Re: [Ubnt_users] UBNET 900Mhz

[Paul Tackett via Ubnt_users]

I believe the perpetrator of that job had OCD. Glad my techs who are slobs 
didn’t perform that mod.

 

Paul Tackett, COO

406-284-3174x105

 <mailto:p...@latmt.com> p...@latmt.com

---



 

From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Tommy Adams
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 17:16
To: Ubiquiti Users Group 
Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] UBNET 900Mhz

 

That is fantastic. You even retained the little plastic cap on the end of the 
antenna. 

 



Tommy A.

Digitex.com <http://Digitex.com> 

 

817.558.6230 V

817.558.1204 F


On May 31, 2018, at 6:11 PM, Tommy Adams mailto:tomm...@digitex.net> > wrote:

Did you set your target signal strength?  They should automatically back off 
the power. 

 



Tommy A.

Digitex.com <http://Digitex.com> 

 

817.558.6230 V

817.558.1204 F


On May 31, 2018, at 5:35 PM, Paul Tackett via Ubnt_users mailto:ubnt_users@wispa.org> > wrote:

Impressive. We found that if there was LOS at that distance, we had to cut the 
yagi down to a nub as the signal was too hot and performance was terrible!

 

Paul Tackett, COO

(406)284-3174x105

p...@latmt.com <mailto:p...@latmt.com> 



 

From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org>  
[mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tommy Adams
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 15:10
To: 'Ubiquiti Users Group' mailto:ubnt_users@wispa.org> >
Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] UBNET 900Mhz

 

First picture is from the tower.  You can see we are not that high.  The 
customer pictures are .3 of a mile from the tower and downhill.  As you can see 
in both pictures there is zero line of sight.  You can also see that these are 
the worse modem placements being 900 MHz and shooting over a metal roof.  They 
work beautifully.  

 

 

---

Tommy Adams

Network Administrator

Digitex.com <http://Digitex.com> 

 

817.558.6230 Voice

817.558.1204 Fax

 

 

 

From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org>  
mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org> > On Behalf 
Of RickG
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 3:19 PM
To: Ubiquiti Users Group mailto:ubnt_users@wispa.org> >
Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] UBNET 900Mhz

 

Thanks again Tommy! I'd love to see a picture of how thick the trees are!

 

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Tommy Adams mailto:tomm...@digitex.net> > wrote:

Now ours is not loaded up too heavily, only 12 clients.  We sell every speed we 
offer which is up to 16 meg for home users.  Most of the clients on this tower 
ore on our 5 or 8 meg package.  Looking at the graphs, this sector is hitting 
25 meg frequently, but there is about 60-70 meg of channel available, we are 
running in 20 MHz.  Prior to this, we could only sell people our $30-$50 
packages and they complained about the speed.  I see our one last UBNT 900 top 
out at 6-8 meg every night with about the same number of people on it.  We are 
buying a couple of SM’s a month and when we get enough for all the customers 
will do a quick change out of the tower and customers to the PMP gear.  

 

Overall experience with the PMP 900 is really good.  We tried it in 10 MHz and 
it worked great then thought why not try 20 MHz and it still did great.  We 
have a lot of frequency hopping electric meters and gas wells in our area.  I 
think placement is a big thing too.  I would not put this gear on a water tower 
next to the major highway.  Not saying it would not work, but the if you can 
see the horizon, then the frequency can hear the horizon.  We use this gear is 
a bowl of hills and trees.  In fact we did not even mount it way above the 
trees.  It is only 20 feet above the trees with down tilt.  Our furthest 
customer through what we consider thick trees in north Texas is about ½ mile.  
We do have some customers a little over a mile away as well that could not get 
a clean LOS to the same tower.  The gear is a real learning experience and not 
terribly friendly to work with.  That being said, if a customer calls in and is 
experience issues, we do not even ask them to reboot the PMP SM.  We start with 
their router and 95% of the time this resolves their issue.  

 

 

---

Tommy Adams

Network Administrator

Digitex.com <http://Digitex.com> 

 

817.558.6230 Voice

817.558.1204 Fax

 

 

 

From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org>  
mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org> > On Behalf 
Of RickG
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 2:51 PM
To: Ubiquiti Users Group mailto:ubnt_users@wispa.org> >
Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] UBNET 900Mhz

 

Thanks Tommy! What speeds are people seeing out there on the Cambium 900s? I 
dont trust marketing hype so real word input is very valu

Re: [Ubnt_users] UBNET 900Mhz

[Paul Tackett via Ubnt_users]

Impressive. We found that if there was LOS at that distance, we had to cut the 
yagi down to a nub as the signal was too hot and performance was terrible!



Paul Tackett, COO

(406)284-3174x105

p...@latmt.com





From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Tommy Adams
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 15:10
To: 'Ubiquiti Users Group' 
Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] UBNET 900Mhz



First picture is from the tower.  You can see we are not that high.  The 
customer pictures are .3 of a mile from the tower and downhill.  As you can see 
in both pictures there is zero line of sight.  You can also see that these are 
the worse modem placements being 900 MHz and shooting over a metal roof.  They 
work beautifully.





---

Tommy Adams

Network Administrator

Digitex.com



817.558.6230 Voice

817.558.1204 Fax







From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org>  
mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org> > On Behalf 
Of RickG
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 3:19 PM
To: Ubiquiti Users Group mailto:ubnt_users@wispa.org> >
Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] UBNET 900Mhz



Thanks again Tommy! I'd love to see a picture of how thick the trees are!



On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Tommy Adams mailto:tomm...@digitex.net> > wrote:

Now ours is not loaded up too heavily, only 12 clients.  We sell every speed we 
offer which is up to 16 meg for home users.  Most of the clients on this tower 
ore on our 5 or 8 meg package.  Looking at the graphs, this sector is hitting 
25 meg frequently, but there is about 60-70 meg of channel available, we are 
running in 20 MHz.  Prior to this, we could only sell people our $30-$50 
packages and they complained about the speed.  I see our one last UBNT 900 top 
out at 6-8 meg every night with about the same number of people on it.  We are 
buying a couple of SM’s a month and when we get enough for all the customers 
will do a quick change out of the tower and customers to the PMP gear.



Overall experience with the PMP 900 is really good.  We tried it in 10 MHz and 
it worked great then thought why not try 20 MHz and it still did great.  We 
have a lot of frequency hopping electric meters and gas wells in our area.  I 
think placement is a big thing too.  I would not put this gear on a water tower 
next to the major highway.  Not saying it would not work, but the if you can 
see the horizon, then the frequency can hear the horizon.  We use this gear is 
a bowl of hills and trees.  In fact we did not even mount it way above the 
trees.  It is only 20 feet above the trees with down tilt.  Our furthest 
customer through what we consider thick trees in north Texas is about ½ mile.  
We do have some customers a little over a mile away as well that could not get 
a clean LOS to the same tower.  The gear is a real learning experience and not 
terribly friendly to work with.  That being said, if a customer calls in and is 
experience issues, we do not even ask them to reboot the PMP SM.  We start with 
their router and 95% of the time this resolves their issue.





---

Tommy Adams

Network Administrator

Digitex.com



817.558.6230 Voice

817.558.1204 Fax







From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org>  
mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org> > On Behalf 
Of RickG
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 2:51 PM
To: Ubiquiti Users Group mailto:ubnt_users@wispa.org> >
Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] UBNET 900Mhz



Thanks Tommy! What speeds are people seeing out there on the Cambium 900s? I 
dont trust marketing hype so real word input is very valuable in asking these 
types of decisions.



On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Tommy Adams mailto:tomm...@digitex.net> > wrote:

All I know is we install PMP450i 900 and we never visit the customer again.   
Also, when you think about it, the equipment may cost 5k, but I would rather 
have 5 customers bringing in $250/month ($50 package) than the 5k.  Also, it is 
not uncommon for companies to charge a higher installation fee or slightly 
higher rates when using NLOS equipment.  The additional cost must be absorbed 
by the company or passed on to the consumer.  There are a number of wonderful 
lease to own deals out there that do not break the bank.  We have used 
Ascentium Capital in the past for emergency upgrades to all our wireless 
backhauls.  I know most everyone on here is a big UBNT fan, it is after all a 
UBNT forum, but some of their products are not very good.  This is one of them. 
 Talking to them at Wispapolooza last year, there does not sound like any 
upgrades are coming for the 900 or 3.65.  We have deployed Cambium PMP gear in 
both frequencies and are glad to spend the money.  It is a real jump in 
quality.  Now would I deploy PMP450 in a low end trailer park, not likely.  We 
use UBNT

Re: [Ubnt_users] UBNET 900Mhz

[Paul Tackett via Ubnt_users]

We only have 1 PMP450i in 900Mhz and I can parrot what the others have said. 
Except maybe never having to go back as we still have the occasional truck roll 
for one reason or another.



Probably the only NLOS solution that has been at least somewhat effective. We 
have a few Mikrotik 900Mhz sectors and it appears that Metal 9Mhz are no longer 
available so I may be in a spot where I’ll need to pick up additional PMP450i 
900Mhz to replace with.



Expensive but far more scalable. Scalability is what you lose when going UBNT 
or MT. Good for 18, put 19 and 20 on there, phone starts ringing off the hook…



Paul Tackett, COO

(406)284-3174x105

p...@latmt.com





From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Tommy Adams
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 14:09
To: 'Ubiquiti Users Group' 
Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] UBNET 900Mhz



Now ours is not loaded up too heavily, only 12 clients.  We sell every speed we 
offer which is up to 16 meg for home users.  Most of the clients on this tower 
ore on our 5 or 8 meg package.  Looking at the graphs, this sector is hitting 
25 meg frequently, but there is about 60-70 meg of channel available, we are 
running in 20 MHz.  Prior to this, we could only sell people our $30-$50 
packages and they complained about the speed.  I see our one last UBNT 900 top 
out at 6-8 meg every night with about the same number of people on it.  We are 
buying a couple of SM’s a month and when we get enough for all the customers 
will do a quick change out of the tower and customers to the PMP gear.



Overall experience with the PMP 900 is really good.  We tried it in 10 MHz and 
it worked great then thought why not try 20 MHz and it still did great.  We 
have a lot of frequency hopping electric meters and gas wells in our area.  I 
think placement is a big thing too.  I would not put this gear on a water tower 
next to the major highway.  Not saying it would not work, but the if you can 
see the horizon, then the frequency can hear the horizon.  We use this gear is 
a bowl of hills and trees.  In fact we did not even mount it way above the 
trees.  It is only 20 feet above the trees with down tilt.  Our furthest 
customer through what we consider thick trees in north Texas is about ½ mile.  
We do have some customers a little over a mile away as well that could not get 
a clean LOS to the same tower.  The gear is a real learning experience and not 
terribly friendly to work with.  That being said, if a customer calls in and is 
experience issues, we do not even ask them to reboot the PMP SM.  We start with 
their router and 95% of the time this resolves their issue.





---

Tommy Adams

Network Administrator

Digitex.com



817.558.6230 Voice

817.558.1204 Fax







From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org>  
mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org> > On Behalf 
Of RickG
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 2:51 PM
To: Ubiquiti Users Group mailto:ubnt_users@wispa.org> >
Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] UBNET 900Mhz



Thanks Tommy! What speeds are people seeing out there on the Cambium 900s? I 
dont trust marketing hype so real word input is very valuable in asking these 
types of decisions.



On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Tommy Adams mailto:tomm...@digitex.net> > wrote:

All I know is we install PMP450i 900 and we never visit the customer again.   
Also, when you think about it, the equipment may cost 5k, but I would rather 
have 5 customers bringing in $250/month ($50 package) than the 5k.  Also, it is 
not uncommon for companies to charge a higher installation fee or slightly 
higher rates when using NLOS equipment.  The additional cost must be absorbed 
by the company or passed on to the consumer.  There are a number of wonderful 
lease to own deals out there that do not break the bank.  We have used 
Ascentium Capital in the past for emergency upgrades to all our wireless 
backhauls.  I know most everyone on here is a big UBNT fan, it is after all a 
UBNT forum, but some of their products are not very good.  This is one of them. 
 Talking to them at Wispapolooza last year, there does not sound like any 
upgrades are coming for the 900 or 3.65.  We have deployed Cambium PMP gear in 
both frequencies and are glad to spend the money.  It is a real jump in 
quality.  Now would I deploy PMP450 in a low end trailer park, not likely.  We 
use UBNT, PMP, ePMP and even some Mikrotik in our network.



Good luck…





---

Tommy Adams

Network Administrator

Digitex.com



817.558.6230 Voice

817.558.1204 Fax







From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org>  
mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org> > On Behalf 
Of RickG
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 1:42 PM
To: Ubiquiti Users Group mailto:ubnt_users@wispa.org> >
Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] UBNET 9

Re: [Ubnt_users] cameras 1000ft through a forest

[Paul Tackett via Ubnt_users]

We have deployed these at 2 locations and while they work, they do seem to need 
an occasional reboot. I would make sure that the devices are easily accessible 
by someone onsite who can cycle the power should traffic stop flowing.

Paul Tackett, COO
(406)284-3174x105
p...@latmt.com



-Original Message-
From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Robert
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 08:34
To: ubnt_users@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] cameras 1000ft through a forest

What price for these?

On 1/26/18 5:51 AM, David Hulsebus wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/25/2018 2:54 PM, Jan-OOLLC wrote:
>> I have to get cameras up and have a forest in the way.  Range is a 
>> little over 1000ft from house, need to live monitor the road and 
>> catch dumpers.  What radios, how to keep them powered and what 
>> cameras should I think about for first attempt?
>>
> We used a pair of these to power a NB19 about 1200 ft from a house 
> with
> CAT5 up a driveway to clear woods. It runs a 56 vdc so you need to add 
> a ubiquiti convertor to get it back to 24v
> 
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://veracityglobal.com/produc
> ts/ethernet-and-poe-devices/longspan.aspx&c=E,1,M71OduAZpmy55fB7gPYfnj
> MYYmucDRAui8YZG6nGT-9nWpdAT8Mu-nmg4IqFK1a7FqHIVoSMAfTbAfddCtzpDsdL4sFa
> _PTzglmELYARr2EM61JCo-8pjFYm&typo=1
> 
___
Ubnt_users mailing list
Ubnt_users@wispa.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users&c=E,1,l1wOsVT8IEjFjFopQ-hCy-tz9R6nYHqAYIKh-yKe8LR_-xncCwuoO_pOuacLit2leo1Iub3zOuNmeE7Nf1uqaGT-99gdatUub8UaJgol6LXtfY3X&typo=1


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Ubnt_users mailing list
Ubnt_users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users

Re: [Ubnt_users] cannot find interference source

[Paul Tackett via Ubnt_users]

Amen. Probably dual band router set to Auto channel and Auto power, bouncing
around like a jumping bean, creating your fun-filled game of whack-a-mole.

 

Paul Tackett, COO

(406)284-3174x105

p...@latmt.com



 

From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 11:13
To: Ubiquiti Users Group 
Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] cannot find interference source

 

We make our customers turn off their 5GHz radios on our network just for
this reason.

 

Rory

 

From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org>
[mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Aaron McKillip
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 11:06 AM
To: Ubiquiti Users Group mailto:ubnt_users@wispa.org>
>
Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] cannot find interference source

 

Dual Band router? 

Aaron McKillip 

Hamilton Telecommunications

402-694-6655


On Dec 6, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Jan Van Kort mailto:j.vank...@oregononline.net> > wrote:

It's just the one customer.  Neighbors to each side are just fine.
Neighbors are about 1/4 mile away on same hillside in quasi-rural area.
There are no other WISPs in area, no airFiber that I've found.  AirView
shows nothing worth getting excited about when problem isn't happening, when
problem is happening Airview is not accessible as unit is not responding.
Rarely has problem occurred while I'm on the premises and goes away before I
can zero in on it.   I'm suspecting large pumps, old transformers, bad
neutral?  How to prove and stop wasting time and money on one customer?
Pulling hair time!

 

On 2017-12-06 09:17 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:

Spectrum Analyzer and AirView both show real noise. 

 

You said you changed bands at the customer site, are there other customers
on those APs that are having issues or is it this one guy?




 

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

 

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Phil Curnutt mailto:pcurn...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I have on two occasions tried to cross the path of an AirFiber5 and had the
signal completely blocked.  Like Rory said they don't show up on Site
Surveys or noise figures, but are very apparent in AirView. 

 

Phil

 

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Rory Conaway mailto:r...@triadwireless.net> > wrote:

Could still be noise.  Canopy and AFx equipment won't show up in the noise
figures.

Rory

-Original Message-
From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org>
[mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org> ]
On Behalf Of Jan-OOLLC
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 11:07 PM
To: Ubiquiti Users Group mailto:ubnt_users@wispa.org>
>
Subject: [Ubnt_users] cannot find interference source

Have a client that is difficult to login to at times, service for them seems
to quit.  Has good signal strength.  Have changed the radio to different
models and frequencies and connected to different towers. It's like some
kind of barrier at random times is erected between house and tower.  Site
survey and spectrum analyzer never show anything remotely definitive as to
possible cause or source of trouble.  Could problem be noisy electrical
transformers or well pumps and what low-cost equipment  would I need to find
it?

--

J

___
Ubnt_users mailing list
Ubnt_users@wispa.org <mailto:Ubnt_users@wispa.org> 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listin
fo/ubnt_users&c=E,1,2N5qSvcZFHjoNvfCWV5vSAC8son1N64y4kVyW782stJnSQlGfUqlV-Z-
zN9heV1DZOjxJINDNNLnKuEhVEKWlLcamQhhFoYnYlw-vjw,&typo=1> 
___
Ubnt_users mailing list
Ubnt_users@wispa.org <mailto:Ubnt_users@wispa.org> 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listin
fo/ubnt_users&c=E,1,VlFgoEMXYtcuZ8Su3AIdIUodOvMTnUIz8x2osCLy1PEoFtIgoUrnVJ24
dYoQlejC0NqQTlk5x0yeRvPVAAjy0U5h_1jccSymGYyTUs1YnSoJHbO2ZRg,&typo=1> 

 


___
Ubnt_users mailing list
Ubnt_users@wispa.org <mailto:Ubnt_users@wispa.org> 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listin
fo/ubnt_users&c=E,1,lqwFRvEi4h7ws40bHFazk_n4fwCHzUTofEdt6nFbmcTlYSdJ5L4MeOdy
fES2lOq4s_lYJkyQYRXTBsVGbBBchdY-MamditawR0ARbP5kvqa_yvqLFLGcdS8BPw,,&typo=1>


 





___
Ubnt_users mailing list
Ubnt_users@wispa.org <mailto:Ubnt_users@wispa.org> 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listin
fo/ubnt_users&c=E,1,XiowEn_YhjF6sbz5_1BVS5GqUB12iuDl

Re: [Ubnt_users] cannot find interference source

[Paul Tackett via Ubnt_users]

Are they using 5Ghz WiFi? Perhaps internal contention for spectrum?



Paul Tackett, COO

(406)284-3174x105

p...@latmt.com





From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Jan Van Kort
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 10:58
To: ubnt_users@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] cannot find interference source



It's just the one customer.  Neighbors to each side are just fine.  Neighbors 
are about 1/4 mile away on same hillside in quasi-rural area.  There are no 
other WISPs in area, no airFiber that I've found.  AirView shows nothing worth 
getting excited about when problem isn't happening, when problem is happening 
Airview is not accessible as unit is not responding.  Rarely has problem 
occurred while I'm on the premises and goes away before I can zero in on it.   
I'm suspecting large pumps, old transformers, bad neutral?  How to prove and 
stop wasting time and money on one customer?  Pulling hair time!



On 2017-12-06 09:17 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:

Spectrum Analyzer and AirView both show real noise.



You said you changed bands at the customer site, are there other customers on 
those APs that are having issues or is it this one guy?






Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373



On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Phil Curnutt mailto:pcurn...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I have on two occasions tried to cross the path of an AirFiber5 and had the 
signal completely blocked.  Like Rory said they don't show up on Site Surveys 
or noise figures, but are very apparent in AirView.



Phil



On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Rory Conaway mailto:r...@triadwireless.net> > wrote:

Could still be noise.  Canopy and AFx equipment won't show up in the noise 
figures.

Rory

-Original Message-
From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org>  
[mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org> ] On 
Behalf Of Jan-OOLLC
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 11:07 PM
To: Ubiquiti Users Group mailto:ubnt_users@wispa.org> >
Subject: [Ubnt_users] cannot find interference source

Have a client that is difficult to login to at times, service for them seems to 
quit.  Has good signal strength.  Have changed the radio to different models 
and frequencies and connected to different towers. It's like some kind of 
barrier at random times is erected between house and tower.  Site survey and 
spectrum analyzer never show anything remotely definitive as to possible cause 
or source of trouble.  Could problem be noisy electrical transformers or well 
pumps and what low-cost equipment  would I need to find it?

--

J

___
Ubnt_users mailing list
Ubnt_users@wispa.org <mailto:Ubnt_users@wispa.org>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users&c=E,1,-z1q8btm4_8gwx8EKctv062s5Y5YrQ59afuxLCk3Drf6oORDWF3zXSnR7-HcMKQEA0jzuCt_qrAMQDmd957Tl8QlXcOAsLGpKXWF7799&typo=1>
___
Ubnt_users mailing list
Ubnt_users@wispa.org <mailto:Ubnt_users@wispa.org>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users&c=E,1,TksVZhI9cBbP1YZM-CSeEuh5bNYjDiNdTxWhOs_IguIHbtPXvTwbrzhD926y08fAjttxPuk6S8ghnldH-0flxiwq7Vwi2vYCWS5cKEhPjaElSmG1NLy1B1X1jw,,&typo=1>




___
Ubnt_users mailing list
Ubnt_users@wispa.org <mailto:Ubnt_users@wispa.org>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users&c=E,1,x2p8t19h2Q_Y4N7YgRK8qHIcJfqvtsPsNP2a--K164Ji_-zhcMtLyjaXKpDLvqOaan7kSy5zOmtxIYZ2F1ZYu4HEktHlt_oHFZdMaQa7UkQ,&typo=1>








___
Ubnt_users mailing list
Ubnt_users@wispa.org <mailto:Ubnt_users@wispa.org>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users&c=E,1,uKKunBn5fTnMxjqFgpf-rZmT0WFfbk3ceK9RVVrqFfDNkueKxhfMUgVPMn3rr_qNGrmm00RqmjHA4Ca04oeVOZSNPjvYJnepKLo02tepvNPrB_saIE-8&typo=1>





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Ubnt_users mailing list
Ubnt_users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users

Re: [Ubnt_users] UBNT new Firmware

[Paul McNary]

:-) :-)
On 9/9/2017 1:51 PM, alex phillips wrote:
Forbes I was just talking with Robert last week and he says he does 
that just to piss you off


On Sep 9, 2017 2:24 PM, "Forbes Mercy" > wrote:


Obviously Ubiquiti doesn't appreciate the time it takes to upgrade
a few
thousand radios by coming out with a new firmware every few days.  Get
it right the first time people!

___
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

Re: [Ubnt_users] AirControl2 V22

[Paul]

Yes


On 7/14/2016 8:17 AM, Shawn Burgei wrote:


Has anyone else had issues with AC2 V22 leaving blank gaps in the 
bandwidth charts?


Thanks,

Shawn



___
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

Re: [Ubnt_users] Rocket ACs

[Paul McNary]

Will they RMA the older version?


On 12/9/2014 2:01 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Check the date code (the five characters printed on the label before 
the MAC), I think 1431G or newer will work... I verified it does work 
on 1431G, anyway.


If I understand correctly, the older Rockets will not support airview 
due to hardware changes.



*From:* ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] on 
behalf of Adair Winter [ada...@amarillowireless.net]

*Sent:* Tuesday, December 09, 2014 1:57 PM
*To:* Ubiquiti Users Group
*Subject:* Re: [Ubnt_users] Rocket ACs

So I bought some early rocket AC's to test with and never got them 
deployed due to the lack of airview. now I'm reading that my rockets 
might not support it at all due to a hardware change? or was it just 
software??... How can I verify this for sure? is there a particular 
series or something? Or do I just need to fire them up and see?


On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Mathew Howard > wrote:


Yes, the spectrum analyzer is quite nice... even if the only
Rocket I have that it works on is sitting on my desk. :p

So is the only difference with this new Rocket AirPrism, or are
there other  changes as well?

*From:* ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org

[ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org
] on behalf of Ben Moore
[ben.mo...@ubnt.com ]
*Sent:* Tuesday, December 09, 2014 1:27 PM

*To:* Ubiquiti Users Group
*Subject:* Re: [Ubnt_users] Rocket ACs

;-)  I think you guys will really like the new SW tools being
added (especially the persistent spectrum analyzer...lots that can
be done with that).  Will send out some details shortly on PTMP
networks in the wild ;)

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Mathew Howard
mailto:mat...@litewire.net>> wrote:

ha... I just Rocket and PowerBeam and assumed they were the
same ones. I guess I should actually read stuff. This is what
happens when you don't make new stuff look different :p

*From:* ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org

[ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org
] on behalf of Mike
Hammett [wispaubntus...@ics-il.net
]
*Sent:* Tuesday, December 09, 2014 1:22 PM
*To:* Ubiquiti Users Group
*Subject:* Re: [Ubnt_users] Rocket ACs

Oh, so the non-Lite Rocket. Sorry.

The e-mail didn't really make it clear that there were new
things, just the same platform hype we had 14 months ago. I
didn't read it all, just skimmed it because it didn't look any
different.

Ohhh, so the PtMP works now with the new software?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com





*From: *"Ben Moore" mailto:ben.mo...@ubnt.com>>
*To: *"Ubiquiti Users Group" mailto:ubnt_users@wispa.org>>
*Sent: *Tuesday, December 9, 2014 1:20:19 PM
*Subject: *Re: [Ubnt_users] Rocket ACs

The 3 new products announced today:

R5AC-PTP - Rocket w/AirPrism, PTP only
NBE-5AC-19 - 19dB NanoBeam
PBE-5AC-620 - 620mm PowerBeam

Also, all of the software updates:

http://www.ubnt.com/broadband/software/

Some highlights:

- Dedicated spectrum analysis (persistent)
- CINR (Carrier to Interference and Noise Ratio - accurate
assessment of channel conditions
- New diagnostic tools (Ethernet Cabling test, RF Diagnostics,
etc...)
- PTMP enabled on R5AC-LITE

The R5AC-PTMP (AirPrism AP) will be announced shortly.

Thanks,
Ben

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Mathew Howard
mailto:mat...@litewire.net>> wrote:

 We have a couple of links up... I haven't really seen any
problems with them.

I think the NanoBeam AC might be new... at least I hadn't
seen it before, but otherwise, no, nothing new.



*From:* ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org

[ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org
] on behalf of Mik

Re: [Ubnt_users] Speed test no working

[Paul Conlin]

Are you saying the DFS is causing the speed test to not work?

 

 

From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Kees H
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 11:06 AM
To: Ubiquiti Users Group
Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] Speed test no working

 

Are you saying that NS M5 are not DFS certified?

 

- Original Message - 

From: Rory Conaway <mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>  

To: Ubiquiti Users Group <mailto:ubnt_users@wispa.org>  

Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 5:07 AM

Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] Speed test no working

 

I forgot that 5.5.2 had DFS on legacy.  Yea, that kind of sucks.  I’ve had to 
change a few radios out but in reality, not a lot of the legacy Nanostations 
survive after 4 years in Phoenix anyway.  I’ll have to see if I can compile the 
data but I think we have changed out about 20 of the NS5M’s this year to move 
all our APs to DFS.

 

Rory

 

From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 5:58 AM
To: Ubiquiti Users Group
Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] Speed test no working

 

Do not illegally use UBNT products...



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

 <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> Image removed by sender. 
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> Image removed by 
sender. <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> 
Image removed by sender. <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Image removed by sender.


  _  


From: "Tim Kerns" 
To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" 
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:25:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] Speed test no working

Not so easy to doif you have, like me,some bullets or air grids then 
they can not have anything  above 5.3 because you lose DFS.

 

These were not re-certified by UBNT.

 

:0

 

 

From: Rory Conaway <mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>  

Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 12:02 PM

To: Ubiquiti Users Group <mailto:ubnt_users@wispa.org>  

Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] Speed test no working

 

Just get everything on 5.5.10.  No reason not to.

 

Rory

 

From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Jerry Richardson (airCloud)
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 12:01 PM
To: Ubiquiti Users Group
Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] Speed test no working

 

We have noticed that if the SW versions don't match it will not work. 

 

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Daniel Peoples  wrote:

This is something that has been an issue since 5.5 as far as I know. 

On Nov 16, 2014 11:18 AM, "Paul Conlin"  wrote:

Is there a fix for this?  A workaround besides rebooting?  We are on 5.5.8.  
Should we move up to 5.5.10?

 

PC

Blaze Broadband

 

 

From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Daniel and Regina Peoples
Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:57 PM
To: Ubiquiti Users Group
Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] Speed test no working

 

This is a "Feature" of 5.5+ IIRC 5.3.5 didn't have this issue.




Daniel Peoples
Resonance Broadband

 <http://Resonancebroadband.com> Resonancebroadband.com
918-429-3620

 

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:53 PM, RickG  wrote:

Well, 5.5.4 sucks...

 

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Eduardo  wrote:

Is this issue related to the firmware version?

 

Eduardo

 

- Original Message - 

From: Matt Hoppes <mailto:mhop...@indigowireless.com>  

To: Ubiquiti Users Group <mailto:ubnt_users@wispa.org>  

Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 4:49 PM

Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] Speed test no working

 

Reboot both radios -- there's some kind of a memory leak/issue.


Matt Hoppes
Director of Information Technology
Indigo Wireless
+1 (570) 723-7312  

On 3/4/14, 4:48 PM, Eduardo wrote:
> I'm trying to run a speed test from a station in a PtP link, and got
> this message:
>  
> Error: Specified device is not
> compatible for speedtest.
>  
> Both radios are BulletM5 with v5.5.4. I got the same error when tried in
> a link with RocketM365 in both ends and v5.5.6.
>  
> Also I've tried in a PtoP connection also with Bullets, but M2 and
> v.5.5.6 with the same result. 
>  
> The issue is always running the speed test from the station to the AP. 
>  
> Have you guys seen this issue?
>  
> Any suggestions on how I can fix it.
>  
> Thanks,
> Eduardo
>  
> 
> 
> ___
> 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://l

Re: [Ubnt_users] Speed test no working

[Paul Conlin]

AP and all clients are 5.5.8-no mismatch. Why does the speedtest fail here? Why 
does it work in Latvia?

PC
Blaze Broadband


On November 16, 2014 3:25:21 PM EST, Tim Kerns  wrote:
>Not so easy to doif you have, like me,some bullets or air grids
>then they can not have anything  above 5.3 because you lose DFS.
>
>These were not re-certified by UBNT.
>
>:0
>
>
>From: Rory Conaway 
>Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 12:02 PM
>To: Ubiquiti Users Group 
>Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] Speed test no working
>
>Just get everything on 5.5.10.  No reason not to.
>
> 
>
>Rory
>
> 
>
>From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org
>[mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Richardson
>(airCloud)
>Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 12:01 PM
>To: Ubiquiti Users Group
>Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] Speed test no working
>
> 
>
>We have noticed that if the SW versions don't match it will not work. 
>
> 
>
>On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Daniel Peoples 
>wrote:
>
>This is something that has been an issue since 5.5 as far as I know. 
>
>On Nov 16, 2014 11:18 AM, "Paul Conlin" 
>wrote:
>
>Is there a fix for this?  A workaround besides rebooting?  We are on
>5.5.8.  Should we move up to 5.5.10?
>
> 
>
>PC
>
>Blaze Broadband
>
> 
>
> 
>
>From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org
>[mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Daniel and Regina
>Peoples
>Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:57 PM
>To: Ubiquiti Users Group
>Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] Speed test no working
>
> 
>
>This is a "Feature" of 5.5+ IIRC 5.3.5 didn't have this issue.
>
>
>
>
>Daniel Peoples
>Resonance Broadband
>
>Resonancebroadband.com
>918-429-3620
>
> 
>
>On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:53 PM, RickG  wrote:
>
>Well, 5.5.4 sucks...
>
> 
>
>On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Eduardo  wrote:
>
>Is this issue related to the firmware version?
>
> 
>
>Eduardo
>
> 
>
>  - Original Message - 
>
>  From: Matt Hoppes 
>
>  To: Ubiquiti Users Group 
>
>  Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 4:49 PM
>
>  Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] Speed test no working
>
>   
>
>  Reboot both radios -- there's some kind of a memory leak/issue.
>
>
>  Matt Hoppes
>  Director of Information Technology
>  Indigo Wireless
>  +1 (570) 723-7312
>
>  On 3/4/14, 4:48 PM, Eduardo wrote:
> > I'm trying to run a speed test from a station in a PtP link, and got
>  > this message:
>  >  
>  > Error: Specified device is not
>  > compatible for speedtest.
>  >  
>> Both radios are BulletM5 with v5.5.4. I got the same error when tried
>in
>  > a link with RocketM365 in both ends and v5.5.6.
>  >  
>  > Also I've tried in a PtoP connection also with Bullets, but M2 and
>  > v.5.5.6 with the same result. 
>  >  
>> The issue is always running the speed test from the station to the
>AP. 
>  >  
>  > Have you guys seen this issue?
>  >  
>  > Any suggestions on how I can fix it.
>  >  
>  > Thanks,
>  > Eduardo
>  >  
>  > 
>  > 
>  > ___
>  > 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
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>-- 
>-RickG KyWiFi 
>
>
>___
>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

Re: [Ubnt_users] Speed test no working

[Paul Conlin]

Is there a fix for this?  A workaround besides rebooting?  We are on 5.5.8.
Should we move up to 5.5.10?

 

PC

Blaze Broadband

 

 

From: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Daniel and Regina Peoples
Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:57 PM
To: Ubiquiti Users Group
Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] Speed test no working

 

This is a "Feature" of 5.5+ IIRC 5.3.5 didn't have this issue.




Daniel Peoples
Resonance Broadband

  Resonancebroadband.com
918-429-3620

 

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:53 PM, RickG  wrote:

Well, 5.5.4 sucks...

 

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Eduardo  wrote:

Is this issue related to the firmware version?

 

Eduardo

 

- Original Message - 

From: Matt Hoppes   

To: Ubiquiti Users Group   

Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 4:49 PM

Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] Speed test no working

 

Reboot both radios -- there's some kind of a memory leak/issue.


Matt Hoppes
Director of Information Technology
Indigo Wireless
+1 (570) 723-7312  

On 3/4/14, 4:48 PM, Eduardo wrote:
> I'm trying to run a speed test from a station in a PtP link, and got
> this message:
>  
> Error: Specified device is not
> compatible for speedtest.
>  
> Both radios are BulletM5 with v5.5.4. I got the same error when tried in
> a link with RocketM365 in both ends and v5.5.6.
>  
> Also I've tried in a PtoP connection also with Bullets, but M2 and
> v.5.5.6 with the same result. 
>  
> The issue is always running the speed test from the station to the AP. 
>  
> Have you guys seen this issue?
>  
> Any suggestions on how I can fix it.
>  
> Thanks,
> Eduardo
>  
> 
> 
> ___
> 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





 

-- 
-RickG KyWiFi 


___
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

Re: [Ubnt_users] {Spam?} Re: NanoBeam M5 400

[Paul]

OK Mike I will go away, but it still doesn't change the problem with ubnt!

On 11/2/2014 9:07 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
When someone brings up switching to Mikrotik wireless, I stop taking 
them seriously. This is Mikrotik to the FCC:  http://bit.ly/1wX04zi


UBNT probably don't know either or if they do, I certainly wouldn't 
make announcements about the DFS process other than in progress. 
Letting too much out to competitors at that point.


As this thread has just turned into Paul crying, I'm out.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

----
*From: *"Paul" 
*To: *"ubnt users" 
*Sent: *Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:59:34 PM
*Subject: *Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400

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" 
*To: *"ubnt users" 
*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
mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>> 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: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org
<mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org>
[mailto: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 <mailto: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 ha

Re: [Ubnt_users] {Spam?} Re: NanoBeam M5 400

[Paul]

I can waste money on Mikrotik for a 2 year window until totally banned.
It looks like I can take Cambium to the bank at the moment.
Hopefully we will know soon if we can take Mimosa to the bank.
At some point I am going to stop wasting money on ubnt until the goods 
are in hand and
working. Thank GOD I didn't jump on the gps and rocket ti bandwagon. 
That would have been
expensive. Now I am wondering if I did make a mistake jumping on the 
ubnt bandwagon too soon.
I can live without DFS for 6 more months, I can't live without UNII-1 
any longer.


On 11/2/2014 9:07 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
When someone brings up switching to Mikrotik wireless, I stop taking 
them seriously. This is Mikrotik to the FCC:  http://bit.ly/1wX04zi


UBNT probably don't know either or if they do, I certainly wouldn't 
make announcements about the DFS process other than in progress. 
Letting too much out to competitors at that point.


As this thread has just turned into Paul crying, I'm out.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

----
*From: *"Paul" 
*To: *"ubnt users" 
*Sent: *Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:59:34 PM
*Subject: *Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400

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" 
*To: *"ubnt users" 
*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
mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>> 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: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org
<mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org>
[mailto: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 <mailto: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 sit

Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400

[Paul]

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" 
*To: *"ubnt users" 
*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
mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>> 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: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org
<mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org>
[mailto: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 <mailto: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>
[mailto: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 <mailto: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 Ubi

Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400

[Paul]

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" 
*To: *"Ubiquiti Users Group" 
*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 <mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>> 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: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org
<mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org>
[mailto: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 <mailto: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>
[mailto: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 <mailto: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.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400

[Paul]

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 <mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>> 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: ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org
<mailto:ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org>
[mailto: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 <mailto: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>
    [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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" mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>>
>> To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" mailto: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 cer

Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400

[Paul]

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" 
>> To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" 
>> 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

Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400

[Paul]

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" 
> To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" 
> 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

Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400

[Paul]

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

Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400

[Paul]

So are you saying the Nanobeams and PTP-AC's we have already bought will 
not certify because of hardware problems?


Are they going to trade out what we bought expecting certification for 
hardware that will certify?


What a pile of  !!

I guess we need to stop buying until the promised features are really there.












On 11/2/2014 5:46 PM, Chris Fabien wrote:
I think it's fairly obvious that there's been some sort of problem 
getting the Nanobeam's certified, due to the time they have been out 
and the lack of any real communication from ubnt other than "pretty 
soon". I would expect they did not pass all of the requirements and 
had to go back and make hardware changes or some other issue came up 
in testing. As an operator with a lot of 5Ghz UBNT in DFS bands, it 
makes me very nervous to be buying nanobeams with the 
expectation/hope/wish that they will end up DFS certified at some 
point. Since UBNT has a history of not DFS certifying all 5ghz 
products it's doubly worrysome, in my opinion.


On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Larry A. Weidig > wrote:


Funny, I just posed this question to Ubiquiti support today as
well.  Seems ridiculous Cambium gets the entire ePMP product line
which is NEWER than the beams through this process while we sit
here waiting for it.  I also thought the 5150 - 5250 band did not
require new approvals, but found out today that the NanoBeams will
not link with that either.

The support answer I got seemed really poor as well: "Thanks for
getting in touch with us!  The operating frequency for Nanobeam is
Worldwide: 5170 - 5875 MHz and USA: 5725 - 5850 MHz.  Hope that's
helpful. Please let me know if you've any other question."

Did not even address the question of availability of DFS / 5150
bands as I asked.  I am hoping this is REALLY soon!  Matt / Ben
can you share with us why Ubiquiti is not getting this done?



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


*From: *"Mathew Howard" mailto:mat...@litewire.net>>
*To: *"Ubiquiti Users Group" mailto:ubnt_users@wispa.org>>
*Sent: *Sunday, November 2, 2014 5:14:35 PM
*Subject: *Re: [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400


No, it is not.

*From:* ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org

[ubnt_users-boun...@wispa.org
] on behalf of Phil Curnutt
[pcurn...@gmail.com ]
*Sent:* Sunday, November 02, 2014 5:09 PM
*To:* Ubiquiti Users Group
*Subject:* [Ubnt_users] NanoBeam M5 400

Is this radio DFS channel ready now? I know it has been discussed,
but with all the new PowerBeam radio's I am confused.

Phil

___
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