NO they should have been concentrating on the core equipment instead of
making half ass attempts into video, home automation, core switches,
wireless toliet lid openers and
what ever else distracted them from getting the job done like the other
manufacturers.
On 11/2/2014 8:47 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
It is impossible to provide a firm date when the FCC is at the helm.
Yes, other vendors appear to be better at it, but maybe they started
much earlier than we believe they did. Then again, maybe they are
better. With something so opaque as the FCC DFS certification process,
we'll never know.
SO. JUST. SHUT. UP.
Find enough people that want DFS gear right now and approach a vendor
willing to vouch for that many units. They don't mind making the sale,
they mind holding onto old gear. If it's sold before they order it,
kinda takes out that risk.
or check out the stock locator.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Chris Fabien" <[email protected]>
*To: *"Ubiquiti Users Group" <[email protected]>
*Sent: *Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:44:23 PM
*Subject: *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 a container once the Nanobeams get DFS finally. So I'm faced
with a long backorder on a product I need or play the old ubnt
scramble to find someone with a few boxes to get me through another
few weeks, which is a waste of time an ends up costing me more
ordering small quantities from a random supplier and shipping it
across the country.
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Rory Conaway <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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]>
[mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Paul
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:21 PM
To: [email protected] <mailto:[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]>
[mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Paul
> Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:09 PM
> To: [email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> )
>> Excel.Net, Inc. -- http://www.excel.net/
>> (920) 452-0455 <tel:%28920%29%20452-0455> -- Sheboygan/Plymouth
area
>> (888) 489-9995 <tel:%28888%29%20489-9995> -- Other areas, toll-free
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Rory Conaway" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
>> To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" <[email protected]
<mailto:[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]>
>> [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>]
>> On Behalf Of Paul
>> Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 5:45 PM
>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ubnt_users mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ubnt_users mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ubnt_users mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
> _______________________________________________
> Ubnt_users mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
> _______________________________________________
> Ubnt_users mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
_______________________________________________
Ubnt_users mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
_______________________________________________
Ubnt_users mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[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
