Hi

I have been working with RBs for about two years now.
Mainly as APs, routers and hotspot devices, and up till
now, one point to point SXT link.

For the past year and a half I have heard various people
telling me that Ubiquiti is better suited wireless needs
while Mikrotik is excellent at what it does best: routers.

Case in point: this morning a supplier responded by suggesting
I opt for a Ubiquiti device instead, even though I had explicitly
requested a price for an RB & antenna combo.

Personally I like Mikrotik, but it isn't about what I like is it ?
For me it has to be about what's going to work best for my client

So is this Mikrotik vs Ubiquiti wireless issue myth or reality ?
Or is it simply, as it is with Macintosh users, an affective
preference because the Ubiquiti config interface is more
user friendly ?

Does anyone have a technical opinion or experience to
contribute that might help clear the mounting confusion
that is beginning to nibble away at the confidence, I have
had to this day, with Mikrotik's wireless offering ?

Thanks
yann

There is always going to users who prefer Mikrotik or UBNT,
I will say Mikrotik offers something that UBNT cannot and that is you can customize antenna build,

There is always going to users who prefer Mikrotik or UBNT,
I will say Mikrotik offers something that UBNT cannot and that is you can customize antenna build,

I also prefer Mikrotik
But in some cases UBNT has something that Mikrotik cant offer

UBNT is simpler, you can use that as a bridge and as a simple router.
UBNT has no virtual access point what I find very regrettable.
Very widely used is the UBNT rocket dish.
I know UBNT links that run for over 5 years with no problems over the 40 Km with a bandwidth of 92 Mbit 2X2 mimo
Very good performance.
Mikrotik is now also started making own antennas.
I find this a very good thing.Mikrotik is more versatile in use.
A good advice: use Mikrotik and UBNT not mix if it is a point to point or point to multipoint link.
I have run many routerboarden where UBNT devices to be connected without any problem.
Mayby if you use a wireless link with Nv2 from Mikrotik the link is faster than UBNT.

UBNT is simpler, you can use that as a bridge and as a simple router.
UBNT has no virtual access point what I find very regrettable.
Very widely used is the UBNT rocket dish.
I know UBNT links that run for over 5 years with no problems over the 40 Km with a bandwidth of 92 Mbit 2X2 mimo
Very good performance.
Mikrotik is now also started making own antennas.
I find this a very good thing.Mikrotik is more versatile in use.
A good advice: use Mikrotik and UBNT not mix if it is a point to point or point to multipoint link.
I have run many routerboarden where UBNT devices to be connected without any problem.
Mayby if you use a wireless link with Nv2 from Mikrotik the link is faster than UBNT.

Virtual AP does not work on NV2?

I also prefer Mikrotik
But in some cases UBNT has something that Mikrotik cant offer

I would like to know what UBNT offers that Mikrotik cannot?

UBNT is simpler, you can use that as a bridge and as a simple router.
UBNT has no virtual access point what I find very regrettable.
Very widely used is the UBNT rocket dish.
I know UBNT links that run for over 5 years with no problems over the 40 Km with a bandwidth of 92 Mbit 2X2 mimo
Very good performance.
Mikrotik is now also started making own antennas.
I find this a very good thing.Mikrotik is more versatile in use.
A good advice: use Mikrotik and UBNT not mix if it is a point to point or point to multipoint link.
I have run many routerboarden where UBNT devices to be connected without any problem.
Mayby if you use a wireless link with Nv2 from Mikrotik the link is faster than UBNT.

Virtual AP does not work on NV2?

I mean virtual accesspoint for example hotspots not for point to point links and with 802.11 b/g/n mode

I also prefer Mikrotik
But in some cases UBNT has something that Mikrotik cant offer

I would like to know what UBNT offers that Mikrotik cannot?

airfiber its so freaking cool

I mean virtual accesspoint for example hotspots not for point to point links

VAP does not work when using NV2 protocol regardless of wireless mode?

I also prefer Mikrotik
But in some cases UBNT has something that Mikrotik cant offer

I would like to know what UBNT offers that Mikrotik cannot?

airfiber its so freaking cool

Are you using one?

yes 24Ghz 10km link
now there is 5Ghz version

@Lakis What speed you have?

Hi Lakis,

How is the performance on the 24Ghz band in the location where you have installed the link?
I am looking at installing such a link and would like to know of any issues you may have encountered such as rain fade etc.

Location Installation is in Malta (Lat/Long are 35°53'8.18"N/14°27'19.17"E). Tower points are with clear LOS and Fresnel zones and distance in between is approx 5km.

Rgds,
Mark.

yes 24Ghz 10km link
now there is 5Ghz version

24GHz - at 10KMs I hope it does NOT rain very often

I also prefer Mikrotik
But in some cases UBNT has something that Mikrotik cant offer

I would like to know what UBNT offers that Mikrotik cannot?

Fully functional igmp snooping out of the box!

Ubnt has better latency (ping) in same enviroment conditions.

yes 24Ghz 10km link
now there is 5Ghz version

24GHz - at 10KMs I hope it does rain very often

yep heavy rain = problem

Ubnt has better latency (ping) in same enviroment conditions.

But has UBNT better antenna's and how would you customize radiation pattern to suit your needs?

Hello,

For a long time we were using only Mikrotik. It was the only semipro solutin - building the "legos". - it becomes annoying indeed...

The strenght of Ubnt was to focus on complete product. Mikrotik sleeped some years before they enter the market.

By now we are using both.

What can i said is, that in our expierence Ubnt raidos prformance in noisy enviroment is better. With Mikrotik the issues are going to happen much often - i mean radio stability.

Thats only my opinion according to our expierence.

Aleksander

Thank you all for your inputs

The opinions are varied but I realize that both wireless
product ranges seem fit for the job.

I guess experience will help me make up my own opinion

yann

das right

Hello,

For a long time we were using only Mikrotik. It was the only semipro solutin - building the "legos". - it becomes annoying indeed...

The strenght of Ubnt was to focus on complete product. Mikrotik sleeped some years before they enter the market.

By now we are using both.

What can i said is, that in our expierence Ubnt raidos prformance in noisy enviroment is better. With Mikrotik the issues are going to happen much often - i mean radio stability.

Thats only my opinion according to our expierence.

Aleksander

You could buy complete solutions with mikrotik all the time but not from mikrotik.
We use StellaDoradus Compartments with RB inside as Sector. Our Distributors assembles
this so we get a complete Mikrotik Sector out of the box.

We like Omnitik UPA very much. This is enough for small towers and when additional sectors needed we can feed this with a small cable from Omnitik.

There is always going to users who prefer Mikrotik or UBNT,
I will say Mikrotik offers something that UBNT cannot and that is you can customize antenna build,

I also prefer Mikrotik
But in some cases UBNT has something that Mikrotik cant offer

Can you say me examples?

There is always going to users who prefer Mikrotik or UBNT,
I will say Mikrotik offers something that UBNT cannot and that is you can customize antenna build,

I also prefer Mikrotik
But in some cases UBNT has something that Mikrotik cant offer

Can you say me examples?

pls read all posts.

Hi Lakis,

How is the performance on the 24Ghz band in the location where you have installed the link?
I am looking at installing such a link and would like to know of any issues you may have encountered such as rain fade etc.

Location Installation is in Malta (Lat/Long are 35°53'8.18"N/14°27'19.17"E). Tower points are with clear LOS and Fresnel zones and distance in between is approx 5km.

Rgds,
Mark.

At 5km ull be fine - but there is problem, Malta is in EU in EU power output for 24Ghz is 20db thats bit low
My link operate on 10km with power output of 34db - and I get full speed
Only on heavy rain link get disconnect - only in summer, this year we were low on snow but snow does not effect link performance, also fog does not decrease performance

Hi Lakis,

Thank you for your input.

Rgds,
Mark.

Hi Lakis,

How is the performance on the 24Ghz band in the location where you have installed the link?
I am looking at installing such a link and would like to know of any issues you may have encountered such as rain fade etc.

Location Installation is in Malta (Lat/Long are 35°53'8.18"N/14°27'19.17"E). Tower points are with clear LOS and Fresnel zones and distance in between is approx 5km.

Rgds,
Mark.

At 5km ull be fine - but there is problem Malta is in EU in EU power output on 24Ghz is 20db thats bit low
My link operate on 10km with power output of 34db - and I get full speed
Only on heavy rain link get disconnect - only in summer, this year we were low on snow but snow does not effect link performance, also fog does not decrease performance

Yes. In ETSI it is nearly unusable. Only very short hops can be done in 24GHz.

There is always going to users who prefer Mikrotik or UBNT,
I will say Mikrotik offers something that UBNT cannot and that is you can customize antenna build,

I also prefer Mikrotik
But in some cases UBNT has something that Mikrotik cant offer

Can you say me examples?

reliability. I have not had one single showstopper with ubnt yet, including their beta releases.

ARBEIT ANGST KONSUMTERROR

I've been using Mikrotik for several years without any problems. Longest link is 6km. Very stable in rain, snow and fog. Using it also indoor and like the WDS and virtual AP functions.

Also using UBNT in a few installations (Nano Station and Pico station). Also works really well. Only things I'm missing are virtual APs and also that only WEP encryption is available when running WDS.

I totally agree with Omberli .
Virtual access point is missing.
Pity

There is no way to say witch one is better? Each of them are making some unique products.
I love Router OS flexibility! The prices for MT SXT-lite are incredible low now.
UBNT has better desigh for mid range antennas, I can't wait for integrated parabolic antennas from mikrotik like nanobridge
UBNT is more stable in noisy enviroment, where mikrotik devices are reconnecting constantly,
Also in noisy enviroment ubnt has better performace. I am quite sure the reason is good antenna design, as parabolic antenna is not picking up interference from the back. of course you can use parabolic antenna with mikrotik, but again cost.
UBNT has airfiber, witch is amazing, until now I have setup 4 links for my client, all of them are in range 4-6km, full speed on all of them. I tried 9.8km, but Ireland is too rainy for that distance, longes one 6k, never dropped connection, once with realy heavy rain latency increased to 200ms for about 2min.
In the country side where is less interference, my client is using Airmax sector antennas paired with RB912, and SXT-HP for customers, allowing distance around 15km from sector with reasonable performance. In the more crowded towns, all gear is changed to UBNT, because of unstability of mikrotik.

Mikrotik have CCR routers, they are performing great, there was DDoS attack targeted to my customers network, CCR12G CPU where running at 80%, but did not crashed.

Dissapintment is New CCR SFP+, we put one in production around month ago, it crashed twice since then. to avoid unexpected downtime for 2500 customers, CCR is connected to GSM resetter, in case if it will crash, it can be rebooted by SMS

Mikrotik has large community and WIKI is stuffed with useful examples how to achieve complex tasks
UBNT are releasing their EdgemaxPro series, witch will probably will kick ass of MT by $ per packet per second.

UBNT has Unifi series, seting up WIFI network could not be easier, range and performance is superior. + unifi cloud controller comes for free, so easy setup, also can grant mangement access to end customer for manging network, I can't imagine to explain over the phone to averago Joe how to change wifi password for network with 60 Mikrotik AP's.

There is no winner, none of them are better or worse, there is different tasks and problems, and different solutions for them.

Choose product according your needs, not by brand!

Hello everyone,

because the Ubiquiti config interface is more user friendly ?

This is owed to the circumstance that MikroTik was starting assemble their
devices mostly more for professional usage and not for the entire end user
or plain end usage. And only step by step they are acting to the newer field
of home and SOHO usage with an webinterface.

But can you tell me please what is on the Ubituiti config interface (like Vyatta)
more easy?

I would like to know what UBNT offers that Mikrotik cannot?

The word cannot is false here, because they can do for sure, but the question
should more called what is MikroTik not offering, but UBNT does in my eyes.
AirFiber
mFi
Controller Software

But UBNT offers not such software as "The DUDE" and and the entire Router System
from them is not offering so much features and options or the ability to stick in different
WiFi Cards!

I mean virtual accesspoint for example hotspots

But they have Multi SSID and VLAN support and this works like the option you
call it virtual WLAN AP if I am informed right.

Choose product according your needs, not by brand!

Likes me, we are setting up the most installments with MikroTik devices
but if there is a special need or another behavior we are also using UBNT equipment.

Mostly based on those behaviors like meshed wireless lan´s and Mikrotik´s hwmp
that is incompatible to the "normal" hwm on the other side, there fore we are using
then UBNT equipment only.

And in my eyes on the entire MikroTik side it is not only one company with one product
I personally see it much more different as the most peoples, there is at one point the
hardware so called RouterBoards and on the other point is the system software co called
RouterOS and this is what UBNT not owns and offers.

I can setting up my custom router, HotSpot, traffic shaper by using x86 hardware with
support from HotLava network adapters and many other hardware and this option is also
not given by UBNT, so in my eyes MikroTik is offering me more options as UBNT is doing, but
if you can life with the shorten options and functions UBNT is serving very stable hardware
to his customers, not with so many functions, but very stable.

UBNT was award winning three time a price for the best WISP outfitter world wide
so I was much often thinking why damed the MikroTik is not getting out something
as a device or what ever and they also are winning at one time this price.

Because who is supporting OpenSource on their hardware likes OpenWRT? Who?
On the RB450G, RB435G and 493G you are able to set up OpenWRT, no one I know
is allowing OpenSource peoples to use their hardware!!! But MikroTik does!
They also supports OpenWRT in Metarouter and also likes Asterisk too, who is
allowing this? No one else is doing! And with the new CCR series, if MikroTik is
setting it up 100% ready until July 2014 to use all hardware given options and
functions is one of the fastest router and also hotspot capable device for this
price, as I see it please correct me if I am wrong now.

I've found that MT clients may drop more often than UBNT clients, but often the customer may be on the Internet and never even notice it.

On the UBNT forum the general consensus is anything worse than -73dB is a lost cause, and using the Nanobridge M2 they may be correct. Using an SXT or a custom build based on a 711 or 911 board, I've got links that fluctuate into the mid -80s and never drop. My UBNT hardware doesn't seem to handle that well.

I use SXT for short shots, NB M2 for slightly longer, 711 or 911 + Rootenna where the M2 can't hack it and a 24dBi grid + Groove beyond that.

They each have their place.

I've found that MT clients may drop more often than UBNT clients, but often the customer may be on the Internet and never even notice it.

On the UBNT forum the general consensus is anything worse than -73dB is a lost cause, and using the Nanobridge M2 they may be correct. Using an SXT or a custom build based on a 711 or 911 board, I've got links that fluctuate into the mid -80s and never drop. My UBNT hardware doesn't seem to handle that well.

I use SXT for short shots, NB M2 for slightly longer, 711 or 911 + Rootenna where the M2 can't hack it and a 24dBi grid + Groove beyond that.

They each have their place.

As we had bad experience with UBNT at the time we tested it we did not use it. May be we did the same with MT if the wrong firmware came along while testing. We decided to stay with MT as it is a complete system for routing and wireless. It is easier to manage using one platform.
I guess on the wireless side they are quite comparable. Both cant do GPS-Sync (while UBNT claims to) and both do no ATPC. NV2 and airmax are quite the same.

While we are happy with MT most time we miss some progress for a long time so we are not convinced we would not change system when a competitor comes along with a better package.
Our main problems are the never ending beta versions of ROS claimed as production and the slow progress with wireless features. It took a feeled century until nv2 got stable. Still we see strange effects with slow speeds we cant explain. You're never sure if its a config problem, interference, defective hardware or a malfunction of ROS which might be repaired with the next version.

We're looking into ePMP now if it holds up with the wireless promises so we might change the
wireless part to another system as MT is not willing to make some homework for a long time now.

I dont like UBNT due to the big difference between marketing and reality. They promise stuff they never get running. You cant give a cent on their words.

...................................

We're looking into ePMP now if it holds up with the wireless promises so we might change the
wireless part to another system as MT is not willing to make some homework for a long time now.

I dont like UBNT due to the big difference between marketing and reality. They promise stuff they never get running. You cant give a cent on their words.

What CPE's are you using and have they also to be swapped out for ePMP?

I've found that MT clients may drop more often than UBNT clients, but often the customer may be on the Internet and never even notice it.

On the UBNT forum the general consensus is anything worse than -73dB is a lost cause, and using the Nanobridge M2 they may be correct. Using an SXT or a custom build based on a 711 or 911 board, I've got links that fluctuate into the mid -80s and never drop. My UBNT hardware doesn't seem to handle that well.

I use SXT for short shots, NB M2 for slightly longer, 711 or 911 + Rootenna where the M2 can't hack it and a 24dBi grid + Groove beyond that.

They each have their place.

beyond -73dB a lost cause

...................................

We're looking into ePMP now if it holds up with the wireless promises so we might change the
wireless part to another system as MT is not willing to make some homework for a long time now.

I dont like UBNT due to the big difference between marketing and reality. They promise stuff they never get running. You cant give a cent on their words.

What CPE's are you using and have they also to be swapped out for ePMP?

They are not 802.11 compatible so both ap and cpe have to be replaced.

...................................

We're looking into ePMP now if it holds up with the wireless promises so we might change the
wireless part to another system as MT is not willing to make some homework for a long time now.

I dont like UBNT due to the big difference between marketing and reality. They promise stuff they never get running. You cant give a cent on their words.

What CPE's are you using and have they also to be swapped out for ePMP?

They are not 802.11 compatible so both ap and cpe have to be replaced.

This morning ePmP re-seller mentioned they are working on a solution that will not mean replacing MT CPE's, If this can be done it opens new possibilities

I've found that MT clients may drop more often than UBNT clients, but often the customer may be on the Internet and never even notice it.

On the UBNT forum the general consensus is anything worse than -73dB is a lost cause, and using the Nanobridge M2 they may be correct. Using an SXT or a custom build based on a 711 or 911 board, I've got links that fluctuate into the mid -80s and never drop. My UBNT hardware doesn't seem to handle that well.

I use SXT for short shots, NB M2 for slightly longer, 711 or 911 + Rootenna where the M2 can't hack it and a 24dBi grid + Groove beyond that.

They each have their place.

As we had bad experience with UBNT at the time we tested it we did not use it. May be we did the same with MT if the wrong firmware came along while testing. We decided to stay with MT as it is a complete system for routing and wireless. It is easier to manage using one platform.
I guess on the wireless side they are quite comparable. Both cant do GPS-Sync (while UBNT claims to) and both do no ATPC. NV2 and airmax are quite the same.

While we are happy with MT most time we miss some progress for a long time so we are not convinced we would not change system when a competitor comes along with a better package.
Our main problems are the never ending beta versions of ROS claimed as production and the slow progress with wireless features. It took a feeled century until nv2 got stable. Still we see strange effects with slow speeds we cant explain. You're never sure if its a config problem, interference, defective hardware or a malfunction of ROS which might be repaired with the next version.

We're looking into ePMP now if it holds up with the wireless promises so we might change the
wireless part to another system as MT is not willing to make some homework for a long time now.

I dont like UBNT due to the big difference between marketing and reality. They promise stuff they never get running. You cant give a cent on their words.

MT offer ton of options, Ubnt or Cambium does not, GPS sync. does not really work as in commercial because I have it and I dont see big difference
Cambium ePMP CPE price is about 100$ they are ok but I cant see what is so promising that can change wireless

MT offer ton of options, Ubnt or Cambium does not, GPS sync. does not really work as in commercial because I have it and I dont see big difference Cambium ePMP CPE price is about 100$ they are ok but I cant see what is so promising that can change wireless

UBNT sync does not work. It is reported capacity is half with gps on. This is a known problem.
ePMP suffers, too? You tried ABAB scheme? You've mixed synced/non synced on a tower?

MT offer ton of options, Ubnt or Cambium does not, GPS sync. does not really work as in commercial because I have it and I dont see big difference Cambium ePMP CPE price is about 100$ they are ok but I cant see what is so promising that can change wireless

UBNT sync does not work. It is reported capacity is half with gps on. This is a known problem.
ePMP suffers, too? You tried ABAB scheme? You've mixed synced/non synced on a tower?

I just wonder if sync is being used when its not really required?
By this I mean if a tower has not reached a high co-location interference level then using sync will not have a major effect but however if there is very high co-location interference level then not using and using sync should show a real difference.

I dont like UBNT due to the big difference between marketing and reality. They promise stuff they never get running. You cant give a cent on their words.

That's the best line in this tread!
I fully support this.

Airfibre is a hoax. With any good antenna and routerboards I make better perfoming link at same distance that also performs when it rains. And than look at the price....
Airmax sectors are not half as good as they make you believe. Study their own (hardly readable prints) antenna patterns and learn where everybody uses 3dB drop to show the working sectors, ubnt uses 6db! I tried some but they don't do half as good as a 3rd party good sector with the same specs....
OS; loose IP connectivity and you're lost with ubnt. mac level access through winbox is such a time and disaster saver in soooo many occasions... priceless.
Wireless in general; ubnt makes good links due their wide use of dish antenna's with embedded radios. But if in most countries regulatory EIRP levels would really be set in the antenna I'll bet many other make antennas beat ubnt. They simply pump a shit load of eirp in the air to make their wireless perform...
Side products; I bought some of their camera's. What a dissapointment. Initially they look great for their price. In the end the greatness is in the wrapping. The units themselves are merely amateur products. Not very usefull for professional usage....


ubnt is a winner in promotion and thus sales. Paired with sleek design, complete product range, broad availablity and lack of knowledge amongst many customers they conquered a much bigger piece of the market than MT in shorter time.

I am working with MT in corner of my network and I'm glad all my competition is working with ubnt. They probably have more interferences issues amongst them than I have with theirs.... And with the routing options I have many more options to work with than ever possible with ubnt.
And you know what? Nowadays wireless with MT is hardened and performing for even better prices! I love SXT and am dying to see the new all MT CPE solution coming out!

On the other hand, when it comes to ever selling my network, the shrinking market share of MT in my part of the world makes my network not very interesting for any of the (much bigger) networks presently all working with ubnt......
(It's not always the best product that makes it into the future... look at VHS versus Betamax/Video2000. Or look at the tsunami of TP-link product. I don't know but how many of us think they are the best the market has to offer? .... I thought so. But they are the best selling......)

So, I'm a happy MT user. If now development, testing/bug solving and marketing could be improved than MT might still have a future.. otherwise I don't know...

(Oh, lets just hope that big neigbour doesn't reclaim lost territory in the baltics too. This would probably put an end to MT's existence.... ) Vladimir P., keep your hands off!

I dont like UBNT due to the big difference between marketing and reality. They promise stuff they never get running. You cant give a cent on their words.

That's the best line in this tread!
I fully support this.

Airfibre is a hoax. With any good antenna and routerboards I make better perfoming link at same distance that also performs when it rains. And than look at the price....
Airmax sectors are not half as good as they make you believe. Study their own (hardly readable prints) antenna patterns and learn where everybody uses 3dB drop to show the working sectors, ubnt uses 6db! I tried some but they don't do half as good as a 3rd party good sector with the same specs....
OS; loose IP connectivity and you're lost with ubnt. mac level access through winbox is such a time and disaster saver in soooo many occasions... priceless.
Wireless in general; ubnt makes good links due their wide use of dish antenna's with embedded radios. But if in most countries regulatory EIRP levels would really be set in the antenna I'll bet many other make antennas beat ubnt. They simply pump a **it load of eirp in the air to make their wireless perform...
Side products; I bought some of their camera's. What a dissapointment. Initially they look great for their price. In the end the greatness is in the wrapping. The units themselves are merely amateur products. Not very usefull for professional usage....


ubnt is a winner in promotion and thus sales. Paired with sleek design, complete product range, broad availablity and lack of knowledge amongst many customers they conquered a much bigger piece of the market than MT in shorter time.

I am working with MT in corner of my network and I'm glad all my competition is working with ubnt. They probably have more interferences issues amongst them than I have with theirs.... And with the routing options I have many more options to work with than ever possible with ubnt.
And you know what? Nowadays wireless with MT is hardened and performing for even better prices! I love SXT and am dying to see the new all MT CPE solution coming out!

On the other hand, when it comes to ever selling my network, the shrinking market share of MT in my part of the world makes my network not very interesting for any of the (much bigger) networks presently all working with ubnt......
(It's not always the best product that makes it into the future... look at VHS versus Betamax/Video2000. Or look at the tsunami of TP-link product. I don't know but how many of us think they are the best the market has to offer? .... I thought so. But they are the best selling......)

So, I'm a happy MT user. If now development, testing/bug solving and marketing could be improved than MT might still have a future.. otherwise I don't know...

(Oh, lets just hope that big neigbour doesn't reclaim lost territory in the baltics too. This would probably put an end to MT's existence.... ) Vladimir P., keep your hands off!

I second this. But what makes me looking into ePMP is that there is no sign from MT that they are willing to implement ATPC and GPS. So on the wireless side they still behave like amateurs. Plug in a radio and poke around until there is some reasonable speed. Feels like there is no deeper knowledge on whats happening on the air. There is a need for this features. We have loaded towers where we ran out of spectrum. Without GPS neighboring channels on the same tower cause self interference. Nearby CPEs have to be reduced in tx-power to not overload the receiver and selfinterfere with nearby sectors. And there is the regulatory stuff which might be of no interest to most. But if there is a wireline competitor who wants your customer base you might be shut down over night. And this might be the same in southern Europe ). Operating this way is unprofessional.

Ubnt GPS sync is only good for auto act timing - when first come out idea was good and theoretically it should work but it doesn't - maybe it is UBnt fault they cant sort it out
on loaded towers best ting to do is to invest in RF shields

WirelessRudy: U dont have idea what US have done to us - hope Obama will not chose to bomb some of your neighbor with uranium bombs like Tomahawk missile

Ubnt GPS sync is only good for auto act timing

Better is to invest in RF shields

My plan is RF shields then bandpass filters and last resort is GPS sync as solution to co-location interference on a very busy tower.

.........................................................................
OS; loose IP connectivity and you're lost with ubnt. mac level access through winbox is such a time and disaster saver in soooo many occasions... priceless.
.........................................................................................................
.
(It's not always the best product that makes it into the future... look at VHS versus Betamax/Video2000.

So, I'm a happy MT user. If now development, testing/bug solving and marketing could be improved than MT might still have a future.. otherwise I don't know...............................................................

(Oh, lets just hope that big neigbour doesn't reclaim lost territory in the baltics too. This would probably put an end to MT's existence.... ) Vladimir P., keep your hands off!

It's amazing how one forgets how good Mikrotik is when a IP connectivity or routing issues occur - mac level to the rescue?

Wow what a memory shaker "VHS versus Betamax/Video2000", yes you are totally correct the best best product did not win,

Bug testing - we only read about users with issues - here is a suggestion - perhaps Mikrotik should place a public counter on the downloads, and then compare with reported faults on the forum ( OK - if a user reports direct to support we won't be aware of this?) this would give us some indication that upgrade bugs are reducing or increasing, If bugs are reducing then Mikrotik should have no problem with something like this unless they are losing serious market share.

I second this. But what makes me looking into ePMP is that there is no sign from MT that they are willing to implement ATPC and GPS. So on the wireless side they still behave like amateurs. Plug in a radio and poke around until there is some reasonable speed. Feels like there is no deeper knowledge on whats happening on the air. There is a need for this features. We have loaded towers where we ran out of spectrum. Without GPS neighboring channels on the same tower cause self interference. Nearby CPEs have to be reduced in tx-power to not overload the receiver and selfinterfere with nearby sectors. And there is the regulatory stuff which might be of no interest to most. But if there is a wireline competitor who wants your customer base you might be shut down over night. And this might be the same in southern Europe ). Operating this way is unprofessional.

Remember that the GPS will work only if everyone else in the area will have this feature enabled. As soon as you you will have GPS, unfortunately you will be in a worse position than the others.
Returning to epmp - there is a new soft with pppoe support. Cambium slowly comes to a state where it can become an alternative to the MT.

Remember that the GPS will work only if everyone else in the area will have this feature enabled. As soon as you you will have GPS, unfortunately you will be in a worse position than the others.
Returning to epmp - there is a new soft with pppoe support. Cambium slowly comes to a state where it can become an alternative to the MT.

Why won't GPS work?

Ubnt GPS sync is only good for auto act timing - when first come out idea was good and theoretically it should work but it doesn't - maybe it is UBnt fault they cant sort it out
on loaded towers best ting to do is to invest in RF shields

Long time ago I already argued on this forum that gps sync imho is not as good a solution as it sounds. It would only work on same manufacturers network. I haven't seen or heard different make antenna users (multi provider tower) using one gps sync solution for all. And as said before, it only takes one client (doesn't have to be your client!) with a domestic high output router working in your frequency to completely destroy what you'd tried to achieve with your sync. But yet again, ubnt brings it as a marvallous 'carrier style' product enhancement you really need!! yeah yeah....

Inmo good antennas with good shielding, filtering and more modern interference avoiding technolgies will be a better overall solution against interferences. GPS sync will only be a solution in limited scenarios. (802.11ac is a step in the good direction, when will we see MT's ac solutions? Probably 2016 before they have a stable working ac solution.... lets hope they still exist by then.... )

I second this. But what makes me looking into ePMP is that there is no sign from MT that they are willing to implement ATPC and GPS. So on the wireless side they still behave like amateurs. Plug in a radio and poke around until there is some reasonable speed. Feels like there is no deeper knowledge on whats happening on the air. There is a need for this features. We have loaded towers where we ran out of spectrum. Without GPS neighboring channels on the same tower cause self interference. Nearby CPEs have to be reduced in tx-power to not overload the receiver and selfinterfere with nearby sectors. And there is the regulatory stuff which might be of no interest to most. But if there is a wireline competitor who wants your customer base you might be shut down over night. And this might be the same in southern Europe ). Operating this way is unprofessional.

Remember that the GPS will work only if everyone else in the area will have this feature enabled. As soon as you you will have GPS, unfortunately you will be in a worse position than the others.
Returning to epmp - there is a new soft with pppoe support. Cambium slowly comes to a state where it can become an alternative to the MT.

As our own aps are next to each other and our cpes are directed to our towers it is much more likely we suffer from selfinterference than from other parties radios. And gps is the solution to reduce selfinterference.

As our own aps are next to each other and our cpes are directed to our towers it is much more likely we suffer from selfinterference than from other parties radios. And gps is the solution to reduce selfinterference.

Don't know. Self interference on your own tower should be avoided by carefull picking your frequencies and make sure your AP's are located and separated well enough to avoid problems. GPS sync CAN be a tool if you have no other choice than to share freq's on different AP's. But don't consider it to be a big plus... and its definately not "carrier grade" like ubnt would make you believe.....
("Carrier grade" in this respect would mean you own your own frequency. Than you are free of issues and than, because you probably have budgetted for one or two channels only, time sync of towers with multiple APs could help you in reaching more clients with your limited spectrum you have. But for UNII-band users this so called "carrier grade" solution is nothing more than a sales gimmick.)
[2nd; GPS sync kills tdma advantages when long distant clients are using tower. That's probably the reason why some reported ubnt's GPS sync is not really working that well...]

Same gimmicks for airfibre, ("fibre"? where is the fibre? There is no 'fibre-like' capacity, you can't even attach fibre to it... and they should sell it with an umbrella. Can't have any rain...) or their Airmax-AP sector antennas, or their cameras. A lot of gimmics, poor specs...

I see ubnt a bit as going to the red light district in the evening. The girls all look very nice and promising but the next day you'd really wonder yourself why you's spend your money on such a dissapointing event....
You'd better find your self a promising daylight good looking girl and marry here. Marriage with MT its just like real marriage, sometimes troubles but after many discussions the relation improves and we have a long and lasting life.... (well, not for all maybe.... )

As our own aps are next to each other and our cpes are directed to our towers it is much more likely we suffer from selfinterference than from other parties radios. And gps is the solution to reduce selfinterference.

Don't know. Self interference on your own tower should be avoided by carefull picking your frequencies and make sure your AP's are located and separated well enough to avoid problems. GPS sync CAN be a tool if you have no other choice than to share freq's on different AP's. But don't consider it to be a big plus... and its definately not "carrier grade" like ubnt would make you believe.....
("Carrier grade" in this respect would mean you own your own frequency. Than you are free of issues and than, because you probably have budgetted for one or two channels only, time sync of towers with multiple APs could help you in reaching more clients with your limited spectrum you have. But for UNII-band users this so called "carrier grade" solution is nothing more than a sales gimmick.)
[2nd; GPS sync kills tdma advantages when long distant clients are using tower. That's probably the reason why some reported ubnt's GPS sync is not really working that well...]

Same gimmicks for airfibre, ("fibre"? where is the fibre? There is no 'fibre-like' capacity, you can't even attach fibre to it... and they should sell it with an umbrella. Can't have any rain...) or their Airmax-AP sector antennas, or their cameras. A lot of gimmics, poor specs...

I see ubnt a bit as going to the red light district in the evening. The girls all look very nice and promising but the next day you'd really wonder yourself why you's spend your money on such a dissapointing event....
You'd better find your self a promising daylight good looking girl and marry here. Marriage with MT its just like real marriage, sometimes troubles but after many discussions the relation improves and we have a long and lasting life.... (well, not for all maybe.... )

With carefully picking frequencies we run out of spectrum very fast. With wifi-gear 5MHz Guard band is needed (Even this does not help in all cases) as far channel rejection is not that good.
So using high power spectrum in 5,8Ghz there are only 5 20MHz channels are usable. With 25 Users/Sector we are limited to 125 Users tower.

With carefully picking frequencies we run out of spectrum very fast. With wifi-gear 5MHz Guard band is needed (Even this does not help in all cases) as far channel rejection is not that good.
So using high power spectrum in 5,8Ghz there are only 5 20MHz channels are usable. With 25 Users/Sector we are limited to 125 Users tower.

Not sure about your calculations of 25 users per sector, 40 to 60 users is the most popular figure users quote here on the forum,
Also there is 26 -20Mhz frequencies available in my location but we all know we have to allow channel spacing between used frequencies, the solution is to find a high quality ultra low loss bandpass filter to reduce channel spacing which will allow the use of more frequencies.

With carefully picking frequencies we run out of spectrum very fast. With wifi-gear 5MHz Guard band is needed (Even this does not help in all cases) as far channel rejection is not that good.
So using high power spectrum in 5,8Ghz there are only 5 20MHz channels are usable. With 25 Users/Sector we are limited to 125 Users tower.

Not sure about your calculations of 25 users per sector, 40 to 60 users is the most popular figure users quote here on the forum,
Also there is 26 -20Mhz frequencies available in my location but we all know we have to allow channel spacing between used frequencies, the solution is to find a high quality ultra low loss bandpass filter to reduce channel spacing which will allow the use of more frequencies.

25/Sector is our target number to give good speeds. You can live with 40 but as more people use videostreaming you might run into problems. I've seen no bandpass filter I can adjust to a channel remote. I've seen wimax equipment which use bandpath filters but they are fixed.

25/Sector is our target number to give good speeds. You can live with 40 but as more people use videostreaming you might run into problems. I've seen no bandpass filter I can adjust to a channel remote. I've seen wimax equipment which use bandpath filters but they are fixed.

I have no problem with 40 on a AP but I also use Radius Manager to reduce bandwidth to some but not all customers during peak usage hours, feedback from customers is good as for example a customer on 3M package goes down to 2M during peak usage hours and i have set burst for 5mins at 3M in most cases works great for speedtest showing 3M and opens most sites very quickly

25/Sector is our target number to give good speeds. You can live with 40 but as more people use videostreaming you might run into problems. I've seen no bandpass filter I can adjust to a channel remote. I've seen wimax equipment which use bandpath filters but they are fixed.

I have no problem with 40 on a AP but I also use Radius Manager to reduce bandwidth to some but not all customers during peak usage hours, feedback from customers is good as for example a customer on 3M package goes down to 2M during peak usage hours and i have set burst for 5mins at 3M in most cases works great for speedtest showing 3M and opens most sites very quickly

With 3M Packages this is ok. But videoservices start to grow. Amazon Prime needs 5-6 MBit/s. Google Chromecast is available now ...
To make a customer happy now we need 6MBit/s available and higher "up to" speeds.
40 Users with 3 MBit per AP is in line with 25 Users with 6 MBit.

So you will need APs with 40MHz Channels working soon or twice the number of APs with 20MHz Channels. With both you will need twice the spectrum or a solution to increase the spectrum usage by 2.

UBNT claims to reach this with better near channel rejection in the future, Cambium has the promise of GPS working now and MT has ...

UBNT claims to reach this with better near channel rejection in the future, Cambium has the promise of GPS working now and MT has ...

not been throwing sand in your eys with gimmicks that aren't what they promise....

Near channel rejection would be nice, I agree.
More spectrum should be made available, I agree.
Consumers every year will demand more bandwidth, I agree.
Conclusion, to keep up with customers demand is an almost impossible battle in the long term. In my native country (Holland, 90% of population is cable/fibre/adsl connected) 50Mb is nowadays considered to be a 'basic' package and all operators offer video/TV on demand and active customer feedback television, radio. Just internet is becoming the least of bandwidth consumers...
How do we ever keep up with that with WiFi?
Mobile G4 is just been rolled out in Europe big scale, and comes with the promise like you can use it like you have cable/fibre.... so its running short within a year....

Imho in the long term different wireless technologies will be merged and better use of loads more spectrum is needed to keep up with demand. I'd wonder if even ubnt will be big enough to play a role in the future.... let alone MT.

All what we say here is true, each to its own point of view/usage...

This tread is about ubnt versus MT and all buyers/users should be aware that the ubnt platform is better in sales and promises.
A serious network operator probably like MT the most.
A serious money maker probably looks more to ubnt.....

With 3M Packages this is ok. But videoservices start to grow. Amazon Prime needs 5-6 MBit/s. Google Chromecast is available now ...
To make a customer happy now we need 6MBit/s available and higher "up to" speeds.
40 Users with 3 MBit per AP is in line with 25 Users with 6 MBit.

So you will need APs with 40MHz Channels working soon or twice the number of APs with 20MHz Channels. With both you will need twice the spectrum or a solution to increase the spectrum usage by 2.

UBNT claims to reach this with better near channel rejection in the future, Cambium has the promise of GPS working now and MT has ...

I am trying to combat providers on adsl that sell "totally unlimited" and no restrictions packages for a set monthly price?

.........................................
Mobile G4 is just been rolled out in Europe big scale, and comes with the promise like you can use it like you have cable/fibre.... so its running short within a year....

....

Can you explain ..."running short within a year..."

.........................................
Mobile G4 is just been rolled out in Europe big scale, and comes with the promise like you can use it like you have cable/fibre.... so its running short within a year....

....

Can you explain ..."running short within a year..."

Congestion. Its like a new motorway, when you build it with 3 lanes to handle more traffic it only takes so long to have it jammed again. So you build an extra lane, another time span and yet again its not enough, etc. etc.

The problems with the big mobile operators is that they have to invest heavy in the new technology. Finanancially it almost brings them to their knees so they need to sell their new bandwidth asap to generate cashflows. So they start to promote it heavy. "Look what you can do with our network, we have plenty of bandwidth for you to use! Watch live streaming video and real time TV anywhere you are."
Well, the moment customers now start to roll in again they find themselves in the same position as before... congestion and the need to look for upgrades again..... Its a never ending story basically created by the operators themselves... but they haven't got an alternative neither. Don't go with the rat race and you'll certainly loose your position in the market.


It happens all the same with us, on smaller scale. When you have your own WISP you want to be the best bandwidth supplier in your region, because that makes your sales... and "best" in the eyes of proposed clients usually means 'the fastest bandwidth'.
But then when the clients start rolling in, you'll find yourself in a position you need to start upgrading again to keep up with the extra bandwidth demand. Now you need more cashflow to finance it, so you need even more customers... (and worse, each new wave of customers also pay less than before. Where I could charge € 50,- for a 2Mb wifi connection some 6 years ago, the only numbers of new sales I make nowadays is in 'basic' subscriptions; 4-6Mb for € 14,-.... New operator is penetrating now my market with 8Mb for 12,50.....and I got more and more customers asking for streaming TV over my wifi!)

In the end only the onces with the most financial reserves will win. For us marginal players we can only hope to extend our life as long as possible and hope your business is interesting (=big) enough to be 'eaten' by someone that brings you a bag with money. (For new WISP its almost impossible to fast gain a proper market share, but they can buy an existing one. If they have the financial backings this gives them a fast market penetration...
If us small operators in the end are not interesting engough for Mr. Cash, whe probably can't do not so much more than keep on swimming untill one day we drown...

I hope I can swim long enough to get me to my pension, and maybe one day Mr. cash like my client base and reward me with an early retirement.... offers are already taken in consideration!

(hmm, it looks a bit like a pessimistic view, but on the other hand I don't think it is far beside the thruth....)

.........................................
Mobile G4 is just been rolled out in Europe big scale, and comes with the promise like you can use it like you have cable/fibre.... so its running short within a year....

....

Can you explain ..."running short within a year..."

Congestion. Its like a new motorway, when you build it with 3 lanes to handle more traffic it only takes so long to have it jammed again. So you build an extra lane, another time span and yet again its not enough, etc. etc.

The problems with the big mobile operators is that they have to invest heavy in the new technology. Finanancially it almost brings them to their knees so they need to sell their new bandwidth asap to generate cashflows. So they start to promote it heavy. "Look what you can do with our network, we have plenty of bandwidth for you to use! Watch live streaming video and real time TV anywhere you are."
Well, the moment customers now start to roll in again they find themselves in the same position as before... congestion and the need to look for upgrades again..... Its a never ending story basically created by the operators themselves... but they haven't got an alternative neither. Don't go with the rat race and you'll certainly loose your position in the market.


It happens all the same with us, on smaller scale. When you have your own WISP you want to be the best bandwidth supplier in your region, because that makes your sales... and "best" in the eyes of proposed clients usually means 'the fastest bandwidth'.
But then when the clients start rolling in, you'll find yourself in a position you need to start upgrading again to keep up with the extra bandwidth demand. Now you need more cashflow to finance it, so you need even more customers... (and worse, each new wave of customers also pay less than before. Where I could charge € 50,- for a 2Mb wifi connection some 6 years ago, the only numbers of new sales I make nowadays is in 'basic' subscriptions; 4-6Mb for € 14,-.... New operator is penetrating now my market with 8Mb for 12,50.....and I got more and more customers asking for streaming TV over my wifi!)

In the end only the onces with the most financial reserves will win. For us marginal players we can only hope to extend our life as long as possible and hope your business is interesting (=big) enough to be 'eaten' by someone that brings you a bag with money. (For new WISP its almost impossible to fast gain a proper market share, but they can buy an existing one. If they have the financial backings this gives them a fast market penetration...
If us small operators in the end are not interesting engough for Mr. Cash, whe probably can't do not so much more than keep on swimming untill one day we drown...

I hope I can swim long enough to get me to my pension, and maybe one day Mr. cash like my client base and reward me with an early retirement.... offers are already taken in consideration!

(hmm, it looks a bit like a pessimistic view, but on the other hand I don't think it is far beside the thruth....)

Conclusion: To stay in business (as long as possible) or to compete we need reliable, faster gear whoever produces it. At the moment we see LTE rising which gives quite good performance for the small spectrum they use. Comparing it to the huge spectrum in 5GHz we all use we should be able to deliver gigabit speeds with a comparable technic with our small (LOS) cells.

Looking at LTE of course they do sync and atpc (and some advanced stuff) to get the most out of the spectrum. And it is working great for the conditions they have to deal with. Moving handsets are a challenge even with NLOS spectrum. And selfinterference is a huge problem with NLOS Spectrum.

Of course I cant compare an wifi-ap with a LTE-BS. But it has to move into this direction. We need advanced wireless features. Better filtering, GPS, Atpc, ... If we/our vendor do not progress we will be left behind very soon.

............... moment we see LTE rising which gives quite good performance for the small spectrum they use. Comparing it to the huge spectrum in 5GHz we all use we should be able to deliver gigabit speeds with a comparable technic with our small (LOS) cells.

Looking at LTE of course they do sync and atpc (and some advanced stuff) to get the most out of the spectrum. And it is working great for the conditions they have to deal with. Moving handsets are a challenge even with NLOS spectrum. And selfinterference is a huge problem with NLOS Spectrum.

Of course I cant compare an wifi-ap with a LTE-BS. But it has to move into this direction. We need advanced wireless features. Better filtering, GPS, Atpc, ... If we/our vendor do not progress we will be left behind very soon.

What is LTE?

Also to stay in business much longer is to have regular employment and WISP as a secondary income?

............................................................................
But then when the clients start rolling in, you'll find yourself in a position you need to start upgrading again to keep up with the extra bandwidth demand. Now you need more cashflow to finance it, so you need even more customers... (and worse, each new wave of customers also pay less than before. Where I could charge € 50,- for a 2Mb wifi connection some 6 years ago, the only numbers of new sales I make nowadays is in 'basic' subscriptions; 4-6Mb for € 14,-.... New operator is penetrating now my market with 8Mb for 12,50.....and I got more and more customers asking for streaming TV over my wifi!)
......................................................................................

Is that 8Mb for 12Euro50cent?, Is that unlimited, is there a fair usage policy, is streaming TV unlimited also.

Is that 8Mb for 12Euro50cent?, Is that unlimited, is there a fair usage policy, is streaming TV unlimited also.

Basically that doesn't matter. Customers look only at two things; price and highest speed. And we all have the catch that the offered speeds are maximums....
On the other hand, no WISP has data capping and some have P2P or Skype limitations. But since we all know how difficult is to stop that we have it (like FU policy) in our contracts but the reality is that we don't use it nor do we explicitly inform the clients.

Client wants a bargain, and the providers makes him believe he gets that one, and only with us! That's how it works. It works for us small players, but even with the big players. [Just an example; Vodafone, Tele2, Orange, Dutch KPN, BT, Telefonic, etc. They all promise heaven but don't inform about disclaimers, 'black spots' in their 100% coverage, no data limits where they tune speeds down after so many GB's to a unworkable speed, etc.
The whole market is full with gimmick. That's what we call "commerce". Look at car commercials; you see their best model go along with the price for the basic 'step-in' version. We, in WISP land, just have to do the same. Some countries/players are a bit more sensible where others just might rip you off.... (but you still have to compete with the latters..)]

But yeah, for 12,50 you get unlimited data usage and no other restrictions. (Untill their network gets flooded....)

Don't be so negative about wifi, its not so bad, after all u are still in business - u know in every industry upgrading is never ending process what can sumsung or apple say they have to spend millions and millions dollars for new technology and new products that cant even make to the market

by the way
we offer 10 euros for up to 15Mbit of unlimited traffic
we do combination of fiber and wifi, fiber is essential of every network (all base station connected with fiber) and wifi as cheep part of network u can compete with the price

Big cable/fiber companies will never invest in rural places with 100-200 houses because all they think is how to make lot of money - there we prosper most + in rural places ether is clear

Don't be so negative about wifi, its not so bad, after all u are still in business - u know in every industry upgrading is never ending process what can sumsung or apple say they have to spend millions and millions dollars for new technology and new products that cant even make to the market

by the way
we offer 10 euros for up to 15Mbit of unlimited traffic
we do combination of fiber and wifi, fiber is essential of every network (all base station connected with fiber) and wifi as cheep part of network u can compete with the price

Big cable/fiber companies will never invest in rural places with 100-200 houses because all they think is how to make lot of money - there we prosper most + in rural places ether is clear

Rural not a market for big cable/fiber companies YES but there is a bigger problem on the horizon for all WISPS that is when Electricity companies cable in fiber which is attached to the AC power cables - then life of a WISP is over as every household has (well 99.9999999999999999% have!) electricity from the power grid - so buy shares now in electricity companies

Rural not a market for big cable/fiber companies YES but there is a bigger problem on the horizon for all WISPS that is when Electricity companies cable in fiber which is attached to the AC power cables - then life of a WISP is over as every household has (well 99.9999999999999999% have!) electricity from the power grid - so buy shares now in electricity companies

hmmm, I don't agree. 100% of the present houses connected to their networks have existing power cables which I don't see beeing replaced by new cable just to get the fibre in..... And internet over electricity networks on big scale has not been very successfull. I don't see electricity companies becoming big in internet, unless a new technology evolves that can transport high bandwidth data reliable over their copper (and through switches, Transformers, fuses, junctions etc.)

hmmm, I don't agree. 100% of the present houses connected to their networks have existing power cables which I don't see beeing replaced by new cable just to get the fibre in..... And internet over electricity networks on big scale has not been very successfull. I don't see electricity companies becoming big in internet, unless a new technology evolves that can transport high bandwidth data reliable over their copper (and through switches, Transformers, fuses, junctions etc.)

Unless I am totally incorrect, fiber ran along with the overhead electricity HT cables on pylons has been very successful.

Unless I am totally incorrect, fiber ran along with the overhead electricity HT cables on pylons has been very successful.

That´s a big problem.
Fiber cables running along with high power cables is very hard to do work on because of the problem with shutting down a high power line.
We have this problem in Sweden and the fiber cables running inside or along with the high power grid cables.

Unless I am totally incorrect, fiber ran along with the overhead electricity HT cables on pylons has been very successful.

That´s a big problem.
Fiber cables running along with high power cables is very hard to do work on because of the problem with shutting down a high power line.
We have this problem in Sweden and the fiber cables running inside or along with the high power grid cables.

Are we just talking about the difficulty to work on or is the fiber which is ran along electricity HT cables unreliable and prone to failure.

Are we just talking about the difficulty to work on or is the fiber which is ran along electricity HT cables unreliable and prone to failure.

Both, the cables are better now but the early installations showed bad cable quality and the need of repair or servicing the cables is hard because the electricity needs to be shut off during working with the fibre.
The priority for the company is electricity, not communication over the fibre cable.

Unless I am totally incorrect, fiber ran along with the overhead electricity HT cables on pylons has been very successful.

Well, that kind of fiber is nice for backhaul. Yes you can get it here in Spain. A bit pricy though. They don't follow market prices, but yes, I have had some qoutes...
The issue is that this fibre is only available on these high and médium-high power lines. I was to erect a small tower myself outside the safety perimeter of the power lines and pay for their costs to bring it from a junction box towards my tower. And only from there I could distribute it myself.
The fibre has junction boxes roughly every 1 km (the lenght of a coil) and these junction boxes are posible to use as access points.
They use the fibre for a control network to InterConnect their distribution junctions. Sincé it has so much capacity they have an agency that is selling that surplus capacity...

Usually this fibre is in the top line, embedded in the Steel cable that serves as lightning conductor.

So, this fibre can serve as fibre backbone. So basically it is nothing different than any other backbone network, that sometimes already is fibre.... We still have to bring it into the homes..... I don't see that happenin...

There is no way to say witch one is better? Each of them are making some unique products.
I love Router OS flexibility! The prices for MT SXT-lite are incredible low now.
UBNT has better desigh for mid range antennas, I can't wait for integrated parabolic antennas from mikrotik like nanobridge
UBNT is more stable in noisy enviroment, where mikrotik devices are reconnecting constantly,
Also in noisy enviroment ubnt has better performace. I am quite sure the reason is good antenna design, as parabolic antenna is not picking up interference from the back. of course you can use parabolic antenna with mikrotik, but again cost.
UBNT has airfiber, witch is amazing, until now I have setup 4 links for my client, all of them are in range 4-6km, full speed on all of them. I tried 9.8km, but Ireland is too rainy for that distance, longes one 6k, never dropped connection, once with realy heavy rain latency increased to 200ms for about 2min.
In the country side where is less interference, my client is using Airmax sector antennas paired with RB912, and SXT-HP for customers, allowing distance around 15km from sector with reasonable performance. In the more crowded towns, all gear is changed to UBNT, because of unstability of mikrotik.

Mikrotik have CCR routers, they are performing great, there was DDoS attack targeted to my customers network, CCR12G CPU where running at 80%, but did not crashed.

Dissapintment is New CCR SFP+, we put one in production around month ago, it crashed twice since then. to avoid unexpected downtime for 2500 customers, CCR is connected to GSM resetter, in case if it will crash, it can be rebooted by SMS

Mikrotik has large community and WIKI is stuffed with useful examples how to achieve complex tasks
UBNT are releasing their EdgemaxPro series, witch will probably will kick ass of MT by $ per packet per second.

UBNT has Unifi series, seting up WIFI network could not be easier, range and performance is superior. + unifi cloud controller comes for free, so easy setup, also can grant mangement access to end customer for manging network, I can't imagine to explain over the phone to averago Joe how to change wifi password for network with 60 Mikrotik AP's.

There is no winner, none of them are better or worse, there is different tasks and problems, and different solutions for them.

Choose product according your needs, not by brand!

I love this opinion, thanks for sharing

I personally e not a winner or a looser the one is offering things the other is not and vice versa. MikroTik is offering devices
with more options and able to realize more fine tuning as UBNT is doing and UBNT is offering more or less devices and options
such the UBNT wireless controller software that is not offered by MikroTik. The devices from UBNT are more intuitive to use and
configure and the MikroTik given options, features and protocol are over that more "flat and common" things, so both have there
place in the market and will be used from time to time for the one or other case from me. I love devices from both of them and
being not really able to say this or that will be better from one of them, as said they both have their own charm and skills so if
I am using them both I can fairly say that I am able to cover all my needs and wishes well with their devices well.

So for me as a customers of both of them there will be not really a situation to say one vs the other, it is more one plus one
fits my needs and let me all things happened to do or I must realize.

Since I am not very knowledgeable of long distance link technology, but I am interested on using a Mikrotik LDF2 to establish a connection with an already existing Ubiquity Bullet M2, I would appreciate if someone can enlighten me on two things:

1. Which Mikrotik product is comparable to Ubiquity Bullet M2. For example is Groove-52ac such a product that compares to Bullet M2? (I need this info in order to make a link simulation using Mikrotik's link simulator.)
2. Is Mikrotik's OS much harder to setup for a newbie than Ubiquity AirOS which I am familiar with?

Thanks in advance!

They each has their own advantages. Mikrotik is simpler and cheapter for me.