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]> 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]> 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]> > > 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]> 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]> > >> > 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]> > >> >> 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] > > > >> >> > 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? > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >
