0% chance of interfering with the radio a foot away. In the event you need to change bands or the installer sets the same band.
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Mathew Howard <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah, I'm not sure why you would ever use 2.4ghz, if you don't have to. > Much better to just use a different part of the 5ghz band, in my opinion... > this sort of thing is usually a perfect fit for the DFS band. > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Josh Luthman <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> 20 MHz * 4 bits perfect would be 80 megs....best case scenario. >> >> If you need to carry 100 megs, do a Force 180 in DFS with 40 MHz >> channels. You can have a shop guy program a bunch of pairs/do a backup >> ready to go for the installers. >> >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340> >> Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343> >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 9:45 AM, David Coudron < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Right, our thought process was run the APs in the 5GHz band and use the >>> Nanostation 2s. That has seemed to work well, but just wondering if >>> anyone else had another suggestion. Sounds like we will stay with this. >>> We typically run the fattest channel we can on these relay radios. We >>> will eventually be offering 100 Mbps plans, not sure if the Nanostations >>> will be able to do this. We will be testing that out this week. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> >>> >>> *David Coudron* >>> >>> [email protected] | *Mobile: *612-991-7474 >>> <(612)%20991-7474> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Advantenon, Inc. * [image: >>> cid:[email protected]] >>> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/Advantenon> [image: >>> cid:[email protected]] <http://www.twitter.com/Advantenon> >>> [image: cid:[email protected]] >>> <http://www.facebook.com/Advantenon> [image: >>> cid:[email protected]] <http://blog.advantenon.com/> >>> >>> [email protected] | 3500 Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN >>> 55447 | www.advantenon.com | *Phone:* 800-704-4720 >>> <(800)%20704-4720> | *Local: *612-454-1545 <(612)%20454-1545> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 28, 2017 8:43 PM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Force110 vs Force200 >>> >>> >>> >>> For those barn to house PTP links we've been doing Nanostations. We use >>> a different band than the rx radio for the Internet service (ie Force200 >>> for Internet, nsm2 ptp link). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Josh Luthman >>> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340> >>> Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343> >>> 1100 Wayne St >>> Suite 1337 >>> Troy, OH 45373 >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> What size channel? >>> >>> Jeff Broadwick >>> >>> ConVergence Technologies, Inc. >>> >>> 312-205-2519 <(312)%20205-2519> Office >>> >>> 574-220-7826 <(574)%20220-7826> Cell >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> >>> On Jun 28, 2017, at 3:51 PM, David Coudron <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> 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] | *Mobile: *612-991-7474 >>> <(612)%20991-7474> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Advantenon, Inc. * <image001.jpg> >>> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/Advantenon> <image002.jpg> >>> <http://www.twitter.com/Advantenon> <image003.jpg> >>> <http://www.facebook.com/Advantenon> <image004.jpg> >>> <http://blog.advantenon.com/> >>> >>> [email protected] | 3500 Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN >>> 55447 | www.advantenon.com | *Phone:* 800-704-4720 >>> <(800)%20704-4720> | *Local: *612-454-1545 <(612)%20454-1545> >>> >>> >>> >>> <image005.jpg> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected] <[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 <(312)%20205-2519> Office >>> >>> 574-220-7826 <(574)%20220-7826> Cell >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> >>> On Jun 28, 2017, at 3:07 PM, Lewis Bergman <[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? >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
