Whatever you do, don't go the ITElite route with the dual band antennas and
the horrible F/B as Mathew Howard mentioned...

Regards,
Chuck

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Mathew Howard <[email protected]> wrote:

> 2.4ghz or 5ghz?
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Jerry Head <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> My Cambium ePMP sectors say "Mars Antenna" on them.
>>
>>
>> On 8/10/2015 10:28 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> The Cambium OEM is RF elements.
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>> On Aug 10, 2015 11:24 AM, "Mike Hammett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I think it's the same rough design with the RF Elements ones being
>>> slightly "better".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>> 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>
>>>
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>>>
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
>>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From: *"Chuck Hogg" <[email protected]>
>>> *To: *[email protected]
>>> *Sent: *Monday, August 10, 2015 10:19:46 AM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] RF Elements "Carrier Class Sector" with ePMP?
>>>
>>> I think those are the ePMP sectors?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Chuck
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Christopher Gray <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm considering the RF Elements "Carrier Class" 5GHz 17dBi and 2.4 GHz
>>>> 14dBi sectors.
>>>>
>>>> Any positive experience with these? I need some relatively small
>>>> sectors (in the <2' height range). I like the visual simplicity and low
>>>> cost of the older RF Elements "MiMo Sectors" but I wonder if their new
>>>> versions perform significantly better.
>>>>
>>>> -Chris
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to