NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
Original RBK53 Technical Spec 2x2 radio VS 4x4 radio for second 5GHz dedicated backhaul
Hi, I just bought a new RBK53. Look like i got the original one with USB 2.0 in the back of both router and satellites. However, I look at the original RBK53 technical spec on both datasheet and ...
I attched original RBK53 datasheet, which shows that it uses 2x2 channel for dedicated backhaul. I got it from an online website which is still selling the original version. They said they got the datasheet directly from Netgear website about 2 years ago.
It i hard to believe a big company such as Netgear will allow this kind of mistake to happen showing wrong info on both Datasheet and on the box of the product sold miliion units worldwide. So, I am confused which is correct and would like to hear directly from Netgear that it is a typo if that i possible.
If it is 2x2 for sure, i might have to buy V2 version since they cost the same. However, V2 looks like a downgrade to me since V2 has no USB port , less flash memory ( V1 4GB vs V2 512MB) and doesn't come with universal power adapter ( only 100-120v :12V,2.5a compared to V1 with 100-240V:12V,3.5a).
Not sure if I would feel regret getting V2 version later
tigereat wrote:I attched original RBK53 datasheet, which shows that it uses 2x2 channel for dedicated backhaul. I got it from an online website which is still selling the original version. They said they got the datasheet directly from Netgear website about 2 years ago.
My response is partially a repitition of my eariler post. Again, the speed for the backhaul clearly states 1733 Mbps, even on your datasheet and on your box.
Also, again, from my limited understanding, it would be impossible for a 2x2 to deliver that speed. In fact, it would be roughly half of that 1733 figure, or 866, if it were actually 2x2.
If you still don't believe me, then take a look at the web site below. In particular, scroll down and look at the chart for 802.11ac (in the 256-QAM row).