> The dual-core WTM-4200 radio only suffers a coupler loss hit. I think
> you’re referencing the single-core WTM-4100 using Adaptive Dual Carrier
> (A2C) which has a significant power hit at 1024 QAM and above.
>
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2021, at 3:01 PM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
>
>
>
> Yeah, you can do 2 x 80mhz channels with a single core on some radios, but
> there are some limitations. Depending on the radio, my understanding is
> that they have to either be adjacent, or very near each other (definitely
> within the same sub-band). It seems to me that some radios can even do two
> different sizes of channels (like 1 80mhz + 1 40mhz), but I could be
> remembering that wrong. If I understand it right, the Aviat radios have a
> significant tx power hit when you activate that feature, which probably
> makes it unusable in a lot of cases. We're doing that on a Bridgewave 11ghz
> link (using 4x 80mhz on a dual core radio), and there's it works fine, with
> only a minor performance hit on those radios. SIAE does have that feature
> as well, but I don't remember if there was a significant performance hit or
> not... I think they may have been the ones that could use two different
> sizes of channels.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 1:51 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
> Probably, LinkPlanner is pretty smart.
> I assume you don't want to use 2 antennas.
> There are some licensed radios now that I think can do 2 x 80 MHz channels
> in a single core, like from Aviat or SIAE maybe, I don't know if this gets
> around the splitter cost and performance issues.  I may have that feature
> completely wrong, I haven't looked into it.  There could also be a
> performance hit by using the same xmt power amp for 160 MHz.
> I also haven't checked out the full feature set of the new PTP850C, the
> only thing I know it has is SFP+.
>
>  Original Message 
> From: "Adam Moffett" 
> Sent: 1/4/2021 1:30:45 PM
> To: af@af.afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar
>
> Ok yeah, the Link Planner BOM shows some splitters.  I wonder if Link
> Planner already accounted for the additional losses when I selected "Co
> Polar" on the dropdown.
>
>
> On 1/4/2021 2:25 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> > I seem to remember that different channel different polarization is the
> best, if your radio manufacturer charges for an XPIC license key.  Next
> best is XPIC.  And that the problem with different channel same
> polarization is you need a splitter which costs several dB of system gain.
> But that's from memory, and mine is not so reliable.
> >
> >  Original Message 
> > From: "Adam Moffett" 
> > Sent: 1/4/2021 1:16:26 PM
> > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> > Subject: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar
> >
> > I'm looking at a path where the coordinator can get me two 50mhz XPIC
> > channels, or two 80mhz H-Pol channels.
> >
> > I've never installed co-polar.  Do you need a lot of extra junk to make
> > that work?
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

[Peter Kranz via AF]

A2C power hit at higher modulations is resolved by the newly released A2C+ 
hardware. So you can do a 2x80Mhz in the same polarity, single core, without a 
splitter or other downsides now.

 

Peter Kranz
  www.UnwiredLtd.com
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
  pkr...@unwiredltd.com

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Tim Hardy
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2021 12:21 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

 

The dual-core WTM-4200 radio only suffers a coupler loss hit. I think you’re 
referencing the single-core WTM-4100 using Adaptive Dual Carrier (A2C) which 
has a significant power hit at 1024 QAM and above.

 

On Jan 4, 2021, at 3:01 PM, Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Yeah, you can do 2 x 80mhz channels with a single core on some radios, but 
there are some limitations. Depending on the radio, my understanding is that 
they have to either be adjacent, or very near each other (definitely within the 
same sub-band). It seems to me that some radios can even do two different sizes 
of channels (like 1 80mhz + 1 40mhz), but I could be remembering that wrong. If 
I understand it right, the Aviat radios have a significant tx power hit when 
you activate that feature, which probably makes it unusable in a lot of cases. 
We're doing that on a Bridgewave 11ghz link (using 4x 80mhz on a dual core 
radio), and there's it works fine, with only a minor performance hit on those 
radios. SIAE does have that feature as well, but I don't remember if there was 
a significant performance hit or not... I think they may have been the ones 
that could use two different sizes of channels.

 

On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 1:51 PM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com> > wrote:

Probably, LinkPlanner is pretty smart.
I assume you don't want to use 2 antennas.
There are some licensed radios now that I think can do 2 x 80 MHz channels in a 
single core, like from Aviat or SIAE maybe, I don't know if this gets around 
the splitter cost and performance issues.  I may have that feature completely 
wrong, I haven't looked into it.  There could also be a performance hit by 
using the same xmt power amp for 160 MHz.
I also haven't checked out the full feature set of the new PTP850C, the only 
thing I know it has is SFP+.

 Original Message 
From: "Adam Moffett" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> >
Sent: 1/4/2021 1:30:45 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com  
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

Ok yeah, the Link Planner BOM shows some splitters.  I wonder if Link 
Planner already accounted for the additional losses when I selected "Co 
Polar" on the dropdown.


On 1/4/2021 2:25 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> I seem to remember that different channel different polarization is the best, 
> if your radio manufacturer charges for an XPIC license key.  Next best is 
> XPIC.  And that the problem with different channel same polarization is you 
> need a splitter which costs several dB of system gain.  But that's from 
> memory, and mine is not so reliable.
>
>  Original Message 
> From: "Adam Moffett" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> >
> Sent: 1/4/2021 1:16:26 PM
> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"   >
> Subject: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar
>
> I'm looking at a path where the coordinator can get me two 50mhz XPIC
> channels, or two 80mhz H-Pol channels.
>
> I've never installed co-polar.  Do you need a lot of extra junk to make
> that work?
>
>
>

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com  
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com  
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com  
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

[Ryan Ray]

I understand and I'm not trying to argue. I'm not even in the USA but just
wanting to understand more.

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 10:24 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> I’ll let Tim respond, but here’s my take.  It’s not a rule saying you
> can’t do it, but rather a license to do something else.  Frequency
> coordinators and other users of the band rely on you following the license
> you obtained.  To do something else, based on a totally different ETSI
> standard that isn’t even valid in this country, is not what you’re licensed
> for.
>
>
>
> Reducing the equipment certification and frequency coordination process
> down to just the channel width from the brochure oversimplifies things.
> Your license specifies a certain modulation, and the radio will have
> certain out of band emissions, when used according to the license.  The
> coordinated EIRP also assumes the 2 separate channels, not one wide channel.
>
>
>
> Before you got the license, you weren’t allowed to use the band at all.
> Once you get the license, you are authorized to use the band as specified
> in the license.  Not something you feel is equivalent.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Ryan Ray
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 5, 2021 12:09 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar
>
>
>
> Hey Tim,
>
>
>
> Does this rule have a reason? Or is it just a rule for rule's sake?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:47 AM Tim Hardy  wrote:
>
> A note of caution: Some vendors have been pushing the notion that at 11
> GHz, one can coordinate and license an 80 MHz bandwidth pair along with a
> 40 MHz bandwidth pair separated by 60 MHz to in effect get a contiguous 120
> MHz of spectrum. This is okay as long as you are transmitting two distinct
> frequency pairs - one with 80 MHz, and the other with 40 MHz. In the US it
> is NOT okay to unlock the radio to use ETSI 112 MHz bandwidth and transmit
> a single pair. Vendors that are pushing this concept need to stop as it
> violates at least two and possibly more FCC Rules. The licensee would be
> taking the risk - not the vendor.
>
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2021, at 3:54 PM,  <
> joseph.schr...@siaemic.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> With the SIAE radio:
>
> - 2+0 XPIC - minimal loss using the built-in OMT branching unit on the
> order of 0.5 dB per end
>
> - 2+0 ACCP - 3.5 dB loss per end using the built-in Hybrid branching
> unit
>
> No TX power back-off required in either mode, nor do you need to back-off
> the TX power when using POE.
>
>
>
> The ALFOPlus2XG radio has independent modem & RF, so there is flexibility
> on how you could setup each radio. Each carrier can have its own channel
> bandwidth & modulation.
>
>
>
> The branching units are field changeable and allow the ODU to bolt
> directly to the back of the antenna.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Joe Schraml
>
> VP Sales Operations & Marketing
>
> SIAE Microelettronica, Inc.
>
> +1 (408) 832-4884
>
> joseph.schr...@siaemic.com
>
> www.siaemic.com
>
>
>
> >>> Mathew Howard  1/4/2021 12:01 PM >>>
>
> Yeah, you can do 2 x 80mhz channels with a single core on some radios, but
> there are some limitations. Depending on the radio, my understanding is
> that they have to either be adjacent, or very near each other (definitely
> within the same sub-band). It seems to me that some radios can even do two
> different sizes of channels (like 1 80mhz + 1 40mhz), but I could be
> remembering that wrong. If I understand it right, the Aviat radios have a
> significant tx power hit when you activate that feature, which probably
> makes it unusable in a lot of cases. We're doing that on a Bridgewave 11ghz
> link (using 4x 80mhz on a dual core radio), and there's it works fine, with
> only a minor performance hit on those radios. SIAE does have that feature
> as well, but I don't remember if there was a significant performance hit or
> not... I think they may have been the ones that could use two different
> sizes of channels.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 1:51 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
> Probably, LinkPlanner is pretty smart.
> I assume you don't want to use 2 antennas.
> There are some licensed radios now that I think can do 2 x 80 MHz channels
> in a single core, like from Aviat or SIAE maybe, I don't know if this gets
> around the splitter cost and performance issues. I may have that feature
> completely wrong, I haven't looked into it. There could also be a
> performance hit by using the same xmt power amp for 160 MHz.
> I also haven't checked out the full feature set of the new PTP850C, the
> only thing I know it has is SFP+.
>
>  Original Message 
> From: "Adam Moffett" 
> Sent: 1/4/2021 1:30:45 PM
> To: af@af.afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar
>
> Ok yeah, the Link Planner BOM shows some splitters. I wonder if Link
> Planner already accounted for the additional losses when I selected "Co
> Polar" on the dropdown.
>
>
> On 1/4/2021 2:25 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> > I seem to remember that different channel different 

[AFMUG] Keep Americans Connected Pledge and nonpaying customers

[Ken Hohhof]

Does anyone have a letter or other notice that you can share, that you sent
out to customers regarding nonpayment during the pandemic?

 

The FCC "pledge" went through June 30, 2020.  Many large ISPs extended
things like late payments and overusage fees through the end of the year,
but many of those have expired now.  Also it seems that many people
misunderstood the terms, that it was voluntary not mandated by the
government, and that customers were supposed to contact the ISP about their
financial hardship, not just stop paying.

 

Most of our customers have paid as usual.  A few have made sporadic
payments.  Then there are the ones that just stopped paying.  A couple of
those who were on higher speed plans I have changed to a lower plan, one
that should still allow their kids to do Zoom classes and to watch one video
stream in the evening.  We didn't pledge to give them our highest speed plan
for free.

 

The customers who haven't contacted us about hardship, or made at least
partial payments, I want to send out some kind of notice.  Tony Fauci is
saying we might see some normalcy by fall of this year, some people are
saying it's going to be as long as until 2023, so we really don't know.
Fauci isn't an economist, but I would take his estimate as a best case,
meaning we are looking at another 6-9 months of nonpayers unless we start
shutting them off.  Plus I assume most of them won't be able to pay the past
due balance and we'll have to write some of it off.  We do cash not accrual
based accounting, otherwise I would have written a whole bunch of it off
before year end for tax purposes.  Just because we sent an invoice doesn't
mean we got paid.

 

Anyway, anybody have an example of something you mailed or emailed to
customers, stuffed in bills, posted on your website, etc. on this issue?

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

[Ken Hohhof]

I’ll let Tim respond, but here’s my take.  It’s not a rule saying you can’t do 
it, but rather a license to do something else.  Frequency coordinators and 
other users of the band rely on you following the license you obtained.  To do 
something else, based on a totally different ETSI standard that isn’t even 
valid in this country, is not what you’re licensed for.

 

Reducing the equipment certification and frequency coordination process down to 
just the channel width from the brochure oversimplifies things.  Your license 
specifies a certain modulation, and the radio will have certain out of band 
emissions, when used according to the license.  The coordinated EIRP also 
assumes the 2 separate channels, not one wide channel.

 

Before you got the license, you weren’t allowed to use the band at all.  Once 
you get the license, you are authorized to use the band as specified in the 
license.  Not something you feel is equivalent.

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Ryan Ray
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 12:09 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

 

Hey Tim,

 

Does this rule have a reason? Or is it just a rule for rule's sake?

 

 

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:47 AM Tim Hardy mailto:thardy...@gmail.com> > wrote:

A note of caution: Some vendors have been pushing the notion that at 11 GHz, 
one can coordinate and license an 80 MHz bandwidth pair along with a 40 MHz 
bandwidth pair separated by 60 MHz to in effect get a contiguous 120 MHz of 
spectrum. This is okay as long as you are transmitting two distinct frequency 
pairs - one with 80 MHz, and the other with 40 MHz. In the US it is NOT okay to 
unlock the radio to use ETSI 112 MHz bandwidth and transmit a single pair. 
Vendors that are pushing this concept need to stop as it violates at least two 
and possibly more FCC Rules. The licensee would be taking the risk - not the 
vendor.





On Jan 4, 2021, at 3:54 PM, mailto:joseph.schr...@siaemic.com> > mailto:joseph.schr...@siaemic.com> > wrote:

 

With the SIAE radio:

- 2+0 XPIC - minimal loss using the built-in OMT branching unit on the 
order of 0.5 dB per end

- 2+0 ACCP - 3.5 dB loss per end using the built-in Hybrid branching unit

No TX power back-off required in either mode, nor do you need to back-off the 
TX power when using POE.

 

The ALFOPlus2XG radio has independent modem & RF, so there is flexibility on 
how you could setup each radio. Each carrier can have its own channel bandwidth 
& modulation.

 

The branching units are field changeable and allow the ODU to bolt directly to 
the back of the antenna.

 

 

Thanks,

 



 

Joe Schraml

VP Sales Operations & Marketing

SIAE Microelettronica, Inc.

+1 (408) 832-4884

  joseph.schr...@siaemic.com

  www.siaemic.com

 

>>> Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com> > 
>>> 1/4/2021 12:01 PM >>>

Yeah, you can do 2 x 80mhz channels with a single core on some radios, but 
there are some limitations. Depending on the radio, my understanding is that 
they have to either be adjacent, or very near each other (definitely within the 
same sub-band). It seems to me that some radios can even do two different sizes 
of channels (like 1 80mhz + 1 40mhz), but I could be remembering that wrong. If 
I understand it right, the Aviat radios have a significant tx power hit when 
you activate that feature, which probably makes it unusable in a lot of cases. 
We're doing that on a Bridgewave 11ghz link (using 4x 80mhz on a dual core 
radio), and there's it works fine, with only a minor performance hit on those 
radios. SIAE does have that feature as well, but I don't remember if there was 
a significant performance hit or not... I think they may have been the ones 
that could use two different sizes of channels.

 

On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 1:51 PM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com> > wrote:

Probably, LinkPlanner is pretty smart.
I assume you don't want to use 2 antennas.
There are some licensed radios now that I think can do 2 x 80 MHz channels in a 
single core, like from Aviat or SIAE maybe, I don't know if this gets around 
the splitter cost and performance issues. I may have that feature completely 
wrong, I haven't looked into it. There could also be a performance hit by using 
the same xmt power amp for 160 MHz.
I also haven't checked out the full feature set of the new PTP850C, the only 
thing I know it has is SFP+.

 Original Message 
From: "Adam Moffett" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> >
Sent: 1/4/2021 1:30:45 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com  
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

Ok yeah, the Link Planner BOM shows some splitters. I wonder if Link 
Planner already accounted for the additional losses when I selected "Co 
Polar" on the dropdown.


On 1/4/2021 2:25 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> I seem to remember that different channel different polarization is the best, 
> if your radio manufacturer charges for an XPIC license key. 

Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

[Ryan Ray]

Hey Tim,

Does this rule have a reason? Or is it just a rule for rule's sake?


On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:47 AM Tim Hardy  wrote:

> A note of caution: Some vendors have been pushing the notion that at 11
> GHz, one can coordinate and license an 80 MHz bandwidth pair along with a
> 40 MHz bandwidth pair separated by 60 MHz to in effect get a contiguous 120
> MHz of spectrum. This is okay as long as you are transmitting two distinct
> frequency pairs - one with 80 MHz, and the other with 40 MHz. In the US it
> is NOT okay to unlock the radio to use ETSI 112 MHz bandwidth and transmit
> a single pair. Vendors that are pushing this concept need to stop as it
> violates at least two and possibly more FCC Rules. The licensee would be
> taking the risk - not the vendor.
>
> On Jan 4, 2021, at 3:54 PM,  <
> joseph.schr...@siaemic.com> wrote:
>
> With the SIAE radio:
> - 2+0 XPIC - minimal loss using the built-in OMT branching unit on the
> order of 0.5 dB per end
> - 2+0 ACCP - 3.5 dB loss per end using the built-in Hybrid branching
> unit
> No TX power back-off required in either mode, nor do you need to back-off
> the TX power when using POE.
>
> The ALFOPlus2XG radio has independent modem & RF, so there is flexibility
> on how you could setup each radio. Each carrier can have its own channel
> bandwidth & modulation.
>
> The branching units are field changeable and allow the ODU to bolt
> directly to the back of the antenna.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> 
>
> Joe Schraml
> VP Sales Operations & Marketing
> SIAE Microelettronica, Inc.
> +1 (408) 832-4884
> joseph.schr...@siaemic.com
> www.siaemic.com
>
> >>> Mathew Howard  1/4/2021 12:01 PM >>>
> Yeah, you can do 2 x 80mhz channels with a single core on some radios, but
> there are some limitations. Depending on the radio, my understanding is
> that they have to either be adjacent, or very near each other (definitely
> within the same sub-band). It seems to me that some radios can even do two
> different sizes of channels (like 1 80mhz + 1 40mhz), but I could be
> remembering that wrong. If I understand it right, the Aviat radios have a
> significant tx power hit when you activate that feature, which probably
> makes it unusable in a lot of cases. We're doing that on a Bridgewave 11ghz
> link (using 4x 80mhz on a dual core radio), and there's it works fine, with
> only a minor performance hit on those radios. SIAE does have that feature
> as well, but I don't remember if there was a significant performance hit or
> not... I think they may have been the ones that could use two different
> sizes of channels.
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 1:51 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> Probably, LinkPlanner is pretty smart.
>> I assume you don't want to use 2 antennas.
>> There are some licensed radios now that I think can do 2 x 80 MHz
>> channels in a single core, like from Aviat or SIAE maybe, I don't know if
>> this gets around the splitter cost and performance issues. I may have that
>> feature completely wrong, I haven't looked into it. There could also be a
>> performance hit by using the same xmt power amp for 160 MHz.
>> I also haven't checked out the full feature set of the new PTP850C, the
>> only thing I know it has is SFP+.
>>
>>  Original Message 
>> From: "Adam Moffett" 
>> Sent: 1/4/2021 1:30:45 PM
>> To: af@af.afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar
>>
>> Ok yeah, the Link Planner BOM shows some splitters. I wonder if Link
>> Planner already accounted for the additional losses when I selected "Co
>> Polar" on the dropdown.
>>
>>
>> On 1/4/2021 2:25 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>> > I seem to remember that different channel different polarization is the
>> best, if your radio manufacturer charges for an XPIC license key. Next best
>> is XPIC. And that the problem with different channel same polarization is
>> you need a splitter which costs several dB of system gain. But that's from
>> memory, and mine is not so reliable.
>> >
>> >  Original Message 
>> > From: "Adam Moffett" 
>> > Sent: 1/4/2021 1:16:26 PM
>> > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>> > Subject: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar
>> >
>> > I'm looking at a path where the coordinator can get me two 50mhz XPIC
>> > channels, or two 80mhz H-Pol channels.
>> >
>> > I've never installed co-polar. Do you need a lot of extra junk to make
>> > that work?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

[SmarterBroadband]

Check out the Bridgewave Navigator.
It may be able to do this with no extra parts.
Adam

-Original Message-
From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 11:16 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

I'm looking at a path where the coordinator can get me two 50mhz XPIC channels, 
or two 80mhz H-Pol channels.

I've never installed co-polar.  Do you need a lot of extra junk to make that 
work?



-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] EPMP remote password reset

[Josh Luthman]

That's the solution when you get paid by the hour + travel time.

Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 4:32 PM Jaime Solorza 
wrote:

> Remove poe cable and insert 4 times... goes back to default
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021, 1:38 PM Nate Burke  wrote:
>
>> I have an SM out in the field that I've lost the http password to. I
>> have SNMP read/write access, and it is connected to CNMaestro.  Is there
>> any way to reset the password without a truck roll?
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Anterix announces first major 900 MHz lease agreement | FierceWireless

[Colin Stanners]

896-901Mhz and 935-940Mhz - 5Mhz each direction - portions of that cut into
up to 100 channels. These folks are slicing the pie realy thin.

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 8:00 AM Jaime Solorza 
wrote:

> "Anterix announces first major 900 MHz lease agreement | FierceWireless"
> https://www.fiercewireless.com/private-wireless/anterix-announces-first-major-900-mhz-lease-agreement
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

[AFMUG] Anterix announces first major 900 MHz lease agreement | FierceWireless

[Jaime Solorza]

"Anterix announces first major 900 MHz lease agreement | FierceWireless"
https://www.fiercewireless.com/private-wireless/anterix-announces-first-major-900-mhz-lease-agreement
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar

[Tim Hardy]

A note of caution: Some vendors have been pushing the notion that at 11 GHz, 
one can coordinate and license an 80 MHz bandwidth pair along with a 40 MHz 
bandwidth pair separated by 60 MHz to in effect get a contiguous 120 MHz of 
spectrum. This is okay as long as you are transmitting two distinct frequency 
pairs - one with 80 MHz, and the other with 40 MHz. In the US it is NOT okay to 
unlock the radio to use ETSI 112 MHz bandwidth and transmit a single pair. 
Vendors that are pushing this concept need to stop as it violates at least two 
and possibly more FCC Rules. The licensee would be taking the risk - not the 
vendor.

> On Jan 4, 2021, at 3:54 PM,  
>  wrote:
> 
> With the SIAE radio:
> - 2+0 XPIC - minimal loss using the built-in OMT branching unit on the 
> order of 0.5 dB per end
> - 2+0 ACCP - 3.5 dB loss per end using the built-in Hybrid branching unit
> No TX power back-off required in either mode, nor do you need to back-off the 
> TX power when using POE.
> 
> The ALFOPlus2XG radio has independent modem & RF, so there is flexibility on 
> how you could setup each radio. Each carrier can have its own channel 
> bandwidth & modulation.
> 
> The branching units are field changeable and allow the ODU to bolt directly 
> to the back of the antenna.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
>  
> 
>  
> Joe Schraml
> VP Sales Operations & Marketing
> SIAE Microelettronica, Inc.
> +1 (408) 832-4884
> joseph.schr...@siaemic.com 
> www.siaemic.com 
> 
> >>> Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> 
> >>> 1/4/2021 12:01 PM >>>
> Yeah, you can do 2 x 80mhz channels with a single core on some radios, but 
> there are some limitations. Depending on the radio, my understanding is that 
> they have to either be adjacent, or very near each other (definitely within 
> the same sub-band). It seems to me that some radios can even do two different 
> sizes of channels (like 1 80mhz + 1 40mhz), but I could be remembering that 
> wrong. If I understand it right, the Aviat radios have a significant tx power 
> hit when you activate that feature, which probably makes it unusable in a lot 
> of cases. We're doing that on a Bridgewave 11ghz link (using 4x 80mhz on a 
> dual core radio), and there's it works fine, with only a minor performance 
> hit on those radios. SIAE does have that feature as well, but I don't 
> remember if there was a significant performance hit or not... I think they 
> may have been the ones that could use two different sizes of channels.
> 
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 1:51 PM Ken Hohhof  > wrote:
> Probably, LinkPlanner is pretty smart.
> I assume you don't want to use 2 antennas.
> There are some licensed radios now that I think can do 2 x 80 MHz channels in 
> a single core, like from Aviat or SIAE maybe, I don't know if this gets 
> around the splitter cost and performance issues. I may have that feature 
> completely wrong, I haven't looked into it. There could also be a performance 
> hit by using the same xmt power amp for 160 MHz.
> I also haven't checked out the full feature set of the new PTP850C, the only 
> thing I know it has is SFP+.
> 
>  Original Message 
> From: "Adam Moffett" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>>
> Sent: 1/4/2021 1:30:45 PM
> To: af@af.afmug.com 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar
> 
> Ok yeah, the Link Planner BOM shows some splitters. I wonder if Link 
> Planner already accounted for the additional losses when I selected "Co 
> Polar" on the dropdown.
> 
> 
> On 1/4/2021 2:25 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> > I seem to remember that different channel different polarization is the 
> > best, if your radio manufacturer charges for an XPIC license key. Next best 
> > is XPIC. And that the problem with different channel same polarization is 
> > you need a splitter which costs several dB of system gain. But that's from 
> > memory, and mine is not so reliable.
> >
> >  Original Message 
> > From: "Adam Moffett" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>>
> > Sent: 1/4/2021 1:16:26 PM
> > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  > >
> > Subject: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar
> >
> > I'm looking at a path where the coordinator can get me two 50mhz XPIC
> > channels, or two 80mhz H-Pol channels.
> >
> > I've never installed co-polar. Do you need a lot of extra junk to make
> > that work?
> >
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com 
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
> 
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com 
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
> 
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Check it out!

[Chuck McCown via AF]

Happy folks on the list told me how to apply.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 4, 2021, at 10:31 PM, John Osmon  wrote:
> 
> Easy deal when they have the space to give out:
>  - can you justify your need?
>  - here ya go!
> 
> 
>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 12:16:51PM -0700, Chuck McCown via AF wrote:
>> Message Hello,
>> 
>> Good news! You have been approved for a /23 that has become available via 
>> ARIN's IPv4 Waiting List.
>> 
>> This approval is valid for 60 days.
>> 
>> You will receive a message from ARIN Financial Services that will
>> contain details on the steps required to receive the IP addresses. If
>> you do not complete the required steps within 60 days, this request
>> will be removed from the waiting list and the block will be made
>> available to another organization.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Jon Worley
>> Senior Technology Architect
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>> https://www.arin.net/
>> 703.227.0660
> 
>> -- 
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com