On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:56:34 -0800 (PST), seaweedsl
<seaweedsteve@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 12, 3:18*pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>> Yep. *Also 1 watt RF power.
>
>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.
Oops. I only saw the 1000mw = 1 watt version.
>So, three of the five new products do not have transmit amps and two
>do. Other than that, how do they look?
I can't tell. I'll dig for the FCC ID numbers and see what's in side
on the FCCID web pile.
>Not carrier class ?
Can I add one more? "Carrier" usually means "telco" which means that
some provisions for running a wireless T1 might be included.
>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: http://www.ubnt.com/airos/#feat
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.
>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?
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.
>Does Ubiquiti's offering linux SDKs and courting of the replacement
>firmware community add any value?
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.
>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?
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.
>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?
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.
>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?
Sure. Now, try talking while a rock band is blasting away.
>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.
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.
>Any other comments?
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.
>Don't you think it looks like a nice product for
>CPE and AP applications?
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.
>Isn't it cool that somebody came out with a
>tiny weatherproof AP/CPE that costs less than many USB adapters?
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?
>And
>runs a quality firmware instead of using some crappy drivers? And POE
>(non-standard) and one model even comes with an N connector?
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.
--
Jeff Liebermann
jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060
http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
New device 
Linear Mode
