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?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
