A friend is looking to provide Internet access to his new "tiny home" office, that is located in a very rural area outside Colorado Springs, CO and is about 500 ft. from his main business building. Of course, he has no means of providing a "wired" connection across the totally empty field between the two buildings, so we're examining wifi provisioning, instead. The 'field' provides a totally unobstructed, "line-of-sight" access to the 24dbm "high gain" omni-directional antenna on the second floor roof of the main building, where the existing wifi broadcasts to the surrounding area. The existing wifi is an 802.11-g/n on 2.4GHz since existing hardware provides only this signal, although the "gateway router" (an "OpenMesh" OM2P mesh node used as 'gateway' to the DSL internet access) does have dual radios to provide 2 SSIDS. Since we already have an Engenius ENS202EXT AP/router, I was curious if we might use this (acting as an AP), and possibly a second 202EXT (acting as "AP client") to dependably provide Internet and network access at the fastest possible speeds to the two users in the "tiny home".... maybe even something a bit faster than the 130MB/s he 'sees' now with his 4 year old laptop (wireless-g) when he's standing in the parking lot just outside the "main building" where the OpenMesh 'gateway' is located. Would anyone care to comment on the "best" method of 'maximizing' the speed of access over this distance? Since Internet access via DSL in this rural area "maxxes out" at a mere 6MB/s, it's seems a poor investment to get a lot of new hardware to provide something like wireless-N @ 5 GHz or 'wireless-ac' ($$$) since there are so few 'client devices' being served (even though OpenMesh offers "dual-band" 2.4 & 5 GHz "N" nodes and MIMO 'AC' nodes that they 'recommend' for "...fastest possible..." over extended distances like 500 ft). But these nodes are intended for up to 100 simultaneous 'users', which I see as tremendous 'overkill' .. especially at $100 & $200/node (which I still believe will require two nodes to improve this access very much ).... Although, if this IS "the answer" he'll reluctantly go there... But I almost see this as simply a "marketing ploy" on someone's part, and maybe not really required.