It does look like it's a bit bigger to me, but probably still relatively small (as far as 11ghz radios go).
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Nate Burke <[email protected]> wrote: > Hard to get scale from that pic though. > > On 3/17/2016 12:26 PM, Jeremy wrote: > > Pic: > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> When you say form factor I am thinking is it more like AF24/HD or more >> like AFx. It's obviously connectorized and more like X, but likely thicker >> to handle the N bulkheads. As far as absolute dimensions, I don't think >> those have been documented or mentioned anywhere. >> On Mar 17, 2016 12:22 PM, "Nate Burke" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Is it the same form factor? I can't see 2 N-Connectors fitting on the >>> current form factor. Maybe same shape but dimensionally bigger? >>> >>> The Sales Email from UBNT says available Summer 2016. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 3/17/2016 12:19 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote: >>> >>> Yes no unsure, I believe by summer >>> On Mar 17, 2016 12:16 PM, "Josh Baird" < <[email protected]> >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I missed the UBNT session.. Is the form-factor of this radio the same >>>> as the other AirFiberX radios? Does it have a SFP interface? When will >>>> they be available? >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Josh Reynolds < <[email protected]> >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> There was discussion about waveguide - I pushed for it. I mentioned >>>>> the RF Elements adapters as well... >>>>> >>>>> In the end, it was decided that N connectors were more universal and >>>>> adaptable to various antennas. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:03 PM, George Skorup < <[email protected]> >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > Yup, I believe the B11 is ac based. The AF will do true FDD so you >>>>> can >>>>> > license standard coordinated channel pairs. And to top it off, they >>>>> went the >>>>> > Exalt path with field replaceable diplexers. And looks like you can >>>>> reverse >>>>> > the diplexer for high or low side. >>>>> > >>>>> > The N connector thing is kinda odd. As Chuck said, they would've >>>>> been better >>>>> > off with SMA @ 11GHz. Or even better, a f'n waveguide interface! >>>>> C'mon UBNT! >>>>> > >>>>> > On 3/17/2016 10:40 AM, Mathew Howard wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > I'm pretty sure Mimosa actually is 802.11 based, but yeah the >>>>> airFiber >>>>> > certainly is not. >>>>> > >>>>> > Also, do NOT compare airFiber quality with anything else UBNT >>>>> makes... it's >>>>> > on a completely different level than the airMax stuff. >>>>> > >>>>> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Josh Reynolds < >>>>> <[email protected]>[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Mimosa isn't 802.11 based as far as I know. UBNT is doing this on >>>>> >> AirFiber FPGA. Who's making 802.11 based 11G radios? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:32 AM, TJ Trout < <[email protected]> >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >> > is anyone else concerned about the quality and reliability that >>>>> comes >>>>> >> > with >>>>> >> > these low cost 802.11 based 11ghz radios?? >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Josh Reynolds < >>>>> <[email protected]>[email protected]> >>>>> >> > wrote: >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> When we bought our SAF stuff a few years back, we had to show our >>>>> >> >> distributor our coordination docs before they would ship gear. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Lewis Bergman >>>>> >> >> < <[email protected]>[email protected]> >>>>> >> >> wrote: >>>>> >> >> > I don't know about turning sellers into enforcement arms of >>>>> the FCC. >>>>> >> >> > All >>>>> >> >> > of >>>>> >> >> > that is really the FCC's job. Has there really been a problem? >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016, 10:17 AM Cassidy B. Larson < >>>>> <[email protected]>[email protected]> >>>>> >> >> > wrote: >>>>> >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >> That would be an awesome idea to limit random joes from >>>>> lighting up >>>>> >> >> >> un-registered/coordinated links. But shouldnt they do that >>>>> for 3.65 >>>>> >> >> >> as >>>>> >> >> >> well? >>>>> >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >> > On Mar 17, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Brian Sullivan >>>>> >> >> >> > <[email protected]> >>>>> >> >> >> > wrote: >>>>> >> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> >> > Can't they force some sort of compliance with license keys >>>>> you get >>>>> >> >> >> > after >>>>> >> >> >> > you prove your FCC application/coordination? >>>>> >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > >
