Define too expensive... If operators can buy it, sell a service and be profitable than I don't think it's too expensive.
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 9, 2015 10:25 AM, "Mathew Howard" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>> >
