Ubiquiti Wireless Reviews

We use this solution for point to point. For example, if we have an ISP and you want to feed a company with bandwidth, we use the "add point to point" feature for wifi.

We use it as an access point, but if you are talking about manifestation, this is for a very limited range, evaluated in a limited number of people. If you want to have a real ISP business, you need a different solution. It can be installed inside a system, and then you use that setup to broadcast a signal. It's very stable in most cases if we don't have Microsoft.

We use the on-premises version of the solution.

It's very easy to use. The hardware is very easy to use, compared to Microsoft. Microsoft is more complicated. It has software that is okay if you are familiar with it. In my opinion, Ubiquiti hardware is more heavy-duty than Microsoft.

It is also the first company in Iraq that provides a product with an antenna and feeds all in one compact design. Before that, we had the magnetic adapter alone and then antenna alone.

After that, Microsoft and other companies have produced equipment like Ubiquiti, but it was the first one that made this design.

You should also not forget that we use Ubiquiti for point to point with devices. All their features are very popular here in Iraq, though.

It is used in an office environment. We had an incorrect deployment. Office Ubiquiti access points were deployed in the warehouse, and they start to fail when you reach above 90 degrees. In the warehouse ceiling, it's well over 90 degrees, so four of them failed. Rather than just replace them, I decided to use outdoor access points inside the warehouse. They can survive extreme temperatures.

It's more my preference that I prefer Ruckus. There are only three big top names: Cisco, Aruba, and Ruckus. Cisco is only there because of brand recognition, but I've always appreciated Ruckus for Wi-Fi over any other brand because they truly sell a "set it and forget it" system. If you're the IT guy and you're a one-man operation, you look for things that can heal themselves and provide their own maintenance. 

Other systems require a lot of heavy lifting. Ruckus doesn't. It costs more, but you get what you pay for. So, that's one of the reasons I would have replaced it with Ruckus down the road anyway. It was just convenient that these failures are taking place now.

Money. Ubiquiti is about money. If you don't have the budget for IT, you go with Ubiquiti because you can get a Ubiquiti access point for about a third of the price of Ruckus, maybe even less. It's a solid system, but it has horrible support. I would call it no support. I could not recommend Ubiquiti on a general scale to anybody that needs support because you're not going to get it.

In the school area, we have deployed Ubiquiti Wireless. Each floor has four Ubiquiti Wireless solutions. We have indoor and outdoor solutions and it is used for long-distance communication. Indoors, the students rely on Ubiquiti Wireless for day-to-day academic activities, like classes, attending seminars, everything. We have deployed Ubiquiti Wireless in their applied building, and it has a controller also, a virtual machine controller.

Before the deployment of Ubiquiti, we were running local authentication mechanisms like WPA2 personal with the local wireless routers. We were not able to implement WPA2 enterprise authentication methods. After the implementation of Ubiquiti Wireless, we were able to implement this WPA2 model authentication with a username and password. It becomes more secure and students and staff can easily rely on it to meet their daily needs.

Ubiquiti is the primary wireless solution for my workplace, and we'll likely continue to use it for a while. With a few exceptions, Ubiquiti is the wireless hardware for the vast majority of our campuses.

Ubiquiti is intuitive. The management interface is user-friendly. You can easily make changes and do the things that need to be done. 

Our primary use case for this solution is for access points for internet services for our clients and the devices they have on them.

I would say that the user experience is pretty good in this solution as well as the roaming solution part of it.

I use Ubiquiti Wireless for WiFi deployment in my flat in Switzerland where I have one access point and two switches. The flat is about 80 to 100 square meters, so one access point is enough. I have also installed it in my parents' two-family house where there are four access points. The house has three floors so requires more access points to cover the whole area.

A lot also depends on the thickness of the building's walls. If you want good coverage and you're using the 5Ghz frequency band, I think you need one access point per 60 square meters.

I like the features that allow configuration of the access points, the firewalls, and the switches from an application on your smartphone. If my mother calls and tells me there's a problem with the internet connection or WiFi, I can check it on my mobile phone and can then restart the device or let her know there's another reason for the problem. It helps because my parents are over 70 years old.

I installed the Ubiquiti UAP-AC-Pro at our HQ, which is a converted church. The WiFi coverage is excellent, thanks to the 3x3 MIMO antenna.The dual band throughput is very fast and extremely stable. Ubiquiti use their own UniFi Controller software, which is regularly updated with new and improved features. It is an enterprise Wireless Access Point at a domestic price.

It provides effective wifi service to complement our data network infrastructure. We are located in an area where WiFi penetration is high and yet we have not suffered from interference, which might be due to careful management of frequencies that have been set manually. This was possible due to the RF Spectrum feature within the AC-Pro AP. These are incredible features for a device ranging around £130.