[Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400
Is this radio DFS channel ready now? I know it has been discussed, but with all the new PowerBeam radio's I am confused. Phil ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400
Ehh they'll say soon Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 2, 2014 6:32 PM, Larry A. Weidig lwei...@excel.net wrote: Funny, I just posed this question to Ubiquiti support today as well. Seems ridiculous Cambium gets the entire ePMP product line which is NEWER than the beams through this process while we sit here waiting for it. I also thought the 5150 - 5250 band did not require new approvals, but found out today that the NanoBeams will not link with that either. The support answer I got seemed really poor as well: Thanks for getting in touch with us! The operating frequency for Nanobeam is Worldwide: 5170 - 5875 MHz and USA: 5725 - 5850 MHz. Hope that's helpful. Please let me know if you've any other question. Did not even address the question of availability of DFS / 5150 bands as I asked. I am hoping this is REALLY soon! Matt / Ben can you share with us why Ubiquiti is not getting this done? -- Larry A. Weidig (lwei...@excel.net) Excel.Net, Inc. – http://www.excel.net/ (920) 452-0455 – Sheboygan/Plymouth area (888) 489-9995 – Other areas, toll-free -- *From: *Mathew Howard mat...@litewire.net *To: *Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_users@wispa.org *Sent: *Sunday, November 2, 2014 5:14:35 PM *Subject: *Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 No, it is not. -- *From:* ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] on behalf of Phil Curnutt [pcurn...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, November 02, 2014 5:09 PM *To:* Ubiquiti Users Group *Subject:* [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 Is this radio DFS channel ready now? I know it has been discussed, but with all the new PowerBeam radio's I am confused. Phil ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400
So are you saying the Nanobeams and PTP-AC's we have already bought will not certify because of hardware problems? Are they going to trade out what we bought expecting certification for hardware that will certify? What a pile of !! I guess we need to stop buying until the promised features are really there. On 11/2/2014 5:46 PM, Chris Fabien wrote: I think it's fairly obvious that there's been some sort of problem getting the Nanobeam's certified, due to the time they have been out and the lack of any real communication from ubnt other than pretty soon. I would expect they did not pass all of the requirements and had to go back and make hardware changes or some other issue came up in testing. As an operator with a lot of 5Ghz UBNT in DFS bands, it makes me very nervous to be buying nanobeams with the expectation/hope/wish that they will end up DFS certified at some point. Since UBNT has a history of not DFS certifying all 5ghz products it's doubly worrysome, in my opinion. On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Larry A. Weidig lwei...@excel.net mailto:lwei...@excel.net wrote: Funny, I just posed this question to Ubiquiti support today as well. Seems ridiculous Cambium gets the entire ePMP product line which is NEWER than the beams through this process while we sit here waiting for it. I also thought the 5150 - 5250 band did not require new approvals, but found out today that the NanoBeams will not link with that either. The support answer I got seemed really poor as well: Thanks for getting in touch with us! The operating frequency for Nanobeam is Worldwide: 5170 - 5875 MHz and USA: 5725 - 5850 MHz. Hope that's helpful. Please let me know if you've any other question. Did not even address the question of availability of DFS / 5150 bands as I asked. I am hoping this is REALLY soon! Matt / Ben can you share with us why Ubiquiti is not getting this done? Larry A. Weidig (lwei...@excel.net mailto:lwei...@excel.net) Excel.Net, Inc. -- http://www.excel.net/ (920) 452-0455 tel:%28920%29%20452-0455 -- Sheboygan/Plymouth area (888) 489-9995 tel:%2%29%20489-9995 -- Other areas, toll-free *From: *Mathew Howard mat...@litewire.net mailto:mat...@litewire.net *To: *Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_users@wispa.org mailto:ubnt_users@wispa.org *Sent: *Sunday, November 2, 2014 5:14:35 PM *Subject: *Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 No, it is not. *From:* ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] on behalf of Phil Curnutt [pcurn...@gmail.com mailto:pcurn...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, November 02, 2014 5:09 PM *To:* Ubiquiti Users Group *Subject:* [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 Is this radio DFS channel ready now? I know it has been discussed, but with all the new PowerBeam radio's I am confused. Phil ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org mailto:Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org mailto:Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400
That's just speculation! Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Paul pmcn...@cameron.net wrote: So are you saying the Nanobeams and PTP-AC's we have already bought will not certify because of hardware problems? Are they going to trade out what we bought expecting certification for hardware that will certify? What a pile of !! I guess we need to stop buying until the promised features are really there. On 11/2/2014 5:46 PM, Chris Fabien wrote: I think it's fairly obvious that there's been some sort of problem getting the Nanobeam's certified, due to the time they have been out and the lack of any real communication from ubnt other than pretty soon. I would expect they did not pass all of the requirements and had to go back and make hardware changes or some other issue came up in testing. As an operator with a lot of 5Ghz UBNT in DFS bands, it makes me very nervous to be buying nanobeams with the expectation/hope/wish that they will end up DFS certified at some point. Since UBNT has a history of not DFS certifying all 5ghz products it's doubly worrysome, in my opinion. On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Larry A. Weidig lwei...@excel.net wrote: Funny, I just posed this question to Ubiquiti support today as well. Seems ridiculous Cambium gets the entire ePMP product line which is NEWER than the beams through this process while we sit here waiting for it. I also thought the 5150 - 5250 band did not require new approvals, but found out today that the NanoBeams will not link with that either. The support answer I got seemed really poor as well: Thanks for getting in touch with us! The operating frequency for Nanobeam is Worldwide: 5170 - 5875 MHz and USA: 5725 - 5850 MHz. Hope that's helpful. Please let me know if you've any other question. Did not even address the question of availability of DFS / 5150 bands as I asked. I am hoping this is REALLY soon! Matt / Ben can you share with us why Ubiquiti is not getting this done? -- Larry A. Weidig (lwei...@excel.net) Excel.Net, Inc. – http://www.excel.net/ (920) 452-0455 %28920%29%20452-0455 – Sheboygan/Plymouth area (888) 489-9995 %2%29%20489-9995 – Other areas, toll-free -- *From: *Mathew Howard mat...@litewire.net *To: *Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_users@wispa.org *Sent: *Sunday, November 2, 2014 5:14:35 PM *Subject: *Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 No, it is not. -- *From:* ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] on behalf of Phil Curnutt [pcurn...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, November 02, 2014 5:09 PM *To:* Ubiquiti Users Group *Subject:* [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 Is this radio DFS channel ready now? I know it has been discussed, but with all the new PowerBeam radio's I am confused. Phil ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users ___ Ubnt_users mailing listUbnt_users@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400
On 11/2/14, 4:20 PM, Paul wrote: So are you saying the Nanobeams and PTP-AC's we have already bought will not certify because of hardware problems? No, he said they have a history of not certifying everything and thus a risk of such a situation. The PowerBridge M5 for example. ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400
It's not hysteria when they extract money from us for future promises and we had to pay a premium to get the equipment early without the needed features. On 11/2/2014 8:01 PM, Larry A. Weidig wrote: Not so sure it is hysteria as annoyance. The lack of any real answers from Ubiquiti about this, the nearly turtle pace that development of this product line goes at,... Internally I kid with myself (only have jokingly) that Cambium will release 5.6 of the ePMP line before Ubiquiti does. Each of their releases have significant updates as well. Larry A. Weidig ( lwei...@excel.net ) Excel.Net, Inc. – http://www.excel.net/ (920) 452-0455 – Sheboygan/Plymouth area (888) 489-9995 – Other areas, toll-free - Original Message - From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net To: Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_users@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 6:56:03 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 Tone down the hysteria guys. The FCC certifies manufacturers in batch. When Ubiquiti had to pull a radio from the FCC for an issue, all their radios went to the back of the line. That included the Powerbeam. That's the delay. But yes, the PowerBridge not getting certified totally sucked. I've got a bunch of them. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 5:45 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 So you are saying we take a risk every time we buy ubnt equipment of notting getting what was promised and expected unless it is already there? Maybe we shouldn't trust ubnt at their word? I have a lot invested in ubnt and they are not feeling very much like a partner anymore! On 11/2/2014 6:41 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: On 11/2/14, 4:20 PM, Paul wrote: So are you saying the Nanobeams and PTP-AC's we have already bought will not certify because of hardware problems? No, he said they have a history of not certifying everything and thus a risk of such a situation. The PowerBridge M5 for example. ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400
With the Rocket GPS, I agree. The should have publicly offered to buy every single unit back. I'm still sitting with 1/2 roll of the crappy melt in the sun cable that I have to RMA. With this situation though, part of it was Ubiquiti's fault, part of it was the FCC process and the inefficiency of government in general. Holding an entire industry back for months at a time is another example why other countries out-manufacture us and our politicians are inept at best, crooked at worst, for allowing this to happen. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:09 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 It's not hysteria when they extract money from us for future promises and we had to pay a premium to get the equipment early without the needed features. On 11/2/2014 8:01 PM, Larry A. Weidig wrote: Not so sure it is hysteria as annoyance. The lack of any real answers from Ubiquiti about this, the nearly turtle pace that development of this product line goes at,... Internally I kid with myself (only have jokingly) that Cambium will release 5.6 of the ePMP line before Ubiquiti does. Each of their releases have significant updates as well. Larry A. Weidig ( lwei...@excel.net ) Excel.Net, Inc. – http://www.excel.net/ (920) 452-0455 – Sheboygan/Plymouth area (888) 489-9995 – Other areas, toll-free - Original Message - From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net To: Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_users@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 6:56:03 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 Tone down the hysteria guys. The FCC certifies manufacturers in batch. When Ubiquiti had to pull a radio from the FCC for an issue, all their radios went to the back of the line. That included the Powerbeam. That's the delay. But yes, the PowerBridge not getting certified totally sucked. I've got a bunch of them. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 5:45 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 So you are saying we take a risk every time we buy ubnt equipment of notting getting what was promised and expected unless it is already there? Maybe we shouldn't trust ubnt at their word? I have a lot invested in ubnt and they are not feeling very much like a partner anymore! On 11/2/2014 6:41 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: On 11/2/14, 4:20 PM, Paul wrote: So are you saying the Nanobeams and PTP-AC's we have already bought will not certify because of hardware problems? No, he said they have a history of not certifying everything and thus a risk of such a situation. The PowerBridge M5 for example. ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400
That's the closest TDWR. An Apache or whatever could fly by right now. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Phil Curnutt pcurn...@gmail.com To: Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_users@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 6:54:27 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 Funny thing is the closest radar is 300 miles away in Denver. Phil On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Phil Curnutt pcurn...@gmail.com wrote: The reason I asked was because I have a bunch of PowerBridges to replace with something that is DFS certified. We are getting ready to install an AF-5 that is going to take up 70 MHz of space in the 5.8 band with three radios already there and no place to move them to. What's a guy to do? Rockets, I guess, in some kind of enclosure. Phil On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Paul pmcn...@cameron.net wrote: blockquote So you are saying we take a risk every time we buy ubnt equipment of notting getting what was promised and expected unless it is already there? Maybe we shouldn't trust ubnt at their word? I have a lot invested in ubnt and they are not feeling very much like a partner anymore! On 11/2/2014 6:41 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: On 11/2/14, 4:20 PM, Paul wrote: So are you saying the Nanobeams and PTP-AC's we have already bought will not certify because of hardware problems? No, he said they have a history of not certifying everything and thus a risk of such a situation. The PowerBridge M5 for example. ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users /blockquote ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400
I'm replacing 5.8 links with 3.65 links to make room in the 5.8 band. We don't get a lot a Apache's around here, mostly NMNG Blackhawk's with Inferred SLR looking for pot farms. Phil On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote: For what it's worth, I've moved all my APs with Rockets and Nanostations to DFS and 5150-5250 frequencies to free up space for the PowerBeam 400's in 5.8GHz. I know not everyone can do that but it's an option. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:32 PM To: Ubiquiti Users Group Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 Look, Ben and Matt are on this board. If you have a complaint, tell them directly and give them a chance to make it right. If they don't, then make that public. The manufacturer should be liable to defective products, no question, but nobody wants a reputation for cheating the customer, especially not in a small and public community like this. As for the DFS channels, I'm sure that will get resolved and there was enough information around that you should have known that feature, along with PTMP, wasn't going to happen soon. But this is a small problem compared to the cable and Rocket GPS. In those cases, the product either didn't deliver what it was supposed to or simply fell apart. Different situation. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:21 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 But we are stuck paying the bill. Especially on the cable crap and time to replace and equipment setting on the shelf unable to use. On 11/2/2014 8:20 PM, Rory Conaway wrote: With the Rocket GPS, I agree. The should have publicly offered to buy every single unit back. I'm still sitting with 1/2 roll of the crappy melt in the sun cable that I have to RMA. With this situation though, part of it was Ubiquiti's fault, part of it was the FCC process and the inefficiency of government in general. Holding an entire industry back for months at a time is another example why other countries out-manufacture us and our politicians are inept at best, crooked at worst, for allowing this to happen. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:09 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 It's not hysteria when they extract money from us for future promises and we had to pay a premium to get the equipment early without the needed features. On 11/2/2014 8:01 PM, Larry A. Weidig wrote: Not so sure it is hysteria as annoyance. The lack of any real answers from Ubiquiti about this, the nearly turtle pace that development of this product line goes at,... Internally I kid with myself (only have jokingly) that Cambium will release 5.6 of the ePMP line before Ubiquiti does. Each of their releases have significant updates as well. Larry A. Weidig ( lwei...@excel.net ) Excel.Net, Inc. – http://www.excel.net/ (920) 452-0455 – Sheboygan/Plymouth area (888) 489-9995 – Other areas, toll-free - Original Message - From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net To: Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_users@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 6:56:03 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 Tone down the hysteria guys. The FCC certifies manufacturers in batch. When Ubiquiti had to pull a radio from the FCC for an issue, all their radios went to the back of the line. That included the Powerbeam. That's the delay. But yes, the PowerBridge not getting certified totally sucked. I've got a bunch of them. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 5:45 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 So you are saying we take a risk every time we buy ubnt equipment of notting getting what was promised and expected unless it is already there? Maybe we shouldn't trust ubnt at their word? I have a lot invested in ubnt and they are not feeling very much like a partner anymore! On 11/2/2014 6:41 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: On 11/2/14, 4:20 PM, Paul wrote: So are you saying the Nanobeams and PTP-AC's we have already bought will not certify because of hardware problems? No, he said they have a history of not certifying everything and thus a risk of such a situation. The PowerBridge M5 for example. ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400
But I assumed, and was wrong that UNII-1 would be a simple permissive form filing which later turned into a full DFS certification required for ubnt for some reason. DFS, I understand but most other companies had the permissive change made in June when allowed. On 11/2/2014 8:44 PM, Chris Fabien wrote: Okay, if Ben and Matt are here, what's the Date for DFS on Nanobeam guys? Got a firm date you can commit to? My biggest bitch right now is I need high-gain DFS CPEs and nobody wants to stock nanobridges anymore, they're scared of getting stuck with half a container once the Nanobeams get DFS finally. So I'm faced with a long backorder on a product I need or play the old ubnt scramble to find someone with a few boxes to get me through another few weeks, which is a waste of time an ends up costing me more ordering small quantities from a random supplier and shipping it across the country. On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net mailto:r...@triadwireless.net wrote: Look, Ben and Matt are on this board. If you have a complaint, tell them directly and give them a chance to make it right. If they don't, then make that public. The manufacturer should be liable to defective products, no question, but nobody wants a reputation for cheating the customer, especially not in a small and public community like this. As for the DFS channels, I'm sure that will get resolved and there was enough information around that you should have known that feature, along with PTMP, wasn't going to happen soon. But this is a small problem compared to the cable and Rocket GPS. In those cases, the product either didn't deliver what it was supposed to or simply fell apart. Different situation. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:21 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org mailto:ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 But we are stuck paying the bill. Especially on the cable crap and time to replace and equipment setting on the shelf unable to use. On 11/2/2014 8:20 PM, Rory Conaway wrote: With the Rocket GPS, I agree. The should have publicly offered to buy every single unit back. I'm still sitting with 1/2 roll of the crappy melt in the sun cable that I have to RMA. With this situation though, part of it was Ubiquiti's fault, part of it was the FCC process and the inefficiency of government in general. Holding an entire industry back for months at a time is another example why other countries out-manufacture us and our politicians are inept at best, crooked at worst, for allowing this to happen. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:09 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org mailto:ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 It's not hysteria when they extract money from us for future promises and we had to pay a premium to get the equipment early without the needed features. On 11/2/2014 8:01 PM, Larry A. Weidig wrote: Not so sure it is hysteria as annoyance. The lack of any real answers from Ubiquiti about this, the nearly turtle pace that development of this product line goes at,... Internally I kid with myself (only have jokingly) that Cambium will release 5.6 of the ePMP line before Ubiquiti does. Each of their releases have significant updates as well. Larry A. Weidig ( lwei...@excel.net mailto:lwei...@excel.net ) Excel.Net, Inc. -- http://www.excel.net/ (920) 452-0455 tel:%28920%29%20452-0455 -- Sheboygan/Plymouth area (888) 489-9995 tel:%2%29%20489-9995 -- Other areas, toll-free - Original Message - From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net mailto:r...@triadwireless.net To: Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_users@wispa.org mailto:ubnt_users@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 6:56:03 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 Tone down the hysteria guys. The FCC certifies manufacturers in batch. When Ubiquiti had to pull a radio from the FCC for an issue, all their radios went to the back of the line. That included the Powerbeam. That's the delay. But yes, the PowerBridge not getting certified totally sucked. I've got a bunch of them. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org
Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400
I assume that due to the sensitive nature of the DFS certifications, they're not changing anything on those products until the DFS is complete. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Paul pmcn...@cameron.net To: ubnt users ubnt_users@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:51:41 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 But I assumed, and was wrong that UNII-1 would be a simple permissive form filing which later turned into a full DFS certification required for ubnt for some reason. DFS, I understand but most other companies had the permissive change made in June when allowed. On 11/2/2014 8:44 PM, Chris Fabien wrote: Okay, if Ben and Matt are here, what's the Date for DFS on Nanobeam guys? Got a firm date you can commit to? My biggest bitch right now is I need high-gain DFS CPEs and nobody wants to stock nanobridges anymore, they're scared of getting stuck with half a container once the Nanobeams get DFS finally. So I'm faced with a long backorder on a product I need or play the old ubnt scramble to find someone with a few boxes to get me through another few weeks, which is a waste of time an ends up costing me more ordering small quantities from a random supplier and shipping it across the country. On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote: blockquote Look, Ben and Matt are on this board. If you have a complaint, tell them directly and give them a chance to make it right. If they don't, then make that public. The manufacturer should be liable to defective products, no question, but nobody wants a reputation for cheating the customer, especially not in a small and public community like this. As for the DFS channels, I'm sure that will get resolved and there was enough information around that you should have known that feature, along with PTMP, wasn't going to happen soon. But this is a small problem compared to the cable and Rocket GPS. In those cases, the product either didn't deliver what it was supposed to or simply fell apart. Different situation. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org ] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:21 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 But we are stuck paying the bill. Especially on the cable crap and time to replace and equipment setting on the shelf unable to use. On 11/2/2014 8:20 PM, Rory Conaway wrote: With the Rocket GPS, I agree. The should have publicly offered to buy every single unit back. I'm still sitting with 1/2 roll of the crappy melt in the sun cable that I have to RMA. With this situation though, part of it was Ubiquiti's fault, part of it was the FCC process and the inefficiency of government in general. Holding an entire industry back for months at a time is another example why other countries out-manufacture us and our politicians are inept at best, crooked at worst, for allowing this to happen. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org ] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:09 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 It's not hysteria when they extract money from us for future promises and we had to pay a premium to get the equipment early without the needed features. On 11/2/2014 8:01 PM, Larry A. Weidig wrote: Not so sure it is hysteria as annoyance. The lack of any real answers from Ubiquiti about this, the nearly turtle pace that development of this product line goes at,... Internally I kid with myself (only have jokingly) that Cambium will release 5.6 of the ePMP line before Ubiquiti does. Each of their releases have significant updates as well. Larry A. Weidig ( lwei...@excel.net ) Excel.Net, Inc. – http://www.excel.net/ (920) 452-0455 – Sheboygan/Plymouth area (888) 489-9995 – Other areas, toll-free - Original Message - From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net To: Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_users@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 6:56:03 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 Tone down the hysteria guys. The FCC certifies manufacturers in batch. When Ubiquiti had to pull a radio from the FCC for an issue, all their radios went to the back of the line. That included the Powerbeam. That's the delay. But yes, the PowerBridge not getting certified totally sucked. I've got a bunch of them. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org ] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 5:45 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 So you are saying we take a risk every time we buy ubnt equipment of notting getting what was promised
Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400
I just explained what happened. Rory From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:55 PM To: Ubiquiti Users Group Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 I assume that due to the sensitive nature of the DFS certifications, they're not changing anything on those products until the DFS is complete. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Paul pmcn...@cameron.net To: ubnt users ubnt_users@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:51:41 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 But I assumed, and was wrong that UNII-1 would be a simple permissive form filing which later turned into a full DFS certification required for ubnt for some reason. DFS, I understand but most other companies had the permissive change made in June when allowed. On 11/2/2014 8:44 PM, Chris Fabien wrote: Okay, if Ben and Matt are here, what's the Date for DFS on Nanobeam guys? Got a firm date you can commit to? My biggest bitch right now is I need high-gain DFS CPEs and nobody wants to stock nanobridges anymore, they're scared of getting stuck with half a container once the Nanobeams get DFS finally. So I'm faced with a long backorder on a product I need or play the old ubnt scramble to find someone with a few boxes to get me through another few weeks, which is a waste of time an ends up costing me more ordering small quantities from a random supplier and shipping it across the country. On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote: Look, Ben and Matt are on this board. If you have a complaint, tell them directly and give them a chance to make it right. If they don't, then make that public. The manufacturer should be liable to defective products, no question, but nobody wants a reputation for cheating the customer, especially not in a small and public community like this. As for the DFS channels, I'm sure that will get resolved and there was enough information around that you should have known that feature, along with PTMP, wasn't going to happen soon. But this is a small problem compared to the cable and Rocket GPS. In those cases, the product either didn't deliver what it was supposed to or simply fell apart. Different situation. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:21 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 But we are stuck paying the bill. Especially on the cable crap and time to replace and equipment setting on the shelf unable to use. On 11/2/2014 8:20 PM, Rory Conaway wrote: With the Rocket GPS, I agree. The should have publicly offered to buy every single unit back. I'm still sitting with 1/2 roll of the crappy melt in the sun cable that I have to RMA. With this situation though, part of it was Ubiquiti's fault, part of it was the FCC process and the inefficiency of government in general. Holding an entire industry back for months at a time is another example why other countries out-manufacture us and our politicians are inept at best, crooked at worst, for allowing this to happen. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:09 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 It's not hysteria when they extract money from us for future promises and we had to pay a premium to get the equipment early without the needed features. On 11/2/2014 8:01 PM, Larry A. Weidig wrote: Not so sure it is hysteria as annoyance. The lack of any real answers from Ubiquiti about this, the nearly turtle pace that development of this product line goes at,... Internally I kid with myself (only have jokingly) that Cambium will release 5.6 of the ePMP line before Ubiquiti does. Each of their releases have significant updates as well. Larry A. Weidig ( lwei...@excel.net ) Excel.Net, Inc. – http://www.excel.net/ (920) 452-0455 tel:%28920%29%20452-0455 – Sheboygan/Plymouth area (888) 489-9995 tel:%2%29%20489-9995 – Other areas, toll-free - Original Message - From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net To: Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_users@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 6:56:03 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 Tone down the hysteria guys. The FCC
Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400
NO they should have been concentrating on the core equipment instead of making half ass attempts into video, home automation, core switches, wireless toliet lid openers and what ever else distracted them from getting the job done like the other manufacturers. On 11/2/2014 8:47 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: It is impossible to provide a firm date when the FCC is at the helm. Yes, other vendors appear to be better at it, but maybe they started much earlier than we believe they did. Then again, maybe they are better. With something so opaque as the FCC DFS certification process, we'll never know. SO. JUST. SHUT. UP. Find enough people that want DFS gear right now and approach a vendor willing to vouch for that many units. They don't mind making the sale, they mind holding onto old gear. If it's sold before they order it, kinda takes out that risk. or check out the stock locator. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com *To: *Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_users@wispa.org *Sent: *Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:44:23 PM *Subject: *Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 Okay, if Ben and Matt are here, what's the Date for DFS on Nanobeam guys? Got a firm date you can commit to? My biggest bitch right now is I need high-gain DFS CPEs and nobody wants to stock nanobridges anymore, they're scared of getting stuck with half a container once the Nanobeams get DFS finally. So I'm faced with a long backorder on a product I need or play the old ubnt scramble to find someone with a few boxes to get me through another few weeks, which is a waste of time an ends up costing me more ordering small quantities from a random supplier and shipping it across the country. On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net mailto:r...@triadwireless.net wrote: Look, Ben and Matt are on this board. If you have a complaint, tell them directly and give them a chance to make it right. If they don't, then make that public. The manufacturer should be liable to defective products, no question, but nobody wants a reputation for cheating the customer, especially not in a small and public community like this. As for the DFS channels, I'm sure that will get resolved and there was enough information around that you should have known that feature, along with PTMP, wasn't going to happen soon. But this is a small problem compared to the cable and Rocket GPS. In those cases, the product either didn't deliver what it was supposed to or simply fell apart. Different situation. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:21 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org mailto:ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 But we are stuck paying the bill. Especially on the cable crap and time to replace and equipment setting on the shelf unable to use. On 11/2/2014 8:20 PM, Rory Conaway wrote: With the Rocket GPS, I agree. The should have publicly offered to buy every single unit back. I'm still sitting with 1/2 roll of the crappy melt in the sun cable that I have to RMA. With this situation though, part of it was Ubiquiti's fault, part of it was the FCC process and the inefficiency of government in general. Holding an entire industry back for months at a time is another example why other countries out-manufacture us and our politicians are inept at best, crooked at worst, for allowing this to happen. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:09 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org mailto:ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 It's not hysteria when they extract money from us for future promises and we had to pay a premium to get the equipment early without the needed features. On 11/2/2014 8:01 PM, Larry A. Weidig wrote: Not so sure it is hysteria as annoyance. The lack of any real answers from Ubiquiti about this, the nearly turtle pace that development of this product line goes at,... Internally I kid with myself (only have jokingly) that Cambium will release 5.6 of the ePMP line before Ubiquiti does. Each of their releases have significant updates as well. Larry A. Weidig ( lwei...@excel.net mailto:lwei...@excel.net ) Excel.Net, Inc. -- http://www.excel.net/ (920) 452-0455 tel:%28920%29%20452-0455 -- Sheboygan
Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400
Hate to say it, but I agree with this. I know it's not popular and all the guys who sell cameras and phone and whatever else kick and scream.. but whatever.. I think UBNT should be WAY further down the road than they are now. So either these extra products distracted them.. Or they really are more like apply than I thought. That carrot is out there, but you'll get it when they are good an ready. because there is a lot more money is selling something over, and over and over... On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Paul pmcn...@cameron.net wrote: NO they should have been concentrating on the core equipment instead of making half ass attempts into video, home automation, core switches, wireless toliet lid openers and what ever else distracted them from getting the job done like the other manufacturers. On 11/2/2014 8:47 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: It is impossible to provide a firm date when the FCC is at the helm. Yes, other vendors appear to be better at it, but maybe they started much earlier than we believe they did. Then again, maybe they are better. With something so opaque as the FCC DFS certification process, we'll never know. SO. JUST. SHUT. UP. Find enough people that want DFS gear right now and approach a vendor willing to vouch for that many units. They don't mind making the sale, they mind holding onto old gear. If it's sold before they order it, kinda takes out that risk. or check out the stock locator. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- *From: *Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com ch...@lakenetmi.com *To: *Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_users@wispa.org ubnt_users@wispa.org *Sent: *Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:44:23 PM *Subject: *Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 Okay, if Ben and Matt are here, what's the Date for DFS on Nanobeam guys? Got a firm date you can commit to? My biggest bitch right now is I need high-gain DFS CPEs and nobody wants to stock nanobridges anymore, they're scared of getting stuck with half a container once the Nanobeams get DFS finally. So I'm faced with a long backorder on a product I need or play the old ubnt scramble to find someone with a few boxes to get me through another few weeks, which is a waste of time an ends up costing me more ordering small quantities from a random supplier and shipping it across the country. On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote: Look, Ben and Matt are on this board. If you have a complaint, tell them directly and give them a chance to make it right. If they don't, then make that public. The manufacturer should be liable to defective products, no question, but nobody wants a reputation for cheating the customer, especially not in a small and public community like this. As for the DFS channels, I'm sure that will get resolved and there was enough information around that you should have known that feature, along with PTMP, wasn't going to happen soon. But this is a small problem compared to the cable and Rocket GPS. In those cases, the product either didn't deliver what it was supposed to or simply fell apart. Different situation. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:21 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 But we are stuck paying the bill. Especially on the cable crap and time to replace and equipment setting on the shelf unable to use. On 11/2/2014 8:20 PM, Rory Conaway wrote: With the Rocket GPS, I agree. The should have publicly offered to buy every single unit back. I'm still sitting with 1/2 roll of the crappy melt in the sun cable that I have to RMA. With this situation though, part of it was Ubiquiti's fault, part of it was the FCC process and the inefficiency of government in general. Holding an entire industry back for months at a time is another example why other countries out-manufacture us and our politicians are inept at best, crooked at worst, for allowing this to happen. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:09 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 It's not hysteria when they extract money from us for future promises and we had to pay a premium to get the equipment early without the needed features. On 11/2/2014 8:01 PM, Larry A. Weidig wrote: Not so sure it is hysteria as annoyance. The lack of any real answers from Ubiquiti about this, the nearly turtle pace that development of this product line goes at,... Internally I kid with myself (only have jokingly) that Cambium will release 5.6 of the ePMP line before Ubiquiti does. Each of their releases have significant updates as well. Larry A. Weidig
Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400
/unrelated - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Paul pmcn...@cameron.net To: ubnt users ubnt_users@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:54:08 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 NO they should have been concentrating on the core equipment instead of making half ass attempts into video, home automation, core switches, wireless toliet lid openers and what ever else distracted them from getting the job done like the other manufacturers. On 11/2/2014 8:47 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: It is impossible to provide a firm date when the FCC is at the helm. Yes, other vendors appear to be better at it, but maybe they started much earlier than we believe they did. Then again, maybe they are better. With something so opaque as the FCC DFS certification process, we'll never know. SO. JUST. SHUT. UP. Find enough people that want DFS gear right now and approach a vendor willing to vouch for that many units. They don't mind making the sale, they mind holding onto old gear. If it's sold before they order it, kinda takes out that risk. or check out the stock locator. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com To: Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_users@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:44:23 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 Okay, if Ben and Matt are here, what's the Date for DFS on Nanobeam guys? Got a firm date you can commit to? My biggest bitch right now is I need high-gain DFS CPEs and nobody wants to stock nanobridges anymore, they're scared of getting stuck with half a container once the Nanobeams get DFS finally. So I'm faced with a long backorder on a product I need or play the old ubnt scramble to find someone with a few boxes to get me through another few weeks, which is a waste of time an ends up costing me more ordering small quantities from a random supplier and shipping it across the country. On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote: blockquote Look, Ben and Matt are on this board. If you have a complaint, tell them directly and give them a chance to make it right. If they don't, then make that public. The manufacturer should be liable to defective products, no question, but nobody wants a reputation for cheating the customer, especially not in a small and public community like this. As for the DFS channels, I'm sure that will get resolved and there was enough information around that you should have known that feature, along with PTMP, wasn't going to happen soon. But this is a small problem compared to the cable and Rocket GPS. In those cases, the product either didn't deliver what it was supposed to or simply fell apart. Different situation. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org ] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:21 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 But we are stuck paying the bill. Especially on the cable crap and time to replace and equipment setting on the shelf unable to use. On 11/2/2014 8:20 PM, Rory Conaway wrote: With the Rocket GPS, I agree. The should have publicly offered to buy every single unit back. I'm still sitting with 1/2 roll of the crappy melt in the sun cable that I have to RMA. With this situation though, part of it was Ubiquiti's fault, part of it was the FCC process and the inefficiency of government in general. Holding an entire industry back for months at a time is another example why other countries out-manufacture us and our politicians are inept at best, crooked at worst, for allowing this to happen. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org ] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:09 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 It's not hysteria when they extract money from us for future promises and we had to pay a premium to get the equipment early without the needed features. On 11/2/2014 8:01 PM, Larry A. Weidig wrote: Not so sure it is hysteria as annoyance. The lack of any real answers from Ubiquiti about this, the nearly turtle pace that development of this product line goes at,... Internally I kid with myself (only have jokingly) that Cambium will release 5.6 of the ePMP line before Ubiquiti does. Each of their releases have significant updates as well. Larry A. Weidig ( lwei...@excel.net ) Excel.Net, Inc. – http://www.excel.net/ (920) 452-0455 – Sheboygan/Plymouth area (888) 489-9995 – Other areas, toll-free - Original Message - From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net To: Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_users@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 2
Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400
I saw that, but I can't take it for gold until it comes from UBNT. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net To: Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_users@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:57:00 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 I just explained what happened. Rory From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:55 PM To: Ubiquiti Users Group Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 I assume that due to the sensitive nature of the DFS certifications, they're not changing anything on those products until the DFS is complete. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Paul pmcn...@cameron.net To: ubnt users ubnt_users@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:51:41 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 But I assumed, and was wrong that UNII-1 would be a simple permissive form filing which later turned into a full DFS certification required for ubnt for some reason. DFS, I understand but most other companies had the permissive change made in June when allowed. On 11/2/2014 8:44 PM, Chris Fabien wrote: Okay, if Ben and Matt are here, what's the Date for DFS on Nanobeam guys? Got a firm date you can commit to? My biggest bitch right now is I need high-gain DFS CPEs and nobody wants to stock nanobridges anymore, they're scared of getting stuck with half a container once the Nanobeams get DFS finally. So I'm faced with a long backorder on a product I need or play the old ubnt scramble to find someone with a few boxes to get me through another few weeks, which is a waste of time an ends up costing me more ordering small quantities from a random supplier and shipping it across the country. On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote: Look, Ben and Matt are on this board. If you have a complaint, tell them directly and give them a chance to make it right. If they don't, then make that public. The manufacturer should be liable to defective products, no question, but nobody wants a reputation for cheating the customer, especially not in a small and public community like this. As for the DFS channels, I'm sure that will get resolved and there was enough information around that you should have known that feature, along with PTMP, wasn't going to happen soon. But this is a small problem compared to the cable and Rocket GPS. In those cases, the product either didn't deliver what it was supposed to or simply fell apart. Different situation. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org ] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:21 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 But we are stuck paying the bill. Especially on the cable crap and time to replace and equipment setting on the shelf unable to use. On 11/2/2014 8:20 PM, Rory Conaway wrote: With the Rocket GPS, I agree. The should have publicly offered to buy every single unit back. I'm still sitting with 1/2 roll of the crappy melt in the sun cable that I have to RMA. With this situation though, part of it was Ubiquiti's fault, part of it was the FCC process and the inefficiency of government in general. Holding an entire industry back for months at a time is another example why other countries out-manufacture us and our politicians are inept at best, crooked at worst, for allowing this to happen. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org ] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:09 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 It's not hysteria when they extract money from us for future promises and we had to pay a premium to get the equipment early without the needed features. On 11/2/2014 8:01 PM, Larry A. Weidig wrote: Not so sure it is hysteria as annoyance. The lack of any real answers from Ubiquiti about this, the nearly turtle pace that development of this product line goes at,... Internally I kid with myself (only have jokingly) that Cambium will release 5.6 of the ePMP line before Ubiquiti does. Each of their releases have significant updates as well. Larry A. Weidig ( lwei...@excel.net ) Excel.Net, Inc. – http://www.excel.net/ (920) 452-0455 – Sheboygan/Plymouth area (888) 489-9995 – Other areas, toll-free - Original Message - From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net To: Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_users@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 6:56:03 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 Tone down the hysteria guys. The FCC certifies manufacturers in batch. When
Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400
YES we are all having to assume. We get very little good info from them that we can take to the bank. I don't little being treated like a mushroom! Right now Mikrotik looks good for 2 years for non-DFS until ubnt can get their sh** together on their core products. On 11/2/2014 8:54 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: I assume that due to the sensitive nature of the DFS certifications, they're not changing anything on those products until the DFS is complete. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Paul pmcn...@cameron.net *To: *ubnt users ubnt_users@wispa.org *Sent: *Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:51:41 PM *Subject: *Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 But I assumed, and was wrong that UNII-1 would be a simple permissive form filing which later turned into a full DFS certification required for ubnt for some reason. DFS, I understand but most other companies had the permissive change made in June when allowed. On 11/2/2014 8:44 PM, Chris Fabien wrote: Okay, if Ben and Matt are here, what's the Date for DFS on Nanobeam guys? Got a firm date you can commit to? My biggest bitch right now is I need high-gain DFS CPEs and nobody wants to stock nanobridges anymore, they're scared of getting stuck with half a container once the Nanobeams get DFS finally. So I'm faced with a long backorder on a product I need or play the old ubnt scramble to find someone with a few boxes to get me through another few weeks, which is a waste of time an ends up costing me more ordering small quantities from a random supplier and shipping it across the country. On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net mailto:r...@triadwireless.net wrote: Look, Ben and Matt are on this board. If you have a complaint, tell them directly and give them a chance to make it right. If they don't, then make that public. The manufacturer should be liable to defective products, no question, but nobody wants a reputation for cheating the customer, especially not in a small and public community like this. As for the DFS channels, I'm sure that will get resolved and there was enough information around that you should have known that feature, along with PTMP, wasn't going to happen soon. But this is a small problem compared to the cable and Rocket GPS. In those cases, the product either didn't deliver what it was supposed to or simply fell apart. Different situation. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:21 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org mailto:ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 But we are stuck paying the bill. Especially on the cable crap and time to replace and equipment setting on the shelf unable to use. On 11/2/2014 8:20 PM, Rory Conaway wrote: With the Rocket GPS, I agree. The should have publicly offered to buy every single unit back. I'm still sitting with 1/2 roll of the crappy melt in the sun cable that I have to RMA. With this situation though, part of it was Ubiquiti's fault, part of it was the FCC process and the inefficiency of government in general. Holding an entire industry back for months at a time is another example why other countries out-manufacture us and our politicians are inept at best, crooked at worst, for allowing this to happen. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:09 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org mailto:ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 It's not hysteria when they extract money from us for future promises and we had to pay a premium to get the equipment early without the needed features. On 11/2/2014 8:01 PM, Larry A. Weidig wrote: Not so sure it is hysteria as annoyance. The lack of any real answers from Ubiquiti about this, the nearly turtle pace that development of this product line goes at,... Internally I kid with myself (only have jokingly) that Cambium will release 5.6 of the ePMP line before Ubiquiti does. Each of their releases have significant updates as well. Larry A. Weidig ( lwei...@excel.net
Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400
Nothing personal. Even if Gino told me, I wouldn't treat it as gold. :-p - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net To: Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_users@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 9:06:39 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 Seriously? So much for my rep. Rory From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:57 PM To: Ubiquiti Users Group Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 I saw that, but I can't take it for gold until it comes from UBNT. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net To: Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_users@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:57:00 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 I just explained what happened. Rory From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [ mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org ] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:55 PM To: Ubiquiti Users Group Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 I assume that due to the sensitive nature of the DFS certifications, they're not changing anything on those products until the DFS is complete. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Paul pmcn...@cameron.net To: ubnt users ubnt_users@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:51:41 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 But I assumed, and was wrong that UNII-1 would be a simple permissive form filing which later turned into a full DFS certification required for ubnt for some reason. DFS, I understand but most other companies had the permissive change made in June when allowed. On 11/2/2014 8:44 PM, Chris Fabien wrote: Okay, if Ben and Matt are here, what's the Date for DFS on Nanobeam guys? Got a firm date you can commit to? My biggest bitch right now is I need high-gain DFS CPEs and nobody wants to stock nanobridges anymore, they're scared of getting stuck with half a container once the Nanobeams get DFS finally. So I'm faced with a long backorder on a product I need or play the old ubnt scramble to find someone with a few boxes to get me through another few weeks, which is a waste of time an ends up costing me more ordering small quantities from a random supplier and shipping it across the country. On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote: Look, Ben and Matt are on this board. If you have a complaint, tell them directly and give them a chance to make it right. If they don't, then make that public. The manufacturer should be liable to defective products, no question, but nobody wants a reputation for cheating the customer, especially not in a small and public community like this. As for the DFS channels, I'm sure that will get resolved and there was enough information around that you should have known that feature, along with PTMP, wasn't going to happen soon. But this is a small problem compared to the cable and Rocket GPS. In those cases, the product either didn't deliver what it was supposed to or simply fell apart. Different situation. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org ] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:21 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 But we are stuck paying the bill. Especially on the cable crap and time to replace and equipment setting on the shelf unable to use. On 11/2/2014 8:20 PM, Rory Conaway wrote: With the Rocket GPS, I agree. The should have publicly offered to buy every single unit back. I'm still sitting with 1/2 roll of the crappy melt in the sun cable that I have to RMA. With this situation though, part of it was Ubiquiti's fault, part of it was the FCC process and the inefficiency of government in general. Holding an entire industry back for months at a time is another example why other countries out-manufacture us and our politicians are inept at best, crooked at worst, for allowing this to happen. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org ] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:09 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 It's not hysteria when they extract money from us for future promises and we had to pay a premium to get the equipment early without the needed features. On 11/2/2014 8:01 PM, Larry A. Weidig wrote: Not so sure it is hysteria as annoyance. The lack of any real answers from Ubiquiti about this, the nearly turtle pace that development of this product line goes at,... Internally I kid with myself (only have jokingly
Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400
When someone brings up switching to Mikrotik wireless, I stop taking them seriously. This is Mikrotik to the FCC: http://bit.ly/1wX04zi UBNT probably don't know either or if they do, I certainly wouldn't make announcements about the DFS process other than in progress. Letting too much out to competitors at that point. As this thread has just turned into Paul crying, I'm out. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Paul pmcn...@cameron.net To: ubnt users ubnt_users@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:59:34 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 YES we are all having to assume. We get very little good info from them that we can take to the bank. I don't little being treated like a mushroom! Right now Mikrotik looks good for 2 years for non-DFS until ubnt can get their sh** together on their core products. On 11/2/2014 8:54 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: I assume that due to the sensitive nature of the DFS certifications, they're not changing anything on those products until the DFS is complete. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Paul pmcn...@cameron.net To: ubnt users ubnt_users@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:51:41 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 But I assumed, and was wrong that UNII-1 would be a simple permissive form filing which later turned into a full DFS certification required for ubnt for some reason. DFS, I understand but most other companies had the permissive change made in June when allowed. On 11/2/2014 8:44 PM, Chris Fabien wrote: blockquote Okay, if Ben and Matt are here, what's the Date for DFS on Nanobeam guys? Got a firm date you can commit to? My biggest bitch right now is I need high-gain DFS CPEs and nobody wants to stock nanobridges anymore, they're scared of getting stuck with half a container once the Nanobeams get DFS finally. So I'm faced with a long backorder on a product I need or play the old ubnt scramble to find someone with a few boxes to get me through another few weeks, which is a waste of time an ends up costing me more ordering small quantities from a random supplier and shipping it across the country. On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote: blockquote Look, Ben and Matt are on this board. If you have a complaint, tell them directly and give them a chance to make it right. If they don't, then make that public. The manufacturer should be liable to defective products, no question, but nobody wants a reputation for cheating the customer, especially not in a small and public community like this. As for the DFS channels, I'm sure that will get resolved and there was enough information around that you should have known that feature, along with PTMP, wasn't going to happen soon. But this is a small problem compared to the cable and Rocket GPS. In those cases, the product either didn't deliver what it was supposed to or simply fell apart. Different situation. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org ] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:21 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 But we are stuck paying the bill. Especially on the cable crap and time to replace and equipment setting on the shelf unable to use. On 11/2/2014 8:20 PM, Rory Conaway wrote: With the Rocket GPS, I agree. The should have publicly offered to buy every single unit back. I'm still sitting with 1/2 roll of the crappy melt in the sun cable that I have to RMA. With this situation though, part of it was Ubiquiti's fault, part of it was the FCC process and the inefficiency of government in general. Holding an entire industry back for months at a time is another example why other countries out-manufacture us and our politicians are inept at best, crooked at worst, for allowing this to happen. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org ] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:09 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 It's not hysteria when they extract money from us for future promises and we had to pay a premium to get the equipment early without the needed features. On 11/2/2014 8:01 PM, Larry A. Weidig wrote: Not so sure it is hysteria as annoyance. The lack of any real answers from Ubiquiti about this, the nearly turtle pace that development of this product line goes at,... Internally I kid with myself (only have jokingly) that Cambium will release 5.6 of the ePMP line before Ubiquiti does. Each of their releases have significant updates as well. Larry A. Weidig ( lwei...@excel.net ) Excel.Net, Inc. – http://www.excel.net/ (920
Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400
We have this same thread nearly every week, so yes. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com To: Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_users@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 9:17:24 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 Wow Mike was that really necessary? How rude On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Mike Hammett wispaubntus...@ics-il.net wrote: It is impossible to provide a firm date when the FCC is at the helm. Yes, other vendors appear to be better at it, but maybe they started much earlier than we believe they did. Then again, maybe they are better. With something so opaque as the FCC DFS certification process, we'll never know. SO. JUST. SHUT. UP. Find enough people that want DFS gear right now and approach a vendor willing to vouch for that many units. They don't mind making the sale, they mind holding onto old gear. If it's sold before they order it, kinda takes out that risk. or check out the stock locator. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com To: Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_users@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:44:23 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 Okay, if Ben and Matt are here, what's the Date for DFS on Nanobeam guys? Got a firm date you can commit to? My biggest bitch right now is I need high-gain DFS CPEs and nobody wants to stock nanobridges anymore, they're scared of getting stuck with half a container once the Nanobeams get DFS finally. So I'm faced with a long backorder on a product I need or play the old ubnt scramble to find someone with a few boxes to get me through another few weeks, which is a waste of time an ends up costing me more ordering small quantities from a random supplier and shipping it across the country. On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote: blockquote Look, Ben and Matt are on this board. If you have a complaint, tell them directly and give them a chance to make it right. If they don't, then make that public. The manufacturer should be liable to defective products, no question, but nobody wants a reputation for cheating the customer, especially not in a small and public community like this. As for the DFS channels, I'm sure that will get resolved and there was enough information around that you should have known that feature, along with PTMP, wasn't going to happen soon. But this is a small problem compared to the cable and Rocket GPS. In those cases, the product either didn't deliver what it was supposed to or simply fell apart. Different situation. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org ] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:21 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 But we are stuck paying the bill. Especially on the cable crap and time to replace and equipment setting on the shelf unable to use. On 11/2/2014 8:20 PM, Rory Conaway wrote: With the Rocket GPS, I agree. The should have publicly offered to buy every single unit back. I'm still sitting with 1/2 roll of the crappy melt in the sun cable that I have to RMA. With this situation though, part of it was Ubiquiti's fault, part of it was the FCC process and the inefficiency of government in general. Holding an entire industry back for months at a time is another example why other countries out-manufacture us and our politicians are inept at best, crooked at worst, for allowing this to happen. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org ] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:09 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 It's not hysteria when they extract money from us for future promises and we had to pay a premium to get the equipment early without the needed features. On 11/2/2014 8:01 PM, Larry A. Weidig wrote: Not so sure it is hysteria as annoyance. The lack of any real answers from Ubiquiti about this, the nearly turtle pace that development of this product line goes at,... Internally I kid with myself (only have jokingly) that Cambium will release 5.6 of the ePMP line before Ubiquiti does. Each of their releases have significant updates as well. Larry A. Weidig ( lwei...@excel.net ) Excel.Net, Inc. – http://www.excel.net/ (920) 452-0455 – Sheboygan/Plymouth area (888) 489-9995 – Other areas, toll-free - Original Message - From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net To: Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_users@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 6:56:03 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 Tone down the hysteria guys. The FCC certifies manufacturers in batch
Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400
I apologize everyone, I didn't realize searching the list archives for any related or similar discussion that Mr. Hammett had participated in was required before replying to a message that caught my attention. On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Mike Hammett wispaubntus...@ics-il.net wrote: We have this same thread nearly every week, so yes. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- *From: *Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com *To: *Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_users@wispa.org *Sent: *Sunday, November 2, 2014 9:17:24 PM *Subject: *Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 Wow Mike was that really necessary? How rude On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Mike Hammett wispaubntus...@ics-il.net wrote: It is impossible to provide a firm date when the FCC is at the helm. Yes, other vendors appear to be better at it, but maybe they started much earlier than we believe they did. Then again, maybe they are better. With something so opaque as the FCC DFS certification process, we'll never know. SO. JUST. SHUT. UP. Find enough people that want DFS gear right now and approach a vendor willing to vouch for that many units. They don't mind making the sale, they mind holding onto old gear. If it's sold before they order it, kinda takes out that risk. or check out the stock locator. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- *From: *Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com *To: *Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_users@wispa.org *Sent: *Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:44:23 PM *Subject: *Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 Okay, if Ben and Matt are here, what's the Date for DFS on Nanobeam guys? Got a firm date you can commit to? My biggest bitch right now is I need high-gain DFS CPEs and nobody wants to stock nanobridges anymore, they're scared of getting stuck with half a container once the Nanobeams get DFS finally. So I'm faced with a long backorder on a product I need or play the old ubnt scramble to find someone with a few boxes to get me through another few weeks, which is a waste of time an ends up costing me more ordering small quantities from a random supplier and shipping it across the country. On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote: Look, Ben and Matt are on this board. If you have a complaint, tell them directly and give them a chance to make it right. If they don't, then make that public. The manufacturer should be liable to defective products, no question, but nobody wants a reputation for cheating the customer, especially not in a small and public community like this. As for the DFS channels, I'm sure that will get resolved and there was enough information around that you should have known that feature, along with PTMP, wasn't going to happen soon. But this is a small problem compared to the cable and Rocket GPS. In those cases, the product either didn't deliver what it was supposed to or simply fell apart. Different situation. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:21 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 But we are stuck paying the bill. Especially on the cable crap and time to replace and equipment setting on the shelf unable to use. On 11/2/2014 8:20 PM, Rory Conaway wrote: With the Rocket GPS, I agree. The should have publicly offered to buy every single unit back. I'm still sitting with 1/2 roll of the crappy melt in the sun cable that I have to RMA. With this situation though, part of it was Ubiquiti's fault, part of it was the FCC process and the inefficiency of government in general. Holding an entire industry back for months at a time is another example why other countries out-manufacture us and our politicians are inept at best, crooked at worst, for allowing this to happen. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:09 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 It's not hysteria when they extract money from us for future promises and we had to pay a premium to get the equipment early without the needed features. On 11/2/2014 8:01 PM, Larry A. Weidig wrote: Not so sure it is hysteria as annoyance. The lack of any real answers from Ubiquiti about this, the nearly turtle pace that development of this product line goes at,... Internally I kid with myself (only have jokingly) that Cambium will release 5.6 of the ePMP line before Ubiquiti does. Each of their releases have significant updates as well. Larry A. Weidig ( lwei...@excel.net ) Excel.Net, Inc. – http://www.excel.net/ (920) 452-0455 – Sheboygan/Plymouth area (888) 489-9995 – Other
Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400
Hi Chris - We can't give exacts, but I would expect prior to end of year for Powerbeam (I know this is pretty open) and for AC early in Q1/2015. There will be additional announcements related to AC in the next week or two (related to PTMP, etc...). I know this was also asked on this list as well. We do try and answer and know we have recently answered this on other lists/forums. Regards, Ben On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com wrote: Okay, if Ben and Matt are here, what's the Date for DFS on Nanobeam guys? Got a firm date you can commit to? My biggest bitch right now is I need high-gain DFS CPEs and nobody wants to stock nanobridges anymore, they're scared of getting stuck with half a container once the Nanobeams get DFS finally. So I'm faced with a long backorder on a product I need or play the old ubnt scramble to find someone with a few boxes to get me through another few weeks, which is a waste of time an ends up costing me more ordering small quantities from a random supplier and shipping it across the country. On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote: Look, Ben and Matt are on this board. If you have a complaint, tell them directly and give them a chance to make it right. If they don't, then make that public. The manufacturer should be liable to defective products, no question, but nobody wants a reputation for cheating the customer, especially not in a small and public community like this. As for the DFS channels, I'm sure that will get resolved and there was enough information around that you should have known that feature, along with PTMP, wasn't going to happen soon. But this is a small problem compared to the cable and Rocket GPS. In those cases, the product either didn't deliver what it was supposed to or simply fell apart. Different situation. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:21 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 But we are stuck paying the bill. Especially on the cable crap and time to replace and equipment setting on the shelf unable to use. On 11/2/2014 8:20 PM, Rory Conaway wrote: With the Rocket GPS, I agree. The should have publicly offered to buy every single unit back. I'm still sitting with 1/2 roll of the crappy melt in the sun cable that I have to RMA. With this situation though, part of it was Ubiquiti's fault, part of it was the FCC process and the inefficiency of government in general. Holding an entire industry back for months at a time is another example why other countries out-manufacture us and our politicians are inept at best, crooked at worst, for allowing this to happen. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:09 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 It's not hysteria when they extract money from us for future promises and we had to pay a premium to get the equipment early without the needed features. On 11/2/2014 8:01 PM, Larry A. Weidig wrote: Not so sure it is hysteria as annoyance. The lack of any real answers from Ubiquiti about this, the nearly turtle pace that development of this product line goes at,... Internally I kid with myself (only have jokingly) that Cambium will release 5.6 of the ePMP line before Ubiquiti does. Each of their releases have significant updates as well. Larry A. Weidig ( lwei...@excel.net ) Excel.Net, Inc. – http://www.excel.net/ (920) 452-0455 – Sheboygan/Plymouth area (888) 489-9995 – Other areas, toll-free - Original Message - From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net To: Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_users@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 6:56:03 PM Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 Tone down the hysteria guys. The FCC certifies manufacturers in batch. When Ubiquiti had to pull a radio from the FCC for an issue, all their radios went to the back of the line. That included the Powerbeam. That's the delay. But yes, the PowerBridge not getting certified totally sucked. I've got a bunch of them. Rory -Original Message- From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 5:45 PM To: ubnt_users@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400 So you are saying we take a risk every time we buy ubnt equipment of notting getting what was promised and expected unless it is already there? Maybe we shouldn't trust ubnt at their word? I have a lot invested in ubnt and they are not feeling very much like a partner anymore! On 11/2/2014 6:41 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: On 11/2/14, 4:20 PM, Paul wrote: So
