Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

: Monday, April 17, 2017 8:02 AM To: Ubiquiti Users Group Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber) That's as measured by their fan boys, who don't visit here. UBNT's top claim is 1.2+ gbps. Cut that in half for single direction peak you get 600. However one of their fanboys

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

- Original Message - From: "Nate Burke" <n...@blastcomm.com> To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" <ubnt_users@wispa.org> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 7:46:46 AM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber) I think I've seen you make this claim a few times, bu

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

swisp><https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> *From: *"J Portman" <ba...@baron.com> *To: *"Ubiquiti Users Group" <ubnt_users@wispa.org> *Sent: *Sunday, April 16, 2017 7:00:49 PM *Subject: *R

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

AF11x and B11 both use ofdm so they won't be as efficient. Jon Langeler Michwave Technologies, Inc. > On Apr 16, 2017, at 8:35 PM, J Portman wrote: > > The numbers don't feel "right". > > My SIAEs do 436mbps per channel each way on 56HMZ and 1024QAM (tested). > > So either

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

iquiti Users Group" <ubnt_users@wispa.org> > Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 9:50:04 PM > Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber) > Right... if you're able to get them to do 1024qam, they'll come close to a SAF > at 256QAM, but the AF11 is far from the most e

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

, April 16, 2017 8:08 PM To: Ubiquiti Users Group Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber) I misread the data sheet. The AF11 is not even as efficient as a SAF 256QAM in SISO mode. Ergo, to the bottom of the pile it goes. Better post that flipflop on twitter and alert CNN

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

iquiti Users Group" <ubnt_users@wispa.org> > Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 8:00:49 PM > Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber) > Actually, looks like the AF11x will perform as good (or maybe better) than the > B11 for less cost. > 1024QAM with MIMO. T

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

The numbers don't feel "right". My SIAEs do 436mbps per channel each way on 56HMZ and 1024QAM (tested). So either the UBNT SISO number is piss poor for 1024QAM (687.9/2 = 343.95mbps) or they are stating numbers for an 80MHZ channel (661mbps for SIAE 80MHZ at 1024 QAM). It appears UBNT does not

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

" <ba...@baron.com> To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" <ubnt_users@wispa.org> Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 7:00:49 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber) Actually, looks like the AF11x will perform as good (or maybe better) than the B11 for less cost. 1024Q

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

On 4/16/17 5:00 PM, J Portman wrote: > 1024QAM with MIMO. They claim 1.3 gig each direction on 56MHZ channel. That's the marketing aggregate number, divide by two for capacity in each direction. ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

uot;Seth Mattinen" <se...@rollernet.us> > > To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" <ubnt_users@wispa.org> > > Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 11:50:02 AM > > Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber) > > > On 4/15/17 12:46 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - > From: "Seth Mattinen" <se...@rollernet.us> > To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" <ubnt_users@wispa.org> > Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 11:50:02 AM > Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

on 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - > From: "Seth Mattinen" <se...@rollernet.us> > To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" <ubnt_users@wispa.org> > Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 12:05:30 PM > Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

com> > To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" <ubnt_users@wispa.org> > Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 12:28:53 PM > Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber) > Happy Easter Faisal. > Gabriel E. Rincon > Mobius Internet, IT & Communications > 225'4

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

On 4/15/17 2:29 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > not trying to be anal even in your statement there is a 'as long as' > > There is no such 'as long as' requirement with the B11 sync. So the back to back requirement that say setting up a PMP450 synce'd cluster has so that a subscriber can't

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

On 4/15/17 12:46 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > Can we do that today with FDD ? or the other party is going to get their > panties in tbe bunch because their radio can hear your radio ? Yes. Their radio CAN NOT hear your radio, even if they were pointed facing into each other. It's impossible.

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

;mat...@litewire.net> > To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" <ubnt_users@wispa.org> > Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 8:58:33 PM > Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber) > Not to mention the fact that you have to use fixed up/down ratios on the B11 > to > make syn

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

otherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> From: "Faisal Imtiaz" <fai...@snappytelecom.net> To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" <ubnt_users@wispa.org> Sent: Satur

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Faisal Imtiaz" <fai...@snappytelecom.net> To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" <ubnt_users@wispa.org> Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 4:29:57 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] 40

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

*To: *"Ubiquiti Users Group" <ubnt_users@wispa.org> > *Sent: *Saturday, April 15, 2017 3:50:36 PM > *Subject: *Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber) > > As far as I know, any FDD radio can share frequencies with any other radio > on the tower, regardless

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

ent azimuth\elevation separation. > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > Midwest Internet Exchange > The Brothers WISP > From: "Faisal Imtiaz" <fai...@snappytelecom.net> > To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" <ubnt_users@wispa.org> >

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Faisal Imtiaz" <fai...@snappytelecom.net> To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" <ubnt_users@wispa.org> Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 2:46:23 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

.net - Original Message - > From: "Seth Mattinen" <se...@rollernet.us> > To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" <ubnt_users@wispa.org> > Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 12:21:12 PM > Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber) > On 4/15/17

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

nco Wireless" <bradhagst...@gmail.com> > To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" <ubnt_users@wispa.org> > Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 12:39:15 PM > Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber) > If one was to license links with "less efficient" eq

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mimbres Communications Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 9:37 AM To: Ubiquiti Users Group Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber) By old school microwave standards, most modern links are running at 100%, thanks to the continuously transmitted

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

On 4/15/17 7:17 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > In case of Mimosa, you are actually getting something that has not existed > before in the Licensed Radio world... > Their radios don't care if they can hear each other.. and they will still > operate, co-exist > exactly how gps sync, channel reuse

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

Users Group Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber) "Conserve Spectrum" "Waste of Resources" "Spectrum Efficiency". Where are you folks living ? Dream Land ? .. When are going to wake up and realize that the battle is purely a

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

mail. This is what happens when bureaucratic >> morons give away $90M with no oversight and screw up real companies. >> Rory >> -Original Message- >> From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org ] On >> Behalf Of Faisal Imtia

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

ot;Seth Mattinen" <se...@rollernet.us> > To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" <ubnt_users@wispa.org> > Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 11:30:24 PM > Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber) > On 4/14/17 5:09 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: >> I wo

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

> companies. > > Rory > > -Original Message- > From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] > On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 8:36 PM > To: Ubiquiti Users Group > Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz l

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber) "Conserve Spectrum" "Waste of Resources" "Spectrum Efficiency". Where are you folks living ? Dream Land ? .. When are going to wake up and realize that the battle is purely about spectrum grab.

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

On 4/14/17 5:09 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > I would love to be more 'educated' in this matter... > > How exactly is this achieved in real world ? > I have been told that if another operator is using that channel & polarity, I > cannot use it in the other direction... > > So, technically it is

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

- > From: "Seth Mattinen" <se...@rollernet.us> > To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" <ubnt_users@wispa.org> > Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 7:42:42 PM > Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber) > On 4/14/17 3:18 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: &

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

On 4/14/17 3:18 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > and BTW, in regards to Mimosa B11 they get a pass for being a channel > hog... because they also allow you to reuse the channel in a different > direction due to GPS Sync capabilities .. yes it does not help if you are > not using non Mimosa

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - > From: "Nick Bright" <nick.bri...@valnet.net> > To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" <ubnt_users@wispa.org> > Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 10:52:53 AM > Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Gh

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

On 4/14/2017 10:00 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Eh, not in my area anyway. In my area it really is all of the independent users. Here's some screen shots of the amount of 11 near me. It isn't a bunch of 160 channels, it's just a lot of channels. - Mike Hammett My sympathies for that map,

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

Everybody having that attitude is what causes the problem in the first place, Faisal. On 4/13/2017 10:35 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > "Conserve Spectrum" > "Waste of Resources" > "Spectrum Efficiency". > > Where are you folks living ? Dream Land ? .. > > When are going to wake up

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

il 13, 2017 10:35:39 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber) "Conserve Spectrum" "Waste of Resources" "Spectrum Efficiency". Where are you folks living ? Dream Land ? .. When are going to wake up and realize that the

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

"Conserve Spectrum" "Waste of Resources" "Spectrum Efficiency". Where are you folks living ? Dream Land ? .. When are going to wake up and realize that the battle is purely about spectrum grab. My advice to you all newbies get the biggest chunk of 11ghz spectrum

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

On 4/13/17 12:48, J Portman wrote: > ETSI allows 112MHZ channels. FCC limits to 80. BUT, if your equipment > supports it, you can license two adjacent bands of 80 for 160MHZ channels. Danger... do not think of it as a 160MHz channel. The FCC requires individual carriers per channel, so you CAN

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

uot;J Portman" <ba...@baron.com> To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" <ubnt_users@wispa.org> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:48:58 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber) ETSI allows 112MHZ channels. FCC limits to 80. BUT, if your equipment supports

Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

ETSI allows 112MHZ channels. FCC limits to 80. BUT, if your equipment supports it, you can license two adjacent bands of 80 for 160MHZ channels. However, you can achieve the 160MHZ 'virtual' channel width by using dual core radio and xpic at 80MHZ which conserves spectrum. 5GHZ already has

[Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)

Sweet. Having a heck of a time with their website trying to get technical data but I've emailed them for more info. BTW, the RFIC that Ubiquiti is building for airFiber LTU is supposed to be capable of 4096 QAM on a 100 MHz channel. I'm thinking next-generation AF-11 that can truly pack the