Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti PicoStation M
I agree. Also the Wiki says that 20 MHz is default. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Greg Ihnen Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 12:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti PicoStation M That and AirMax got me more than once. I think it would be more intuitive if the AirMax selection box was on the Wireless tab. Greg On May 26, 2012, at 11:28 AM, Carl Shivers wrote: Thanks. The 20 MHz change did the trick. Good thing to remember. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Joey Craig Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 9:05 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti PicoStation M By default, they come set at 40 MHz. You will need to set it to 20 MHz for your laptop and other equipment to associate to it. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Carl Shivers Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 2:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Ubiquiti PicoStation M On the advice of my vendor, I got a set of UBNT PicoStation Ms. For testing, I turned off AirMax, put the radio in Access Point mode and bridge network. When trying to connect various laptops to the radio, I get immediate failures. It doesn't matter if I give myself an address on my Wireless adapter or plug the radio into my network, which has a DHCP server, connections still fail. I have no security set for the test. Any suggestions? ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] Airband
Does anyone know of have a management contact at Airband in Dallas, Texas? http://www.wispa.org/where-there-is-a-wisp-there-is-a-way Where there is a Wisp, there is a way! Respectfully, Rick Harnish Executive Director WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 Option 2 WISPA Office Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org adm...@wispa.org (Trina and Rick) ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Airband
here is a link to there LinkedIn page you might get the contact you need that way. http://www.linkedin.com/company/15499?goback=%2Efcs_GLHD_AirBand_false_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2trk=ncsrch_hits On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Rick Harnish rharn...@wispa.org wrote: Does anyone know of have a management contact at Airband in Dallas, Texas? ** ** *Where there is a Wisp, there is a way!http://www.wispa.org/where-there-is-a-wisp-there-is-a-way * ** ** Respectfully,** * * *Rick Harnish* Executive Director WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 Option 2 WISPA Office Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org adm...@wispa.org (Trina and Rick) ** ** ** ** ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Airband
If you are looking for commercial bandwidth in Dallas, you might also try Belwave. They are a Wispa member. Cameron On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:25 AM, timothy steele timothy.pct...@gmail.comwrote: here is a link to there LinkedIn page you might get the contact you need that way. http://www.linkedin.com/company/15499?goback=%2Efcs_GLHD_AirBand_false_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2trk=ncsrch_hits On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Rick Harnish rharn...@wispa.org wrote: Does anyone know of have a management contact at Airband in Dallas, Texas? ** ** *Where there is a Wisp, there is a way!http://www.wispa.org/where-there-is-a-wisp-there-is-a-way * ** ** Respectfully,** * * *Rick Harnish* Executive Director WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 Option 2 WISPA Office Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org adm...@wispa.org (Trina and Rick) ** ** ** ** ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] What you can do!
Yeah, that would be a good carrot to get people to submit. How cool would it be to be able to let the consumer self qualify themselves (at least an educated guess) for your service? That's a similar step that Wa. is working on now. Sandborn is working with Radio Mobile to help figure out coverage zones. I've had to give them a distance cutoff but it gets us pretty close to actual coverage's. As accurate as I think we can realistically be anyhow. Getting one's self onto the maps is really a no brainer these days. If you do you might keep tax money out of your industry in your area. If you don't get on the maps you will bring it in. There's just no grey area here. We're not making the rules of the game (well, we're trying but), so either play by the rules or get your tail whipped. Can't show up for a football game with a basketball team and expect to do very well. marlon - Original Message - From: Matt matt.mailingli...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 9:50 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] What you can do! Someone asked on the Members List what they could do to help the overall cause of trying to get/protect spectrum and to avoid CAF/USF pitfalls. Thought it would be appropriate here as well: One thing I always thought might be helpfull. Allow all WISPA members to submit all there tower coordinates, heights and frequencies to WISPA. Run propagation studies on sites for them if they allow such data to be displayed on a Google Map on WISPA's site with the propagation patterns from all other members on it. WISPA would have benefit of true map and users would have benefit of getting copy to use themselves. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] What you can do!
For the purposes of these maps it doesn't really have to be that exact. Close, yes. But exactness isn't needed. marlon - Original Message - From: Cameron Crum To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] What you can do! Accurate propagation studies require a lot more than just submitting coordinates, heights and frequencies. You really can't just use some set of default numbers for all the parameters involved. You need antenna patterns, gains (on both ends), C/I values, noise figures, and a whole host of other info. This doesn't even include optimizing for clutter categories and elevations. If you don't have this, you might as well just draw circles as it would be about as useful. I spent a lot of years making good money doing just this for the cellular industry. They understood that designing a network incorrectly had dire financial consequences. We on the other hand seem to think of prop studies as an after thought. While I know that we have to go where the towers are and don't have the resources to build where we want to get an optimized network, we should still take it seriously and do it right when we decide to actually perform the study. Cameron On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Matt matt.mailingli...@gmail.com wrote: Someone asked on the Members List what they could do to help the overall cause of trying to get/protect spectrum and to avoid CAF/USF pitfalls. Thought it would be appropriate here as well: One thing I always thought might be helpfull. Allow all WISPA members to submit all there tower coordinates, heights and frequencies to WISPA. Run propagation studies on sites for them if they allow such data to be displayed on a Google Map on WISPA's site with the propagation patterns from all other members on it. WISPA would have benefit of true map and users would have benefit of getting copy to use themselves. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] USF/CAF
Right. And that's why we still have to fight they current rules as proposed. We've made the statement that if any company offers un subsidized service then no one should get a tax payer funded leg up in the market. Under the current rules a SINGLE company has to provide both *facilities based *voice and broadband without subsidies before the faucet is shut off to the USF/CAF recipient. We're in the bottom of the 9th inning and we're down by a couple of runs, 2 out full count and Casey is at bat. Are we going to swing at the ball or just stand there and watch it fly by? marlon - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:16 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF/CAF At 5/25/2012 01:03 PM, Matt wrote: Perhaps anyone accepting money from these funds should be required to wholesale there services at a discount such as dry loop dsl? They should also not be allowed to price under cut wholesalers for that to work? In fact, that *was* the rule. Or at least they had to wholesale the DSL, even if it was bundled with cheap POTS. When the FCC detariffed DSL in 2005, it was permissive, so the Bells could detariff while the subsidized rural ILECs stayed on tariff in order to maximize their USF. The new Connect America Fund rules make one major change -- they allow the ILEC to detariff DSL, offer it only as a retail information service, and still get subsidized. That's how they want to improve broadband availability. Gee, do you think any telco lobbyists were active in getting that passed? ;-) -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] Power over Ethernet Ubiquiti Radios
Our vendor told us that if we purchase the higher watt power adapter that we can use the same power adapter for both our Nanostation and our Pico. Is there a setting in the Nano we need to turn on for the second POE for the Pico? ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] USF/CAF
Facilities Based excludes all fixed wireless, is that correct? Would VoIP - properly reported, taxed, etc. - qualify as voice? Randy On 5/29/2012 10:40 AM, Marlon K. Schafer (509-982-2181) wrote: Right. And that's why we still have to fight they current rules as proposed. We've made the statement that if any company offers un subsidized service then no one should get a tax payer funded leg up in the market. Under the current rules a SINGLE company has to provide both *facilities based *voice and broadband without subsidies before the faucet is shut off to the USF/CAF recipient. We're in the bottom of the 9th inning and we're down by a couple of runs, 2 out full count and Casey is at bat. Are we going to swing at the ball or just stand there and watch it fly by? marlon - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:16 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF/CAF At 5/25/2012 01:03 PM, Matt wrote: Perhaps anyone accepting money from these funds should be required to wholesale there services at a discount such as dry loop dsl? They should also not be allowed to price under cut wholesalers for that to work? In fact, that *was* the rule. Or at least they had to wholesale the DSL, even if it was bundled with cheap POTS. When the FCC detariffed DSL in 2005, it was permissive, so the Bells could detariff while the subsidized rural ILECs stayed on tariff in order to maximize their USF. The new Connect America Fund rules make one major change -- they allow the ILEC to detariff DSL, offer it only as a retail information service, and still get subsidized. That's how they want to improve broadband availability. Gee, do you think any telco lobbyists were active in getting that passed? ;-) -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Randy Cosby| InfoWest, Inc | www.infowest.com Vice President | 435-674-0165 x 2010 | facebook.com/infowest ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] USF/CAF
At 5/29/2012 12:40 PM, MarlonS wrote: Right. And that's why we still have to fight they current rules as proposed. Trouble is, that rule already passed. CAF now will subsidize broadband. We've made the statement that if any company offers un subsidized service then no one should get a tax payer funded leg up in the market. Under the current rules a SINGLE company has to provide both *facilities based *voice and broadband without subsidies before the faucet is shut off to the USF/CAF recipient. Yes, and WISPA has petitioned to change that detail, though whether they accept it is anybody's guess. Now is a good time to add voice to your product mix if you don't have it yet. I did receive in the morning mail two Notices of Appeal. They're from groups of rural ILECs who are unhappy with the other changes in the CAF order. In particular, the FCC is limiting support to the highest-cost ILECs, and using TeleAtlas data to determine the size of their service areas. Apparently the TeleAtlas maps omit some territory. It's sort of hard to figure out where a wireline company's turf is when their density is less than one sub per square mile. They do theoretically file maps with their tariffs, but they're hard to find, usually fuzzy from decades of copying, and not available in electronic form. Hence very very costly GIS maps from TeleAtlas are assembled over time and may not be accurate. It strikes me as rather strange that there is no official electronic map of ILEC or even USF-recipient turf, so they are still arguing over it. And that's easier to map than wireless coverage. The currently-open Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is over how to change the way USF taxes work. They are looking at several options. Among them, - tax ISPs - tax telephone numbers - tax circuits based on size, not cost The latter two are gimmicks. The first one threatens WISPs. We're in the bottom of the 9th inning and we're down by a couple of runs, 2 out full count and Casey is at bat. Are we going to swing at the ball or just stand there and watch it fly by? marlon - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:16 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF/CAF At 5/25/2012 01:03 PM, Matt wrote: Perhaps anyone accepting money from these funds should be required to wholesale there services at a discount such as dry loop dsl? They should also not be allowed to price under cut wholesalers for that to work? In fact, that *was* the rule. Or at least they had to wholesale the DSL, even if it was bundled with cheap POTS. When the FCC detariffed DSL in 2005, it was permissive, so the Bells could detariff while the subsidized rural ILECs stayed on tariff in order to maximize their USF. The new Connect America Fund rules make one major change -- they allow the ILEC to detariff DSL, offer it only as a retail information service, and still get subsidized. That's how they want to improve broadband availability. Gee, do you think any telco lobbyists were active in getting that passed? ;-) -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] USF/CAF
As it was explained on the list a few days ago by Stephen Coran, the CAF rules do not include a definition or Facilities Based. If you use the definition as listed in the Form 477 instructions, most WISPs would qualify as facilities based. On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Randy Cosby dco...@infowest.com wrote: Facilities Based excludes all fixed wireless, is that correct? Would VoIP - properly reported, taxed, etc. - qualify as voice? Randy On 5/29/2012 10:40 AM, Marlon K. Schafer (509-982-2181) wrote: Right. And that's why we still have to fight they current rules as proposed. We've made the statement that if any company offers un subsidized service then no one should get a tax payer funded leg up in the market. Under the current rules a SINGLE company has to provide both *facilities based *voice and broadband without subsidies before the faucet is shut off to the USF/CAF recipient. We're in the bottom of the 9th inning and we're down by a couple of runs, 2 out full count and Casey is at bat. Are we going to swing at the ball or just stand there and watch it fly by? marlon - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:16 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF/CAF At 5/25/2012 01:03 PM, Matt wrote: Perhaps anyone accepting money from these funds should be required to wholesale there services at a discount such as dry loop dsl? They should also not be allowed to price under cut wholesalers for that to work? In fact, that *was* the rule. Or at least they had to wholesale the DSL, even if it was bundled with cheap POTS. When the FCC detariffed DSL in 2005, it was permissive, so the Bells could detariff while the subsidized rural ILECs stayed on tariff in order to maximize their USF. The new Connect America Fund rules make one major change -- they allow the ILEC to detariff DSL, offer it only as a retail information service, and still get subsidized. That's how they want to improve broadband availability. Gee, do you think any telco lobbyists were active in getting that passed? ;-) -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Randy Cosby | InfoWest, Inc | www.infowest.com Vice President | 435-674-0165 x 2010 | facebook.com/infowest ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] USF/CAF
At 5/29/2012 01:05 PM, Randy Cosby wrote: Facilities Based excludes all fixed wireless, is that correct? No. The unsubsidized competitor rule includes fixed wireless. Would VoIP - properly reported, taxed, etc. - qualify as voice? Yes. It has to meet reasonable quality standards, provide E911 access, and have a local number, but the multiplexing header is not a disqualifier. So if you can find a VoIP provider with local numbers in your area and can get say an MPLS pipe to them, it would do. In some extreme cases you may need to fimd a CLEC willing to add service in your area, or create your own CLEC. Randy On 5/29/2012 10:40 AM, Marlon K. Schafer (509-982-2181) wrote: Right. And that's why we still have to fight they current rules as proposed. We've made the statement that if any company offers un subsidized service then no one should get a tax payer funded leg up in the market. Under the current rules a SINGLE company has to provide both *facilities based *voice and broadband without subsidies before the faucet is shut off to the USF/CAF recipient. We're in the bottom of the 9th inning and we're down by a couple of runs, 2 out full count and Casey is at bat. Are we going to swing at the ball or just stand there and watch it fly by? marlon - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:16 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF/CAF At 5/25/2012 01:03 PM, Matt wrote: Perhaps anyone accepting money from these funds should be required to wholesale there services at a discount such as dry loop dsl? They should also not be allowed to price under cut wholesalers for that to work? In fact, that *was* the rule. Or at least they had to wholesale the DSL, even if it was bundled with cheap POTS. When the FCC detariffed DSL in 2005, it was permissive, so the Bells could detariff while the subsidized rural ILECs stayed on tariff in order to maximize their USF. The new Connect America Fund rules make one major change -- they allow the ILEC to detariff DSL, offer it only as a retail information service, and still get subsidized. That's how they want to improve broadband availability. Gee, do you think any telco lobbyists were active in getting that passed? ;-) -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] USF/CAF
In fact, WISPA has already gone on record AGAINST the current rule that a single company has to provide both voice and data. WISPA asked the FCC to change the rule so that CAF subsidies would be denied in "an area subject to unsubsidized competition". What this means is that if an area is already served with both voice and broadband data, even if these services are provided by two separate companies, then no one else should be able to receive subsidies to serve that area. (Crack! "Base hit!! It's a double to center field!!") jack On 5/29/2012 9:40 AM, Marlon K. Schafer (509-982-2181) wrote: Right. And that's why we still have to fight they current rules as proposed. We've made the statement that if any company offers un subsidized service then no one should get a tax payer funded leg up in the market. Under the current rules a SINGLE company has to provide both *facilities based *voice and broadband without subsidies before the faucet is shut off to the USF/CAF recipient. We're in the bottom of the 9th inning and we're down by a couple of runs, 2 out full count and Casey is at bat. Are we going to swing at the ball or just stand there and watch it fly by? marlon - Original Message - From: "Fred Goldstein" fgoldst...@ionary.com To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:16 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF/CAF At 5/25/2012 01:03 PM, Matt wrote: Perhaps anyone accepting money from these funds should be required to wholesale there services at a discount such as dry loop dsl? They should also not be allowed to price under cut wholesalers for that to work? In fact, that *was* the rule. Or at least they had to wholesale the DSL, even if it was bundled with cheap POTS. When the FCC detariffed DSL in 2005, it was permissive, so the Bells could detariff while the subsidized rural ILECs stayed on tariff in order to maximize their USF. The new Connect America Fund rules make one major change -- they allow the ILEC to detariff DSL, offer it only as a retail information service, and still get subsidized. That's how they want to "improve" broadband availability. Gee, do you think any telco lobbyists were active in getting that passed? ;-) -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author (2003) - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks" Serving the WISP Community since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Power over Ethernet Ubiquiti Radios
you have to enable POE Pass through in the GUI of the NSM On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Carl Shivers cshiv...@aristotle.netwrote: Our vendor told us that if we purchase the higher watt power adapter that we can use the same power adapter for both our Nanostation and our Pico. Is there a setting in the Nano we need to turn on for the second POE for the Pico? ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Power over Ethernet Ubiquiti Radios
Is this on the advanced tab? Also, I was reading where people enabled this and then their radio was bricked?? From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of timothy steele Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 1:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Power over Ethernet Ubiquiti Radios you have to enable POE Pass through in the GUI of the NSM On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Carl Shivers cshiv...@aristotle.net wrote: Our vendor told us that if we purchase the higher watt power adapter that we can use the same power adapter for both our Nanostation and our Pico. Is there a setting in the Nano we need to turn on for the second POE for the Pico? ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Power over Ethernet Ubiquiti Radios
A good thing to know about the UBNT gear is if for some reason supplying PoE via the main port stops working, you can supply PoE via the secondary port whether or not the PoE passthrough option is enabled. Greg On May 29, 2012, at 5:09 PM, Carl Shivers wrote: Is this on the advanced tab? Also, I was reading where people enabled this and then their radio was bricked?? From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of timothy steele Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 1:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Power over Ethernet Ubiquiti Radios you have to enable POE Pass through in the GUI of the NSM On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Carl Shivers cshiv...@aristotle.net wrote: Our vendor told us that if we purchase the higher watt power adapter that we can use the same power adapter for both our Nanostation and our Pico. Is there a setting in the Nano we need to turn on for the second POE for the Pico? ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Power over Ethernet Ubiquiti Radios
As a previous poster mentioned, this feature on Nanostation M5 and M2 is called POE passthrough, and it has a checkbox to enable it on the AirOS web UI. This will let you power a 2nd 24V POE device from the Secondary port of the Nanostation, using a single POE supply. I use the POE-24-1 (aka 24V 1amp) supply from UBNT when powering 2 devices like this. I've read other folks on the UBNT customer forum try powering more than 2 units from a single power supply, e.g. 2 Nanostations and then a 3rd device daisy-chained together, tho I believe UBNT doesn't support this. HOWEVER, do please note the POE passthrough feature on the Nanostation M's has been consistently problematic. When I first tried to have an NSM5 power a 2nd access point 18months ago, I found that my NSM5's would commonly burn out a FET inside after ~1week operation, causing the POE enable switch to henceforth become stuck on regardless of firmware setting. Sometimes this burn out event would put the NSM5 in a reboot loop until I reflashed it. More recently, it seems UBNT might have released a batch of NSM5 that actually brick themselves when you enable the POE passthrough, requiring an RMA. I had just this happen to an NSM5 I bought in April. https://forum.ubnt.com/showthread.php?p=270549 The suggested work-around, as mentioned above, is to swap the Main and Secondary ports on the Nanostation if you want to power a 2nd device, and not use firmware POE passthrough enable at all. On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: A good thing to know about the UBNT gear is if for some reason supplying PoE via the main port stops working, you can supply PoE via the secondary port whether or not the PoE passthrough option is enabled. Greg -- Ben West http://gowasabi.net b...@gowasabi.net ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
