Netonix Forums

Here is one more product that you can power with your Netonix switch. It uses 24 v passive POE (.5 AMP)

http://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/edgemax/E ... r_X_DS.pdf

I will have to think up a reason as to why you would want to power a router from a switch, but I bet I can come up with a cool application.

Not sure what UBNT is thinking as that little $50 router/switch will take away a lot of sales from the EdgeROUTER Lite?

$50 MSRP verses almost $100 = I guess good for the end user.

Not sure what the performance difference will be between the 2 units (ER Lite and ERX)?

Well if you're using our DC switch to power an off-grid site there you go, power that little router from our switch!

Now add $50 to any of our switches and you have a full featured router/POE switch with as many ports as you need and you can power any device.

We can not compete with inexpensive Chinese labor or with UBNT's volume, all we can do is try to build niche products with features that they do not bother with like the current sensors and software selectable voltages per port, and the DC switch line.

You can hire a GOOD employee in China for around $500US per month but here in the states that same employee will cost you more than $500 per week plus benefits. Maybe my ideology of trying to build things here and in similar income level countries is counter productive but I believe strongly is trying to support middle class jobs and strengthening our country and allies like Canada and Europe.

Their little version has POE pass through which could be used for a cheaper mid-span than our WS-6-MINI but I do not think the little router/switch has POE options on the other ports?

The larger SFP model looks "better" but once again only 24V .5A per port verses our .75A per port which we jacked up just to accommodate the new AF5X line.

Also both these devices only support 24V and not 48V and no 24VH or 48VH?

I am sure people will find a ton of uses for them, and the price is very low.

We have been trying to build tons of hardware features into our products which cost extra money and with our small volumes and North American labor costs it is really hard to compete with Ubiquiti on price so we are after niches, and offer features Robert deem's too small of a market.

It is a good thing for Ubiquiti that they do not do support. If these routers have the same interface as the other EdgeRouters, there will be a lot of headaches from clueless users. I have noticed that a very large percentage of questions asked in the forums are about configuring EdgeOS products. A lot of them go unanswered. Clueless users buying them because they are cheap are likely to be very frustrated when they try to set them up.

First glance does not pass the sniff test. How are they providing high wattage 48V out with 24V PoE in? Smells like marketing BS to me.

In the following pic, the UAP-AC is 22W and the UVC Pro is 12W. At 24V the current doubles!!

wayneorack wrote:It is a good thing for Ubiquiti that they do not do support. If these routers have the same interface as the other EdgeRouters, there will be a lot of headaches from clueless users. I have noticed that a very large percentage of questions asked in the forums are about configuring EdgeOS products. A lot of them go unanswered. Clueless users buying them because they are cheap are likely to be very frustrated when they try to set them up.

Yea, Ubiquiti has saved a fortune off the community self supporting their products, freeing up that money/resource for rapid expansion and growth but now as they begin to move into the Enterprise and Consumer markets they will eventually need to bring a tech support department online. I estimate that this could cost anywhere between $10 to $20 MILLION per year (US based support not India) but they can afford this.

Up until now the community which "was" mostly made up of fairly tech savvy WISPs supporting each other but as of late these same Tech Savvy WISP's find themselves supporting UBNT products more and more for members/customers from the Enterprise and Consumer markets on the forums.

lligetfa wrote:First glance does not pass the sniff test. How are they providing high wattage 48V out with 24V PoE in? Smells like marketing BS to me.

In the following pic, the UAP-AC is 22W and the UVC Pro is 12W. At 24V the current doubles!!

I think in the picture they are assuming the customer is using POE bricks for those devices on ports 1 & 2 as there is only 1 POE pass through port on the ER-X, so only the NanoNEAM on port 4 is actually powered from the router/switch?

sirhc wrote:

lligetfa wrote:First glance does not pass the sniff test. How are they providing high wattage 48V out with 24V PoE in? Smells like marketing BS to me.

In the following pic, the UAP-AC is 22W and the UVC Pro is 12W. At 24V the current doubles!!

I think in the picture they are assuming the customer is using POE bricks for those devices on ports 1 & 2 as there is only 1 POE pass through port on the ER-X, so only the NanoNEAM on port 4 is actually powered from the router/switch?

Ja, like I said, marketing BS... they trick people into buying based on the picture and then of course when they post on UBNT about why it doesn't do what the picture suggests, they get slammed as dumb for not reading but by then they are UFOs.

It's just too bad it looks so much like the WS-6-MINI and so we need to take the time and effort to educate the buyer. Well... some buyers...

Are you suggesting UBNT has an issue with what's marketed vs what's delivered!?!?

As much as I'd like to see this be a replacement for the RB260, I just know hiding somewhere in the details is some ridiculous shortcoming that saved them 5 whole pennies per unit on the manufacturing side, yet makes these things almost worthless. It's hard to overlook the whole TS issues that ARE out there, regardless if they acknowledge them or not. Since they feel the TSs don't have an issue, makes me wonder what issue these "don't" have.

So this would be accurate?

(I made that quick)

It fooled me at first, and I know it is fooling others as they talk about it replacing a ToughSwitch 5 port...

Ja, that's better. I'm a little embarrassed that I let it fool me at first glance.