Yeah not sure what hes talking about we have great success with pmp450
deployments.
epmp has been very supplemental in our small cell deployments as well.
On 11/09/2015 08:47 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
like nearly everything from
Cambium..it is too expensive and soo low Bandwith for the
customers.
Too expensive or slow :P
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Nov 9, 2015 9:44 AM, "Adam Moffett" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
He didn't say ePMP was too expensive, he said it had too many bugs.
On 11/9/2015 9:40 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
Dude he thinks EPMP is way too expensive. Doesn't read like a
very rational post to me.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 <tel:937-552-2340>
Direct: 937-552-2343 <tel:937-552-2343>
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Nov 9, 2015 9:35 AM, "Sean Heskett" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
You must be doing something wrong because our experience is
the complete opposite with PMP450.
What does your noise floor look like?
-Sean
On Sunday, November 8, 2015, Daniel Gerlach
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
the 450 is a 4 years old pointless product like nearly
everything from
Cambium..it is too expensive and soo low Bandwith for the
customers.We
have thrown it out of the Network..The epmp serie has
only bugs( we
have found last week a new with heavy traffic and more
than 35 CPE´s
on a AP) and Cambium told me that they can not fix it before
Christmas.
2015-11-08 4:21 GMT+01:00 Eric Kuhnke
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>:
> Same on any half duplex TDD platform with PtMP and low
modulation (QPSK)
> subscribers. If you have a ubnt 5 GHz AP with a bunch
of clients in 64QAM
> 3/4 to 64QAM 5/6 and a few are on the air using QPSK
1/2, it's going to drag
> down the performance of that whole radio and sector
significantly. It can be
> as much as from 80 Mbps aggregate to 20 Mbps. Looking
at the RSL thresholds
> needed to operate at 1X in 450 terms, it sounds like a
few of those client
> radios are "just barely hanging on"...
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 10:37 AM, George Skorup
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> If those 1X and 2X downlink SMs are even moderately
active, that really
>> throws a wrench into the sector performance. This is
true on any PMP
>> platform. We've seen our fair share of it. We've moved
a couple back to FSK
>> which is something I never, ever want to do, but it
was unfortunately
>> necessary.
>>
>>
>> On 11/6/2015 11:50 AM, Eric Muehleisen wrote:
>>>
>>> We have a few 450 AP's with 30-40 subscribers and
have been getting
>>> several slow speed complaints lately. I just chaulked
it up to issues
>>> with the SM since the AP rarely got over 20mb/s
downlink. We upgraded
>>> to 13.4 recently so we could watch our frame
utilization. We started
>>> graphing it over night and as you can see, we are
hitting 100% for
>>> sustained periods of time. During that time the AP is
only doing
>>> approx. 23mb/s. This particular AP has 34 registered
SM and the
>>> majority show 6x and 4x with 4 or 5 SM's at 2x and
1x. The performance
>>> is a major disappointment. Anyone else have similar
experiences?
>>>
>>> AP configuration: 20mhz channels, 2.5ms frame, 10
miles, 75% downlink,
>>> 3 contention slots.
>>>
>>> Attached is a screenshot of the utilization and
sector throughput
>>> calculator from the Capacity Planner R13.
>>
>>
>
