I'm replacing 5.8 links with 3.65 links to make room in the 5.8 band.

We don't get a lot a Apache's around here, mostly NMNG Blackhawk's with
Inferred SLR looking for pot farms.

Phil

On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Rory Conaway <[email protected]> wrote:

> For what it's worth, I've moved all my APs with Rockets and Nanostations
> to DFS and 5150-5250 frequencies to free up space for the PowerBeam 400's
> in 5.8GHz.  I know not everyone can do that but it's an option.
>
> Rory
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> On Behalf 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.  The manufacturer should be liable to defective products, no
> question, but nobody wants a reputation for cheating the customer,
> especially not in a small and public community like this.   As for the DFS
> channels, I'm sure that will get resolved and there was enough information
> around that you should have known that feature, along with PTMP, wasn't
> going to happen soon.  But this is a small problem compared to the cable
> and Rocket GPS.  In those cases, the product either didn't deliver what it
> was supposed to or simply fell apart.  Different situation.
>
>  Rory
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> On Behalf Of Paul
> Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:21 PM
> To: [email protected]
> 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.  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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to