All the ubnt stuff that does DFS does 5.1 (with v5.5.10), so Rocket, NanoStation, Loco and NanoBridge.
I think the NanoBeams and AC stuff has all been out long enough that they got it certified under the old rules originally... so that would be why no UNII-1. On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday, March 15, 2015 3:29 PM > *To:* [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]> 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
