Or nsm5 Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mar 15, 2015 4:24 PM, "Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 <[email protected]> > *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 > > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > ------------------------------ > > *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] <[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. > > > > > > > > > > >
