Re: [AFMUG] Sprint testing TELRAD?

[Steve Jones]

Id like to keep my loyalties to the cause, but I will tell you one thing,
If we see Baicells pimping to the Cellular market in 18 months, we put
together a lynchmob, because we got sold out.

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Steve Jones 
wrote:

> They would like the 3.5, is WISPA was going to sell us out, thats for
> certain. When rick was around letting people know what is I felt alot
> better. now that WISPA is yet another corporate bitch, I dont have any
> expectation of them not selling us out to the lowest gubmint bidder.
>
> call me a tinfoil now
>
>
> Come back in 18 months and tell me whether the lube was lube or your tears
>
> Also tell me what it is youre using to pass bowel waste and sit, cause we
> are all going to need advice
>
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Seth Mattinen 
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/28/17 10:04 PM, George Skorup wrote:
>>
>>> Are you sure it's 3.65? 2.5 would be more likely.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It would be odd if Sprint was going to be too bothered with 3.65 when
>> they have all those 2.5 licenses. Other carriers want 3.65 to themselves
>> though.
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Sprint testing TELRAD?

[Steve Jones]

They would like the 3.5, is WISPA was going to sell us out, thats for
certain. When rick was around letting people know what is I felt alot
better. now that WISPA is yet another corporate bitch, I dont have any
expectation of them not selling us out to the lowest gubmint bidder.

call me a tinfoil now


Come back in 18 months and tell me whether the lube was lube or your tears

Also tell me what it is youre using to pass bowel waste and sit, cause we
are all going to need advice

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:

> On 10/28/17 10:04 PM, George Skorup wrote:
>
>> Are you sure it's 3.65? 2.5 would be more likely.
>>
>
>
> It would be odd if Sprint was going to be too bothered with 3.65 when they
> have all those 2.5 licenses. Other carriers want 3.65 to themselves though.
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Sprint testing TELRAD?

[Seth Mattinen]

On 10/28/17 10:04 PM, George Skorup wrote:

Are you sure it's 3.65? 2.5 would be more likely.



It would be odd if Sprint was going to be too bothered with 3.65 when 
they have all those 2.5 licenses. Other carriers want 3.65 to themselves 
though.

Re: [AFMUG] Sprint testing TELRAD?

[George Skorup]

Are you sure it's 3.65? 2.5 would be more likely.

On 10/28/2017 11:28 PM, TJ Trout wrote:
On one of my low level roof top sites I noticed sprint (old 
clearwire/clear site) has a 4" round by 4ft tall round (omni?) 
connected to a telrad radio only using 2 of the 4 ports...


What would they be using this for? 3.65ghz to the handset?

Re: [AFMUG] FS: Easy RJ45's with heavy gold plating

[Steve Jones]

Whats the question/statement? if youre saying something gold plated
performs as well as a copper stufss at the same gauge, thats to be
expected, gold is softer than copper/tin

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 11:25 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:

> Ooops
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxHZtFLNWX_OcGJHMFJ4eUpGdk0
>
> and
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxHZtFLNWX_OMFRQQ2FDeE5ydVk
>
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 9:23 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:
>
>> Easy to install RJ45 connectors, plated in rare 50 micron GOLD, most
>> connectors are only plated with 3 micron of gold.
>>
>> Rated for CAT5E but CAT6 seems to fit and work well. Thousands deployed
>> in the field over the last 12 months prior to offering these for sale. Fits
>> tough cable carrier.
>>
>> Pics;
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxHZtFLNWX_OWU9QTzY5bkNSNzg
>>
>> $40 / 100 sheilded
>> $350 / 1000 shielded (Free Shipping)
>>
>> $30 / 100 unshielded
>> $250 / 1000 unshielded (Free Shipping)
>>
>> contact offlist / paypal t...@pcguys.us
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Sprint testing TELRAD?

[Steve Jones]

you know, it really pisses me off seeing the big fed money folks pimping
money on the backs of the WISPs

WISPA is pretty much worthless, I often wonder if their role isnt somehow
tossing the big guys some info on us since Rick left. I find that odd

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 11:28 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:

> On one of my low level roof top sites I noticed sprint (old
> clearwire/clear site) has a 4" round by 4ft tall round (omni?) connected to
> a telrad radio only using 2 of the 4 ports...
>
> What would they be using this for? 3.65ghz to the handset?
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 900APs for sale

[Steve Jones]

If you want some SMs and a ton of antennas with them, we got you fam

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Jon Langeler 
wrote:

> Sorry I forgot to post Friday and I’ve heard of these being wanted:
>
> Cambium 450i 900Mhz AP https://rover.ebay.com/rover/
> 0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F222693582614
>
> Jon Langeler
> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>
>

[AFMUG] Cambium 900APs for sale

[Jon Langeler]

Sorry I forgot to post Friday and I’ve heard of these being wanted:

Cambium 450i 900Mhz AP 
https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F222693582614

Jon Langeler
Michwave Technologies, Inc.

[AFMUG] Sprint testing TELRAD?

[TJ Trout]

On one of my low level roof top sites I noticed sprint (old clearwire/clear
site) has a 4" round by 4ft tall round (omni?) connected to a telrad radio
only using 2 of the 4 ports...

What would they be using this for? 3.65ghz to the handset?

Re: [AFMUG] FS: Easy RJ45's with heavy gold plating

[TJ Trout]

Ooops

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxHZtFLNWX_OcGJHMFJ4eUpGdk0

and

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxHZtFLNWX_OMFRQQ2FDeE5ydVk

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 9:23 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:

> Easy to install RJ45 connectors, plated in rare 50 micron GOLD, most
> connectors are only plated with 3 micron of gold.
>
> Rated for CAT5E but CAT6 seems to fit and work well. Thousands deployed in
> the field over the last 12 months prior to offering these for sale. Fits
> tough cable carrier.
>
> Pics;
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxHZtFLNWX_OWU9QTzY5bkNSNzg
>
> $40 / 100 sheilded
> $350 / 1000 shielded (Free Shipping)
>
> $30 / 100 unshielded
> $250 / 1000 unshielded (Free Shipping)
>
> contact offlist / paypal t...@pcguys.us
>

[AFMUG] FS: Easy RJ45's with heavy gold plating

[TJ Trout]

Easy to install RJ45 connectors, plated in rare 50 micron GOLD, most
connectors are only plated with 3 micron of gold.

Rated for CAT5E but CAT6 seems to fit and work well. Thousands deployed in
the field over the last 12 months prior to offering these for sale. Fits
tough cable carrier.

Pics;

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxHZtFLNWX_OWU9QTzY5bkNSNzg

$40 / 100 sheilded
$350 / 1000 shielded (Free Shipping)

$30 / 100 unshielded
$250 / 1000 unshielded (Free Shipping)

contact offlist / paypal t...@pcguys.us

Re: [AFMUG] test 123

[Mathew Howard]

It's all the same to the rest of us.

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Colin Stanners 
wrote:

> Or, the opposite - has a life?
>
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> Everyone is dead
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Colin Stanners 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Received.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:33 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:
>>>


>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] test 123

[Colin Stanners]

Or, the opposite - has a life?

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Steve Jones 
wrote:

> Everyone is dead
>
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Colin Stanners 
> wrote:
>
>> Received.
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:33 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] test 123

[Steve Jones]

Everyone is dead

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Colin Stanners 
wrote:

> Received.
>
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:33 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] test 123

[Colin Stanners]

Received.

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:33 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:

>
>

[AFMUG] test 123

[TJ Trout]

[AFMUG] Dragonwave status

[Steve Jones]

Are these guys done, or are they in an Alvarion status, or what? rock solid
gear, im trying to talk the boss into the resale/used/overstock market.

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Steve Jones]

thats cause youre coordinating both channels on both sides

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:

> If you have the spectrum. We have tried several links using a "full boat"
> B11 configuration, and have been unable to coordinate a single one. Even in
> places where no other 11 GHz links are nearby.
>
> bp
> 
>
>
> On 10/27/2017 1:16 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>
> Yeah, that's the thing... there are several options that can do ~650Mbps
> for about the same cost as a B11 (or significantly less, with the AF11FX),
> but to get more than that gets expensive pretty quickly. That's where I see
> the B11 as a good fit... it works in those places where you need lots of
> bandwidth, but can't justify spending $10k+ on a link.
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:
>
>> We had a Mimosa B11 link that was just a total PITA. Poor throughput,
>> half duplex, losing the link, etc. We replaced it with an AF11X and it's
>> running 650/650 full duplex, no drops. So maybe the B11 is a good product,
>> but we won't buy any more.
>>
>>
>> bp
>> 
>>
>>
>> On 10/27/2017 8:51 AM, Rory Conaway wrote:
>>
>> Matthew, what are you talking about, “not as stable”.  I’ve got several
>> links up, one at 50 miles, that runs multiple hotels and food venues, most
>> of which have VoIP and I’ve had zero issues for over a year.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
>> Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
>> *Sent:* Friday, October 27, 2017 7:31 AM
>> *To:* af
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina
>> link
>>
>>
>>
>> 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  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
>> 
>>
>> Vero Beach, FL 32962
>> 
>>
>> 772-564-6800 <%28772%29%20564-6800>
>>
>> pa...@pdmnet.net
>>
>> www.pdmnet.com
>>
>> www.floridabroadband.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Jaime Solorza]

Harris and Nera

On Oct 28, 2017 10:23 AM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> Dragonwave, SIAE, and BridgeWave.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *ch...@wbmfg.com
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *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:* af@afmug.com
> *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:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Prince
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 28, 2017 8:51 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *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
>
> 
>
>
>
> 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,  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 
> wrote:
>
> Just ran a test we have on a 16 mile link and pulling 420-435Mbps on a
> 40MHz link.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
> *Sent:* Friday, October 27, 2017 8:07 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Chuck McCown]

FSK
Advantage
430 
450

...

-Original Message- 
From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 6:03 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 


If only...

-Original Message- 
From: Seth Mattinen

Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 1:26 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

On 10/28/17 09:23, Mike Hammett wrote:
Rory has an excellent point. If the cheap radio get the revenue flowing, 
you can go back a year or two later and put in the radio you really 
wanted.



I do it the opposite way: buy once, not twice or three times. That way I
save time and money over the long term instead of constantly having to
upgrade.

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Chuck McCown]

If only...

-Original Message- 
From: Seth Mattinen

Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 1:26 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

On 10/28/17 09:23, Mike Hammett wrote:
Rory has an excellent point. If the cheap radio get the revenue flowing, 
you can go back a year or two later and put in the radio you really 
wanted.



I do it the opposite way: buy once, not twice or three times. That way I
save time and money over the long term instead of constantly having to
upgrade.

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Robert]

Last person I would call Lazy...

On 10/28/17 1:01 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:

On 10/28/17 12:58, Mathew Howard wrote:
The other side of it is, that over the last few years radios have 
gotten a lot faster and cheaper. If you buy something that's just good 
enough for a few years, by the time you need to upgrade, there's a 
good chance you'll be able to get something a lot better than what's 
available now, and for less money.



I'm just lazy and don't like to go back and do a job more than once.

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Stefan Englhardt]

The installation/maintenance cost is another consideration. My SAF links are 
more expensive than my Mimosa B5 Links. But they are install and forgot for a 
longer time. We have a lot of work so putting more money into gear that last 
longer is a good invest. Of course if a link is $30k ... 

 Ursprüngliche Nachricht 
Von: Rory Conaway  
Datum: 28.10.17  23:22  (GMT+01:00) 
An: af@afmug.com 
Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Rory Conaway]

Good point.  And more options also.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 12:59 PM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

The other side of it is, that over the last few years radios have gotten a lot 
faster and cheaper. If you buy something that's just good enough for a few 
years, by the time you need to upgrade, there's a good chance you'll be able to 
get something a lot better than what's available now, and for less money.

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Mike Hammett 
> wrote:
If the build was more speculative or grew way more than anticipated, buying the 
expensive radio first would have been risky.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
Midwest Internet Exchange
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
The Brothers WISP
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]




From: "Seth Mattinen" >
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 2:26:04 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link
On 10/28/17 09:23, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Rory has an excellent point. If the cheap radio get the revenue flowing,
> you can go back a year or two later and put in the radio you really wanted.


I do it the opposite way: buy once, not twice or three times. That way I
save time and money over the long term instead of constantly having to
upgrade.

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Rory Conaway]

Spending money today that is both a risk in terms of ROI and may sit idle for a 
long period of time also costs you.  If I can put that $30K into other 
investments that have return, then it's better utilized in those endeavors.  If 
I've extended my ROI out to 3 years instead of 1 year, that's a waste, etc...  

Rory

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 12:26 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

On 10/28/17 09:23, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Rory has an excellent point. If the cheap radio get the revenue 
> flowing, you can go back a year or two later and put in the radio you really 
> wanted.


I do it the opposite way: buy once, not twice or three times. That way I save 
time and money over the long term instead of constantly having to upgrade.

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Seth Mattinen]

On 10/28/17 12:58, Mathew Howard wrote:
The other side of it is, that over the last few years radios have gotten 
a lot faster and cheaper. If you buy something that's just good enough 
for a few years, by the time you need to upgrade, there's a good chance 
you'll be able to get something a lot better than what's available now, 
and for less money.



I'm just lazy and don't like to go back and do a job more than once.

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Mathew Howard]

The other side of it is, that over the last few years radios have gotten a
lot faster and cheaper. If you buy something that's just good enough for a
few years, by the time you need to upgrade, there's a good chance you'll be
able to get something a lot better than what's available now, and for less
money.

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> If the build was more speculative or grew way more than anticipated,
> buying the expensive radio first would have been risky.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Seth Mattinen" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Saturday, October 28, 2017 2:26:04 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link
>
> On 10/28/17 09:23, Mike Hammett wrote:
> > Rory has an excellent point. If the cheap radio get the revenue flowing,
> > you can go back a year or two later and put in the radio you really
> wanted.
>
>
> I do it the opposite way: buy once, not twice or three times. That way I
> save time and money over the long term instead of constantly having to
> upgrade.
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Mathew Howard]

I'm pretty sure you could get at least two B11's working on one tower, if
there's enough spectrum available. We have a B11 and an AF11 on one tower.
But yeah, if you're to the point where you need be using sync I'd say the
B11 is the wrong radio for the job.

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> If you want more than one link you need to use sync.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Rory Conaway" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Saturday, October 28, 2017 1:54:59 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link
>
> No reason to use sync.  Just set it to auto and it will pull 1Gbps at
> 80MHz.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:03 AM
> *To:* af
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link
>
>
>
> Yeah, but the other thing is, if you're running a B11 in a fixed up/down
> ratio (which you would to use sync), you're probably only going to be
> getting 500-600mbps through it in one direction, which even an AF11 is
> going to be pretty close to matching... or any full duplex radio that can
> do 80mhz.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
> I wouldn't be afraid of it in one hop, two hop scenarios, but more than
> that and yeah, something else is a better tool.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
>
> *From: *"Mathew Howard" 
> *To: *"af" 
> *Sent: *Saturday, October 28, 2017 12:12:55 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link
>
> Yeah, you'll get ugly latency with a B11 if you're using sync, but
> normally they're under 2ms. I would never use sync on a B11.
>
>
>
> On Oct 28, 2017 12:02 PM, "Rory Conaway"  wrote:
>
> No argument.  50ms is too long.  I ran 5 B5’s hops for about 6 months with
> no issues.  Upgraded them to AF24’s to get some of the spectrum back
> though.  Turned around and replaced one of the real short AF24 links with a
> B5-Lite a year ago with no noticeable issues.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:59 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link
>
>
>
> At which frame size? You'll need 8 ms to get the most throughput in a sync
> application, so them you'll have somewhere between 50 ms and 100 ms of
> latency. That does become a problem.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
>
> *From: *"Rory Conaway" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:56:52 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link
>
> Latency on the B11 is about 1.8 to 3ms at 50 miles.  5 hops of that is
> nothing for most applications.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *Bill Prince
> *Sent:* 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Mike Hammett]

If the build was more speculative or grew way more than anticipated, buying the 
expensive radio first would have been risky. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Seth Mattinen"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 2:26:04 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 

On 10/28/17 09:23, Mike Hammett wrote: 
> Rory has an excellent point. If the cheap radio get the revenue flowing, 
> you can go back a year or two later and put in the radio you really wanted. 


I do it the opposite way: buy once, not twice or three times. That way I 
save time and money over the long term instead of constantly having to 
upgrade. 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Seth Mattinen]

On 10/28/17 09:23, Mike Hammett wrote:
Rory has an excellent point. If the cheap radio get the revenue flowing, 
you can go back a year or two later and put in the radio you really wanted.



I do it the opposite way: buy once, not twice or three times. That way I 
save time and money over the long term instead of constantly having to 
upgrade.

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Mike Hammett]

If you want more than one link you need to use sync. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Rory Conaway"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 1:54:59 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 



No reason to use sync. Just set it to auto and it will pull 1Gbps at 80MHz. 

Rory 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:03 AM 
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 


Yeah, but the other thing is, if you're running a B11 in a fixed up/down ratio 
(which you would to use sync), you're probably only going to be getting 
500-600mbps through it in one direction, which even an AF11 is going to be 
pretty close to matching... or any full duplex radio that can do 80mhz. 



On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 


I wouldn't be afraid of it in one hop, two hop scenarios, but more than that 
and yeah, something else is a better tool. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 







From: "Mathew Howard" < mhoward...@gmail.com > 
To: "af" < af@afmug.com > 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 12:12:55 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 

Yeah, you'll get ugly latency with a B11 if you're using sync, but normally 
they're under 2ms. I would never use sync on a B11. 





On Oct 28, 2017 12:02 PM, "Rory Conaway" < r...@triadwireless.net > wrote: 


No argument. 50ms is too long. I ran 5 B5’s hops for about 6 months with no 
issues. Upgraded them to AF24’s to get some of the spectrum back though. Turned 
around and replaced one of the real short AF24 links with a B5-Lite a year ago 
with no noticeable issues. 

Rory 



From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:59 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 


At which frame size? You'll need 8 ms to get the most throughput in a sync 
application, so them you'll have somewhere between 50 ms and 100 ms of latency. 
That does become a problem. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 







From: "Rory Conaway" < r...@triadwireless.net > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:56:52 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 
Latency on the B11 is about 1.8 to 3ms at 50 miles. 5 hops of that is nothing 
for most applications. 

Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Bill Prince 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:51 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 

The other consideration is latency. On backhauls you want very low latency, and 
what I'm used to is almost wire speed WRT latency; measured in microseconds, 
not milliseconds. Latency on a B11 is a couple dozen milliseconds when it's 
working well, and we didn't see "well" most of the time. 
bp  

On 10/28/2017 9:42 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: 





More of a comparison between a Yugo and a semi with triples. I am hauling 
product. I want to be able to haul the most product and to not have to build 
fiber. Or at least buy some time before I have to build the fiber. 








From: Rory Conaway 

Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 10:34 AM 

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 



If I can get to work in a Yugo, why do I need to spend 5 times that for the 
Corvette? I’m making the same amount of money when I get there. The Corvette 
might get there 20% faster than the Yugo but…. Hence, the 80/20 problem. Then 
again, the job might not pan out in which case, I might need a different 
vehicle. None of us know the future. And to go back to the original point, if 
money was no object and you wanted to use the spectrum most efficiently, why 
isn’t everyone buy Cambium 820’s or Ceragons or whoever has 4096 QAM out for 
every link? 

Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:24 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 


Rory has an excellent point. If the cheap radio get the revenue flowing, you 
can go back a year or two later and put in the radio you really wanted. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 







From: "Rory Conaway" < r...@triadwireless.net > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:09:44 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 
Why does that matter? It’s about the 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Mike Hammett]

SFP port. ;-) 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Mathew Howard"  
To: "af"  
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 1:02:56 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 


Yeah, but the other thing is, if you're running a B11 in a fixed up/down ratio 
(which you would to use sync), you're probably only going to be getting 
500-600mbps through it in one direction, which even an AF11 is going to be 
pretty close to matching... or any full duplex radio that can do 80mhz. 



On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




I wouldn't be afraid of it in one hop, two hop scenarios, but more than that 
and yeah, something else is a better tool. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Mathew Howard" < mhoward...@gmail.com > 
To: "af" < af@afmug.com > 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 12:12:55 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 


Yeah, you'll get ugly latency with a B11 if you're using sync, but normally 
they're under 2ms. I would never use sync on a B11. 




On Oct 28, 2017 12:02 PM, "Rory Conaway" < r...@triadwireless.net > wrote: 





No argument. 50ms is too long. I ran 5 B5’s hops for about 6 months with no 
issues. Upgraded them to AF24’s to get some of the spectrum back though. Turned 
around and replaced one of the real short AF24 links with a B5-Lite a year ago 
with no noticeable issues. 

Rory 



From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:59 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 


At which frame size? You'll need 8 ms to get the most throughput in a sync 
application, so them you'll have somewhere between 50 ms and 100 ms of latency. 
That does become a problem. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 







From: "Rory Conaway" < r...@triadwireless.net > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:56:52 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 
Latency on the B11 is about 1.8 to 3ms at 50 miles. 5 hops of that is nothing 
for most applications. 

Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Bill Prince 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:51 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 

The other consideration is latency. On backhauls you want very low latency, and 
what I'm used to is almost wire speed WRT latency; measured in microseconds, 
not milliseconds. Latency on a B11 is a couple dozen milliseconds when it's 
working well, and we didn't see "well" most of the time. 
bp  

On 10/28/2017 9:42 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: 





More of a comparison between a Yugo and a semi with triples. I am hauling 
product. I want to be able to haul the most product and to not have to build 
fiber. Or at least buy some time before I have to build the fiber. 








From: Rory Conaway 

Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 10:34 AM 

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 



If I can get to work in a Yugo, why do I need to spend 5 times that for the 
Corvette? I’m making the same amount of money when I get there. The Corvette 
might get there 20% faster than the Yugo but…. Hence, the 80/20 problem. Then 
again, the job might not pan out in which case, I might need a different 
vehicle. None of us know the future. And to go back to the original point, if 
money was no object and you wanted to use the spectrum most efficiently, why 
isn’t everyone buy Cambium 820’s or Ceragons or whoever has 4096 QAM out for 
every link? 

Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:24 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 


Rory has an excellent point. If the cheap radio get the revenue flowing, you 
can go back a year or two later and put in the radio you really wanted. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 







From: "Rory Conaway" < r...@triadwireless.net > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:09:44 AM 
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 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Rory Conaway]

No reason to use sync.  Just set it to auto and it will pull 1Gbps at 80MHz.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:03 AM
To: af
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

Yeah, but the other thing is, if you're running a B11 in a fixed up/down ratio 
(which you would to use sync), you're probably only going to be getting 
500-600mbps through it in one direction, which even an AF11 is going to be 
pretty close to matching... or any full duplex radio that can do 80mhz.

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Mike Hammett 
> wrote:
I wouldn't be afraid of it in one hop, two hop scenarios, but more than that 
and yeah, something else is a better tool.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
Midwest Internet Exchange
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
The Brothers WISP
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]




From: "Mathew Howard" >
To: "af" >
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 12:12:55 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link
Yeah, you'll get ugly latency with a B11 if you're using sync, but normally 
they're under 2ms. I would never use sync on a B11.

On Oct 28, 2017 12:02 PM, "Rory Conaway" 
> wrote:
No argument.  50ms is too long.  I ran 5 B5’s hops for about 6 months with no 
issues.  Upgraded them to AF24’s to get some of the spectrum back though.  
Turned around and replaced one of the real short AF24 links with a B5-Lite a 
year ago with no noticeable issues.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:59 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

At which frame size? You'll need 8 ms to get the most throughput in a sync 
application, so them you'll have somewhere between 50 ms and 100 ms of latency. 
That does become a problem.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
Midwest Internet Exchange
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
The Brothers WISP
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]




From: "Rory Conaway" >
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:56:52 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link
Latency on the B11 is about 1.8 to 3ms at 50 miles.  5 hops of that is nothing 
for most applications.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:51 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link


The other consideration is latency. On backhauls you want very low latency, and 
what I'm used to is almost wire speed WRT latency; measured in microseconds, 
not milliseconds. Latency on a B11 is a couple dozen milliseconds when it's 
working well, and we didn't see "well" most of the time.



bp




On 10/28/2017 9:42 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Mathew Howard]

Yeah, but the other thing is, if you're running a B11 in a fixed up/down
ratio (which you would to use sync), you're probably only going to be
getting 500-600mbps through it in one direction, which even an AF11 is
going to be pretty close to matching... or any full duplex radio that can
do 80mhz.

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> I wouldn't be afraid of it in one hop, two hop scenarios, but more than
> that and yeah, something else is a better tool.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Mathew Howard" 
> *To: *"af" 
> *Sent: *Saturday, October 28, 2017 12:12:55 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link
>
> Yeah, you'll get ugly latency with a B11 if you're using sync, but
> normally they're under 2ms. I would never use sync on a B11.
>
> On Oct 28, 2017 12:02 PM, "Rory Conaway"  wrote:
>
>> No argument.  50ms is too long.  I ran 5 B5’s hops for about 6 months
>> with no issues.  Upgraded them to AF24’s to get some of the spectrum back
>> though.  Turned around and replaced one of the real short AF24 links with a
>> B5-Lite a year ago with no noticeable issues.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:59 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina
>> link
>>
>>
>>
>> At which frame size? You'll need 8 ms to get the most throughput in a
>> sync application, so them you'll have somewhere between 50 ms and 100 ms of
>> latency. That does become a problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>>
>> *From: *"Rory Conaway" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:56:52 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina
>> link
>>
>> Latency on the B11 is about 1.8 to 3ms at 50 miles.  5 hops of that is
>> nothing for most applications.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
>> Behalf Of *Bill Prince
>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:51 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina
>> link
>>
>>
>>
>> The other consideration is latency. On backhauls you want very low
>> latency, and what I'm used to is almost wire speed WRT latency; measured in
>> microseconds, not milliseconds. Latency on a B11 is a couple dozen
>> milliseconds when it's working well, and we didn't see "well" most of the
>> time.
>>
>>
>>
>> bp
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/28/2017 9:42 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
>>
>> More of a comparison between a Yugo and a semi with triples.  I am
>> hauling product.  I want to be able to haul the most product and to not
>> have to build fiber.   Or at least buy some time before I have to build the
>> fiber.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Rory Conaway
>>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 28, 2017 10:34 AM
>>
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina
>> link
>>
>>
>>
>> If I can get to work in a Yugo, why do I need to spend 5 times that for
>> the Corvette?  I’m making the same amount of money when I get there.  The
>> Corvette might get there 20% faster than the Yugo but….  Hence, the 80/20
>> problem.  Then again, the job might not pan out in which case, I might need
>> a different vehicle.  None of us know the future.  And to go back to the
>> original point, if money was no object and you wanted to use the spectrum
>> most efficiently, why isn’t everyone buy Cambium 820’s or Ceragons or

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Mike Hammett]

I wouldn't be afraid of it in one hop, two hop scenarios, but more than that 
and yeah, something else is a better tool. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Mathew Howard"  
To: "af"  
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 12:12:55 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 


Yeah, you'll get ugly latency with a B11 if you're using sync, but normally 
they're under 2ms. I would never use sync on a B11. 


On Oct 28, 2017 12:02 PM, "Rory Conaway" < r...@triadwireless.net > wrote: 





No argument. 50ms is too long. I ran 5 B5’s hops for about 6 months with no 
issues. Upgraded them to AF24’s to get some of the spectrum back though. Turned 
around and replaced one of the real short AF24 links with a B5-Lite a year ago 
with no noticeable issues. 

Rory 



From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:59 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 


At which frame size? You'll need 8 ms to get the most throughput in a sync 
application, so them you'll have somewhere between 50 ms and 100 ms of latency. 
That does become a problem. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 







From: "Rory Conaway" < r...@triadwireless.net > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:56:52 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 
Latency on the B11 is about 1.8 to 3ms at 50 miles. 5 hops of that is nothing 
for most applications. 

Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Bill Prince 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:51 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 

The other consideration is latency. On backhauls you want very low latency, and 
what I'm used to is almost wire speed WRT latency; measured in microseconds, 
not milliseconds. Latency on a B11 is a couple dozen milliseconds when it's 
working well, and we didn't see "well" most of the time. 
bp  

On 10/28/2017 9:42 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: 





More of a comparison between a Yugo and a semi with triples. I am hauling 
product. I want to be able to haul the most product and to not have to build 
fiber. Or at least buy some time before I have to build the fiber. 








From: Rory Conaway 

Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 10:34 AM 

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 



If I can get to work in a Yugo, why do I need to spend 5 times that for the 
Corvette? I’m making the same amount of money when I get there. The Corvette 
might get there 20% faster than the Yugo but…. Hence, the 80/20 problem. Then 
again, the job might not pan out in which case, I might need a different 
vehicle. None of us know the future. And to go back to the original point, if 
money was no object and you wanted to use the spectrum most efficiently, why 
isn’t everyone buy Cambium 820’s or Ceragons or whoever has 4096 QAM out for 
every link? 

Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:24 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 


Rory has an excellent point. If the cheap radio get the revenue flowing, you 
can go back a year or two later and put in the radio you really wanted. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 







From: "Rory Conaway" < r...@triadwireless.net > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:09:44 AM 
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:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Bill Prince 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 8:51 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
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  

On 10/28/2017 8:31 AM, Mathew Howard wrote: 




That would be nice. Other than the AF11 and 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Mathew Howard]

Yeah, you'll get ugly latency with a B11 if you're using sync, but normally
they're under 2ms. I would never use sync on a B11.

On Oct 28, 2017 12:02 PM, "Rory Conaway"  wrote:

> No argument.  50ms is too long.  I ran 5 B5’s hops for about 6 months with
> no issues.  Upgraded them to AF24’s to get some of the spectrum back
> though.  Turned around and replaced one of the real short AF24 links with a
> B5-Lite a year ago with no noticeable issues.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:59 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link
>
>
>
> At which frame size? You'll need 8 ms to get the most throughput in a sync
> application, so them you'll have somewhere between 50 ms and 100 ms of
> latency. That does become a problem.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
>
> *From: *"Rory Conaway" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:56:52 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link
>
> Latency on the B11 is about 1.8 to 3ms at 50 miles.  5 hops of that is
> nothing for most applications.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *Bill Prince
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:51 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link
>
>
>
> The other consideration is latency. On backhauls you want very low
> latency, and what I'm used to is almost wire speed WRT latency; measured in
> microseconds, not milliseconds. Latency on a B11 is a couple dozen
> milliseconds when it's working well, and we didn't see "well" most of the
> time.
>
>
>
> bp
>
> 
>
>
>
> On 10/28/2017 9:42 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
>
> More of a comparison between a Yugo and a semi with triples.  I am hauling
> product.  I want to be able to haul the most product and to not have to
> build fiber.   Or at least buy some time before I have to build the fiber.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Rory Conaway
>
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 28, 2017 10:34 AM
>
> *To:* af@afmug.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link
>
>
>
> If I can get to work in a Yugo, why do I need to spend 5 times that for
> the Corvette?  I’m making the same amount of money when I get there.  The
> Corvette might get there 20% faster than the Yugo but….  Hence, the 80/20
> problem.  Then again, the job might not pan out in which case, I might need
> a different vehicle.  None of us know the future.  And to go back to the
> original point, if money was no object and you wanted to use the spectrum
> most efficiently, why isn’t everyone buy Cambium 820’s or Ceragons or
> whoever has 4096 QAM out for every link?
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:24 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link
>
>
>
> Rory has an excellent point. If the cheap radio get the revenue flowing,
> you can go back a year or two later and put in the radio you really wanted.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
>
> *From: *"Rory Conaway" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:09:44 AM
> *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 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Rory Conaway]

No argument.  50ms is too long.  I ran 5 B5’s hops for about 6 months with no 
issues.  Upgraded them to AF24’s to get some of the spectrum back though.  
Turned around and replaced one of the real short AF24 links with a B5-Lite a 
year ago with no noticeable issues.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:59 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

At which frame size? You'll need 8 ms to get the most throughput in a sync 
application, so them you'll have somewhere between 50 ms and 100 ms of latency. 
That does become a problem.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
Midwest Internet Exchange
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
The Brothers WISP
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]




From: "Rory Conaway" >
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:56:52 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link
Latency on the B11 is about 1.8 to 3ms at 50 miles.  5 hops of that is nothing 
for most applications.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:51 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link


The other consideration is latency. On backhauls you want very low latency, and 
what I'm used to is almost wire speed WRT latency; measured in microseconds, 
not milliseconds. Latency on a B11 is a couple dozen milliseconds when it's 
working well, and we didn't see "well" most of the time.



bp




On 10/28/2017 9:42 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
More of a comparison between a Yugo and a semi with triples.  I am hauling 
product.  I want to be able to haul the most product and to not have to build 
fiber.   Or at least buy some time before I have to build the fiber.


From: Rory Conaway
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 10:34 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

If I can get to work in a Yugo, why do I need to spend 5 times that for the 
Corvette?  I’m making the same amount of money when I get there.  The Corvette 
might get there 20% faster than the Yugo but….  Hence, the 80/20 problem.  Then 
again, the job might not pan out in which case, I might need a different 
vehicle.  None of us know the future.  And to go back to the original point, if 
money was no object and you wanted to use the spectrum most efficiently, why 
isn’t everyone buy Cambium 820’s or Ceragons or whoever has 4096 QAM out for 
every link?

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:24 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

Rory has an excellent point. If the cheap radio get the revenue flowing, you 
can go back a year or two later and put in the radio you really wanted.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
Midwest Internet Exchange
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
The Brothers WISP
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Mike Hammett]

At which frame size? You'll need 8 ms to get the most throughput in a sync 
application, so them you'll have somewhere between 50 ms and 100 ms of latency. 
That does become a problem. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Rory Conaway"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:56:52 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 



Latency on the B11 is about 1.8 to 3ms at 50 miles. 5 hops of that is nothing 
for most applications. 

Rory 



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:51 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 

The other consideration is latency. On backhauls you want very low latency, and 
what I'm used to is almost wire speed WRT latency; measured in microseconds, 
not milliseconds. Latency on a B11 is a couple dozen milliseconds when it's 
working well, and we didn't see "well" most of the time. 
bp  

On 10/28/2017 9:42 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: 





More of a comparison between a Yugo and a semi with triples. I am hauling 
product. I want to be able to haul the most product and to not have to build 
fiber. Or at least buy some time before I have to build the fiber. 








From: Rory Conaway 

Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 10:34 AM 

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 



If I can get to work in a Yugo, why do I need to spend 5 times that for the 
Corvette? I’m making the same amount of money when I get there. The Corvette 
might get there 20% faster than the Yugo but…. Hence, the 80/20 problem. Then 
again, the job might not pan out in which case, I might need a different 
vehicle. None of us know the future. And to go back to the original point, if 
money was no object and you wanted to use the spectrum most efficiently, why 
isn’t everyone buy Cambium 820’s or Ceragons or whoever has 4096 QAM out for 
every link? 

Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:24 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 


Rory has an excellent point. If the cheap radio get the revenue flowing, you 
can go back a year or two later and put in the radio you really wanted. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 







From: "Rory Conaway" < r...@triadwireless.net > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:09:44 AM 
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:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Bill Prince 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 8:51 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
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  

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, < ch...@wbmfg.com > 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. 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Rory Conaway]

Latency on the B11 is about 1.8 to 3ms at 50 miles.  5 hops of that is nothing 
for most applications.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:51 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link


The other consideration is latency. On backhauls you want very low latency, and 
what I'm used to is almost wire speed WRT latency; measured in microseconds, 
not milliseconds. Latency on a B11 is a couple dozen milliseconds when it's 
working well, and we didn't see "well" most of the time.



bp




On 10/28/2017 9:42 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
More of a comparison between a Yugo and a semi with triples.  I am hauling 
product.  I want to be able to haul the most product and to not have to build 
fiber.   Or at least buy some time before I have to build the fiber.


From: Rory Conaway
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 10:34 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

If I can get to work in a Yugo, why do I need to spend 5 times that for the 
Corvette?  I’m making the same amount of money when I get there.  The Corvette 
might get there 20% faster than the Yugo but….  Hence, the 80/20 problem.  Then 
again, the job might not pan out in which case, I might need a different 
vehicle.  None of us know the future.  And to go back to the original point, if 
money was no object and you wanted to use the spectrum most efficiently, why 
isn’t everyone buy Cambium 820’s or Ceragons or whoever has 4096 QAM out for 
every link?

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:24 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

Rory has an excellent point. If the cheap radio get the revenue flowing, you 
can go back a year or two later and put in the radio you really wanted.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
Midwest Internet Exchange
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
The Brothers WISP
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]




From: "Rory Conaway" >
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:09:44 AM
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:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 8:51 AM
To: af@afmug.com
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




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, > 
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 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Mike Hammett]

It varies if that matters or not, though. 

A chain of six backhauls, yeah, that starts to matter. 

Just one, probably not. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Bill Prince"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:51:17 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 


The other consideration is latency. On backhauls you want very low latency, and 
what I'm used to is almost wire speed WRT latency; measured in microseconds, 
not milliseconds. Latency on a B11 is a couple dozen milliseconds when it's 
working well, and we didn't see "well" most of the time. 

bp
 
On 10/28/2017 9:42 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: 





More of a comparison between a Yugo and a semi with triples. I am hauling 
product. I want to be able to haul the most product and to not have to build 
fiber. Or at least buy some time before I have to build the fiber. 





From: Rory Conaway 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 10:34 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 



If I can get to work in a Yugo, why do I need to spend 5 times that for the 
Corvette? I’m making the same amount of money when I get there. The Corvette 
might get there 20% faster than the Yugo but…. Hence, the 80/20 problem. Then 
again, the job might not pan out in which case, I might need a different 
vehicle. None of us know the future. And to go back to the original point, if 
money was no object and you wanted to use the spectrum most efficiently, why 
isn’t everyone buy Cambium 820’s or Ceragons or whoever has 4096 QAM out for 
every link? 

Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:24 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 


Rory has an excellent point. If the cheap radio get the revenue flowing, you 
can go back a year or two later and put in the radio you really wanted. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -


From: "Rory Conaway" < r...@triadwireless.net > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:09:44 AM 
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:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Bill Prince 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 8:51 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
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  

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, < ch...@wbmfg.com > 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 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Bill Prince]

The other consideration is latency. On backhauls you want very low 
latency, and what I'm used to is almost wire speed WRT latency; measured 
in microseconds, not milliseconds. Latency on a B11 is a couple dozen 
milliseconds when it's working well, and we didn't see "well" most of 
the time.



bp


On 10/28/2017 9:42 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
More of a comparison between a Yugo and a semi with triples.  I am 
hauling product.  I want to be able to haul the most product and to 
not have to build fiber.   Or at least buy some time before I have to 
build the fiber.

*From:* Rory Conaway
*Sent:* Saturday, October 28, 2017 10:34 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

If I can get to work in a Yugo, why do I need to spend 5 times that 
for the Corvette?  I’m making the same amount of money when I get 
there.  The Corvette might get there 20% faster than the Yugo but….  
Hence, the 80/20 problem.  Then again, the job might not pan out in 
which case, I might need a different vehicle.  None of us know the 
future.  And to go back to the original point, if money was no object 
and you wanted to use the spectrum most efficiently, why isn’t 
everyone buy Cambium 820’s or Ceragons or whoever has 4096 QAM out for 
every link?


Rory

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
*Sent:* Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:24 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

Rory has an excellent point. If the cheap radio get the revenue 
flowing, you can go back a year or two later and put in the radio you 
really wanted.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 







*From: *"Rory Conaway" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:09:44 AM
*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:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Prince
*Sent:* Saturday, October 28, 2017 8:51 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*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

  


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,  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 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[chuck]

More of a comparison between a Yugo and a semi with triples.  I am hauling 
product.  I want to be able to haul the most product and to not have to build 
fiber.   Or at least buy some time before I have to build the fiber.  


From: Rory Conaway 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 10:34 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

If I can get to work in a Yugo, why do I need to spend 5 times that for the 
Corvette?  I’m making the same amount of money when I get there.  The Corvette 
might get there 20% faster than the Yugo but….  Hence, the 80/20 problem.  Then 
again, the job might not pan out in which case, I might need a different 
vehicle.  None of us know the future.  And to go back to the original point, if 
money was no object and you wanted to use the spectrum most efficiently, why 
isn’t everyone buy Cambium 820’s or Ceragons or whoever has 4096 QAM out for 
every link?  

 

Rory

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:24 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

 

Rory has an excellent point. If the cheap radio get the revenue flowing, you 
can go back a year or two later and put in the radio you really wanted.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP








From: "Rory Conaway" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:09:44 AM
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:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 8:51 AM
To: af@afmug.com
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 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,  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  wrote:

Just ran a test 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Rory Conaway]

If I can get to work in a Yugo, why do I need to spend 5 times that for the 
Corvette?  I’m making the same amount of money when I get there.  The Corvette 
might get there 20% faster than the Yugo but….  Hence, the 80/20 problem.  Then 
again, the job might not pan out in which case, I might need a different 
vehicle.  None of us know the future.  And to go back to the original point, if 
money was no object and you wanted to use the spectrum most efficiently, why 
isn’t everyone buy Cambium 820’s or Ceragons or whoever has 4096 QAM out for 
every link?

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:24 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

Rory has an excellent point. If the cheap radio get the revenue flowing, you 
can go back a year or two later and put in the radio you really wanted.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
Midwest Internet Exchange
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
The Brothers WISP
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]




From: "Rory Conaway" >
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:09:44 AM
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:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 8:51 AM
To: af@afmug.com
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




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, > 
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 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Mike Hammett]

Rory has an excellent point. If the cheap radio get the revenue flowing, you 
can go back a year or two later and put in the radio you really wanted. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Rory Conaway"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:09:44 AM 
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:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 8:51 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
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  

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, < ch...@wbmfg.com > 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 < r...@triadwireless.net > 
wrote: 






Just ran a test we have on a 16 mile link and pulling 420-435Mbps on a 40MHz 
link. 

Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway 
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 8:07 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
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:af-boun...@afmug.com ] 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" < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > 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 < 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Mike Hammett]

Dragonwave, SIAE, and BridgeWave. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: ch...@wbmfg.com 
To: af@afmug.com 
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: af@afmug.com 
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:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 8:51 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
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  

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, < ch...@wbmfg.com > 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 < r...@triadwireless.net > 
wrote: 






Just ran a test we have on a 16 mile link and pulling 420-435Mbps on a 40MHz 
link. 

Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway 
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 8:07 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
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:af-boun...@afmug.com ] 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" < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > 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 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[chuck]

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: af@afmug.com 
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:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 8:51 AM
To: af@afmug.com
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 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,  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  wrote:

Just ran a test we have on a 16 mile link and pulling 420-435Mbps on a 
40MHz link.

 

Rory

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 8:07 PM
To: af@afmug.com
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:af-boun...@afmug.com] 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"  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  wrote:

  B11's are going to get you the most capacity 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Rory Conaway]

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:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 8:51 AM
To: af@afmug.com
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




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, > 
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 
> wrote:
Just ran a test we have on a 16 mile link and pulling 420-435Mbps on a 40MHz 
link.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 8:07 PM
To: af@afmug.com
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:af-boun...@afmug.com] 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" 
> 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 
> 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 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[chuck]

OK, then come up with a stat, like RBI or OPS (it is world series season after 
all) to rank the radios.
Throughput/Spectrum Eaten.  

MPG.  

Megabits per Gigahertz

From: Bill Prince 
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:50 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
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


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,  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  
wrote:

  Just ran a test we have on a 16 mile link and pulling 420-435Mbps on a 
40MHz link.



  Rory



  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
  Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 8:07 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  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:af-boun...@afmug.com] 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"  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  
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  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 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Bill Prince]

The B11 will eat the most spectrum for the least throughput of any 11 
GHz radios I have found.


bp


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, > 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
 wrote:

Just ran a test we have on a 16 mile link and pulling
420-435Mbps on a 40MHz link.

Rory

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rory
Conaway
*Sent:* Friday, October 27, 2017 8:07 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*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:af-boun...@afmug.com] *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" 
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
 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
 wrote:

We have a 4 year old Lumina link from our core, 12.9
miles, 11Ghz with 3ft dishes 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Mike Hammett]

I started. I haven't put nearly enough time into it, even with help from some 
others. 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rxpeVcx-98ZsU_Fc12AxVaBOp3I6MgDatccQjjI63-Y/edit?usp=drive_web
 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: ch...@wbmfg.com 
To: "af"  
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 10:14:27 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link 




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 < r...@triadwireless.net > 
wrote: 





Just ran a test we have on a 16 mile link and pulling 420-435Mbps on a 40MHz 
link. 

Rory 



From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway 
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 8:07 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
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:af-boun...@afmug.com ] 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" < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > 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 < mhoward...@gmail.com > 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 < pa...@pdmnet.net > 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 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Mathew Howard]

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,  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 
> wrote:
>
>> Just ran a test we have on a 16 mile link and pulling 420-435Mbps on a
>> 40MHz link.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
>> *Sent:* Friday, October 27, 2017 8:07 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *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:af-boun...@afmug.com] *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"  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 
>> 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  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 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Mitch Koep]

+100

Have spent all week comparing and am cross eyed

and still not sure


On 10/28/2017 10:14 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com 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 
 wrote:


Just ran a test we have on a 16 mile link and pulling 420-435Mbps
on a 40MHz link.

Rory

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
*Sent:* Friday, October 27, 2017 8:07 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*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:af-boun...@afmug.com] *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"  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
 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
 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
 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[chuck]

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  wrote:

  Just ran a test we have on a 16 mile link and pulling 420-435Mbps on a 40MHz 
link.



  Rory



  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
  Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 8:07 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  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:af-boun...@afmug.com] 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"  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  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  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

  Vero Beach, FL 32962

  772-564-6800  

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Mathew Howard]

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 
wrote:

> Just ran a test we have on a 16 mile link and pulling 420-435Mbps on a
> 40MHz link.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
> *Sent:* Friday, October 27, 2017 8:07 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *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:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *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"  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 
> 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  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
> 
>
> Vero Beach, FL 32962
> 
>
> 772-564-6800 <(772)%20564-6800>
>
> pa...@pdmnet.net
>
> www.pdmnet.com
>
> www.floridabroadband.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>