Re: [Ubnt_users] Ubiquiti commitment to WISPs
On 8/14/18 10:04 AM, Blair Davis wrote: > Unless you are attempting to do make a 'wireless wire' pre-configured > PtP link in which case the 2-pac doesn't go far enough. > 2Pac is considered one of the greatest rappers of all time. ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] Ubiquiti commitment to WISPs
On 8/13/18 09:41, RickG wrote: > With respect, we don't know everything about the lawsuit. Also, I'd bet > if the shoe were on the other foot, another manufacturer would sue a WISP. I presume you've read the suit to make that claim? https://www.law360.com/articles/1071813/wireless-co-ubiquiti-says-rival-sells-hacking-firmware ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] Ubiquiti commitment to WISPs
On 8/13/18 7:41 AM, Steve Barnes wrote: > > Ben Moore and James Craig. This is my request to Ubiquity to make a BOLD > statement in some way that shows your commitment to the WISP community and > your appreciation to those of us that have stuck by your side through years > of "soon GPS", Elevate, 2-pack CPEs, poor supply chain planning and many > other goofy decisions you have made over the years that have made us defend > out position to stay with UBNT as our Primary Vendor. It is time for a > little appreciation. UBNT is naming WISPs in lawsuits with wild accusations. That's the statement they're making. ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] Ubiquiti Sues Cambium
On 8/12/18 11:01 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote: > People didn’t buy. Move on. Good months and bad. Don’t like it? Stop > investing. Any other questions? > Previous quarter: We'll see at least $20 million in this sector by next quarter! This quarter: Uh, actually we didn't see any of that money, but it was our competitor's fault so we sued them. ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] AF11 10x
On 3/23/18 7:03 AM, alex phillips wrote: > Can those who use AF11 and are able to establish a link a 10x reliably > please share your link information? > > Distance, Dish and power settings. Match your license. Don't randomly increase power, 11GHz travels a long way and you can easily interfere with another licensee. ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)
On 4/16/17 5:00 PM, J Portman wrote: > 1024QAM with MIMO. They claim 1.3 gig each direction on 56MHZ channel. That's the marketing aggregate number, divide by two for capacity in each direction. ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)
On 4/15/17 2:29 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > not trying to be anal even in your statement there is a 'as long as' > > There is no such 'as long as' requirement with the B11 sync. So the back to back requirement that say setting up a PMP450 synce'd cluster has so that a subscriber can't hear multiple sectors on the same frequency is not a problem anymore? Is that the GPS/TDD innovation the B11 made, allowing the "subscriber" side to be able to hear multiple interfering "tower" sides? ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)
On 4/15/17 12:46 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > Can we do that today with FDD ? or the other party is going to get their > panties in tbe bunch because their radio can hear your radio ? Yes. Their radio CAN NOT hear your radio, even if they were pointed facing into each other. It's impossible. Frequency division. ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)
On 4/15/17 7:17 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > In case of Mimosa, you are actually getting something that has not existed > before in the Licensed Radio world... > Their radios don't care if they can hear each other.. and they will still > operate, co-exist > exactly how gps sync, channel reuse works in the TDD world... But I don't need TDD or GPS sync to point take a channel pair I'm using in one direction and reuse it in a different direction, so I'm not clear what has been improved. The argument is I can do something I can already do, but with higher latency. ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)
On 4/14/17 5:09 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > I would love to be more 'educated' in this matter... > > How exactly is this achieved in real world ? > I have been told that if another operator is using that channel & polarity, I > cannot use it in the other direction... > > So, technically it is feasible, but practically how is this accomplished ? By designing the path so that they can't hear each other. You can easily use the same or overlapping frequency pair back to back or any orientation where it won't pick up the other far side because of high/low separation. I've got a couple channels that overlap with another operator, but the azimuth/elevation are different enough (not back to back) and we're both using 3' Radiowaves antennas with deep shrouds. Among other things, the shrouds reduce sidelobes. Good antennas make a difference. Two or more "high" side or "low" side radios together won't interfere since they can't tune the RX side in the same part of the band. That's how FDD reuse works. A "high" side radio is deaf to anything else in the "high" side, it only hears a matching "low" side radio. Obviously the paths have to be different enough that each tower radio won't hear the other's far side. If you mix high/low at the same location that's when you run into trouble by creating a situation known as "bucking". GPS sync in TDD where you're having to use the same frequency for TX and RX syncs all the TX together so you don't have one radio in TX while another nearby is in RX, thus causing interference. But since FDD has frequency separation this is not a problem. Think of FDD radios together at a tower as always only in TX mode. The Mimosa B11 has created this weird myth among WISPs that only it allows for reuse because WISPs are used to using the same frequency for TX and RX, but that's not really the case with FDD equipment. ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)
On 4/14/17 3:18 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > and BTW, in regards to Mimosa B11 they get a pass for being a channel > hog... because they also allow you to reuse the channel in a different > direction due to GPS Sync capabilities .. yes it does not help if you are > not using non Mimosa Radios... I hear this a lot, but you can readily reuse a channel in a different direction with any FDD microwave as is because of the high/low split. ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] 4096 QAM (was: 24Ghz link Airfiber)
On 4/13/17 12:48, J Portman wrote: > ETSI allows 112MHZ channels. FCC limits to 80. BUT, if your equipment > supports it, you can license two adjacent bands of 80 for 160MHZ channels. Danger... do not think of it as a 160MHz channel. The FCC requires individual carriers per channel, so you CAN NOT license two 80MHz channels and run a single carrier inside it. ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] AC2 and AF24
On 9/30/16 6:22 PM, Scotty Rice wrote: > If you are trying to use a password longer than eight character try > using just the first eight characters. The af24 only uses up to eight > characters What year are we in again? ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] AF11x Question.
On 9/15/16 7:45 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > Yes, Seth. > > But these are not "High / Low" radios... > They use both channels for TX & RX ... Please correct me if I am wrong. I thought there was talk about how it had a field adjustable diplexer (which was a thing Exalt touted for single-unit sparing) which usually means high/low because literally that's what a diplexer does. ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] AF11x Question.
On 9/15/16 10:08, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > 1) Are the AF11x going to have 'sync' capability so that the channel > freq can be reused by another AF11x pointing in a different direction ? That's not really a problem with high/low microwave. I don't know where people are getting the idea that it is or suddenly sync is needed, it's not. Daniel said it better: http://afmug.com/pipermail/af/2015-October/034385.html ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] Rocket ACs
On 12/10/14, 20:16, Blair Davis wrote: AirPrism was/is supposed to return to us the benefits, (adjacent channel rejection, improved sensitivity), of the original dual superheterodyne Hermes I and Intersil Prism II chipsets as opposed to the current direct conversion Atheros chipsets. I don't see a major use for it in clients, but for an AP, it could be worth quite a bit to me. I have a few clients where it's a major problem and would be helpful. ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] Rocket ACs
On 12/9/14, 11:32, Ty Featherling wrote: Oh there is a word.. and as usual the word is 'Soon'. I think soon is the new it's on the boat. ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] New airControl
On 12/2/14, 5:34 AM, Steve Barnes wrote: However, I also remember all of us bitching about AC being a Java app and not having a web UI for our phones and other devices. When Ben Moore said that we would not have to worry about that in the next version I kind of thought about a hosted solution, but thought “Oh surly not”. That's why I still use AC1. But that's the problem. I look at the UniFi controller and wonder why did AC1 get abandoned? How hard can it really be to fix the few things that are wrong with AC1? ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] New airControl
On 12/2/14, 8:52, Daniel Peoples wrote: Yes, but we both know that the epmp doesn't support this, the 450 does. Are you referring to CNS Server? ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] airFiber Surge Arresters
On 12/1/14, 10:04, Matt Hoppes wrote: I'm the last person in the world to recommend a TS to anyone That said... have you ever had a WBH SA take a hit? If so, what, if anything did it also do to your switch ports? Shorting the switch port when the SA takes a hit doesn't seem like a wise idea. That's bound to blow most anything. That's the correct way for any surge suppressor to work: clamp to ground once the breakover voltage is exceeded. ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] airFiber Surge Arresters
On 12/1/14, 10:47, Josh Luthman wrote: Why? You should always use HV. On the non-GigE WB models like the 444 some people prefer a low clamping voltage on the data pairs not carrying POE voltage vs. the POE pairs which have a higher clamping voltage. I use the GigE HV because it's one part for universal use. ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] AF5 distance
On 12/1/14, 12:34, Josh Luthman wrote: Waste of time in the licensed world. They all perform as they advertise. Modulation * channel size = megabits per second. Price varies, GUI varies, support varies. Go SAF! It was my understanding that there would be no math. ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] New airControl
On 12/1/14, 13:20, Adair Winter wrote: I just don't see how this can be true... Most people can't make a VPN work as it is how the hell am I supposed to depend on this to work if it's not INSIDE my network? Why aren't all of your radios open to the internet? You're obviously doing it wrong. ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] New airControl
On 12/1/14, 16:44, Kees H wrote: Why would I waste public ips on my radios, so ubnt can have control of my radios? Don't they know ARIN is running out of IPv4 addresses? But it's CLOUD. ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] New airControl
On 12/1/14, 13:35, Mike Hammett wrote: I don't know how anyone could read their target market this badly. But are we really their target market? ~Seth ___ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
Re: [Ubnt_users] New airControl
On 12/1/14, 6:14 PM, Tom Fadgen wrote: I am sure glad that I own my business; and that said, as a business owner I look to make choices from those available; not cry over what is not! One thing is going to solve this problem, the one with UBNT not listing to their customers and providing a lot of shit we do not want or need from them. Shareholders might want it. ~Seth ___ 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
