[HamWAN PSDR] Beacon Tower-Capital Park Backbone Link

[Randy Neals]

I wondered if there is some consensus on practical options to implement the
Capital Park-Beacon Link?
I've tried to sum these up into bins/options based on the thread info and
what I'm aware of.

Is this about right, or are there other combinations?
Do any of these fit/make sense more than others?

Option A:
We put 24 GHz between Seattle EOC<-->Beacon, and then use the 5.8 GHz
intended for the EOC link as dedicated Beacon<-->Capital Park link.
(ie: a pair of UBNT Airfiber 24 radios)

Option B:
We continue with the Seattle EOC<-->Beacon link as currently designed, and
plan a new 3 GHz UBNT link between Capital Park and Beacon.
*This might screw up Bart's announced plan for a 3 Ghz Link Beacon to
Haystack.

Option C:
We continue with the Seattle EOC<-->Beacon link as currently designed, we
help Bart implement the 3GHz link Beacon to Haystack, and then re-use the
current 5 GHz Beacon dish (pointing at Haystack) as a new Capital Park<-->
Beacon link. (assuming we have enough 5 GHz spectrum to do that)

Option D:
We continue with the Seattle EOC<-->Beacon link as currently designed, and
use 10 GHz Mimosa link between Capital Park and Beacon.
($$, but maybe. I think it's too far for 24 GHz.)

Option E:
UBNT AF24 Seattle EOC<-->Beacon, AND Mimosa 10GHz Beacon Tower<-->Capital
Park
*Assumes we win the lottery or otherwise find $8,000. Probably not
practical, but we'd have a hack of a fast backbone and demonstrate use on
10 and 24 GHz ham bands.

Best,
Randy





On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 4:38 PM, Doug Kingston <dpk at randomnotes.org> wrote:

> So I like the concept in principle of connecting Capitol Park to Beacon in
> part to create a core of sector connectivity that is easy to maintain.  I
> agree that 750 and end is steep for us.  What other options do we have?
> For example... Can we reuse a PtoP 5GHz frequency with high isolation
> (shielding)?
>
> -Doug-
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Randy Neals <randy at neals.ca> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Brian,
>> I was looking at the FCC table - You're right, 3550 not 3450.
>>
>> Randy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Bryan Fields <Bryan at bryanfields.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/28/18 4:41 PM, Randy Neals wrote:
>>> > Citizens Broadband Radio Service just took away 3450-3500 from the
>>> Amateur band.
>>>
>>> Do you have a source on this?  I saw CBRS opened up 3550 to 3650 and
>>> 3650 to
>>> 3700 is the old part 90 WISP band.
>>>
>>> 3400 to 3500 is shared with mil radar, and I didn't see the USAF
>>> vacating this
>>> band.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> --
>>> Bryan Fields
>>>
>>> 727-409-1194 - Voice
>>> http://bryanfields.net
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PSDR mailing list
>>> PSDR at hamwan.org
>>> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PSDR mailing list
>> PSDR at hamwan.org
>> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PSDR mailing list
> PSDR at hamwan.org
> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.hamwan.net/pipermail/psdr/attachments/20180401/66705a07/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 106771 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.hamwan.net/pipermail/psdr/attachments/20180401/66705a07/attachment-0001.png>