Sure. I meant to advocate changing the dumb rule as opposed to ignoring it.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <af@af.afmug.com> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:54:13 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz But Part 101 is probably the least dumb set of rules that WISPs have to deal with. It’s about the only time dealing with government regulations where I feel like I have a seat at the adult table. We should follow the rules, lest we be banished to the kids table. From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:39 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz That's dumb. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Hardy" < thardy...@gmail.com > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:19:32 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz And, this is exactly what I have been discussing in this thread. “In instances where a customer can get the FCC to license wider than 80 MHz channels (11 GHz & 18 GHz), we can unlock the modems to provide up to 112 MHz bandwidth.” Let’s be clear on this. The only way to “get the FCC to license” these would be to properly prior coordinate the radio and frequency pair at 112 MHz with the correct emission designator, and then file FCC applications with this information. These applications would require at least two formal rule waiver requests ( 47 CFR 101.109 & 47 CFR 101.147) and these are not usually granted routinely. Coordinating and licensing an 80 MHz channel pair and a 40 MHz pair 60 MHz away in order to “block-out” 120 MHz would not somehow make this 112 MHz bandwidth legal. For example, one recent coordination listed 10995.0 MHz CCDP at 80 MHz and 10935.0 MHz CCDP at 40 MHz to cover a total of 120 MHz. The licensing for this would require two separate radio sets one at 80 MHz CCDP and the other at 40 MHz CCDP. Unlocking the radio for 112 MHz bandwidth here would be strictly illegal and subject the operator to forfeiture (fines). The licensed frequencies would be meaningless as the operational frequency for the 112 MHz carrier would have to be 10975.0 MHz. As far as I know, there have been no PCNs or applications filed with rule waiver requests for 112 MHz bandwidth in either 11 or 18 GHz. Therefore, anyone operating in this fashion is doing so at their peril and vendors should not be pushing this in North America without cautioning their customers. On Jun 4, 2020, at 11:31 AM, < joseph.schr...@siaemic.com > < joseph.schr...@siaemic.com > wrote: Our ALFOPlus2 radio is true dual-carrier radio capable of up to 2x 112 MHz channels. In instances where a customer can get the FCC to license wider than 80 MHz channels (11 GHz & 18 GHz), we can unlock the modems to provide up to 112 MHz bandwidth. With 4096QAM, this yields just over 2 Gbps full duplex throughput (no compression). This radio has independent modems and RF, so you have the flexibility to put one of the carriers on say an 80 MHz channel using 4096QAM, and the other carrier on 40 MHz using 256QAM. You also have the flexibility to set RF power to different levels for the independent carriers. But most folks license CCDP for max throughput, and there is no loss between the ODU and the antenna in this mode. We've also supplied 4+0 configurations (two ALFOPlus2 radios with a combiner sandwiched between them), which doubles the capacity. Sure, there's a 3dB coupler loss on each end, but you're getting 2x the throughput.... We've been shipping this radio since 2016. We've recently added a 10Gbe interface to the radio (this is the AP2XG), so you can run a single 10G fiber to the radio instead of two 1G connections. Need more info? My contact info below... Thanks, <Mail Attachment.jpeg> Joe Schraml VP Sales Operations & Marketing SIAE Microelettronica, Inc. +1 (408) 832-4884 joseph.schr...@siaemic.com www.siaemic.com >>> Tim Hardy < thardy...@gmail.com > 6/4/2020 6:48 AM >>> Should be easy enough to check to ensure that you have two (2) dual core radios each transmitting a discrete frequency 60 MHz apart from one another. Anything else would lead one to believe that they actually are just using their ETSI configuration (112 MHz) within the 120 MHz block. Seems suspicious when two sets of radios are about the same cost as one. <blockquote> On Jun 4, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Jon Langeler < jon-ispli...@michwave.net > wrote: I’m not sure details other than I verified multiple times 120Mhz of actual usage and the speed matched. Our frequency coordinator worked with them on the rest... Jon Langeler Michwave Technologies, Inc. <blockquote> On Jun 4, 2020, at 7:59 AM, Tim Hardy < thardy...@gmail.com > wrote: <blockquote> Just confirming that this is actually two (2) dual core radios - one CCDP at 80 MHz bandwidth and the other CCDP at 40 MHz bandwidth with the two transmit frequencies separated by 60 MHz - correct? This will require couplers and associated losses on both ends (approximately 7 dB). Any attempt to stack an 80 and a 40 to get a 120 MHz block in order to “cover” the band for an ETSI 112 MHz bandwidth radio configuration would be strictly illegal in North America, and any single transmitter bandwidth greater than 80 MHz bandwidth (11 GHz) is likewise illegal. <blockquote> On Jun 4, 2020, at 12:28 AM, Jon Langeler < jon-ispli...@michwave.net > wrote: 11Ghz is 80MHz per channel, plus another 40Mhz= 120Mhz (two channels per polarity). But the channels have to be stacked and available. Ignore the promos and prices. Tell him what price you need to be at and he will try to make it happen. Jon Langeler Michwave Technologies, Inc. <blockquote> On Jun 3, 2020, at 10:36 PM, TJ Trout < t...@voltbb.com > wrote: </blockquote> <blockquote> Jon, I'm pretty dumb with this stuff, is this possibly two descrete 60mhz channels per TX side? TJ On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:40 PM Jon Langeler < jon-ispli...@michwave.net > wrote: <blockquote> 11Ghz...2 channels in FCC assignment -similar- to AF11FX. Jon Langeler Michwave Technologies, Inc. <blockquote> On Jun 3, 2020, at 8:08 PM, TJ Trout < t...@voltbb.com > wrote: </blockquote> <blockquote> What band can you do 120mhz in? On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:04 PM Jon Langeler < jon-ispli...@michwave.net > wrote: <blockquote> SIAE just licensed me 2Gbps links in 120Mhz x2. Price was basically all the same Jon Langeler Michwave Technologies, Inc. <blockquote> On Jun 3, 2020, at 6:16 PM, Jason McKemie < j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com > wrote: </blockquote> <blockquote> Yeah, the throughput is pretty comparable between the two. On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, TJ Trout < t...@voltbb.com > wrote: <blockquote> aviat can do the same with dual channels on a single radio, it's called a2c or active two channel, we use it on the wtm4100 On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:38 PM Josh Baird < joshba...@gmail.com > wrote: <blockquote> The WTM4200 is dual core which is why it can do 1.4Gbps. The Bridgewave has some other magic. On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:41 PM Jason McKemie < j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com > wrote: <blockquote> I may have gotten the Aviat model wrong, whatever their dual core version is - 4300? I think the power on the Aviat is better, probably in part due to the field replaceable diplexer in the Navigator. On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, Josh Baird < joshba...@gmail.com > wrote: <blockquote> I think the Navigator DT will have a higher overall throughput (~3Gbps if you have the channels available). The WTM4200 and the Navigator ST are a better comparison - each capable of ~1.4Gbps. On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:27 AM Jason McKemie < j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com > wrote: <blockquote> Does anyone have any experience with the two of these (Aviat WTM4200 vs Navigator Dual)? I'm having a hard time deciding. -Jason -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com </blockquote> </blockquote> -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com </blockquote> -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com </blockquote> </blockquote> -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com </blockquote> -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com </blockquote> -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com </blockquote> -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com </blockquote> -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com </blockquote> -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com </blockquote> -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com </blockquote> -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com </blockquote> -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com </blockquote> -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
