Daniel is correct, and the notion that one could coordinate and license an 80 MHz channel pair with a 40 MHz pair separated by 60 MHz to somehow block out a 120 MHz chunk to then operate a 112 MHz bandwidth ETSI configuration is patently false. Any vendor (integrator, radio OEM or coordinator) that is “pushing” this concept to licensees needs to cease. A potential FCC Enforcement action would be against the operator, not the vendor that may have promoted this illicit scheme, so buyer beware.
Just to reiterate the primary concern - The maximum allowable bandwidth for any single transmit frequency in the 11 or 18 GHz bands in the US is 80 MHz. Any use of larger bandwidths would require at least two significant rule waiver requests with each FCC application. A recent review of FCC licensed records found no (zero) frequencies with bandwidths greater than 80 MHz, therefore, anyone using 112 MHz bandwidth (as discussed by at least one vendor in this thread) would be doing so at their own peril. > On Jun 10, 2020, at 12:57 PM, Peter Kranz via AF <af@af.afmug.com> wrote: > > Yes you can always couple two discrete radios together with a coupler to > achieve a 4+0, or 4 together for a 8+0 😊 > My comparison is for all in one units from Bridgewave and Aviat. > > Peter Kranz > www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/> > Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 > Mobile: 510-207-0000 > pkr...@unwiredltd.com <mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com> > > From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf > Of Daniel White > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 8:10 AM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com > <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave multi-carrier battle > > I would be surprised if any dual-core radio didn't support 4+0... although it > may not aggregate the data streams. You will need to use a coupler, which > will give you 3.5dB of loss per side (or 7dB of total link budget). > > To make what Tim wrote easier to explain (at least in my opinion), is you > license emission designators not channel widths. For instance, a 56MHz wide > channel doesn't use 60MHz... it uses 56MHz. The channel plan is basically a > recommendation. > > So dual-carrier requires two distinct, carriers to be transmitted no one big > 112MHz wide carrier. So you can transmit an 80MHz carrier and a 40MHz carrier > (or even a 32MHz carrier) but you cannot transmit a 112MHz carrier without > the waivers Tim mentioned. > > > Daniel White > Co-Founder & Managing Director of Operations > phone: +1 (702) 470-2770 > direct: +1 (702) 470-2766 > Peter Kranz via AF wrote on 6/9/20 10:50: > >> Welp.. more caveats have arisen as I’ve delved deeper.. >> >> >> Some more details on the delta between the Aviat WTM4200 WTM4100 (A2C not >> supported in WTM4200) and Navigator Single&Dual sub-carrier support.. TL;DR >> Which one you want to use to handle sub-carriers kinda depends on what >> license you can get. >> >> Basically, both support extended channels but they do it differently: >> Aviat allows the sub-channels to be non-adjacent, and even different >> bandwidths, Navigator requires that they be adjacent. >> Each requires the sub-channel to be in the same polarity >> Aviat A2C has a ~5db power hit in A2C but this power hit goes away if the >> Aviat disables A2C due to conditions, Navigator has a lower 1db power hit in >> ACM >> Since A2C is not supported in the WTM4200, you really only get 2+0 >> operation.. so I’d prefer to just use a WTM4200 to get 2+0 operation without >> the power constraints. >> The Navigator Dual allows 4+0 operation in the Dual model, making it >> possible to get 4+0 operation in a single double header radio (double the >> capacity of the WTM4200) >> >> Navigator power table: (Subtract 1 from these numbers when in ACM mode >> according to vendor) >> <image001.png> >> >> Aviat power table without A2C: >> >> <image002.png> >> Aviat power table with A2C running: >> <image003.jpg> >> >> Peter Kranz >> www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/> >> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 >> Mobile: 510-207-0000 >> pkr...@unwiredltd.com <mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com> >> >> From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On >> Behalf Of Jason McKemie >> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2020 8:27 AM >> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <Af@af.afmug.com >> <mailto:Af@af.afmug.com>> >> Subject: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz >> >> 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 <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/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
