On what products? I have an existing Loco-Loco link from a customer’s
barn to his house, I want to replace the barn end with a Rocket + 13
dBi omni and then go half a mile to pick up a neighbor. If I can do
it in 5.1, I really don’t need DFS. It might even be a better solution.
I should have some Locos on the shelf, I should upgrade one of them to
5.5.10 and see what frequencies show up in the GUI.
Are there any of the Nanobeams that will operate in 5.1 with 5.5.10 FW?
*From:* Josh Luthman <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 15, 2015 3:29 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Nanobeam still no DFS?
They opened 5.1 with 5.5.10.
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]
<mailto:[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 <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Saturday, March 14, 2015 11:09 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy
*Sent:* Saturday, March 14, 2015 8:19 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
19
Jaime Solorza
Wireless Systems Architect
915-861-1390 <tel:915-861-1390>
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Mike Hammett <[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*To: *"Animal Farm" <[email protected] <mailto:[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 <tel:915-861-1390>
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Bill Prince <[email protected]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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.
