</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 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Fabien" <ch...@lakenetmi.com> To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" <ubnt_users@wispa.org> 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 < r...@triadwireless.net > wrote: <blockquote> 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: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org ] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:21 PM To: 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. 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: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [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 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 ( lwei...@excel.net ) >> 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" < r...@triadwireless.net > >> To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" < ubnt_users@wispa.org > >> 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: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org >> [mailto: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org ] >> On Behalf Of Paul >> Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 5:45 PM >> To: ubnt_users@wispa.org >> 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 >>> Ubnt_users@wispa.org >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ubnt_users mailing list >> Ubnt_users@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users >> _______________________________________________ >> Ubnt_users mailing list >> Ubnt_users@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users >> _______________________________________________ >> Ubnt_users mailing list >> Ubnt_users@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users > _______________________________________________ > Ubnt_users mailing list > Ubnt_users@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users > _______________________________________________ > Ubnt_users mailing list > Ubnt_users@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users _______________________________________________ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users _______________________________________________ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users _______________________________________________ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users _______________________________________________ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users </blockquote> _______________________________________________ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
_______________________________________________ Ubnt_users mailing list Ubnt_users@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
