I've been doing micropops for about 7+ years now. I mainly started using that model because it enabled me to reach places that I otherwise couldn't. The added SNR and corresponding throughput is a nice side effect though. Customers also like smaller antennas/radios and the mounts that go with them as well.
On Sunday, October 19, 2014, Mike Hammett via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not in downtown Chicago, but I am in Chicago's suburbs (in addition to > rural areas). I can't imagine the density is that much different unless you > have a higher ratio of townhomes\duplexes\apartments to single family homes. > > I don't disagree that smaller and smaller cells are better for SNR and > therefore throughput. > > The only modern platforms with smart antennas also have sync. > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Rory Conaway via Af" <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> > *To: *[email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Sent: *Sunday, October 19, 2014 12:30:00 PM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Pmp450 vs epmp pros vs cons > > I think part of our difference here is environment. I’m in urban areas > where 12 other operators aren’t my biggest issues. It’s that every AP I > have has 300 houses or more in every direction that have indoor APs, Dish > Network whole house video, etc… So, having an AP that has more dynamic > features for that is more valuable than GPS to me. I know Cambium is > touting that feature on the ePMP but it’s just not as important for a > microcell. > > > > Rory > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] *On Behalf Of *Mike > Hammett via Af > *Sent:* Sunday, October 19, 2014 10:19 AM > *To:* [email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Pmp450 vs epmp pros vs cons > > > > Sync reduces self-interference, whether you cooperate with competitors or > not. > > If you sync with some of your competitors, it's better than no competitors. > > Your environment may be such that you can't reuse frequencies. That's > fine. You still reduce self-interference. You make the most of whatever you > have. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Rory Conaway via Af" <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> > *To: *[email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Sent: *Sunday, October 19, 2014 11:03:02 AM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Pmp450 vs epmp pros vs cons > > If you don’t have 100% cooperation with GPS sync with competitors for > various reasons, you will have interference. When more beam-forming > options start coming out, GPS might have value on the same tower, but > little value since the trade-off with reduced throughput isn’t worth it. > This is why I don’t like towers in high-density areas. If I had 12 > competitors, I’d have micro-cells until the equipment catches up with > environment which I’m sure is coming. > > > > Rory > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] *On Behalf Of *Mike > Hammett via Af > *Sent:* Sunday, October 19, 2014 8:38 AM > *To:* [email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Pmp450 vs epmp pros vs cons > > > > You lost me, Rory... > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Rory Conaway via Af" <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> > *To: *[email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Sent: *Sunday, October 19, 2014 10:35:08 AM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Pmp450 vs epmp pros vs cons > > > Which then makes it not that valuable. I think Beam-Forming has more > value. > > > > Rory > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] *On Behalf Of *Mike > Hammett via Af > *Sent:* Sunday, October 19, 2014 8:29 AM > *To:* [email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Pmp450 vs epmp pros vs cons > > > > Half or more have the same Canopy settings. The rest are 802.11 based with > some cooperating and some not responding to anything. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Rory Conaway via Af" <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> > *To: *[email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Sent: *Sunday, October 19, 2014 10:13:45 AM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Pmp450 vs epmp pros vs cons > > I’m assuming all 12 WISPs cooperate with each other? > > > > Rory > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] *On Behalf Of *Mike > Hammett via Af > *Sent:* Sunday, October 19, 2014 5:33 AM > *To:* [email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Pmp450 vs epmp pros vs cons > > > > Entirely not true spoken by a WISP that has up until this point used > Mikrotik and Ubiquiti in rural and suburban markets with 12 WISP > competitors. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Mark Radabaugh via Af" <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> > *To: *[email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Sent: *Saturday, October 18, 2014 3:52:03 PM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Pmp450 vs epmp pros vs cons > > And now your completely out of spectrum and can't deploy anything new. I > suppose the good part for you is nobody else can do anything given the > amount of noise your making. > > Mark > > On 10/18/14, 1:27 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af wrote: > > You just hit the nail on the head why we have never considered deploying > 450 (and similar) in the past: > > By the time "you" (relative term) have the cashflow to pay for those > sectors, "we" (another relative term, for people deploying UBNT or similar) > have already thrown up 4-6 shielded sectors and at least 10 clients per. If > we don't think we can hit a decent sub density or at least make the site > a valuable repeater, then we don't go there. > > Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer > SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com > > On 10/18/2014 09:01 AM, Kurt Fankhauser via Af wrote: > > I prefer sectors too but math doesnt always work out. I'll put the omni in > to get the site up and once the customers are there change it to sectors. > The 450 platform is very easy to drop sectors in and have the existing > clients link right up. I have a couple sites with existing customers i am > dropping a two sector 450 system in with 120 segree KP antennas. cant > afford any more sectors than that per site right now... > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > Kurt Fankhauser > > Wavelinc Communications > > P.O. Box 126 > > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > > http://www.wavelinc.com > > tel. 419-562-6405 > > fax. 419-617-0110 > > > On Oct 18, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Mike Hammett via Af <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > I've noticed a lot of PMP operators are deploying omnis (presumably > because they can't afford 4 APs. Give me TDMA Atheros with sectors over > omnis on anything any day. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Kurt Fankhauser via Af" <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> > *To: *[email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Sent: *Saturday, October 18, 2014 8:38:14 AM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Pmp450 vs epmp pros vs cons > > TJ, > > > > No difference between the 3 different frequencies bands (other than NLOS > range) as far as the product itself they are all the same animal. 2.4ghz > NLOS is slightly better than 3.65ghhz. They all function the same and have > the same expected throughputs per channel width. They all use the same > firmware and i love the interface being the same across all 3. The only > major difference is the 5ghz is V/H versus slant on the other two. That > just translates to the 5ghz omni being ALOT smaller and lighter. There are > some places that i wish the 2.4ghz woulda been V/H because of the omni size > but overall I am still very happy with the 2.4ghz 450. > > > > > Kurt Fankhauser > > Wavelinc Communications > > P.O. Box 126 > > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > > http://www.wavelinc.com > > tel. 419-562-6405 > > fax. 419-617-0110 > > > > On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 4:57 AM, TJ Trout via Af <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > Kurt, > > > > Any pros and cons on 450 between 2ghz, 3.65 and 5? Any differences at > all? Range vs throughput? Obviously 2ghz penetrates better, 3 is licensed > and 5 has more spectrum but anything else? All bands are open for me > > > > Thanks > > > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Kurt Fankhauser via Af <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > I started the spring deploying 450 in 2.4ghz, 5ghz, and 3.65ghz and then > middle of the summer deciding i had to"try" some ePMP because the cost was > so low I couldn't resist.... I can say now that I am fairly certain I will > probably stick with the 450. There are many small reasons that when I > considered them all i came to this conclusion. Here are my reasons: > > > > 1. ePMP latency starts to go up quickly once you have more than 10 clients > on an AP. Once you get over 20 clients the latency is pretty much 25-30 ms. > Cambium was honest about this at the road tour and they noted if you want > the best latency to stick with the 450. > > 2. Sync between the two platforms is not there yet. If you have adjacent > towers on the different platforms that can see each other you won't have > sync. > > 3. No remote spectrum analyzer for clients. This is HUGE for when the > clients fire up their wireless camera and baby monitors and trash the whole > spectrum. > > 4.No burst bucket on CPE's > > 5.EPMP Interface is SLOWWW. Cambium explained at the tour they were > offloading alot of processing power to the PC you are viewing the interface > with and i can't be taking a quad core machine up a tower to work on these > radios and do site surveys. I am working with a Panasonic Toughbook and > takes FOREVER to log into the EPMP radios. > > 6. Fore some reason site surveys are a PITA with ePMP. Think its a > combination of many factors here... slow interface one of them... > > 7. EPMP in 5ghz DFS band has really low power output. Something like > 13-14db. When using an omni antenna you can't get maximum legal EIRP out of > the ePMP. > > 8. 450 link tests and SM modulation is pretty stable and predictable. EPMP > seems like its all over the place. I don't think I have yet seen EPMP > linktest get full up or down outside of a lab environment. > > > > There might be other reasons but I'm pretty tired and was heading for bed. > > > > > Kurt Fankhauser > > Wavelinc Communications > > P.O. Box 126 > > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > > http://www.wavelinc.com > > tel. 419-562-6405 > > fax. 419-617-0110 > > > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:05 PM, TJ Trout via Af <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > I haven't been keeping real up to date on current generation ptmp > offerings but we have a new site going up and I need to decide pretty > quickly on some equipment. For the guys who have been using both 450 and > epmp do you have any pros and cons ? Any reason to spend the extra money > when epmp seems to have the same if not better performance , sync, etc? > > My gut says 450 is going to be my best long term solution but with all of > the positive epmp feedback it's hard to justify the extra money? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Mark Radabaugh > > Amplex > > > > [email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > 419.837.5015 x 1021 > > > > > > > > > >
