Thanks for the clarification. So right now if I want to operate in U-NII-2 or 3, it’s NS5M Loco or NanoBridge 25 as a client?
Does Ubiquiti have anything that can use U-NII-1? That would not require DFS but would require meeting the new OOBE requirements. I’m not clear why they wouldn’t get this on the NanoBeams or at least the NanoBeam AC, being new products wouldn’t they be going for the new OOBE rules anyway? In which case U-NII-1 should be straightforward. I’m a little unclear on whether DFS and OOBE requirements are equally difficult in the rest of the world. I thought the new FCC rules were just catching up with the rest of the world. But if this is not a problem worldwide, is Ubiquiti basically becoming like Mikrotik and saying it’s not worth the trouble meeting US requirements? With 15.247 certification being worthless to a manufacturer by June 2016, is this what manufacturers will do, walk away from the US market and focus on the rest of the world? From: Rory Conaway Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 11:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Nanobeam still no DFS? We carry NS5M Locos, NanoBridge 25, and PowerBeam 25. We will drop the Nanobridge 25 when DFS gets fixed but where we can use the Powerbeam, we still do. Mostly that is because we are still working off a large early order. I haven’t ordered any since. The Locos go away when DFS is on the NanoBeams and will be replaced with the 16’s. There is almost no reason to carry anything in between and it reduces the inventory in the truck. Rory From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeremy Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 8:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Nanobeam still no DFS? I wouldn't even use the 300s at 7 miles. The 400s work best for pretty much anything over two or three miles, M19 a mile, M16 a block or two (micro pops). At least that is how we use them. On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Jaime Solorza <[email protected]> wrote: 19 Jaime Solorza Wireless Systems Architect 915-861-1390 On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: Which ones? They range from 16 to 25 dBi. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jaime Solorza" <[email protected]> To: "Animal Farm" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 1:38:31 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Nanobeam still no DFS? we tried a seven mile link with them...not impressed in field test, we ended up putting two rockets for the link. we are going to try them in a 3 mile link next, Jaime Solorza Wireless Systems Architect 915-861-1390 On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Bill Prince <[email protected]> wrote: ouch. Does that mean that if you need DFS, and the application wants a nano-bxxxx, the bxxx=bridge? That sure sucks, because I was under the impression that I'd never have to install another nanobridge. Which I do not like. bp<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> On 3/14/2015 11:32 AM, John Woodfield wrote: No DFS for nanobeams. Doubt there ever will be. John Woodfield, President Delmarva WiFi Inc. 410-870-WiFi -----Original Message----- From: "Ken Hohhof" mailto:[email protected] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 1:56pm To: [email protected] Subject: [AFMUG] Nanobeam still no DFS? Not sure why UBNT makes it so difficult to determine which models are legal in which bands. Am I interpreting correctly that Nanobeams are still limited to 5.7 GHz? I have to do a 2000 ft link to an omni and an NBE-M5-16 or 19 seems perfect. I could use a NanoStation Loco, but that doesn't seem right for 2000 feet, even if the Loco is already hitting max EIRP. I guess my only other choice would be a NanoBridge, not sure why I can't find the 22 dBi version, and the 25 dBi seems like overkill, actually they both seem like overkill.
