X-posting to Cabling newsgroups
"(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote in message
> Per Char Jackson:
>>>I have seen the light and am going to replace the regular Cat5 cables on
>>>my radio links with shielded - using Ubiquiti's ToughCable Pro.
>>I'm curious, where is this discussion taking place where they're
>>recommending shielded cable? I wonder what's the basis for the
>>recommendation. Yes, I'm skeptical.
> So was I.
> But the manual says that shielded cable is important. viz Page 4 of
> Self-serving promo for their house brand? That was my kneejerk
> reaction.... but now I know that there are several threads in the
> Ubiquiti fora that make it pretty clear that electrostatic discharge is
> a consideration. For example: http://tinyurl.com/m5vttf3
> Now I realize that I cannot afford to be skeptical because I just don't
> know enough.
> The facts are:
> - Every so often 3 cams become unreachable from a remote site over
> a radio link.
> - A fourth cam never, ever has any problems
> - The 3 problem cams immediately become reachable once both
> ends of the radio link are re-booted.
> - One of the links is attached to the top of a 15-foot windsurfer
> mast only about 50' from a large bay - i.e. it gets some
> serious weather.
> Add to the above that it is starting to look like there is a correlation
> between the failures and high winds at the site and you see where I
> But, like I said, I'm clueless except that I know that those three
> things are clearly happening.... And the pros on the Ubiquiti site are
> telling me that grounded/shielded cable to an outside radio is
> absolutely standard practice.
> I have withdrawn from the discussion where this is taking place because
> I was starting to irritate at least one of the gurus there with my
> incessant beginner-type questions. The guys who matter there are
> mostly professionals and it is now clear to me that I was abusing the
> environment. There are also amateurs there, but I seem to be more
> verbose and less inclined to research before asking than most.
> But my basic question remains: how can a radio-link problem be
> Greater Minds Than Mine have said "No problem... see it all the time."
> But I have yet to get specifics... to that end, I just pulled the
> trigger on a smart switch that I will swap in down at the problem site
> when I get down that way. Then I will be able to test the obvious
> suggestion that it is something to do with bandwidth (not!...but I need
> to prove it) and also to put WireShark on both ends of the link.
> Whatever happens, I am going to come out of this knowing significantly
> more than when I went in.
> The thread is at: http://tinyurl.com/m6pyfje
> Pete Cresswell