subject:"\[AFMUG\] AF11 Experiences"

Well I suppose I could, but hell I don’t want to.. 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 2:22 PM
To: af <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

I think they have that stuff in airlink, but you can always just look up the 
spec sheets for all the relevant parts and calculate it manually.

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 4:18 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net 
<mailto:li...@sbb.net> > wrote:

I can use Link Planner to check LOS.  But the 820 in Link Planner will have 
very different radio Tx powers and receive sensitivities.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com> ] On Behalf 
Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 1:07 PM
To: af <af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

I think airlink,ubnt.com <http://ubnt.com>  supports 11ghz now, so that can be 
used to get a fairly good idea of what it's going to do... also, Mimosa's tool 
is pretty nice.

But when you know you have a clear path and what the distance is, it's not very 
hard to calculate what the link is going to do... frequency planning is done by 
your coordinator.

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 2:59 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net 
<mailto:li...@sbb.net> > wrote:

Using?

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com> ] On Behalf 
Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 12:55 PM
To: af <af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

DIY

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:45 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net 
<mailto:li...@sbb.net> > wrote:

How are you Link Planning your AF11 links?

Does UBNT do link Planning?

Reseller?

DIY?

Other??

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com> ] On Behalf 
Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 5:43 PM
To: af <af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

We have one up... other than some very ugly issues right after we put it up 
(which was apparently a bug in the firmware they shipped with... upgrading to 
the latest beta firmware fixed it), it has been working perfectly, and I 
haven't touched it since. 

The AF11 is certainly worth a look in my opinion, but it all depends on what 
you need it to do.

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Jon Langeler <jon-ispli...@michwave.net 
<mailto:jon-ispli...@michwave.net> > wrote:

Ignoring a few software bugs and delayed fixes, it's good for '2nd string' 
links. If this is for high priority link, I'd try SIAE or Cambium. 

Jon Langeler

Michwave Technologies, Inc.

On May 25, 2017, at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net 
<mailto:li...@sbb.net> > wrote:

We are looking to add some more Licensed Links to our network.

Does anyone actually have the AF11 in service.  Is it worth a look?  How is it 
performing for you?  Any issues?

Just not sure if it is worth considering or should I be looking at existing 
companied like;

Exalt ?

Dragonwave ?

SAIE ?

Or newer ones like

Alcoma

Cablefree FOR3

Anyone tried the last two?

Just looking for best bang for the buck in non core ring usage.

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

I think they have that stuff in airlink, but you can always just look up
the spec sheets for all the relevant parts and calculate it manually.

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 4:18 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net> wrote:

> I can use Link Planner to check LOS.  But the 820 in Link Planner will
> have very different radio Tx powers and receive sensitivities.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
> *Sent:* Friday, May 26, 2017 1:07 PM
> *To:* af <af@afmug.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>
>
>
> I think airlink,ubnt.com supports 11ghz now, so that can be used to get a
> fairly good idea of what it's going to do... also, Mimosa's tool is pretty
> nice.
>
> But when you know you have a clear path and what the distance is, it's not
> very hard to calculate what the link is going to do... frequency planning
> is done by your coordinator.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 2:59 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net> wrote:
>
> Using?
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
> *Sent:* Friday, May 26, 2017 12:55 PM
> *To:* af <af@afmug.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>
>
>
> DIY
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:45 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net> wrote:
>
> How are you Link Planning your AF11 links?
>
>
>
> Does UBNT do link Planning?
>
>
>
> Reseller?
>
>
>
> DIY?
>
>
>
> Other??
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 25, 2017 5:43 PM
> *To:* af <af@afmug.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>
>
>
> We have one up... other than some very ugly issues right after we put it
> up (which was apparently a bug in the firmware they shipped with...
> upgrading to the latest beta firmware fixed it), it has been working
> perfectly, and I haven't touched it since.
>
> The AF11 is certainly worth a look in my opinion, but it all depends on
> what you need it to do.
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Jon Langeler <jon-ispli...@michwave.net>
> wrote:
>
> Ignoring a few software bugs and delayed fixes, it's good for '2nd string'
> links. If this is for high priority link, I'd try SIAE or Cambium.
>
> Jon Langeler
>
> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>
>
>
>
> On May 25, 2017, at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net> wrote:
>
> We are looking to add some more Licensed Links to our network.
>
>
>
> Does anyone actually have the AF11 in service.  Is it worth a look?  How
> is it performing for you?  Any issues?
>
>
>
> Just not sure if it is worth considering or should I be looking at
> existing companied like;
>
>
>
> Exalt ?
>
> Dragonwave ?
>
> SAIE ?
>
>
>
> Or newer ones like
>
>
>
> Alcoma
>
> Cablefree FOR3
>
>
>
> Anyone tried the last two?
>
>
>
> Just looking for best bang for the buck in non core ring usage.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

I can use Link Planner to check LOS.  But the 820 in Link Planner will have 
very different radio Tx powers and receive sensitivities.

 

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 1:07 PM
To: af <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

 

I think airlink,ubnt.com <http://ubnt.com>  supports 11ghz now, so that can be 
used to get a fairly good idea of what it's going to do... also, Mimosa's tool 
is pretty nice.

But when you know you have a clear path and what the distance is, it's not very 
hard to calculate what the link is going to do... frequency planning is done by 
your coordinator.

 

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 2:59 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net 
<mailto:li...@sbb.net> > wrote:

Using?

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com> ] On Behalf 
Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 12:55 PM
To: af <af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

 

DIY

 

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:45 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net 
<mailto:li...@sbb.net> > wrote:

How are you Link Planning your AF11 links?

 

Does UBNT do link Planning?

 

Reseller?

 

DIY?

 

Other??

 

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com> ] On Behalf 
Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 5:43 PM
To: af <af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

 

We have one up... other than some very ugly issues right after we put it up 
(which was apparently a bug in the firmware they shipped with... upgrading to 
the latest beta firmware fixed it), it has been working perfectly, and I 
haven't touched it since. 

The AF11 is certainly worth a look in my opinion, but it all depends on what 
you need it to do.

 

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Jon Langeler <jon-ispli...@michwave.net 
<mailto:jon-ispli...@michwave.net> > wrote:

Ignoring a few software bugs and delayed fixes, it's good for '2nd string' 
links. If this is for high priority link, I'd try SIAE or Cambium. 

Jon Langeler

Michwave Technologies, Inc.

 


On May 25, 2017, at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net 
<mailto:li...@sbb.net> > wrote:

We are looking to add some more Licensed Links to our network.

 

Does anyone actually have the AF11 in service.  Is it worth a look?  How is it 
performing for you?  Any issues?

 

Just not sure if it is worth considering or should I be looking at existing 
companied like;

 

Exalt ?

Dragonwave ?

SAIE ?

 

Or newer ones like

 

Alcoma

Cablefree FOR3

 

Anyone tried the last two?

 

Just looking for best bang for the buck in non core ring usage.

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

Liz does the coordination.  But we need to calculate the antenna size need to 
have an 4 or 5 nines link.

 

Normally I would use the manufacture i.e. exalt or Ceragon.

 

Or if Ceragon or Cambium use Link Planner.

 

Who or What is there for AF11?

  

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Baird
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 1:00 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

 

Liz Creekmore at IntelPath.

 

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 3:59 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net 
<mailto:li...@sbb.net> > wrote:

Using?

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com> ] On Behalf 
Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 12:55 PM
To: af <af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

 

DIY

 

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:45 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net 
<mailto:li...@sbb.net> > wrote:

How are you Link Planning your AF11 links?

 

Does UBNT do link Planning?

 

Reseller?

 

DIY?

 

Other??

 

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com> ] On Behalf 
Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 5:43 PM
To: af <af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

 

We have one up... other than some very ugly issues right after we put it up 
(which was apparently a bug in the firmware they shipped with... upgrading to 
the latest beta firmware fixed it), it has been working perfectly, and I 
haven't touched it since. 

The AF11 is certainly worth a look in my opinion, but it all depends on what 
you need it to do.

 

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Jon Langeler <jon-ispli...@michwave.net 
<mailto:jon-ispli...@michwave.net> > wrote:

Ignoring a few software bugs and delayed fixes, it's good for '2nd string' 
links. If this is for high priority link, I'd try SIAE or Cambium. 

Jon Langeler

Michwave Technologies, Inc.

 


On May 25, 2017, at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net 
<mailto:li...@sbb.net> > wrote:

We are looking to add some more Licensed Links to our network.

 

Does anyone actually have the AF11 in service.  Is it worth a look?  How is it 
performing for you?  Any issues?

 

Just not sure if it is worth considering or should I be looking at existing 
companied like;

 

Exalt ?

Dragonwave ?

SAIE ?

 

Or newer ones like

 

Alcoma

Cablefree FOR3

 

Anyone tried the last two?

 

Just looking for best bang for the buck in non core ring usage.

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

I think airlink,ubnt.com supports 11ghz now, so that can be used to get a
fairly good idea of what it's going to do... also, Mimosa's tool is pretty
nice.

But when you know you have a clear path and what the distance is, it's not
very hard to calculate what the link is going to do... frequency planning
is done by your coordinator.

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 2:59 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net> wrote:

> Using?
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
> *Sent:* Friday, May 26, 2017 12:55 PM
> *To:* af <af@afmug.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>
>
>
> DIY
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:45 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net> wrote:
>
> How are you Link Planning your AF11 links?
>
>
>
> Does UBNT do link Planning?
>
>
>
> Reseller?
>
>
>
> DIY?
>
>
>
> Other??
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 25, 2017 5:43 PM
> *To:* af <af@afmug.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>
>
>
> We have one up... other than some very ugly issues right after we put it
> up (which was apparently a bug in the firmware they shipped with...
> upgrading to the latest beta firmware fixed it), it has been working
> perfectly, and I haven't touched it since.
>
> The AF11 is certainly worth a look in my opinion, but it all depends on
> what you need it to do.
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Jon Langeler <jon-ispli...@michwave.net>
> wrote:
>
> Ignoring a few software bugs and delayed fixes, it's good for '2nd string'
> links. If this is for high priority link, I'd try SIAE or Cambium.
>
> Jon Langeler
>
> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>
>
>
>
> On May 25, 2017, at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net> wrote:
>
> We are looking to add some more Licensed Links to our network.
>
>
>
> Does anyone actually have the AF11 in service.  Is it worth a look?  How
> is it performing for you?  Any issues?
>
>
>
> Just not sure if it is worth considering or should I be looking at
> existing companied like;
>
>
>
> Exalt ?
>
> Dragonwave ?
>
> SAIE ?
>
>
>
> Or newer ones like
>
>
>
> Alcoma
>
> Cablefree FOR3
>
>
>
> Anyone tried the last two?
>
>
>
> Just looking for best bang for the buck in non core ring usage.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

2017-05-26 Thread Josh Baird

Liz Creekmore at IntelPath.

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 3:59 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net> wrote:

> Using?
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
> *Sent:* Friday, May 26, 2017 12:55 PM
> *To:* af <af@afmug.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>
>
>
> DIY
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:45 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net> wrote:
>
> How are you Link Planning your AF11 links?
>
>
>
> Does UBNT do link Planning?
>
>
>
> Reseller?
>
>
>
> DIY?
>
>
>
> Other??
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 25, 2017 5:43 PM
> *To:* af <af@afmug.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>
>
>
> We have one up... other than some very ugly issues right after we put it
> up (which was apparently a bug in the firmware they shipped with...
> upgrading to the latest beta firmware fixed it), it has been working
> perfectly, and I haven't touched it since.
>
> The AF11 is certainly worth a look in my opinion, but it all depends on
> what you need it to do.
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Jon Langeler <jon-ispli...@michwave.net>
> wrote:
>
> Ignoring a few software bugs and delayed fixes, it's good for '2nd string'
> links. If this is for high priority link, I'd try SIAE or Cambium.
>
> Jon Langeler
>
> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>
>
>
>
> On May 25, 2017, at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net> wrote:
>
> We are looking to add some more Licensed Links to our network.
>
>
>
> Does anyone actually have the AF11 in service.  Is it worth a look?  How
> is it performing for you?  Any issues?
>
>
>
> Just not sure if it is worth considering or should I be looking at
> existing companied like;
>
>
>
> Exalt ?
>
> Dragonwave ?
>
> SAIE ?
>
>
>
> Or newer ones like
>
>
>
> Alcoma
>
> Cablefree FOR3
>
>
>
> Anyone tried the last two?
>
>
>
> Just looking for best bang for the buck in non core ring usage.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

Using?

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 12:55 PM
To: af <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

DIY

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:45 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net 
<mailto:li...@sbb.net> > wrote:

How are you Link Planning your AF11 links?

Does UBNT do link Planning?

Reseller?

DIY?

Other??

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com> ] On Behalf 
Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 5:43 PM
To: af <af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

We have one up... other than some very ugly issues right after we put it up 
(which was apparently a bug in the firmware they shipped with... upgrading to 
the latest beta firmware fixed it), it has been working perfectly, and I 
haven't touched it since. 

The AF11 is certainly worth a look in my opinion, but it all depends on what 
you need it to do.

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Jon Langeler <jon-ispli...@michwave.net 
<mailto:jon-ispli...@michwave.net> > wrote:

Ignoring a few software bugs and delayed fixes, it's good for '2nd string' 
links. If this is for high priority link, I'd try SIAE or Cambium. 

Jon Langeler

Michwave Technologies, Inc.

On May 25, 2017, at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net 
<mailto:li...@sbb.net> > wrote:

We are looking to add some more Licensed Links to our network.

Does anyone actually have the AF11 in service.  Is it worth a look?  How is it 
performing for you?  Any issues?

Just not sure if it is worth considering or should I be looking at existing 
companied like;

Exalt ?

Dragonwave ?

SAIE ?

Or newer ones like

Alcoma

Cablefree FOR3

Anyone tried the last two?

Just looking for best bang for the buck in non core ring usage.

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

DIY

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:45 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net> wrote:

> How are you Link Planning your AF11 links?
>
>
>
> Does UBNT do link Planning?
>
>
>
> Reseller?
>
>
>
> DIY?
>
>
>
> Other??
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 25, 2017 5:43 PM
> *To:* af <af@afmug.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>
>
>
> We have one up... other than some very ugly issues right after we put it
> up (which was apparently a bug in the firmware they shipped with...
> upgrading to the latest beta firmware fixed it), it has been working
> perfectly, and I haven't touched it since.
>
> The AF11 is certainly worth a look in my opinion, but it all depends on
> what you need it to do.
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Jon Langeler <jon-ispli...@michwave.net>
> wrote:
>
> Ignoring a few software bugs and delayed fixes, it's good for '2nd string'
> links. If this is for high priority link, I'd try SIAE or Cambium.
>
> Jon Langeler
>
> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>
>
>
>
> On May 25, 2017, at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net> wrote:
>
> We are looking to add some more Licensed Links to our network.
>
>
>
> Does anyone actually have the AF11 in service.  Is it worth a look?  How
> is it performing for you?  Any issues?
>
>
>
> Just not sure if it is worth considering or should I be looking at
> existing companied like;
>
>
>
> Exalt ?
>
> Dragonwave ?
>
> SAIE ?
>
>
>
> Or newer ones like
>
>
>
> Alcoma
>
> Cablefree FOR3
>
>
>
> Anyone tried the last two?
>
>
>
> Just looking for best bang for the buck in non core ring usage.
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

How are you Link Planning your AF11 links?

 

Does UBNT do link Planning?

 

Reseller?

 

DIY?

 

Other??

 

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 5:43 PM
To: af <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

 

We have one up... other than some very ugly issues right after we put it up 
(which was apparently a bug in the firmware they shipped with... upgrading to 
the latest beta firmware fixed it), it has been working perfectly, and I 
haven't touched it since. 

The AF11 is certainly worth a look in my opinion, but it all depends on what 
you need it to do.

 

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Jon Langeler <jon-ispli...@michwave.net 
<mailto:jon-ispli...@michwave.net> > wrote:

Ignoring a few software bugs and delayed fixes, it's good for '2nd string' 
links. If this is for high priority link, I'd try SIAE or Cambium. 

Jon Langeler

Michwave Technologies, Inc.

 


On May 25, 2017, at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@sbb.net 
<mailto:li...@sbb.net> > wrote:

We are looking to add some more Licensed Links to our network.

 

Does anyone actually have the AF11 in service.  Is it worth a look?  How is it 
performing for you?  Any issues?

 

Just not sure if it is worth considering or should I be looking at existing 
companied like;

 

Exalt ?

Dragonwave ?

SAIE ?

 

Or newer ones like

 

Alcoma

Cablefree FOR3

 

Anyone tried the last two?

 

Just looking for best bang for the buck in non core ring usage.

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

Also, if you're not going to be paying the full license cost if you're just
switching to different radios here. I think it should be well under $1k in
licensing costs.

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com>
wrote:

> It's roughly 6x cheaper here compared to what you are paying.
>
> - Josh
>
> On May 26, 2017 12:07 PM, "Stefan Englhardt" <s...@genias.net> wrote:
>
>> Buying cheap is buying twice (and mounting). Dont know what your license
>> cost is. In Germany it would be 6kEuro for 56MHz x 2 V+H for 10 years.
>> Looking at cheap lastgen licensed gear like e.g. SIAE Alfo+ the difference
>> is not that much.
>>
>> Blocking frequency does only make sense where regulations does allow
>> inefficient/interfering gear. I would not get a licensed frequency for a
>> Wifi-based Radio like Mimosa. With higher quality gear you could reuse the
>> frequency every 30 degree. So there is more free spectrum to use.
>>
>> On Fri, 26 May 2017 16:54:07 +
>>  Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, I really don't see it as being an issue with the AF11. With
>>> Mimosas,
>>> the fact that you're having to license both channels both directions,
>>> certainly has the potential to cause problems trying to coordinate around
>>> your own stuff, and that's not really going to be particularly useful as
>>> far as the "reserving" channels argument goes. But with the AF11, they're
>>> operating exactly the same as a normal licensed radio with a (technically
>>> two channels, if you're using MIMO) transmit channel and a receive
>>> channel,
>>> so going to a more efficient radio is going to just be a direct drop
>>> in...
>>> it's really not the worst thing to use a spectrally inefficient radio on
>>> a
>>> link that's probably going to need to be upgraded to something faster in
>>> a
>>> few years from that point of view.
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Mark, I can see your point in Mimosa units, but AF11x units  do no
>>>> operate
>>>> the same way
>>>>
>>>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh <
>>>> m...@amplex.net>
>>>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>>> Date: Friday, May 26, 2017 at 12:07 PM
>>>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>>>>
>>>> The lack of spectrum efficiency with the licensed bands is my biggest
>>>> beef
>>>> with the inexpensive licensed links on the market by Ubiquiti and
>>>> Mimosa.
>>>> Yes they transfer a lot of data, but they do it by using very large
>>>> amounts
>>>> of scarce spectrum in both H channels.
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>>>> President
>>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>>>
>>>> On May 26, 2017, at 9:57 AM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> *sigh* I hate the FCC's web site.
>>>>
>>>> No, their site just sucks. Look up Test Report 1 for SWX-AF11
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>> Mike Hammett
>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>>>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>>>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
>>>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>>>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
>>>> --
>>>> *From: *"Nate Burke" <n...@blastcomm.com>
>>>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>>>> *Sent: *Friday, May 26, 2017 8:56:31 AM
>>>> *Subject: *Re

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

2017-05-26 Thread Gino A. Villarini

Well yeah, about 10 or 15% less… but they come lower in the bits/mhz/$ calc


From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of Mike 
Hammett <af...@ics-il.net<mailto:af...@ics-il.net>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
<af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Friday, May 26, 2017 at 1:23 PM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

They still operate with less efficiency than last-generation traditional radios.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>



Gino A. Villarini


President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

[cid:aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png]


From: "Gino A. Villarini" <g...@aeronetpr.com<mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 11:39:13 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

Mark, I can see your point in Mimosa units, but AF11x units  do no operate the 
same way

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of Mark 
Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net<mailto:m...@amplex.net>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
<af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Friday, May 26, 2017 at 12:07 PM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

The lack of spectrum efficiency with the licensed bands is my biggest beef with 
the inexpensive licensed links on the market by Ubiquiti and Mimosa.   Yes they 
transfer a lot of data, but they do it by using very large amounts of scarce 
spectrum in both H channels.

Mark





Gino A. Villarini


President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

[http://127.0.0.1:39894/service/home/~/?auth=co=1da921bb-b2a8-4368-bc2e-c997a36651f3:117609=2]

On May 26, 2017, at 9:57 AM, Mike Hammett 
<af...@ics-il.net<mailto:af...@ics-il.net>> wrote:

*sigh* I hate the FCC's web site.

No, their site just sucks. Look up Test Report 1 for SWX-AF11



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

From: "Nate Burke" <n...@blastcomm.com<mailto:n...@blastcomm.com>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 8:56:31 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

Do you have to have some sort of Login for that?  I just return a plain 'You 
are not authorized to access this page.' when following the link.

On 5/26/2017 8:42 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=3152229

Page 60



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

Yeah, but GPS sync is only going to work if all the 11ghz links are Mimosa
(it also makes the B11 even more spectrally inefficient, since you're
limited to using a fixed ratio). But my point was that if you want to use
an inefficient radio to lock up spectrum, licensing the channels both
directions isn't really helpful over just licensing one channel each
direction, since whatever you replace the B11 with when it comes time for
more capacity almost certainly isn't going to be a half duplex radio.

The B11 has it's place... no other 11ghz radio can move close to a full gig
for anywhere near the price as far as I know, but the fact that it eats up
so much spectrum does have to be considered.

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net>
wrote:

> >>>>the fact that you're having to license both channels both directions,
> certainly has the potential to cause problems trying to coordinate around
> your own stuff,
>
> Would be in-correct, due to the fact that B11's will GPS Sync and allow
> for Freq Reuse with other B11's.
>
> I also beg to differ about 'being efficient' in terms of License Freq
> Usage I prescribe to the other theory of ... Get the biggest
> fattest channel you can use before someone else does you can always
> change out the radio for something more efficient later.
>
>
> This by no means is a commentary on what others feel  on this topic, but
> more of a point that some operators think one way and others feel
> differently.  I guess our thinking is shaped by the environment we are
> operating in.
>
> :)
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <(305)%20663-5518>
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email:
> supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>
> *To: *"af" <af@afmug.com>
> *Sent: *Friday, May 26, 2017 12:54:07 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>
> Yeah, I really don't see it as being an issue with the AF11. With Mimosas,
> the fact that you're having to license both channels both directions,
> certainly has the potential to cause problems trying to coordinate around
> your own stuff, and that's not really going to be particularly useful as
> far as the "reserving" channels argument goes. But with the AF11, they're
> operating exactly the same as a normal licensed radio with a (technically
> two channels, if you're using MIMO) transmit channel and a receive channel,
> so going to a more efficient radio is going to just be a direct drop in...
> it's really not the worst thing to use a spectrally inefficient radio on a
> link that's probably going to need to be upgraded to something faster in a
> few years from that point of view.
>
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Mark, I can see your point in Mimosa units, but AF11x units  do no
>> operate the same way
>>
>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh <
>> m...@amplex.net>
>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>> Date: Friday, May 26, 2017 at 12:07 PM
>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>>
>> The lack of spectrum efficiency with the licensed bands is my biggest
>> beef with the inexpensive licensed links on the market by Ubiquiti and
>> Mimosa.   Yes they transfer a lot of data, but they do it by using very
>> large amounts of scarce spectrum in both H channels.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>> President
>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>
>>
>> On May 26, 2017, at 9:57 AM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
>>
>> *sigh* I hate the FCC's web site.
>>
>> No, their site just sucks. Look up Test Report 1 for SWX-AF11
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

They still operate with less efficiency than last-generation traditional 
radios. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Gino A. Villarini" <g...@aeronetpr.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 11:39:13 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences 


Mark, I can see your point in Mimosa units, but AF11x units do no operate the 
same way 


From: Af < af-boun...@afmug.com > on behalf of Mark Radabaugh < m...@amplex.net 
> 
Reply-To: " af@afmug.com " < af@afmug.com > 
Date: Friday, May 26, 2017 at 12:07 PM 
To: " af@afmug.com " < af@afmug.com > 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences 





The lack of spectrum efficiency with the licensed bands is my biggest beef with 
the inexpensive licensed links on the market by Ubiquiti and Mimosa. Yes they 
transfer a lot of data, but they do it by using very large amounts of scarce 
spectrum in both H channels. 


Mark 










Gino A. Villarini 
President 
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 
On May 26, 2017, at 9:57 AM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 



*sigh* I hate the FCC's web site. 

No, their site just sucks. Look up Test Report 1 for SWX-AF11 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Nate Burke" < n...@blastcomm.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 8:56:31 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences 

Do you have to have some sort of Login for that? I just return a plain 'You are 
not authorized to access this page.' when following the link. 


On 5/26/2017 8:42 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=3152229 

Page 60 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 9:20:42 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences 


My theory is that the AF11FX "40 MHz" channel used in the previous example I 
posted is actually something like 33 or 34 MHz wide if you look at it on a 
$15,000 bench test spectrum analyzer. 


On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 



It is significantly worse... Look at the spec sheets. Our old SAF Lumina can do 
366mbps in a single polarity 256qam 56mhz channel... an AF11 doesn't even match 
that running at 1024qam - it will theoretically do somewhere around 340mbps at 
1024qam and somewhere around 275mbps at 256qam. 


On May 25, 2017 9:06 PM, "Eric Kuhnke" < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > wrote: 



If all you can get on a particular path is a theoretical single 40 MHz wide FDD 
channel pair, one polarity, I don't see how the 1024QAM bps/Hz efficiency would 
be significantly worse than a competing single polarity product (SAF Integra, 
etc) running in the same channel size. Unless you are counting more expensive 
competing products that advertise header compression and very different Mbps 
rates for 64-byte vs much larger packet sizes. 


It's very cost effective so I will forgive it many things, my main problem is 
that it can't actually use near the full width of an 80 MHz channel. 


On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:26 PM, George Skorup < george.sko...@cbcast.com > 
wrote: 




Yeah. Cost is one thing, but if all you can get is a single polarity on a 
particular path, the AF11 is probably one of the last things I'd look at. 
Congestion is a problem around here. 



On 5/25/2017 8:21 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: 


On 5/25/17 18:12, Mathew Howard wrote: 



We're running the full 56mhz/MIMO... I haven't been able to get them to run at 
1024qam yet (antennas still need to be fine tuned, it wasn't ideal weather 
conditions when we put them up, so I'm hoping we'll be able to get a bit more 
out them), so they're only at around 550Mbps capacity (and I've verified the 
link will do around 500Mbps with real traffic). 





Only 500 meg with two channels? Crap, I have an old Exalt that can do that with 
only one channel at 256QAM.

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

2017-05-26 Thread Adam Moffett

I'm with you.  I would also rather license the biggest possible channel.

-- Original Message --
From: "Faisal Imtiaz" <fai...@snappytelecom.net>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 5/26/2017 1:09:58 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

>>>>the fact that you're having to license both channels both 
directions, certainly has the potential to cause problems trying to 
coordinate around your own stuff,

Would be in-correct, due to the fact that B11's will GPS Sync and allow 
for Freq Reuse with other B11's.

I also beg to differ about 'being efficient' in terms of License Freq 
Usage I prescribe to the other theory of ... Get the biggest 
fattest channel you can use before someone else does you can always 
change out the radio for something more efficient later.

This by no means is a commentary on what others feel  on this topic, 
but more of a point that some operators think one way and others feel 
differently.  I guess our thinking is shaped by the environment we are 
operating in.

:)

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>
To: "af" <af@afmug.com>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 12:54:07 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
Yeah, I really don't see it as being an issue with the AF11. With 
Mimosas, the fact that you're having to license both channels both 
directions, certainly has the potential to cause problems trying to 
coordinate around your own stuff, and that's not really going to be 
particularly useful as far as the "reserving" channels argument goes. 
But with the AF11, they're operating exactly the same as a normal 
licensed radio with a (technically two channels, if you're using MIMO) 
transmit channel and a receive channel, so going to a more efficient 
radio is going to just be a direct drop in... it's really not the 
worst thing to use a spectrally inefficient radio on a link that's 
probably going to need to be upgraded to something faster in a few 
years from that point of view.

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Gino A. Villarini 
<g...@aeronetpr.com> wrote:
Mark, I can see your point in Mimosa units, but AF11x units  do no 
operate the same way

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh 
<m...@amplex.net>

Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Date: Friday, May 26, 2017 at 12:07 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

The lack of spectrum efficiency with the licensed bands is my biggest 
beef with the inexpensive licensed links on the market by Ubiquiti 
and Mimosa.   Yes they transfer a lot of data, but they do it by 
using very large amounts of scarce spectrum in both H channels.

Mark

Gino A. Villarini

PresidentMetro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

On May 26, 2017, at 9:57 AM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:

*sigh* I hate the FCC's web site.

No, their site just sucks. Look up Test Report 1 for SWX-AF11

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> 
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> 
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>

Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> 
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>

The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>

<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
----
From: "Nate Burke" <n...@blastcomm.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 8:56:31 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

Do you have to have some sort of Login for that?  I just return a 
plain 'You are not authorized to access this page.' when following 
the link.

On 5/26/2017 8:42 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=3152229

Page 60

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> 
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> 
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>

Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> 
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>

The Bro

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

2017-05-26 Thread Jon Langeler

The GPS method makes more sense if your in a 'uniquie' area where there's no 
traditional links on the same tower 

Jon Langeler
Michwave Technologies, Inc.


> On May 26, 2017, at 1:09 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net> wrote:
> 
> >>>>the fact that you're having to license both channels both directions, 
> >>>>certainly has the potential to cause problems trying to coordinate around 
> >>>>your own stuff,
> 
> Would be in-correct, due to the fact that B11's will GPS Sync and allow for 
> Freq Reuse with other B11's.
> 
> I also beg to differ about 'being efficient' in terms of License Freq 
> Usage I prescribe to the other theory of ... Get the biggest fattest 
> channel you can use before someone else does you can always change out 
> the radio for something more efficient later.
> 
> 
> This by no means is a commentary on what others feel  on this topic, but more 
> of a point that some operators think one way and others feel differently.  I 
> guess our thinking is shaped by the environment we are operating in.
> 
> :)
> 
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> 
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
> 
> From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>
> To: "af" <af@afmug.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 12:54:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
> Yeah, I really don't see it as being an issue with the AF11. With Mimosas, 
> the fact that you're having to license both channels both directions, 
> certainly has the potential to cause problems trying to coordinate around 
> your own stuff, and that's not really going to be particularly useful as far 
> as the "reserving" channels argument goes. But with the AF11, they're 
> operating exactly the same as a normal licensed radio with a (technically two 
> channels, if you're using MIMO) transmit channel and a receive channel, so 
> going to a more efficient radio is going to just be a direct drop in... it's 
> really not the worst thing to use a spectrally inefficient radio on a link 
> that's probably going to need to be upgraded to something faster in a few 
> years from that point of view. 
> 
>> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com> 
>> wrote:
>> Mark, I can see your point in Mimosa units, but AF11x units  do no operate 
>> the same way
>> 
>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net>
>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>> Date: Friday, May 26, 2017 at 12:07 PM
>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>> 
>> The lack of spectrum efficiency with the licensed bands is my biggest beef 
>> with the inexpensive licensed links on the market by Ubiquiti and Mimosa.   
>> Yes they transfer a lot of data, but they do it by using very large amounts 
>> of scarce spectrum in both H channels.
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Gino A. Villarini
>> 
>> President
>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On May 26, 2017, at 9:57 AM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
>> 
>> *sigh* I hate the FCC's web site.
>> 
>> No, their site just sucks. Look up Test Report 1 for SWX-AF11
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: "Nate Burke" <n...@blastcomm.com>
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 8:56:31 AM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>> 
>> Do you have to have some sort of Login for that?  I just return a plain 'You 
>> are not authorized to access this page.' when following the link.
>> 
>> On 5/26/2017 8:42 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>> https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=3152229
>> 
>> Page 60
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 9:20:42 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>> 
>> My theory is that the AF11FX "40 MHz" chann

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

2017-05-26 Thread Faisal Imtiaz

>>>> the fact that you're having to license both channels both directions, 
>>>> certainly has the potential to cause problems trying to coordinate around 
>>>> your own stuff, 

Would be in-correct, due to the fact that B11's will GPS Sync and allow for 
Freq Reuse with other B11's. 

I also beg to differ about 'being efficient' in terms of License Freq Usage 
I prescribe to the other theory of ... Get the biggest fattest channel you can 
use before someone else does you can always change out the radio for 
something more efficient later. 

This by no means is a commentary on what others feel on this topic, but more of 
a point that some operators think one way and others feel differently. I guess 
our thinking is shaped by the environment we are operating in. 

:) 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>
> To: "af" <af@afmug.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 12:54:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

> Yeah, I really don't see it as being an issue with the AF11. With Mimosas, the
> fact that you're having to license both channels both directions, certainly 
> has
> the potential to cause problems trying to coordinate around your own stuff, 
> and
> that's not really going to be particularly useful as far as the "reserving"
> channels argument goes. But with the AF11, they're operating exactly the same
> as a normal licensed radio with a (technically two channels, if you're using
> MIMO) transmit channel and a receive channel, so going to a more efficient
> radio is going to just be a direct drop in... it's really not the worst thing
> to use a spectrally inefficient radio on a link that's probably going to need
> to be upgraded to something faster in a few years from that point of view.

> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Gino A. Villarini < g...@aeronetpr.com > 
> wrote:

>> Mark, I can see your point in Mimosa units, but AF11x units do no operate the
>> same way

>> From: Af < af-boun...@afmug.com > on behalf of Mark Radabaugh < 
>> m...@amplex.net
>> >
>> Reply-To: " af@afmug.com " < af@afmug.com >
>> Date: Friday, May 26, 2017 at 12:07 PM
>> To: " af@afmug.com " < af@afmug.com >
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

>> The lack of spectrum efficiency with the licensed bands is my biggest beef 
>> with
>> the inexpensive licensed links on the market by Ubiquiti and Mimosa. Yes they
>> transfer a lot of data, but they do it by using very large amounts of scarce
>> spectrum in both H channels.

>> Mark

>>> Gino A. Villarini
>>> President
>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

>>> On May 26, 2017, at 9:57 AM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote:

>>> *sigh* I hate the FCC's web site.

>>> No, their site just sucks. Look up Test Report 1 for SWX-AF11

>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions

>>> Midwest Internet Exchange

>>> The Brothers WISP

>>> From: "Nate Burke" < n...@blastcomm.com >
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 8:56:31 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

>>> Do you have to have some sort of Login for that? I just return a plain 'You 
>>> are
>>> not authorized to access this page.' when following the link.

>>> On 5/26/2017 8:42 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

>>>> https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=3152229

>>>> Page 60

>>>> -
>>>> Mike Hammett
>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions

>>>> Midwest Internet Exchange

>>>> The Brothers WISP

>>>> From: "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
>>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 9:20:42 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

>>>> My theory is that the AF11FX "40 MHz" channel used in the previous example 
>>>> I
>>>> posted is actually something like 33 or 34 MHz wide if you look at it on a
>>>> $15,000 bench test spectrum analyzer.

>>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > 
>>>> wrote:

>>>>> It is significantly worse... Look at the spec sheets. Our old SAF Lumina 
>>>>> can do
>>>>> 366mbps in a single polarity 256qam 56mhz channel... an AF11 do

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

2017-05-26 Thread Josh Reynolds

It's roughly 6x cheaper here compared to what you are paying.

- Josh

On May 26, 2017 12:07 PM, "Stefan Englhardt" <s...@genias.net> wrote:

> Buying cheap is buying twice (and mounting). Dont know what your license
> cost is. In Germany it would be 6kEuro for 56MHz x 2 V+H for 10 years.
> Looking at cheap lastgen licensed gear like e.g. SIAE Alfo+ the difference
> is not that much.
>
> Blocking frequency does only make sense where regulations does allow
> inefficient/interfering gear. I would not get a licensed frequency for a
> Wifi-based Radio like Mimosa. With higher quality gear you could reuse the
> frequency every 30 degree. So there is more free spectrum to use.
>
> On Fri, 26 May 2017 16:54:07 +
>  Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I really don't see it as being an issue with the AF11. With Mimosas,
>> the fact that you're having to license both channels both directions,
>> certainly has the potential to cause problems trying to coordinate around
>> your own stuff, and that's not really going to be particularly useful as
>> far as the "reserving" channels argument goes. But with the AF11, they're
>> operating exactly the same as a normal licensed radio with a (technically
>> two channels, if you're using MIMO) transmit channel and a receive
>> channel,
>> so going to a more efficient radio is going to just be a direct drop in...
>> it's really not the worst thing to use a spectrally inefficient radio on a
>> link that's probably going to need to be upgraded to something faster in a
>> few years from that point of view.
>>
>> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Mark, I can see your point in Mimosa units, but AF11x units  do no operate
>>> the same way
>>>
>>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh <
>>> m...@amplex.net>
>>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>> Date: Friday, May 26, 2017 at 12:07 PM
>>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>>>
>>> The lack of spectrum efficiency with the licensed bands is my biggest
>>> beef
>>> with the inexpensive licensed links on the market by Ubiquiti and Mimosa.
>>> Yes they transfer a lot of data, but they do it by using very large
>>> amounts
>>> of scarce spectrum in both H channels.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>>> President
>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>>
>>> On May 26, 2017, at 9:57 AM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> *sigh* I hate the FCC's web site.
>>>
>>> No, their site just sucks. Look up Test Report 1 for SWX-AF11
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
>>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
>>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Nate Burke" <n...@blastcomm.com>
>>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>>> *Sent: *Friday, May 26, 2017 8:56:31 AM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>>>
>>> Do you have to have some sort of Login for that?  I just return a plain
>>> 'You are not authorized to access this page.' when following the link.
>>>
>>> On 5/26/2017 8:42 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>
>>> https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=3152229
>>>
>>> Page 60
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
>>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
>>> <

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

2017-05-26 Thread Stefan Englhardt

Buying cheap is buying twice (and mounting). Dont know what your license 
cost is. In Germany it would be 6kEuro for 56MHz x 2 V+H for 10 years. 
Looking at cheap lastgen licensed gear like e.g. SIAE Alfo+ the difference 
is not that much.


Blocking frequency does only make sense where regulations does allow 
inefficient/interfering gear. I would not get a licensed frequency for a 
Wifi-based Radio like Mimosa. With higher quality gear you could reuse the 
frequency every 30 degree. So there is more free spectrum to use.
 


On Fri, 26 May 2017 16:54:07 +
 Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah, I really don't see it as being an issue with the 
AF11. With Mimosas,
the fact that you're having to license both channels 
both directions,
certainly has the potential to cause problems trying to 
coordinate around
your own stuff, and that's not really going to be 
particularly useful as
far as the "reserving" channels argument goes. But with 
the AF11, they're
operating exactly the same as a normal licensed radio 
with a (technically
two channels, if you're using MIMO) transmit channel and 
a receive channel,
so going to a more efficient radio is going to just be a 
direct drop in...
it's really not the worst thing to use a spectrally 
inefficient radio on a
link that's probably going to need to be upgraded to 
something faster in a

few years from that point of view.

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Gino A. Villarini 
<g...@aeronetpr.com>

wrote:

Mark, I can see your point in Mimosa units, but AF11x 
units  do no operate

the same way

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark 
Radabaugh <

m...@amplex.net>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Date: Friday, May 26, 2017 at 12:07 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

The lack of spectrum efficiency with the licensed bands 
is my biggest beef
with the inexpensive licensed links on the market by 
Ubiquiti and Mimosa.
Yes they transfer a lot of data, but they do it by using 
very large amounts

of scarce spectrum in both H channels.

Mark




*Gino A. Villarini*
President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 
00968


On May 26, 2017, at 9:57 AM, Mike Hammett 
<af...@ics-il.net> wrote:


*sigh* I hate the FCC's web site.

No, their site just sucks. Look up Test Report 1 for 
SWX-AF11




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
----------
*From: *"Nate Burke" <n...@blastcomm.com>
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Friday, May 26, 2017 8:56:31 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

Do you have to have some sort of Login for that?  I just 
return a plain
'You are not authorized to access this page.' when 
following the link.


On 5/26/2017 8:42 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=3152229

Page 60



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
--
*From: *"Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> 
<eric.kuh...@gmail.com>

*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, May 25, 2017 9:20:42 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

My theory is that the AF11FX "40 MHz" channel used in 
the previous example
I posted is actually something like 33 or 34 MHz wide if 
you look at it on

a $15,000 bench test spectrum analyzer.

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Mathew Howard < 
<mhoward...@gmail.com>

mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:

It is significantly worse... Look at the spec sheets. 
Our old SAF Lumina
can do 366mbps in a single polarity 256qam 56mhz 
channel... an AF11 doesn't
even match that running at 1024qam - it will 
theoretically do

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

Yeah, I really don't see it as being an issue with the AF11. With Mimosas,
the fact that you're having to license both channels both directions,
certainly has the potential to cause problems trying to coordinate around
your own stuff, and that's not really going to be particularly useful as
far as the "reserving" channels argument goes. But with the AF11, they're
operating exactly the same as a normal licensed radio with a (technically
two channels, if you're using MIMO) transmit channel and a receive channel,
so going to a more efficient radio is going to just be a direct drop in...
it's really not the worst thing to use a spectrally inefficient radio on a
link that's probably going to need to be upgraded to something faster in a
few years from that point of view.

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com>
wrote:

> Mark, I can see your point in Mimosa units, but AF11x units  do no operate
> the same way
>
> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh <
> m...@amplex.net>
> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
> Date: Friday, May 26, 2017 at 12:07 PM
> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>
> The lack of spectrum efficiency with the licensed bands is my biggest beef
> with the inexpensive licensed links on the market by Ubiquiti and Mimosa.
> Yes they transfer a lot of data, but they do it by using very large amounts
> of scarce spectrum in both H channels.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> *Gino A. Villarini*
> President
> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>
> On May 26, 2017, at 9:57 AM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
>
> *sigh* I hate the FCC's web site.
>
> No, their site just sucks. Look up Test Report 1 for SWX-AF11
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
> *From: *"Nate Burke" <n...@blastcomm.com>
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, May 26, 2017 8:56:31 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>
> Do you have to have some sort of Login for that?  I just return a plain
> 'You are not authorized to access this page.' when following the link.
>
> On 5/26/2017 8:42 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=3152229
>
> Page 60
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, May 25, 2017 9:20:42 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>
> My theory is that the AF11FX "40 MHz" channel used in the previous example
> I posted is actually something like 33 or 34 MHz wide if you look at it on
> a $15,000 bench test spectrum analyzer.
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Mathew Howard < <mhoward...@gmail.com>
> mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It is significantly worse... Look at the spec sheets. Our old SAF Lumina
>> can do 366mbps in a single polarity 256qam 56mhz channel... an AF11 doesn't
>> even match that running at 1024qam - it will theoretically do somewhere
>> around 340mbps at 1024qam and somewhere around 275mbps at 256qam.
>>
>> On May 25, 2017 9:06 PM, "Eric Kuhnke" < <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

2017-05-26 Thread Gino A. Villarini

Mark, I can see your point in Mimosa units, but AF11x units  do no operate the 
same way

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of Mark 
Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net<mailto:m...@amplex.net>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
<af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Friday, May 26, 2017 at 12:07 PM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

The lack of spectrum efficiency with the licensed bands is my biggest beef with 
the inexpensive licensed links on the market by Ubiquiti and Mimosa.   Yes they 
transfer a lot of data, but they do it by using very large amounts of scarce 
spectrum in both H channels.

Mark





Gino A. Villarini


President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

[cid:aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png]

On May 26, 2017, at 9:57 AM, Mike Hammett 
<af...@ics-il.net<mailto:af...@ics-il.net>> wrote:

*sigh* I hate the FCC's web site.

No, their site just sucks. Look up Test Report 1 for SWX-AF11



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
____
From: "Nate Burke" <n...@blastcomm.com<mailto:n...@blastcomm.com>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 8:56:31 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

Do you have to have some sort of Login for that?  I just return a plain 'You 
are not authorized to access this page.' when following the link.

On 5/26/2017 8:42 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=3152229

Page 60



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

From: "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com><mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 9:20:42 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

My theory is that the AF11FX "40 MHz" channel used in the previous example I 
posted is actually something like 33 or 34 MHz wide if you look at it on a 
$15,000 bench test spectrum analyzer.

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Mathew Howard 
<<mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>mhoward...@gmail.com<mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>>
 wrote:
It is significantly worse... Look at the spec sheets. Our old SAF Lumina can do 
366mbps in a single polarity 256qam 56mhz channel... an AF11 doesn't even match 
that running at 1024qam - it will theoretically do somewhere around 340mbps at 
1024qam and somewhere around 275mbps at 256qam.

On May 25, 2017 9:06 PM, "Eric Kuhnke" 
<<mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>eric.kuh...@gmail.com<mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>>
 wrote:
If all you can get on a particular path is a theoretical single 40 MHz wide FDD 
channel pair, one polarity

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

2017-05-26 Thread Jaime Solorza

Huh? Aren't these licensed and coordinated?

On May 26, 2017 10:33 AM, "Mark Radabaugh" <m...@amplex.net> wrote:

> We have more problems finding clear channels due to our own links.  Being
> efficient up front is cheaper in the long run IMHO.   Running dual pol
> 80Ghz channels in scare 11Ghz spectrum is not really a good plan.
>
> Mark
>
> On May 26, 2017, at 12:20 PM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists <jeffl...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> But, if you are going to need the spectrum over time, it's an inexpensive
> way to lock it up.
>
> Jeff Broadwick
> ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
> 312-205-2519 <(312)%20205-2519> Office
> 574-220-7826 <(574)%20220-7826> Cell
> jbroadw...@converge-tech.com
>
> On May 26, 2017, at 12:07 PM, Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net> wrote:
>
> The lack of spectrum efficiency with the licensed bands is my biggest beef
> with the inexpensive licensed links on the market by Ubiquiti and Mimosa.
> Yes they transfer a lot of data, but they do it by using very large amounts
> of scarce spectrum in both H channels.
>
> Mark
>
>
> On May 26, 2017, at 9:57 AM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
>
> *sigh* I hate the FCC's web site.
>
> No, their site just sucks. Look up Test Report 1 for SWX-AF11
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
> *From: *"Nate Burke" <n...@blastcomm.com>
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, May 26, 2017 8:56:31 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>
> Do you have to have some sort of Login for that?  I just return a plain
> 'You are not authorized to access this page.' when following the link.
>
> On 5/26/2017 8:42 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=3152229
>
> Page 60
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, May 25, 2017 9:20:42 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>
> My theory is that the AF11FX "40 MHz" channel used in the previous example
> I posted is actually something like 33 or 34 MHz wide if you look at it on
> a $15,000 bench test spectrum analyzer.
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Mathew Howard < <mhoward...@gmail.com>
> mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It is significantly worse... Look at the spec sheets. Our old SAF Lumina
>> can do 366mbps in a single polarity 256qam 56mhz channel... an AF11 doesn't
>> even match that running at 1024qam - it will theoretically do somewhere
>> around 340mbps at 1024qam and somewhere around 275mbps at 256qam.
>>
>> On May 25, 2017 9:06 PM, "Eric Kuhnke" < <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
>> eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If all you can get on a particular path is a theoretical single 40 MHz
>>> wide FDD channel pair, one polarity, I don't see how the 1024QAM bps/Hz
>>> efficiency would be significantly worse than a competing single polarity
>>> product (SAF Integra, etc) running in the same channel size. Unless you are
>>> counting more expensive competing products that advertise header
>>> compression and very different Mbps rates for 64-byte vs

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

2017-05-26 Thread Mark Radabaugh

We have more problems finding clear channels due to our own links.  Being 
efficient up front is cheaper in the long run IMHO.   Running dual pol 80Ghz 
channels in scare 11Ghz spectrum is not really a good plan.

Mark

> On May 26, 2017, at 12:20 PM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists <jeffl...@att.net> wrote:
> 
> But, if you are going to need the spectrum over time, it's an inexpensive way 
> to lock it up.
> 
> Jeff Broadwick
> ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
> 312-205-2519 Office
> 574-220-7826 Cell
> jbroadw...@converge-tech.com <mailto:jbroadw...@converge-tech.com>
> 
> On May 26, 2017, at 12:07 PM, Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net 
> <mailto:m...@amplex.net>> wrote:
> 
>> The lack of spectrum efficiency with the licensed bands is my biggest beef 
>> with the inexpensive licensed links on the market by Ubiquiti and Mimosa.   
>> Yes they transfer a lot of data, but they do it by using very large amounts 
>> of scarce spectrum in both H channels.
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 26, 2017, at 9:57 AM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net 
>>> <mailto:af...@ics-il.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> *sigh* I hate the FCC's web site.
>>> 
>>> No, their site just sucks. Look up Test Report 1 for SWX-AF11
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>>>  <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> 
>>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> 
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> 
>>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>>>  <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> 
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> 
>>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>>>  <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
>>> From: "Nate Burke" <n...@blastcomm.com <mailto:n...@blastcomm.com>>
>>> To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
>>> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 8:56:31 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>>> 
>>> Do you have to have some sort of Login for that?  I just return a plain 
>>> 'You are not authorized to access this page.' when following the link.
>>> 
>>> On 5/26/2017 8:42 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>> https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=3152229 
>>> <https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=3152229>
>>> 
>>> Page 60
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>>>  <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> 
>>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> 
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> 
>>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>>>  <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> 
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> 
>>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>>>  <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
>>> From: "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> <mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
>>> To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 9:20:42 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>>> 
>>> My theory is that the AF11FX "40 MHz" channel used in the previous example 
>>> I posted is actually something like 33 or 34 MHz wide if you look at it on 
>>> a $15,000 bench test spectrum analyzer.
>>> 
>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Mathew Howard < 
>>> <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>mhoward...@gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> It is significantly worse... Look at the spec sheets. Our old SAF Lumina 
>>> can do 366mbps in a single polarity 256qam 56mhz channel... an AF11 doesn't 
>>> even match that running at 1024qam - it will theoretically do somewhere 
>>> around 340mbps a

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

2017-05-26 Thread Jeff Broadwick - Lists

But, if you are going to need the spectrum over time, it's an inexpensive way 
to lock it up.

Jeff Broadwick
ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
312-205-2519 Office
574-220-7826 Cell
jbroadw...@converge-tech.com

> On May 26, 2017, at 12:07 PM, Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net> wrote:
> 
> The lack of spectrum efficiency with the licensed bands is my biggest beef 
> with the inexpensive licensed links on the market by Ubiquiti and Mimosa.   
> Yes they transfer a lot of data, but they do it by using very large amounts 
> of scarce spectrum in both H channels.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
>> On May 26, 2017, at 9:57 AM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
>> 
>> *sigh* I hate the FCC's web site.
>> 
>> No, their site just sucks. Look up Test Report 1 for SWX-AF11
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: "Nate Burke" <n...@blastcomm.com>
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 8:56:31 AM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>> 
>> Do you have to have some sort of Login for that?  I just return a plain 'You 
>> are not authorized to access this page.' when following the link.
>> 
>> On 5/26/2017 8:42 AM, Mike Hammett   wrote:
>> https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=3152229
>> 
>> Page 60
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 9:20:42 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
>> 
>> My theory is that the AF11FX "40 MHz" channel used in the previous example I 
>> posted is actually something like 33 or 34 MHz wide if you look at it on a 
>> $15,000 bench test spectrum analyzer.
>> 
>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It is significantly worse... Look at the spec sheets. Our old SAF Lumina 
>>> can do 366mbps in a single polarity 256qam 56mhz channel... an AF11 doesn't 
>>> even match that running at 1024qam - it will theoretically do somewhere 
>>> around 340mbps at 1024qam and somewhere around 275mbps at 256qam.
>>> 
>>>> On May 25, 2017 9:06 PM, "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> If all you can get on a particular path is a theoretical single 40 MHz 
>>>> wide FDD channel pair, one polarity, I don't see how the 1024QAM bps/Hz 
>>>> efficiency would be significantly worse than a competing single polarity 
>>>> product (SAF Integra, etc) running in the same channel size. Unless you 
>>>> are counting more expensive competing products that advertise header 
>>>> compression and very different Mbps rates for 64-byte vs much larger 
>>>> packet sizes.
>>>> 
>>>> It's very cost effective so I will forgive it many things, my main problem 
>>>> is that it can't actually use near the full width of an 80 MHz channel. 
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:26 PM, George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Yeah. Cost is one thing, but if all you can get is a single polarity on a 
>>>>> particular path, the AF11 is probably one of the last things I'd look at. 
>>>>> Congestion is a problem around here.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 5/25/2017 8:21 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/25/17 18:12, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We're running the full 56mhz/MIMO... I haven't been able to get them to 
>>>>>>> run at 1024qam yet (antennas still need to be fine tuned, it wasn't 
>>>>>>> ideal weather conditions when we put them up, so I'm hoping we'll be 
>>>>>>> able to get a bit more out them), so they're only at around 550Mbps 
>>>>>>> capacity (and I've verified the link will do around 500Mbps with real 
>>>>>>> traffic).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Only 500 meg with two channels? Crap, I have an old Exalt that can do 
>>>>>> that with only one channel at 256QAM.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

2017-05-26 Thread Stefan Englhardt


And as licensed spectrum has to be payed they are not cheap overall.

On Fri, 26 May 2017 16:07:38 +
 Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net> wrote:
The lack of spectrum efficiency with the licensed bands 
is my biggest beef with the inexpensive licensed links on 
the market by Ubiquiti and Mimosa.   Yes they transfer a 
lot of data, but they do it by using very large amounts 
of scarce spectrum in both H channels.


Mark


On May 26, 2017, at 9:57 AM, Mike Hammett 
<af...@ics-il.net> wrote:


*sigh* I hate the FCC's web site.

No, their site just sucks. Look up Test Report 1 for 
SWX-AF11




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
 <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> 
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> 
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>

Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
 <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> 
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>

The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
 <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>


 <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
From: "Nate Burke" <n...@blastcomm.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 8:56:31 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

Do you have to have some sort of Login for that?  I just 
return a plain 'You are not authorized to access this 
page.' when following the link.


On 5/26/2017 8:42 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=3152229 
<https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=3152229>


Page 60



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
 <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> 
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> 
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>

Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
 <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> 
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>

The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
 <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>


 <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
From: "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> 
<mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>

To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 9:20:42 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

My theory is that the AF11FX "40 MHz" channel used in 
the previous example I posted is actually something like 
33 or 34 MHz wide if you look at it on a $15,000 bench 
test spectrum analyzer.


On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Mathew Howard < 
<mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>mhoward...@gmail.com 
<mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:
It is significantly worse... Look at the spec sheets. 
Our old SAF Lumina can do 366mbps in a single polarity 
256qam 56mhz channel... an AF11 doesn't even match that 
running at 1024qam - it will theoretically do somewhere 
around 340mbps at 1024qam and somewhere around 275mbps at 
256qam.


On May 25, 2017 9:06 PM, "Eric Kuhnke" < 
<mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>eric.kuh...@gmail.com 
<mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
If all you can get on a particular path is a theoretical 
single 40 MHz wide FDD channel pair, one polarity, I 
don't see how the 1024QAM bps/Hz efficiency would be 
significantly worse than a competing single polarity 
product (SAF Integra, etc) running in the same channel 
size. Unless you are counting more expensive competing 
products that advertise header compression and very 
different Mbps rates for 64-byte vs much larger packet 
sizes.


It's very cost effective so I will forgive it many 
things, my main problem is that it can't actually use 
near the full width of an 80 MHz channel. 

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:26 PM, George Skorup 
<george.sko...@cbcast.com 
<mailto:george.sko...@cbcast.com>> wrote:
Yeah. Cost is one thing, but if all you can get is a 
single polarity on a particular path, the AF11 is 
probably one of the last things I'd look at. Congestion 
is a problem around here.



On 5/25/2017 8:21 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 5/25/17 18:12, Mathew Howard wrote:

We're running the full 56mhz/MIMO... I haven't been able 
to get them to run at 1024qam yet (antennas still need to 
be fine tuned, it wasn't ideal weather conditions when we 
put them up, so I'm hoping we'll be able to get a bit 
more out them), so they're only at around 550Mbps 
capacity (and I've verified the link will do around 
500Mbps with real traffic).




Only 500 meg with two channels? Crap, I have an old 
Exalt that can do that with only one channel at 256QAM.











- GENIAS INTERNET -- www.genias.net --
Stefan Englhardt Email: s...@genias.net
Dr. Gesslerstr. 20   D-93051 Regensburg
Tel: +49 941 942798-0Fax: +49 941 942798-9

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

2017-05-26 Thread Mark Radabaugh

The lack of spectrum efficiency with the licensed bands is my biggest beef with 
the inexpensive licensed links on the market by Ubiquiti and Mimosa.   Yes they 
transfer a lot of data, but they do it by using very large amounts of scarce 
spectrum in both H channels.

Mark


> On May 26, 2017, at 9:57 AM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
> 
> *sigh* I hate the FCC's web site.
> 
> No, their site just sucks. Look up Test Report 1 for SWX-AF11
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>  <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> 
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> 
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> 
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>  <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> 
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> 
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>  <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
> 
> 
>  <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> From: "Nate Burke" <n...@blastcomm.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 8:56:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
> 
> Do you have to have some sort of Login for that?  I just return a plain 'You 
> are not authorized to access this page.' when following the link.
> 
> On 5/26/2017 8:42 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=3152229 
> <https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=3152229>
> 
> Page 60
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>  <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> 
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> 
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> 
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>  <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> 
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> 
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>  <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
> 
> 
>  <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> From: "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> <mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
> To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 9:20:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences
> 
> My theory is that the AF11FX "40 MHz" channel used in the previous example I 
> posted is actually something like 33 or 34 MHz wide if you look at it on a 
> $15,000 bench test spectrum analyzer.
> 
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Mathew Howard < 
> <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>mhoward...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> It is significantly worse... Look at the spec sheets. Our old SAF Lumina can 
> do 366mbps in a single polarity 256qam 56mhz channel... an AF11 doesn't even 
> match that running at 1024qam - it will theoretically do somewhere around 
> 340mbps at 1024qam and somewhere around 275mbps at 256qam.
> 
> On May 25, 2017 9:06 PM, "Eric Kuhnke" < 
> <mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>eric.kuh...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> If all you can get on a particular path is a theoretical single 40 MHz wide 
> FDD channel pair, one polarity, I don't see how the 1024QAM bps/Hz efficiency 
> would be significantly worse than a competing single polarity product (SAF 
> Integra, etc) running in the same channel size. Unless you are counting more 
> expensive competing products that advertise header compression and very 
> different Mbps rates for 64-byte vs much larger packet sizes.
> 
> It's very cost effective so I will forgive it many things, my main problem is 
> that it can't actually use near the full width of an 80 MHz channel. 
> 
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:26 PM, George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com 
> <mailto:george.sko...@cbcast.com>> wrote:
> Yeah. Cost is one thing, but if all you can get is a single polarity on a 
> particular path, the AF11 is probably one of the last things I'd look at. 
> Congestion is a problem around here.
> 
> 
> On 5/25/2017 8:21 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 5/25/17 18:12, Mathew Howard wrote:
> 
> We're running the full 56mhz/MIMO... I haven't been able to get them to run 
> at 1024qam yet (antennas still need to be fine tuned, it wasn't ideal weather 
> conditions when we put them up, so I'm hoping we'll be able to get a bit more 
> out them), so they're only at around 550Mbps capacity (and I've verified the 
> link will do around 500Mbps with real traffic).
> 
> 
> 
> Only 500 meg with two channels? Crap, I have an old Exalt that can do that 
> with only one channel at 256QAM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

*sigh* I hate the FCC's web site. 

No, their site just sucks. Look up Test Report 1 for SWX-AF11 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Nate Burke" <n...@blastcomm.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 8:56:31 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences 

Do you have to have some sort of Login for that? I just return a plain 'You are 
not authorized to access this page.' when following the link. 


On 5/26/2017 8:42 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=3152229 

Page 60 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 9:20:42 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences 


My theory is that the AF11FX "40 MHz" channel used in the previous example I 
posted is actually something like 33 or 34 MHz wide if you look at it on a 
$15,000 bench test spectrum analyzer. 


On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 



It is significantly worse... Look at the spec sheets. Our old SAF Lumina can do 
366mbps in a single polarity 256qam 56mhz channel... an AF11 doesn't even match 
that running at 1024qam - it will theoretically do somewhere around 340mbps at 
1024qam and somewhere around 275mbps at 256qam. 


On May 25, 2017 9:06 PM, "Eric Kuhnke" < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > wrote: 



If all you can get on a particular path is a theoretical single 40 MHz wide FDD 
channel pair, one polarity, I don't see how the 1024QAM bps/Hz efficiency would 
be significantly worse than a competing single polarity product (SAF Integra, 
etc) running in the same channel size. Unless you are counting more expensive 
competing products that advertise header compression and very different Mbps 
rates for 64-byte vs much larger packet sizes. 


It's very cost effective so I will forgive it many things, my main problem is 
that it can't actually use near the full width of an 80 MHz channel. 


On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:26 PM, George Skorup < george.sko...@cbcast.com > 
wrote: 




Yeah. Cost is one thing, but if all you can get is a single polarity on a 
particular path, the AF11 is probably one of the last things I'd look at. 
Congestion is a problem around here. 



On 5/25/2017 8:21 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: 


On 5/25/17 18:12, Mathew Howard wrote: 



We're running the full 56mhz/MIMO... I haven't been able to get them to run at 
1024qam yet (antennas still need to be fine tuned, it wasn't ideal weather 
conditions when we put them up, so I'm hoping we'll be able to get a bit more 
out them), so they're only at around 550Mbps capacity (and I've verified the 
link will do around 500Mbps with real traffic). 





Only 500 meg with two channels? Crap, I have an old Exalt that can do that with 
only one channel at 256QAM.

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

2017-05-26 Thread Nate Burke

Do you have to have some sort of Login for that? I just return a plain
'You are not authorized to access this page.' when following the link.

On 5/26/2017 8:42 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=3152229

Page 60

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>

<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

*From: *"Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, May 25, 2017 9:20:42 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

My theory is that the AF11FX "40 MHz" channel used in the previous
example I posted is actually something like 33 or 34 MHz wide if you
look at it on a $15,000 bench test spectrum analyzer.

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com
<mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:

It is significantly worse... Look at the spec sheets. Our old SAF
Lumina can do 366mbps in a single polarity 256qam 56mhz channel...
an AF11 doesn't even match that running at 1024qam - it will
theoretically do somewhere around 340mbps at 1024qam and somewhere
around 275mbps at 256qam.

On May 25, 2017 9:06 PM, "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com
<mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>> wrote:

If all you can get on a particular path is a theoretical
single 40 MHz wide FDD channel pair, one polarity, I don't see
how the 1024QAM bps/Hz efficiency would be significantly worse
than a competing single polarity product (SAF Integra, etc)
running in the same channel size. Unless you are counting more
expensive competing products that advertise header compression
and very different Mbps rates for 64-byte vs much larger
packet sizes.

It's very cost effective so I will forgive it many things, my
main problem is that it can't actually /use/ near the full
width of an 80 MHz channel.

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:26 PM, George Skorup
<george.sko...@cbcast.com <mailto:george.sko...@cbcast.com>>
wrote:

Yeah. Cost is one thing, but if all you can get is a
single polarity on a particular path, the AF11 is probably
one of the last things I'd look at. Congestion is a
problem around here.

On 5/25/2017 8:21 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:

On 5/25/17 18:12, Mathew Howard wrote:

We're running the full 56mhz/MIMO... I haven't
been able to get them to run at 1024qam yet
(antennas still need to be fine tuned, it wasn't
ideal weather conditions when we put them up, so
I'm hoping we'll be able to get a bit more out
them), so they're only at around 550Mbps capacity
(and I've verified the link will do around 500Mbps
with real traffic).

Only 500 meg with two channels? Crap, I have an old
Exalt that can do that with only one channel at 256QAM.

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=3152229 

Page 60 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 9:20:42 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences 


My theory is that the AF11FX "40 MHz" channel used in the previous example I 
posted is actually something like 33 or 34 MHz wide if you look at it on a 
$15,000 bench test spectrum analyzer. 


On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 



It is significantly worse... Look at the spec sheets. Our old SAF Lumina can do 
366mbps in a single polarity 256qam 56mhz channel... an AF11 doesn't even match 
that running at 1024qam - it will theoretically do somewhere around 340mbps at 
1024qam and somewhere around 275mbps at 256qam. 


On May 25, 2017 9:06 PM, "Eric Kuhnke" < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > wrote: 



If all you can get on a particular path is a theoretical single 40 MHz wide FDD 
channel pair, one polarity, I don't see how the 1024QAM bps/Hz efficiency would 
be significantly worse than a competing single polarity product (SAF Integra, 
etc) running in the same channel size. Unless you are counting more expensive 
competing products that advertise header compression and very different Mbps 
rates for 64-byte vs much larger packet sizes. 


It's very cost effective so I will forgive it many things, my main problem is 
that it can't actually use near the full width of an 80 MHz channel. 


On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:26 PM, George Skorup < george.sko...@cbcast.com > 
wrote: 




Yeah. Cost is one thing, but if all you can get is a single polarity on a 
particular path, the AF11 is probably one of the last things I'd look at. 
Congestion is a problem around here. 



On 5/25/2017 8:21 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: 


On 5/25/17 18:12, Mathew Howard wrote: 



We're running the full 56mhz/MIMO... I haven't been able to get them to run at 
1024qam yet (antennas still need to be fine tuned, it wasn't ideal weather 
conditions when we put them up, so I'm hoping we'll be able to get a bit more 
out them), so they're only at around 550Mbps capacity (and I've verified the 
link will do around 500Mbps with real traffic). 





Only 500 meg with two channels? Crap, I have an old Exalt that can do that with 
only one channel at 256QAM.

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

Yup, UBNT leaves bits on the floor. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Seth Mattinen" <se...@rollernet.us> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 8:21:50 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences 

On 5/25/17 18:12, Mathew Howard wrote: 
> 
> We're running the full 56mhz/MIMO... I haven't been able to get them to 
> run at 1024qam yet (antennas still need to be fine tuned, it wasn't 
> ideal weather conditions when we put them up, so I'm hoping we'll be 
> able to get a bit more out them), so they're only at around 550Mbps 
> capacity (and I've verified the link will do around 500Mbps with real 
> traffic). 
> 


Only 500 meg with two channels? Crap, I have an old Exalt that can do 
that with only one channel at 256QAM.

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

I haven't seen anyone report it actually going that fast. Maybe it has and I 
just haven't seen it. UBNT has some magic that leaves bits on the fllor. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 7:59:53 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences 


I think the throughput should exactly match the ubnt datasheet claim and what 
the frequency coordinator for your link says it will do. It would be directly 
related to channel size and one or two polarities. In a H 80 MHz FDD licensed 
configuration it actually uses a linear 56 MHz channel in each polarity, each 
way, which I believe results in a 630 Mbps full duplex link. 


That's assuming a properly installed link that has the right RSL on each end to 
be in 1024QAM mode 99.9%+ of the time of course. 


On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Nate Burke < n...@blastcomm.com > wrote: 



Have you run BW tests on it? what kind of throughput are you 'really' seeing? 

What Channel size Mimo/siso etc. 




On 5/25/2017 7:42 PM, Mathew Howard wrote: 




We have one up... other than some very ugly issues right after we put it up 
(which was apparently a bug in the firmware they shipped with... upgrading to 
the latest beta firmware fixed it), it has been working perfectly, and I 
haven't touched it since. 

The AF11 is certainly worth a look in my opinion, but it all depends on what 
you need it to do. 



On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Jon Langeler < jon-ispli...@michwave.net > 
wrote: 




Ignoring a few software bugs and delayed fixes, it's good for '2nd string' 
links. If this is for high priority link, I'd try SIAE or Cambium. 


Jon Langeler 
Michwave Technologies, Inc. 



On May 25, 2017, at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband < li...@sbb.net > wrote: 






We are looking to add some more Licensed Links to our network. 

Does anyone actually have the AF11 in service. Is it worth a look? How is it 
performing for you? Any issues? 

Just not sure if it is worth considering or should I be looking at existing 
companied like; 

Exalt ? 
Dragonwave ? 
SAIE ? 

Or newer ones like 

Alcoma 
Cablefree FOR3 

Anyone tried the last two? 

Just looking for best bang for the buck in non core ring usage.

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

2017-05-26 Thread Gino A. Villarini

Hey don’t even mention Mimosa B11 in this discussion then…

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of 
"eric.kuh...@gmail.com<mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>" 
<eric.kuh...@gmail.com<mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
<af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 9:16 PM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

Looking again at the datasheet for 56 MHz channels, dual polarity MIMO, the 
claim is just a little bit more than 680 Mbps full duplex in its maximum 
capacity configuration. Which should be a real world 640-650 Mbps.

Gino A. Villarini

President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

[cid:aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png]

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Mathew Howard 
<mhoward...@gmail.com<mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Similar to any other airFiber... they'll pretty consistently do about 90% of 
the stated capacity with real traffic.

We're running the full 56mhz/MIMO... I haven't been able to get them to run at 
1024qam yet (antennas still need to be fine tuned, it wasn't ideal weather 
conditions when we put them up, so I'm hoping we'll be able to get a bit more 
out them), so they're only at around 550Mbps capacity (and I've verified the 
link will do around 500Mbps with real traffic).

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Nate Burke 
<n...@blastcomm.com<mailto:n...@blastcomm.com>> wrote:
Have you run BW tests on it?  what kind of throughput are you 'really' seeing?

What Channel size Mimo/siso etc.

On 5/25/2017 7:42 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
We have one up... other than some very ugly issues right after we put it up 
(which was apparently a bug in the firmware they shipped with... upgrading to 
the latest beta firmware fixed it), it has been working perfectly, and I 
haven't touched it since.

The AF11 is certainly worth a look in my opinion, but it all depends on what 
you need it to do.

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Jon Langeler 
<jon-ispli...@michwave.net<mailto:jon-ispli...@michwave.net>> wrote:
Ignoring a few software bugs and delayed fixes, it's good for '2nd string' 
links. If this is for high priority link, I'd try SIAE or Cambium.

Jon Langeler
Michwave Technologies, Inc.

On May 25, 2017, at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband 
<<mailto:li...@sbb.net>li...@sbb.net<mailto:li...@sbb.net>> wrote:

We are looking to add some more Licensed Links to our network.

Does anyone actually have the AF11 in service.  Is it worth a look?  How is it 
performing for you?  Any issues?

Just not sure if it is worth considering or should I be looking at existing 
companied like;

Exalt ?
Dragonwave ?
SAIE ?

Or newer ones like

Alcoma
Cablefree FOR3

Anyone tried the last two?

Just looking for best bang for the buck in non core ring usage.

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

In a small/medium sized city where it might become difficult to coordinate
new 11 GHz PTP someday in the future, but you have a need for 400-600 Mbps
to a site now, it's not a bad way to "reserve" a dual polarity 80 MHz
channel if you can get it, either...

Some day in the future, remove the AF11FX and replace it with a much more
expensive 2048-4096QAM dual polarity radio that can use the full width of
the 80 MHz.



On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Mathew Howard  wrote:

> Yeah, I saw somewhat of an explanation from ubnt at one point... I don't
> remember the details, but I'm pretty sure FEC was part of the reason.
>
> For an $800 radio, they're good at what the do and they have their place,
> but people shouldn't expect them to perform the same as a $4000 radio.
>
> On May 25, 2017 9:15 PM, "Eric Kuhnke"  wrote:
>
> I'm going to eat my own words a little bit here. Just compared the AF11FX
> datasheet side by side with the SAF Integra for a theoretical 40 MHz single
> polarity FDD link. The AF11FX is something like 252Mbps, the SAF is a
> claimed 315 Mbps in the same 40 MHz wide.
>
> My theory is that ubnt has done something that is lower cost with the
> radio circuitry that doesn't allow it to very closely approach the edges of
> a 40 MHz channel without excessively strong signal leaking over the edge of
> a channel mask (as viewed by a spectrum analyzer), and possibly has
> additional FEC which is opaque to the end user.
>
> But that makes total sense when comparing $799/unit to $4000/unit+.
>
> https://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/airfiber/airFiber_AF-11FX_DS.pdf
>
> https://www.saftehnika.com/files/downloads/4e6954be-a416-e61
> 1-a0d1-0050569a8c0f/Integra%20series%20DS%20v1.39.pdf
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:
>
>> I don't know that anyone has really examined the overhead required by
>> OFDM (AF11) versus the overhead required by the various other licensed
>> vendor proprietary modulation schemes. I think this would be the primary
>> issue. I know we get over 500 Mbps through a Dragonwave on a single 50 MHz
>> channel. Two channels should theoretically get over 1 Gbps. The AF11 comes
>> out of the chute doing dual polarity, so that would be the comparison.
>>
>>
>> bp
>> 
>>
>>
>> On 5/25/2017 7:06 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>>
>> If all you can get on a particular path is a theoretical single 40 MHz
>> wide FDD channel pair, one polarity, I don't see how the 1024QAM bps/Hz
>> efficiency would be significantly worse than a competing single polarity
>> product (SAF Integra, etc) running in the same channel size. Unless you are
>> counting more expensive competing products that advertise header
>> compression and very different Mbps rates for 64-byte vs much larger packet
>> sizes.
>>
>> It's very cost effective so I will forgive it many things, my main
>> problem is that it can't actually *use* near the full width of an 80 MHz
>> channel.
>>
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:26 PM, George Skorup 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah. Cost is one thing, but if all you can get is a single polarity on
>>> a particular path, the AF11 is probably one of the last things I'd look at.
>>> Congestion is a problem around here.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/25/2017 8:21 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>>
 On 5/25/17 18:12, Mathew Howard wrote:

>
> We're running the full 56mhz/MIMO... I haven't been able to get them
> to run at 1024qam yet (antennas still need to be fine tuned, it wasn't
> ideal weather conditions when we put them up, so I'm hoping we'll be able
> to get a bit more out them), so they're only at around 550Mbps capacity
> (and I've verified the link will do around 500Mbps with real traffic).
>
>

 Only 500 meg with two channels? Crap, I have an old Exalt that can do
 that with only one channel at 256QAM.

>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

Yeah, I saw somewhat of an explanation from ubnt at one point... I don't
remember the details, but I'm pretty sure FEC was part of the reason.

For an $800 radio, they're good at what the do and they have their place,
but people shouldn't expect them to perform the same as a $4000 radio.

On May 25, 2017 9:15 PM, "Eric Kuhnke"  wrote:

I'm going to eat my own words a little bit here. Just compared the AF11FX
datasheet side by side with the SAF Integra for a theoretical 40 MHz single
polarity FDD link. The AF11FX is something like 252Mbps, the SAF is a
claimed 315 Mbps in the same 40 MHz wide.

My theory is that ubnt has done something that is lower cost with the radio
circuitry that doesn't allow it to very closely approach the edges of a 40
MHz channel without excessively strong signal leaking over the edge of a
channel mask (as viewed by a spectrum analyzer), and possibly has
additional FEC which is opaque to the end user.

But that makes total sense when comparing $799/unit to $4000/unit+.

https://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/airfiber/airFiber_AF-11FX_DS.pdf

https://www.saftehnika.com/files/downloads/4e6954be-a416-
e611-a0d1-0050569a8c0f/Integra%20series%20DS%20v1.39.pdf

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:

> I don't know that anyone has really examined the overhead required by OFDM
> (AF11) versus the overhead required by the various other licensed vendor
> proprietary modulation schemes. I think this would be the primary issue. I
> know we get over 500 Mbps through a Dragonwave on a single 50 MHz channel.
> Two channels should theoretically get over 1 Gbps. The AF11 comes out of
> the chute doing dual polarity, so that would be the comparison.
>
>
> bp
> 
>
>
> On 5/25/2017 7:06 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>
> If all you can get on a particular path is a theoretical single 40 MHz
> wide FDD channel pair, one polarity, I don't see how the 1024QAM bps/Hz
> efficiency would be significantly worse than a competing single polarity
> product (SAF Integra, etc) running in the same channel size. Unless you are
> counting more expensive competing products that advertise header
> compression and very different Mbps rates for 64-byte vs much larger packet
> sizes.
>
> It's very cost effective so I will forgive it many things, my main problem
> is that it can't actually *use* near the full width of an 80 MHz channel.
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:26 PM, George Skorup 
> wrote:
>
>> Yeah. Cost is one thing, but if all you can get is a single polarity on a
>> particular path, the AF11 is probably one of the last things I'd look at.
>> Congestion is a problem around here.
>>
>>
>> On 5/25/2017 8:21 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/25/17 18:12, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>>

 We're running the full 56mhz/MIMO... I haven't been able to get them to
 run at 1024qam yet (antennas still need to be fine tuned, it wasn't ideal
 weather conditions when we put them up, so I'm hoping we'll be able to get
 a bit more out them), so they're only at around 550Mbps capacity (and I've
 verified the link will do around 500Mbps with real traffic).

>>>
>>> Only 500 meg with two channels? Crap, I have an old Exalt that can do
>>> that with only one channel at 256QAM.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

My theory is that the AF11FX "40 MHz" channel used in the previous example
I posted is actually something like 33 or 34 MHz wide if you look at it on
a $15,000 bench test spectrum analyzer.

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Mathew Howard  wrote:

> It is significantly worse... Look at the spec sheets. Our old SAF Lumina
> can do 366mbps in a single polarity 256qam 56mhz channel... an AF11 doesn't
> even match that running at 1024qam - it will theoretically do somewhere
> around 340mbps at 1024qam and somewhere around 275mbps at 256qam.
>
> On May 25, 2017 9:06 PM, "Eric Kuhnke"  wrote:
>
>> If all you can get on a particular path is a theoretical single 40 MHz
>> wide FDD channel pair, one polarity, I don't see how the 1024QAM bps/Hz
>> efficiency would be significantly worse than a competing single polarity
>> product (SAF Integra, etc) running in the same channel size. Unless you are
>> counting more expensive competing products that advertise header
>> compression and very different Mbps rates for 64-byte vs much larger packet
>> sizes.
>>
>> It's very cost effective so I will forgive it many things, my main
>> problem is that it can't actually *use* near the full width of an 80 MHz
>> channel.
>>
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:26 PM, George Skorup 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah. Cost is one thing, but if all you can get is a single polarity on
>>> a particular path, the AF11 is probably one of the last things I'd look at.
>>> Congestion is a problem around here.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/25/2017 8:21 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>>
 On 5/25/17 18:12, Mathew Howard wrote:

>
> We're running the full 56mhz/MIMO... I haven't been able to get them
> to run at 1024qam yet (antennas still need to be fine tuned, it wasn't
> ideal weather conditions when we put them up, so I'm hoping we'll be able
> to get a bit more out them), so they're only at around 550Mbps capacity
> (and I've verified the link will do around 500Mbps with real traffic).
>
>

 Only 500 meg with two channels? Crap, I have an old Exalt that can do
 that with only one channel at 256QAM.

>>>
>>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

It is significantly worse... Look at the spec sheets. Our old SAF Lumina
can do 366mbps in a single polarity 256qam 56mhz channel... an AF11 doesn't
even match that running at 1024qam - it will theoretically do somewhere
around 340mbps at 1024qam and somewhere around 275mbps at 256qam.

On May 25, 2017 9:06 PM, "Eric Kuhnke"  wrote:

> If all you can get on a particular path is a theoretical single 40 MHz
> wide FDD channel pair, one polarity, I don't see how the 1024QAM bps/Hz
> efficiency would be significantly worse than a competing single polarity
> product (SAF Integra, etc) running in the same channel size. Unless you are
> counting more expensive competing products that advertise header
> compression and very different Mbps rates for 64-byte vs much larger packet
> sizes.
>
> It's very cost effective so I will forgive it many things, my main problem
> is that it can't actually *use* near the full width of an 80 MHz channel.
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:26 PM, George Skorup 
> wrote:
>
>> Yeah. Cost is one thing, but if all you can get is a single polarity on a
>> particular path, the AF11 is probably one of the last things I'd look at.
>> Congestion is a problem around here.
>>
>>
>> On 5/25/2017 8:21 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/25/17 18:12, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>>

 We're running the full 56mhz/MIMO... I haven't been able to get them to
 run at 1024qam yet (antennas still need to be fine tuned, it wasn't ideal
 weather conditions when we put them up, so I'm hoping we'll be able to get
 a bit more out them), so they're only at around 550Mbps capacity (and I've
 verified the link will do around 500Mbps with real traffic).

>>>
>>> Only 500 meg with two channels? Crap, I have an old Exalt that can do
>>> that with only one channel at 256QAM.
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

I'm going to eat my own words a little bit here. Just compared the AF11FX
datasheet side by side with the SAF Integra for a theoretical 40 MHz single
polarity FDD link. The AF11FX is something like 252Mbps, the SAF is a
claimed 315 Mbps in the same 40 MHz wide.

My theory is that ubnt has done something that is lower cost with the radio
circuitry that doesn't allow it to very closely approach the edges of a 40
MHz channel without excessively strong signal leaking over the edge of a
channel mask (as viewed by a spectrum analyzer), and possibly has
additional FEC which is opaque to the end user.

But that makes total sense when comparing $799/unit to $4000/unit+.

https://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/airfiber/airFiber_AF-11FX_DS.pdf

https://www.saftehnika.com/files/downloads/4e6954be-a416-e611-a0d1-0050569a8c0f/Integra%20series%20DS%20v1.39.pdf

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:

> I don't know that anyone has really examined the overhead required by OFDM
> (AF11) versus the overhead required by the various other licensed vendor
> proprietary modulation schemes. I think this would be the primary issue. I
> know we get over 500 Mbps through a Dragonwave on a single 50 MHz channel.
> Two channels should theoretically get over 1 Gbps. The AF11 comes out of
> the chute doing dual polarity, so that would be the comparison.
>
>
> bp
> 
>
>
> On 5/25/2017 7:06 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>
> If all you can get on a particular path is a theoretical single 40 MHz
> wide FDD channel pair, one polarity, I don't see how the 1024QAM bps/Hz
> efficiency would be significantly worse than a competing single polarity
> product (SAF Integra, etc) running in the same channel size. Unless you are
> counting more expensive competing products that advertise header
> compression and very different Mbps rates for 64-byte vs much larger packet
> sizes.
>
> It's very cost effective so I will forgive it many things, my main problem
> is that it can't actually *use* near the full width of an 80 MHz channel.
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:26 PM, George Skorup 
> wrote:
>
>> Yeah. Cost is one thing, but if all you can get is a single polarity on a
>> particular path, the AF11 is probably one of the last things I'd look at.
>> Congestion is a problem around here.
>>
>>
>> On 5/25/2017 8:21 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/25/17 18:12, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>>

 We're running the full 56mhz/MIMO... I haven't been able to get them to
 run at 1024qam yet (antennas still need to be fine tuned, it wasn't ideal
 weather conditions when we put them up, so I'm hoping we'll be able to get
 a bit more out them), so they're only at around 550Mbps capacity (and I've
 verified the link will do around 500Mbps with real traffic).

>>>
>>> Only 500 meg with two channels? Crap, I have an old Exalt that can do
>>> that with only one channel at 256QAM.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

2017-05-25 Thread Bill Prince

I don't know that anyone has really examined the overhead required by 
OFDM (AF11) versus the overhead required by the various other licensed 
vendor proprietary modulation schemes. I think this would be the primary 
issue. I know we get over 500 Mbps through a Dragonwave on a single 50 
MHz channel. Two channels should theoretically get over 1 Gbps. The AF11 
comes out of the chute doing dual polarity, so that would be the comparison.



bp


On 5/25/2017 7:06 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
If all you can get on a particular path is a theoretical single 40 MHz 
wide FDD channel pair, one polarity, I don't see how the 1024QAM 
bps/Hz efficiency would be significantly worse than a competing single 
polarity product (SAF Integra, etc) running in the same channel size. 
Unless you are counting more expensive competing products that 
advertise header compression and very different Mbps rates for 64-byte 
vs much larger packet sizes.


It's very cost effective so I will forgive it many things, my main 
problem is that it can't actually /use/ near the full width of an 80 
MHz channel.


On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:26 PM, George Skorup 
> wrote:


Yeah. Cost is one thing, but if all you can get is a single
polarity on a particular path, the AF11 is probably one of the
last things I'd look at. Congestion is a problem around here.


On 5/25/2017 8:21 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:

On 5/25/17 18:12, Mathew Howard wrote:


We're running the full 56mhz/MIMO... I haven't been able
to get them to run at 1024qam yet (antennas still need to
be fine tuned, it wasn't ideal weather conditions when we
put them up, so I'm hoping we'll be able to get a bit more
out them), so they're only at around 550Mbps capacity (and
I've verified the link will do around 500Mbps with real
traffic).



Only 500 meg with two channels? Crap, I have an old Exalt that
can do that with only one channel at 256QAM.

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

If all you can get on a particular path is a theoretical single 40 MHz wide
FDD channel pair, one polarity, I don't see how the 1024QAM bps/Hz
efficiency would be significantly worse than a competing single polarity
product (SAF Integra, etc) running in the same channel size. Unless you are
counting more expensive competing products that advertise header
compression and very different Mbps rates for 64-byte vs much larger packet
sizes.

It's very cost effective so I will forgive it many things, my main problem
is that it can't actually *use* near the full width of an 80 MHz channel.

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:26 PM, George Skorup 
wrote:

> Yeah. Cost is one thing, but if all you can get is a single polarity on a
> particular path, the AF11 is probably one of the last things I'd look at.
> Congestion is a problem around here.
>
>
> On 5/25/2017 8:21 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
>> On 5/25/17 18:12, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> We're running the full 56mhz/MIMO... I haven't been able to get them to
>>> run at 1024qam yet (antennas still need to be fine tuned, it wasn't ideal
>>> weather conditions when we put them up, so I'm hoping we'll be able to get
>>> a bit more out them), so they're only at around 550Mbps capacity (and I've
>>> verified the link will do around 500Mbps with real traffic).
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Only 500 meg with two channels? Crap, I have an old Exalt that can do
>> that with only one channel at 256QAM.
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

2017-05-25 Thread George Skorup

Yeah. Cost is one thing, but if all you can get is a single polarity on 
a particular path, the AF11 is probably one of the last things I'd look 
at. Congestion is a problem around here.


On 5/25/2017 8:21 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:

On 5/25/17 18:12, Mathew Howard wrote:


We're running the full 56mhz/MIMO... I haven't been able to get them 
to run at 1024qam yet (antennas still need to be fine tuned, it 
wasn't ideal weather conditions when we put them up, so I'm hoping 
we'll be able to get a bit more out them), so they're only at around 
550Mbps capacity (and I've verified the link will do around 500Mbps 
with real traffic).





Only 500 meg with two channels? Crap, I have an old Exalt that can do 
that with only one channel at 256QAM.

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

But that would have to be using the full 80mhz channel.
But yeah, these aren't the most efficient radios out there... they should
easily get over 600Mbps with 1024qam though.

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:

> On 5/25/17 18:12, Mathew Howard wrote:
>
>>
>> We're running the full 56mhz/MIMO... I haven't been able to get them to
>> run at 1024qam yet (antennas still need to be fine tuned, it wasn't ideal
>> weather conditions when we put them up, so I'm hoping we'll be able to get
>> a bit more out them), so they're only at around 550Mbps capacity (and I've
>> verified the link will do around 500Mbps with real traffic).
>>
>>
>
> Only 500 meg with two channels? Crap, I have an old Exalt that can do that
> with only one channel at 256QAM.
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

2017-05-25 Thread Seth Mattinen


On 5/25/17 18:12, Mathew Howard wrote:


We're running the full 56mhz/MIMO... I haven't been able to get them to 
run at 1024qam yet (antennas still need to be fine tuned, it wasn't 
ideal weather conditions when we put them up, so I'm hoping we'll be 
able to get a bit more out them), so they're only at around 550Mbps 
capacity (and I've verified the link will do around 500Mbps with real 
traffic).





Only 500 meg with two channels? Crap, I have an old Exalt that can do 
that with only one channel at 256QAM.

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

Looking again at the datasheet for 56 MHz channels, dual polarity MIMO, the
claim is just a little bit more than 680 Mbps full duplex in its maximum
capacity configuration. Which should be a real world 640-650 Mbps.



On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Mathew Howard  wrote:

> Similar to any other airFiber... they'll pretty consistently do about 90%
> of the stated capacity with real traffic.
>
> We're running the full 56mhz/MIMO... I haven't been able to get them to
> run at 1024qam yet (antennas still need to be fine tuned, it wasn't ideal
> weather conditions when we put them up, so I'm hoping we'll be able to get
> a bit more out them), so they're only at around 550Mbps capacity (and I've
> verified the link will do around 500Mbps with real traffic).
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Nate Burke  wrote:
>
>> Have you run BW tests on it?  what kind of throughput are you 'really'
>> seeing?
>>
>> What Channel size Mimo/siso etc.
>>
>> On 5/25/2017 7:42 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>
>> We have one up... other than some very ugly issues right after we put it
>> up (which was apparently a bug in the firmware they shipped with...
>> upgrading to the latest beta firmware fixed it), it has been working
>> perfectly, and I haven't touched it since.
>>
>> The AF11 is certainly worth a look in my opinion, but it all depends on
>> what you need it to do.
>>
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Jon Langeler 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ignoring a few software bugs and delayed fixes, it's good for '2nd
>>> string' links. If this is for high priority link, I'd try SIAE or Cambium.
>>>
>>> Jon Langeler
>>> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 25, 2017, at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband < 
>>> li...@sbb.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> We are looking to add some more Licensed Links to our network.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Does anyone actually have the AF11 in service.  Is it worth a look?  How
>>> is it performing for you?  Any issues?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just not sure if it is worth considering or should I be looking at
>>> existing companied like;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Exalt ?
>>>
>>> Dragonwave ?
>>>
>>> SAIE ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Or newer ones like
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alcoma
>>>
>>> Cablefree FOR3
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyone tried the last two?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just looking for best bang for the buck in non core ring usage.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

I am about to put up an AF11FX dual polarity 80 MHz licensed path in the
near future, and will be doing exhaustive tests on it (RFC2544 + various
layer 3 tests/iperf, etc). Will be sure to post the results. As the
relatively short 13 km distance it's going it will be a solid 1024QAM link.





On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Nate Burke  wrote:

> Yes, but I've actually yet to have someone verify that.  Another Radio
> vendor has told me that testing the AF11x on the bench they can only get to
> half the advertised throughput.  Others on this list claim they have heard
> they are only good for 400-500mb, but nobody that I've seen yet has
> conclusive proof.  The people I've talked to to Offlist that have installed
> them have never actually run any throughput testing.
>
> On 5/25/2017 7:59 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>
> I think the throughput should exactly match the ubnt datasheet claim and
> what the frequency coordinator for your link says it will do. It would be
> directly related to channel size and one or two polarities. In a H 80 MHz
> FDD licensed configuration it actually uses a linear 56 MHz channel in each
> polarity, each way, which I believe results in a 630 Mbps full duplex
> link.
>
> That's assuming a properly installed link that has the right RSL on each
> end to be in 1024QAM mode 99.9%+ of the time of course.
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Nate Burke  wrote:
>
>> Have you run BW tests on it?  what kind of throughput are you 'really'
>> seeing?
>>
>> What Channel size Mimo/siso etc.
>>
>> On 5/25/2017 7:42 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>
>> We have one up... other than some very ugly issues right after we put it
>> up (which was apparently a bug in the firmware they shipped with...
>> upgrading to the latest beta firmware fixed it), it has been working
>> perfectly, and I haven't touched it since.
>>
>> The AF11 is certainly worth a look in my opinion, but it all depends on
>> what you need it to do.
>>
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Jon Langeler <
>> jon-ispli...@michwave.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Ignoring a few software bugs and delayed fixes, it's good for '2nd
>>> string' links. If this is for high priority link, I'd try SIAE or Cambium.
>>>
>>> Jon Langeler
>>> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 25, 2017, at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband < 
>>> li...@sbb.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> We are looking to add some more Licensed Links to our network.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Does anyone actually have the AF11 in service.  Is it worth a look?  How
>>> is it performing for you?  Any issues?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just not sure if it is worth considering or should I be looking at
>>> existing companied like;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Exalt ?
>>>
>>> Dragonwave ?
>>>
>>> SAIE ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Or newer ones like
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alcoma
>>>
>>> Cablefree FOR3
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyone tried the last two?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just looking for best bang for the buck in non core ring usage.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

Similar to any other airFiber... they'll pretty consistently do about 90%
of the stated capacity with real traffic.

We're running the full 56mhz/MIMO... I haven't been able to get them to run
at 1024qam yet (antennas still need to be fine tuned, it wasn't ideal
weather conditions when we put them up, so I'm hoping we'll be able to get
a bit more out them), so they're only at around 550Mbps capacity (and I've
verified the link will do around 500Mbps with real traffic).

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Nate Burke  wrote:

> Have you run BW tests on it?  what kind of throughput are you 'really'
> seeing?
>
> What Channel size Mimo/siso etc.
>
> On 5/25/2017 7:42 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>
> We have one up... other than some very ugly issues right after we put it
> up (which was apparently a bug in the firmware they shipped with...
> upgrading to the latest beta firmware fixed it), it has been working
> perfectly, and I haven't touched it since.
>
> The AF11 is certainly worth a look in my opinion, but it all depends on
> what you need it to do.
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Jon Langeler 
> wrote:
>
>> Ignoring a few software bugs and delayed fixes, it's good for '2nd
>> string' links. If this is for high priority link, I'd try SIAE or Cambium.
>>
>> Jon Langeler
>> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>>
>>
>> On May 25, 2017, at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband < 
>> li...@sbb.net> wrote:
>>
>> We are looking to add some more Licensed Links to our network.
>>
>>
>>
>> Does anyone actually have the AF11 in service.  Is it worth a look?  How
>> is it performing for you?  Any issues?
>>
>>
>>
>> Just not sure if it is worth considering or should I be looking at
>> existing companied like;
>>
>>
>>
>> Exalt ?
>>
>> Dragonwave ?
>>
>> SAIE ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Or newer ones like
>>
>>
>>
>> Alcoma
>>
>> Cablefree FOR3
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyone tried the last two?
>>
>>
>>
>> Just looking for best bang for the buck in non core ring usage.
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

2017-05-25 Thread Nate Burke

Yes, but I've actually yet to have someone verify that.  Another Radio 
vendor has told me that testing the AF11x on the bench they can only get 
to half the advertised throughput.  Others on this list claim they have 
heard they are only good for 400-500mb, but nobody that I've seen yet 
has conclusive proof.  The people I've talked to to Offlist that have 
installed them have never actually run any throughput testing.


On 5/25/2017 7:59 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
I think the throughput should exactly match the ubnt datasheet claim 
and what the frequency coordinator for your link says it will do. It 
would be directly related to channel size and one or two polarities. 
In a H 80 MHz FDD licensed configuration it actually uses a linear 
56 MHz channel in each polarity, each way, which I believe results in 
a 630 Mbps full duplex link.


That's assuming a properly installed link that has the right RSL on 
each end to be in 1024QAM mode 99.9%+ of the time of course.


On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Nate Burke > wrote:


Have you run BW tests on it?  what kind of throughput are you
'really' seeing?

What Channel size Mimo/siso etc.

On 5/25/2017 7:42 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:

We have one up... other than some very ugly issues right after we
put it up (which was apparently a bug in the firmware they
shipped with... upgrading to the latest beta firmware fixed it),
it has been working perfectly, and I haven't touched it since.

The AF11 is certainly worth a look in my opinion, but it all
depends on what you need it to do.

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Jon Langeler
> wrote:

Ignoring a few software bugs and delayed fixes, it's good for
'2nd string' links. If this is for high priority link, I'd
try SIAE or Cambium.

Jon Langeler
Michwave Technologies, Inc.


On May 25, 2017, at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband > wrote:


We are looking to add some more Licensed Links to our network.

Does anyone actually have the AF11 in service.  Is it worth
a look?  How is it performing for you?  Any issues?

Just not sure if it is worth considering or should I be
looking at existing companied like;

Exalt ?

Dragonwave ?

SAIE ?

Or newer ones like

Alcoma

Cablefree FOR3

Anyone tried the last two?

Just looking for best bang for the buck in non core ring usage.

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

I think the throughput should exactly match the ubnt datasheet claim and
what the frequency coordinator for your link says it will do. It would be
directly related to channel size and one or two polarities. In a H 80 MHz
FDD licensed configuration it actually uses a linear 56 MHz channel in each
polarity, each way, which I believe results in a 630 Mbps full duplex link.

That's assuming a properly installed link that has the right RSL on each
end to be in 1024QAM mode 99.9%+ of the time of course.

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Nate Burke  wrote:

> Have you run BW tests on it?  what kind of throughput are you 'really'
> seeing?
>
> What Channel size Mimo/siso etc.
>
> On 5/25/2017 7:42 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>
> We have one up... other than some very ugly issues right after we put it
> up (which was apparently a bug in the firmware they shipped with...
> upgrading to the latest beta firmware fixed it), it has been working
> perfectly, and I haven't touched it since.
>
> The AF11 is certainly worth a look in my opinion, but it all depends on
> what you need it to do.
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Jon Langeler 
> wrote:
>
>> Ignoring a few software bugs and delayed fixes, it's good for '2nd
>> string' links. If this is for high priority link, I'd try SIAE or Cambium.
>>
>> Jon Langeler
>> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>>
>>
>> On May 25, 2017, at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband < 
>> li...@sbb.net> wrote:
>>
>> We are looking to add some more Licensed Links to our network.
>>
>>
>>
>> Does anyone actually have the AF11 in service.  Is it worth a look?  How
>> is it performing for you?  Any issues?
>>
>>
>>
>> Just not sure if it is worth considering or should I be looking at
>> existing companied like;
>>
>>
>>
>> Exalt ?
>>
>> Dragonwave ?
>>
>> SAIE ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Or newer ones like
>>
>>
>>
>> Alcoma
>>
>> Cablefree FOR3
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyone tried the last two?
>>
>>
>>
>> Just looking for best bang for the buck in non core ring usage.
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences

2017-05-25 Thread Nate Burke

Have you run BW tests on it?  what kind of throughput are you 'really' 
seeing?


What Channel size Mimo/siso etc.

On 5/25/2017 7:42 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
We have one up... other than some very ugly issues right after we put 
it up (which was apparently a bug in the firmware they shipped with... 
upgrading to the latest beta firmware fixed it), it has been working 
perfectly, and I haven't touched it since.


The AF11 is certainly worth a look in my opinion, but it all depends 
on what you need it to do.


On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Jon Langeler 
> wrote:


Ignoring a few software bugs and delayed fixes, it's good for '2nd
string' links. If this is for high priority link, I'd try SIAE or
Cambium.

Jon Langeler
Michwave Technologies, Inc.


On May 25, 2017, at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband > wrote:


We are looking to add some more Licensed Links to our network.

Does anyone actually have the AF11 in service.  Is it worth a
look?  How is it performing for you?  Any issues?

Just not sure if it is worth considering or should I be looking
at existing companied like;

Exalt ?

Dragonwave ?

SAIE ?

Or newer ones like

Alcoma

Cablefree FOR3

Anyone tried the last two?

Just looking for best bang for the buck in non core ring usage.

Re: [AFMUG] AF11 Experiences