A friend of mine said he was work on a cellular tower and saw some really
cool sectors covering 700-2700 MHz but could not see model number or brand
because of all cabling blocking his view.....wonder who makes those.  with
new LTE offerings on different bands wonder if they will use dual band or
multi-band antennas?

Jaime Solorza
Wireless Systems Architect
915-861-1390

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Josh Luthman <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Exactly as much.  They are the same antenna.
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jay Weekley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Do you think it performs as well as a single frequency sector would?
>>
>> Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>>> I have the very first one on a tower, actually =)  KPP is the only dual
>>> band I know of that is worthwhile.  IT Elite is dangerously bad FTB.
>>>
>>> The dual band sectors are literally two sectors in one, so if you have
>>> the 2ghz and 5ghz sectors standalone and they work all you're doing is
>>> putting them in one plastic box.
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340 <tel:937-552-2340>
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 <tel:937-552-2343>
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Jay Weekley <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Has anyone had experience with the KP Performance dual frequency
>>>     sectors such as this one?  I seem to remember someone saying that
>>>     one frequency didn't perform as well as the other.  Any other
>>>     recommendations for dual frequency sectors?
>>>
>>>     https://www.kpperformance.ca/one-2ghz-slant-one-5ghz-hv-ante
>>> nnas-in-one-radome-465
>>>     <https://www.kpperformance.ca/one-2ghz-slant-one-5ghz-hv-ant
>>> ennas-in-one-radome-465>
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>>> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13493 - Release Date:
>>> 11/28/16
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to