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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:09 PM To: [email protected] 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 ( [email protected] ) > 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" <[email protected]> > To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" <[email protected]> > 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: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Paul > Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 5:45 PM > To: [email protected] > 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 >> [email protected] >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Ubnt_users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users > _______________________________________________ > Ubnt_users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users > _______________________________________________ > Ubnt_users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users _______________________________________________ Ubnt_users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users _______________________________________________ Ubnt_users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
