Is it the same form factor? I can't see 2 N-Connectors fitting on the current form factor. Maybe same shape but dimensionally bigger?

The Sales Email from UBNT says available Summer 2016.



On 3/17/2016 12:19 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote:

Yes no unsure, I believe by summer

On Mar 17, 2016 12:16 PM, "Josh Baird" <joshba...@gmail.com <mailto:joshba...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    I missed the UBNT session..  Is the form-factor of this radio the
    same as the other AirFiberX radios?  Does it have a SFP
    interface?  When will they be available?

    On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Josh Reynolds
    <j...@kyneticwifi.com <mailto:j...@kyneticwifi.com>> wrote:

        There was discussion about waveguide - I pushed for it. I
        mentioned
        the RF Elements adapters as well...

        In the end, it was decided that N connectors were more
        universal and
        adaptable to various antennas.

        On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:03 PM, George Skorup
        <geo...@cbcast.com <mailto:geo...@cbcast.com>> wrote:
        > Yup, I believe the B11 is ac based. The AF will do true FDD
        so you can
        > license standard coordinated channel pairs. And to top it
        off, they went the
        > Exalt path with field replaceable diplexers. And looks like
        you can reverse
        > the diplexer for high or low side.
        >
        > The N connector thing is kinda odd. As Chuck said, they
        would've been better
        > off with SMA @ 11GHz. Or even better, a f'n waveguide
        interface! C'mon UBNT!
        >
        > On 3/17/2016 10:40 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
        >
        > I'm pretty sure Mimosa actually is 802.11 based, but yeah
        the airFiber
        > certainly is not.
        >
        > Also, do NOT compare airFiber quality with anything else
        UBNT makes... it's
        > on a completely different level than the airMax stuff.
        >
        > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Josh Reynolds
        <j...@kyneticwifi.com <mailto:j...@kyneticwifi.com>>
        > wrote:
        >>
        >> Mimosa isn't 802.11 based as far as I know. UBNT is doing
        this on
        >> AirFiber FPGA. Who's making 802.11 based 11G radios?
        >>
        >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:32 AM, TJ Trout <t...@voltbb.com
        <mailto:t...@voltbb.com>> wrote:
        >> > is anyone else concerned about the quality and
        reliability that comes
        >> > with
        >> > these low cost 802.11 based 11ghz radios??
        >> >
        >> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Josh Reynolds
        <j...@kyneticwifi.com <mailto:j...@kyneticwifi.com>>
        >> > wrote:
        >> >>
        >> >> When we bought our SAF stuff a few years back, we had to
        show our
        >> >> distributor our coordination docs before they would ship
        gear.
        >> >>
        >> >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Lewis Bergman
        >> >> <lewis.berg...@gmail.com <mailto:lewis.berg...@gmail.com>>
        >> >> wrote:
        >> >> > I don't know about turning sellers into enforcement
        arms of the FCC.
        >> >> > All
        >> >> > of
        >> >> > that is really the FCC's job. Has there really been a
        problem?
        >> >> >
        >> >> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016, 10:17 AM Cassidy B. Larson
        <c...@infowest.com <mailto:c...@infowest.com>>
        >> >> > wrote:
        >> >> >>
        >> >> >> That would be an awesome idea to limit random joes
        from lighting up
        >> >> >> un-registered/coordinated links.  But shouldnt they
        do that for 3.65
        >> >> >> as
        >> >> >> well?
        >> >> >>
        >> >> >> > On Mar 17, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Brian Sullivan
        >> >> >> > <installe...@foxvalley.net
        <mailto:installe...@foxvalley.net>>
        >> >> >> > wrote:
        >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> > Can't they force some sort of compliance with
        license keys you get
        >> >> >> > after
        >> >> >> > you prove your FCC application/coordination?
        >> >> >>
        >> >> >
        >> >
        >> >
        >
        >
        >



Reply via email to