Why exactly? Just asking. I'm wondering if we should be doing cheap PTP
with ePMP or AF5x. I have several Force110 links up (just SMs, not PTP)
operating all across the 5GHz bands. And one 10 mile link with Laird 2'
dishes using connectorized non-GPS radios. Other than some oddities like
intermittent increases in latency, they have all been working very well.
Most are still running 2.3.3 and I don't want to touch them because
they're working just fine. I'm leaning towards the Force110 PTP radios
and whatever antennas required for new links since it fits with all the
other Canopy and ePMP stuff (power injection, etc). But the AFs sure are
nice when you can do FDD (except the 5X!) and get very low latency like
licensed.
On 6/11/2015 6:32 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
Honestly I think they're better than AF5x at this point.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Jun 11, 2015 7:25 PM, "joseph marsh" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I got 2 links ready to deploy just sitting the office waiting to
go up on the tower
On Jun 11, 2015 5:34 PM, "Josh Luthman"
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Uhm...I guess? It hears noise better than Ubnt for sure.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 <tel:937-552-2340>
Direct: 937-552-2343 <tel:937-552-2343>
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Jun 11, 2015 6:23 PM, "Lewis Bergman"
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Does the force auto select a clean frequency?
On Jun 11, 2015 5:13 PM, "Mathew Howard"
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
containerized... that must be when you buy a cheap
router from walmart in put it on a tower in a
rubbermaid container.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Bill Prince
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
You mean connectorized?
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 6/11/2015 2:21 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
The containerized 5 GHz radios do the same
throughput
