I can't disagree that PMP450 is too expensive, but slow? ...compared to what? and what is less buggy than ePMP, other than PMP450?
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Josh Luthman <[email protected]> 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]> 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 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> On Nov 9, 2015 9:35 AM, "Sean Heskett" <[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]> >>> [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]>: >>>> > 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]> >>>> 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. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >>> >>
