New device

I just saw that Ubiquiti, who caught my interest with the inexpensive Nanostation (runs DDWRT), has now got a new device to add to the problem solving toolbox:

Product:

formatting link
Datasheet:
formatting link
Looks very interesting. LEDs for pointing are a great Ubiquiti feature, as well as a (reportedly) powerful firmware, good radio and sufficient memory onboard. I wonder what the POE deal is....

Also, I see another new one called a "Picostation". Looks to be the Bullet with an antenna, RPSMA instead of N connector.

formatting link

WAIT, here's yet another:

formatting link
It's really a good site. They offer various calculators, including this page for help on POE "homebrew" :

formatting link

I'm not (yet) a Ubiquiti user or anything, just liking the products they are bringing to market. I think these could displace the Linksys and Buffalos etc. that a lot of us are using as APs or clients.

Steve

Reply to
seaweedsl
Loading thread data ...

It's a 1 watt tx power radio. Just great for creating an "alligator" (big mouth, small ears). Be the first on your block to dominate the airwaves. I guess "carrier class" now means running a power amplifier. To me, carrier class means SNMP monitoring, redundancy, and fast MMTR (mean time to repair).

Yep. Also 1 watt RF power.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

I think you misunderstood where it says "up to 1000mw". That depends on the product. For the Bullet and Picostation, they offer regular versions and ALSO HP versions with 1 watt transmit.

The regular version of the Bullet or Picostation is not particulary powerful transmit (20 dbm @24 Mbps). The "HP" version of the Bullet and Picostation is the one claiming 1 watt. The NanoLoco doesn't seem to come in an HP version.

So, three of the five new products do not have transmit amps and two do. Other than that, how do they look? Not carrier class ? They do offer SNMP with the AIR OS, plus DDWRT is being ported over to Ubiquiti products, it seems. Go here to see features and demo the AIR OS firmware:

formatting link
And MMTR: Is having an expensive device that's easy to repair better than having several $40-$50 devices that are easy to swap out?

Does Ubiquiti's offering linux SDKs and courting of the replacement firmware community add any value?

Also, is there value in a weatherproof wireless product with powerful, supported stock firmware yet a price that compares to a Linksys? One that works with homebrew (or included) POE?

Back to the issue of the 1W transmit on the Bullet HP- lets suppose you wanted to make a long distance link with two of the HP bullets: you put each of them on a matching directional antenna, some x miles apart. In this case, having the transmit power on each end balances out and actually helps? It seems that the alligator critique would not apply when using matched radios, or would it? Two guys with very loud voices and average ears can still talk from farther away than two guys with average voices and average ears, right?

Also, the targeted user for these products should know enough to turn an HP down to the power level needed for the application, right? Checking the forums, it seems to be a professional user base.

Any other comments? Don't you think it looks like a nice product for CPE and AP applications? Isn't it cool that somebody came out with a tiny weatherproof AP/CPE that costs less than many USB adapters? And runs a quality firmware instead of using some crappy drivers? And POE (non-standard) and one model even comes with an N connector?

Reply to
seaweedsl

Oops. I only saw the 1000mw = 1 watt version.

I can't tell. I'll dig for the FCC ID numbers and see what's in side on the FCCID web pile.

Can I add one more? "Carrier" usually means "telco" which means that some provisions for running a wireless T1 might be included.

One has to be a bit careful with SNMP. Some cheap routers included a very limited SNMP, that's not even ASN.1 compliant. They usually fail to include MAC layer monitoring and counters. DD-WRT does this to some extent, but nothing compared to what I've seen on "real" radios, such as Cisco. A typical use would be monitoring the over the air packet error and retransmission rate to determine if interference (or other imparement) is an issue.

Good point. There are benefits to both approaches. It really depends on the location and degree of mission critical application. If the device is located on top of a mountain or tower, an expensive device that's known reliable, or a redundant device is the only way to go. Having a replacement is also considered a given. Note that we're talking about "carrier class" as in telco, WISP, or corporate applications, not a home wireless router. I've done it both ways and had better luck with the expensive hardware. However, in both situations, I have spares available.

Not to me. My programming abilities are limited and I don't see much that would benefit from what appears to be a custom user interface kit. However, the replacement firmware is certainly worth the effort. Most of the 3rd party firmware has consisted of adding Linux based features to the basic build. Given sufficient RAM, it's possible to build a complete server around a wireless router. While the added complexity isn't what I consider a great idea, the versatility is great for my applications. Having one firmware version that works on all my wireless routers is a big plus for me in that I only need to stock a few spares. Moving the CFG file from one DD-WRT router to another is fairly trivial (as long as it's the same major version). The problem is that the general quality of most bottom of the line routers that run DD-WRT is fairly dismal. If Ubiquity can deliver hardware that's better than commodity junk, then I'll buy. I guess(tm) that's what they're trying to advertise. Whether they can deliver that is anyone's guess.

Certainly. Waterproofing in indoor router to work outside is difficult. However, I have a little experience in the not so gentle art of waterproofing (from my marine radio days) that indicates that even a potted radio isn't exactly water proof and corrosion resistant. When I see a pressurized and metered enclosure, then I'll believe the sale pitch.

I didn't see 802.3af compliance on the PoE (but may have missed it). Anything less is in my never humble opinion a marginal kludge.

Correct. I have no problem with symmetrical links, where the tx power at both ends is properly matched to the application. My problem is with asymetrical links, such as Point to Multipoint access point, running excessive power, and causing interference over a much wider area than it can receive (and operate).

Incidentally, I'll wager a few pennies that we're going to see these devices being hung on peoples laptops.

Sure. Now, try talking while a rock band is blasting away.

Professional user = overpriced product.

I've had customers says something like "anything that cheap can't be any good".

My limited experience shows that users tend to run tx power to the maximum available level. What usually happens is that they run into a situation where the added power might be a plus. They try it. It seems to work. So they leave it set at maximum.

Sure, but I'm late for a dump run. My dead pickup got tagged by the county as an abandoned vehicle. Gotta clean it up and sell it.

Yep. I like the concept. However, I've spent more time writing this rant than researching the product. I can't offer more until I've used one (or torn one apart). Personally, I'm more interested in the sector antenna on the data sheet.

Yep. I suppose I should order one, even though I don't have an immediate application. I don't see myself getting into "carrier class" for a while. Maybe if I start a CLEC?

I have my doubts about the PoE (not 802.3af). I'm wondering how the FCC let them get away with the N connector. I thought the FCC was promoting the exotic connector manufacturers and pigtail industry. Yeah, I'll admit it.... I like the idea. We'll see about the implimentation.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

FCCID's of the B2 and B5 SWX-B2 and SWX-B5

Reply to
LR

Thanks for the great comments, Jeff. Ever critical yields a sharper eye. And great point about distant sites.

You made me laugh (yet again) about the "rock band" comment. Definitely the issue I was not mentioning is that putting 1 watt systems out there is like the TSA letting new cars put extra bright lights on cars - it increases the noise level, ups the ante for everybody and results in lower overall effectiveness of the system when the rules move.

Yep. I think my next client adapter for problem solving will be one of these guys - I would buy the non-"HP" bullet and spend the difference on a small directional antenna. Or maybe just get one of the nanostations with a built in panel antenna and included injector.

Only thing is that the POE adds an extra device to the setup which USB doesn't. Greatly reduces the portability factor. USB will still have it's place.

Reply to
seaweedsl

LR wrote: . I'm wondering how the

I didn't take a good look at these yesterday but they look more like the picostation than the "bullets" that are shown on the Ubiquiti website. They definitely have rpsma connectors and the cct boards are labelled "bullet" so I don't know what is going on. There are no docs, as far as I can see, referencing any changes.

The data sheet on the Ubiquiti site is also different from that listed in the user manual on the FCC web site.

Reply to
LR

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.