I would like to start my response by saying that I apologized almost immediately after I said it. I never disputed his question just his response. (I still like ya mike :-) The community has had the notion that the units were identical for some time, I agree, but the community is wrong. I have mentioned several times before that the indoor units and outdoor units do not use all the same parts. This has been confirmed by SB in the past. They use that same board and many of the same parts but a few are different. You are correct in assuming that indoor units are for indoor use and outdoor units are for indoor or outdoor use just like 802.11b was not created for WISP and long range, but 802.11b has been redesigned to work outdoors and over long ranges where as the indoor units are still just for indoor use in controlled environments.
So, my reason for such a strong reply was because the statement was surly born out of frustrations not thought. The differences between the two units, although not well documented have been discussed several times. So I say, I have explored my statements and SB's equipment in detail several times and have good reason for being upset with Mike's comments. Please don't confuse my temporary aggravation with what I viewed as I rude and harmful comment about SB as slander against Mike's effort and general disposition. Asking for an explanation is not the same thing as an accusation. Even though I went about by goals the wrong way, as Mike had done in this case as well, my intention was to get people to state their problem, ask their question, give their views on the situation and help others in the group while avoiding insults or accusations. To Mike I apologize for being quick to temper. To SB I apologize for taking up all this space. To Brian I thank you for giving me this opportunity to clarify my position. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Winters Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 8:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Airbridge Indoor Change in Temperature rating Tom, Firstly, I think that Mike has a valid question. Smartbridges has long told us that we should use outdoor radios and that indoor radios aren't supported in outdoor conditions. The community's rebuttal has always been that the units are physically identical and therefore will work as well but cost less. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that lowering the temperature tolerance on the indoor units to drive sales of the more expensive (and since practically identical; better margin) units is a likely candidate for the sudden change. As many of you may know from the DSL reports forum, I am one of Smartbridges best cheerleaders so I must contend that there is also a chance the change was due to another reason like perhaps trying to fix the freezing issue or something else that we haven't considered. Technically, they are indoor units so my application of the technology is not its intended use but let me remind you that 802.11b was never intended for outdoor deployments either and well..... My real point is that, before you bite someone's head off for suggesting a perfectly plausible explanation to a situation, perhaps you should calm down a bit and really explore the possibilities of what is being said. I for one can vouch for Mike's credentials. He is extremely knowledgeable, persistently diligent and incredibly resourceful when troubleshooting and diagnosing network issues. On top of all that, he's a hell of a guy and has helped me numerous times with out ever asking for a thing in return. In addition, perhaps you missed the pictures he posted of the dismantled Airbridges but I highly doubt that someone who hasn't done his research would go to that length to identify a problem. Asking for an explanation from a vendor with whom you spend lots of money and on whose technology you have constructed a network is not at all unreasonable in my estimation. -Brian -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Haynes Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 7:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Airbridge Indoor Change in Temperature rating I wish people would quit suggesting that this thing or that thing is done so that we have to spend more money and presumably that SB makes more money from it. I am less inclined to believe any claims of thorough research or troubleshooting when such obviously ignorant statements are made. Please, everybody, think before you type. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Saathoff Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 4:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [smartBridges] Airbridge Indoor Change in Temperature rating Greetings, I've noticed that the Airbridge indoor temperature ratings have been lowered from 60 Celsius (150F) to 40 Celsius (104F). Unfortunately, this has caused me much grief with a significant portion of customers when radios quit working. We have several installations where the AirBridge is in the ceiling, by a window, etc where the devices often warm up beyond the new temperature ratings. My biggest gripe is that the units that I was shipped contain documentation in the box that indicates that the temperature rating is 60 degrees and I planned my network architecture accordingly. After investigating the problem, I discovered, even though the enclosed documentation has the higher temperature rating, the last 20 new units I received are the new chipsets that only withstand the cooler temperatures. I'd like to pose a question to SmartBridges: 1. Was the temperature rating lowered to force WISPs like myself to buy the more expensive outdoor product or was it an effort to use cheaper hardware to increase the profit margin on Airbridge Indoor units? I know the question is a bit jab but, come'on guys. I thought I finally had a product that worked well at a good price. Is there anything you can do for me here? Regards, Mike Saathoff Neighborlink The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) Archives: http://198.63.203.6 The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) Archives: http://198.63.203.6 The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) Archives: http://archives.part-15.org The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) Archives: http://archives.part-15.org
