We have what I believe is a similar need. We have a number of customers that have large farmyards and want coverage in outbuildings. These are too far for ethernet runs, so we have been using Ubiquiti Nanostations as PTP links because they are cheap. I see that the ePMPs get close to the same price point as the larger Nanostations and we are wondering if they are a better option. Does anyone have experience with both and some perspective which is a better option for PTP links that are less than a mile and need 25 -50 Mbps?
Thanks, David Coudron [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> | Mobile: 612-991-7474 Advantenon, Inc. [cid:[email protected]] <http://www.linkedin.com/company/Advantenon> [cid:[email protected]] <http://www.twitter.com/Advantenon> [cid:[email protected]] <http://www.facebook.com/Advantenon> [cid:[email protected]] <http://blog.advantenon.com/> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> | 3500 Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN 55447 | www.advantenon.com<http://www.advantenon.com/> | Phone: 800-704-4720 | Local: 612-454-1545 [cid:[email protected]] From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick - Lists Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 2:26 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Force110 vs Force200 I'd use a couple of Force 200s in PTP mode. Jeff Broadwick ConVergence Technologies, Inc. 312-205-2519 Office 574-220-7826 Cell [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> On Jun 28, 2017, at 3:07 PM, Lewis Bergman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I am looking for an inexpensive very low bandwidth replacement for a PTP400. I need less than a meg so throughput isn't an issue. I see they are both 5,10,20, and 40 MHz channel widths which is good. I can set it on 5MHz and get more than what I need and hopefully stay out of everyone else's way. Unless I am looking at the wrong SKU it looks like the 110 is almost twice as much. Maybe I am not looking at complete kits or something? From those that have used them, what do you think?
