Does this happen even when avoiding the U-NII-2 channels (the DFS ones)? I suppose most receivers are probably wide enough on the frontend that desense could be an issue even on others. It makes me wonder if UBNT's different models of airfiber for U-NII-2 and U-NII-3 space at least for airfiber may be specifically for radar. They do state it's to allow co-location with devices in the lower band, but I had assumed they meant communications links.
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Osborne, Bruce W (Network Services) < bosbo...@liberty.edu> wrote: > I do not know about this situation, but our management insists on us using > a 5G Wi-Fi point-to-point to go across a road on our campus near an > airport. Radar can cause havoc with 5G Wi-Fi. > > > > *Bruce Osborne* > > *Wireless Engineer* > > *IT Network Services - Wireless* > > > > *(434) 592-4229 <%28434%29%20592-4229>* > > > > *LIBERTY UNIVERSITY* > > *Training Champions for Christ since 1971* > > > > *From:* Ian McDonald [mailto:i...@st-andrews.ac.uk] > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 5, 2016 5:55 PM > *Subject:* Re: backhaul wifi comparison/suggestions > > > > Yearly license fees? > > > > I see that 2.4 might not be ideal. What stops you using the 5G radios? > > > > -- > > ian > > > > *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [ > mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>] *On Behalf Of *John Rodkey > *Sent:* 05 April 2016 22:53 > *To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] backhaul wifi comparison/suggestions > > > > That's what I've got in place now, but it also costs because of the yearly > license fees. > > It hasn't been 100% reliable, either (interference on 2.4MHz, I'm pretty > sure), so going 5 is desirable. > > John > > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Ian McDonald <i...@st-andrews.ac.uk> wrote: > > A pair of (cisco) access points from your scrap pile in bridge mode? 100% > inexpensive J > > > > -- > > ian > > > > > > *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto: > WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] *On Behalf Of *John Rodkey > *Sent:* 05 April 2016 22:36 > *To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > *Subject:* [WIRELESS-LAN] backhaul wifi comparison/suggestions > > > > I have need for a fairly inexpensive, low bandwidth (10Mbps), short > distance (<200 ft) point to point wireless connection . > > I am aware of the Cambrium ePMP 1000 and Ubiquiti nano. > > Would anyone like to compare these items or propose other good solutions > to this type of situation? > > John > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > -- Jeremy Mooney ITS - Bethel University ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
