What does MikroTik have against external antennas in SOHO products?

People, since RB751, MikroTik haven’t launched any new SOHO RB with external antenna connector. Why?

Those 2.5dBi internal antennas that comes with RB951, hAP, mAP are very poor and not sufficient for all scenarios (I guess MikroTik engineers doesn’t know most of houses’ internal walls around the world are made of concrete).

I was wanting to install hAP Lite for my ISP’s customers due to the need of some advanced features that RouterOS provides, but they coverage is generally not enough for most of them. It’s not the ideal, but unfortunately I’m having to consider using TP-Link routers with OpenWRT within. At least even TP-Link cheapest models have external antennas…

Nobody needs 30dB of tx power in a SOHO router. Instead, most of us need greater antenna gain and external removable dipoles.

I’m beginning to think that the reason for not launching models with external antennas is a dumb commercial strategy to prevent people and ISPs to have 2.4GHz outdoor access points using SOHO RBs and force them to buy more expensive models… It’s a dumb strategy because mostly nobody works anymore with 2.4GHz in outdoor environments, and so I really expect this isn’t the real reason.

What does MikroTik guys have to say about this?
Any explanation? Any plans to launch RB models with external antennas (without overprice them, as it’s a simple hardware change)?

Can’t you use a RB 2011 with more powerful external antennas ? Granted this knocks the cost up quite a bit .

Well, it is clear that integrated devices will not fit to everyone. If you need something special you have enough bricks from mikrotik to build whatever you need. Of course, the price could be the problem then. Sure I could imagine many integrated models that I would like to see on the market, just because they would fit my needs.

Those 2.5dBi internal antennas that comes with RB951, hAP, mAP are very poor and not sufficient for all scenarios (I guess MikroTik engineers doesn’t know most of houses’ internal walls around the world are made of concrete).

I was wanting to install hAP Lite for my ISP’s customers due to the need of some advanced features that RouterOS provides, but they coverage is generally not enough for most of them. It’s not the ideal, but unfortunately I’m having to consider using TP-Link routers with OpenWRT within. At least even TP-Link cheapest models have external antennas…

Any RB951 with its integrated antennas will kick the pants off any tp-link, no matter if you swap its antennas with a 30dBi one. Included concrete wall houses.

Why? because sensitivity is the “real thing”, and compared to a WDR4300 for example mikrotik has triple the sensitivity. Compared with any low range tp-link the difference is much drastical.

Don’t use the hAP lite as example because that router is not intended for general use but flats and offices.

Nobody needs 30dB of tx power in a SOHO router. Instead, most of us need greater antenna gain and external removable dipoles.

I’m beginning to think that the reason for not launching models with external antennas is a dumb commercial strategy to prevent people and ISPs to have 2.4GHz outdoor access points using SOHO RBs and force them to buy more expensive models… It’s a dumb strategy because mostly nobody works anymore with 2.4GHz in outdoor environments, and so I really expect this isn’t the real reason.

Come on… Do you think mikrotik will be where they are now with these “strategies”?

A much better way of thinking would be the opposite: “why does mikrotik, who knows their stuff, use internal antennas on their most widely used SOHO routers while cheapo brands or models intended for general public don’t?”

As mentioned in the thread you can always choose any RB, enclosure and put external antennas on them. 99 out of 100 times an RB951 with its internal antennas will perform similarly if not better.

I have installed hundreds of openwrt powered tp-links in the past, and their performance and reliability (not to mention management as like you this was in a WISP environment) is a joke compared with RBs.

RB951 with internal antennas working better then d-link with external. In sensitivity and in transmission. Connectors complicate and increase the cost of construction. Looking for routers with connectors - please choose another model )

Sorry I did not read your message at once)

By the way I tried to connect 6-10 dBi omni antennas to RB711 - RB951 anyway works much better…

Thanks everybody for your answers.

No. RB2011 is so much expensive and waste of resources for most of ISP’s customers.

You’re right. I forgot about how poor is the RF of common brands’ APs.

Even hAP Lite, that is the cheapest of all RBs intended for home use, is too much expensive for most of my ISP’s customers. I can’t use better models as example, as nobody is even going to pay for a hAP Lite (don’t forget there is also radio/ONT cost).

I’m pretty sure any cheap brand router (even having worse sensitivity) with external antennas will perform better than an hAP Lite with 1.5dBi measly gain. This is the only problem I see in this RB model, and could be fixed with an external antenna connector (as I guess enclosure is so much small to have a higher gain antenna inside).

RB951 (even Ui) is too much expensive for home customers.

Most of RBs - including RB951 ones - have ready circuits for an extra MMCX connector on board. I guess it wouldn’t be that complication to MikroTik provide at least an internal connector (and a hole on enclosure for pigtail).

Do you guess hAP Lite would work better than D-Link, TP-Link, etc. with external antennas? Personally, I guess no.


Obs.: phpBB (or at least the theme used here) is a pain in the neck for not having multi quote feature.

I dont know how stay hAP lite with wifi coverage, but RB951/UI or G model is much much bettter then most TP-Links, D-Links , Linksys in price to E60. Not every router with external antennas have a better coverage. For ex. TP-Link TL1043ND has two external antennas, but too low output power 25 dbi or 251 mW. That is too low compared to Rb951 series, who have 1000mW output power.

So conclusion more antennas not meen better coverage !

@tsouzar: hAP Lite is under $22 - it’s a price of 2 large pizzas, I must disagree it’s too expensive.

Adding an external antenna can not only improve the signal, but also enhance the ability to receive, all of my rb951 and rb941 are converted into an external antenna.

I also find the antennas help quite a bit, and have chosen to stay away from the hAP lite as an AP, will stick with the more expensive models with antenna support for now.

Please add photo

QQ截图20150630033319.jpg
QQ截图20150630033432.jpg
Signal before the transformation did not cut diagram, so I can not be issued to compare, just know that a lot better after the transformation signal.

QQ图片20150630034915.jpg
Reconstruction costs only $ 3, looks pretty good now.

And inside photos? Thanks

No cutting plan before conversion, and it has not condition contrast, unless then buy a.

There are before and after conversion and modification before been compared, but images are not saved, and I use the same mobile phone comparison in the same location, just remember that the signal is good about 10dBm.

Oh, you say should be the internal circuit board, and I thought it was winbox it. rb951-2n and rb941 are the first hands-on, the board out of the mess, but does not affect use.
rb941 with the line too thick too hard, but there is no screw shell, the shell is hard together, we go next time to use fine-point line.
Experience is the line connected to the front socket, otherwise the signal will be affected.
IMG_20150630_084120.jpg
IMG_20150630_084511.jpg

IMG_20150630_090739.jpg
IMG_20150630_090757.jpg

this is realy sad, and speaking about RB hardware there are many failures:

fail #1 was introduction of microUSB connector on 2011 and related hardware
fail #2 was removal of external RF connector on 951G
fail #3 was microSD and SD card lack of support on CCR
fail #4 was RS232 console serial instead of RJ45 on latest RB and CCR (we have some terminal servers in DC dont we?)

ant it deosnt really matter would it be better than TPLINK or not (because those who buy TPLINK will continue buy them anyway), fail is fail - just dissapointing and less sales