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
--
*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
: *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
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
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] 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
[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
, 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
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
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
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
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
: *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
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
/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
, 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
*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
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
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
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
*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
: 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
22 matches
Mail list logo
