YES we are all having to assume. We get very little good info from them that
we can take to the bank.
I don't little being treated like a mushroom!
Right now Mikrotik looks good for 2 years for non-DFS until ubnt can get
their sh** together
on their core products.
On 11/2/2014 8:54 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I assume that due to the sensitive nature of the DFS certifications,
they're not changing anything on those products until the DFS is complete.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Paul" <[email protected]>
*To: *"ubnt users" <[email protected]>
*Sent: *Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:51:41 PM
*Subject: *Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400
But I assumed, and was wrong that UNII-1 would be a simple permissive
form filing
which later turned into a full DFS certification required for ubnt for
some reason.
DFS, I understand but most other companies had the permissive change made
in June when allowed.
On 11/2/2014 8:44 PM, Chris Fabien wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Ubnt_users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
