Sources for “The Quarter-Mile Link”

“I installed two Wave Picos between a historic home and a barn several hundred feet away. It has a 1.5 Gbps link and has been very solid the last 1.5 years.”— u/AncientGeek00

Your exact question, weighing UBB against airFiber 60 against Wave AP + Pico. The thread converged on two Picos.

The cleanest statement of the 5 GHz-vs-60 GHz gap, plus the trick for links that are too short: offset the dishes slightly so they stop overdriving each other.

House to barn, 500–750 ft, link showing 85–100% and passing no traffic. Nine hours of debugging. It was the Ethernet cable.

“It was almost always wind catching the dish and tearing up the mounts. Water damage was rare.”— Texas installer

250 m in southern Canada. Recommendation lands on GigaBeam LR or Wave Pico specifically because of the 5 GHz backup.

“Over 10 years… extremely reliable. Just had to replace Ethernet cables every few years due to UV damage on the cable jacket.”— u/Usual-Memory-3668

A North Dakota farm at 210–425 ft — the closest analogue on this list, climate included.

The rain-fade thread with actual numbers. At 650 ft, torrential rain cost one operator roughly 600 mbit instead of 1000.

In snow country the problem isn't attenuation in the air, it's wet snow caking on the face of the radio. Also the hard cold limit at −20 °F.

Link completely dead at 120 ft. Cause: shooting through windows. Low-E and UV coatings annihilate 60 GHz.

All three products have a single gigabit RJ45, so '2 Gbps aggregate' can never leave the box. Also a good lesson in signal that's too hot.

The best distance-to-model rule of thumb anywhere, from someone with lots in the field.

The single most valuable cheap-gear warning: TP-Link CPE210 and CPE510 have 10/100 Ethernet ports. Only the CPE710 has gigabit.

Holds the best grounding horror story on the topic: 250 ft of Cat5e between buildings on different transformers, one surge, everything fried except the cable.

Metal siding and roofing is a Faraday cage, so the radio goes outside and only the PoE run comes in.

Realistic 60 GHz throughput is 700–800 Mbps, not a clean gig; and if your WAN lands on the far side, remote traffic crosses the bridge twice.

The closest match to this project on all of YouTube: a current end-to-end build on UISP Wave hardware, framed around not digging a trench.

Full Wave configuration walkthrough. Nano rather than Pico, but the software and alignment workflow are identical.

Direct head-to-head of the two ecosystems. Small channel, but the only comparison that tackles the actual decision.

The authoritative English-language throughput test of the AF60-LR.

A real deployment tested at 3 km. Mostly valuable as a headroom argument.

Wave-Pico: 27.7 dBi, 6° beamwidth, 60 GHz plus an 802.11ax 5 GHz backup radio, 2 Gbps total throughput, 1.5 km PtP range, one GbE RJ45, 22–27 V or 44–54 V passive PoE with a 48 V adapter included, −40 to 60 °C, 7 lbf wind loading at 125 mph, pole mount, UISP-managed.

Wave-Nano-US: 41 dBi, 1.4° beamwidth, 5 GHz backup radio, 2 Gbps total throughput, 5+ km range, one GbE RJ45, −40 to 60 °C.

AF60-LR: 38 dBi, 1.6° beamwidth, 60 GHz only with no backup radio listed, 2 Gbps total throughput, 12+ km range, one GbE RJ45, −40 to 60 °C. Still listed as a current product.