Sounds like it's worth a try... Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 7, 2016 7:34 PM, "George Skorup" <[email protected]> wrote:
> My house is on a 3.6 450 SM on a reflector. Almost exactly a mile away to > the tower where the standard Cambium OEM 90 degree sector is at 225 feet. I > have a large maple tree in the way and skimming another about 150 feet > away. I get about -58dBm. When the tree is wet it'll drop to maybe -67 or > so. Compare that with the UBNT 3.65 that I used to be on... it's night and > day. The tree would get wet and I'd be at like -80. Almost unusable. So I > think the dual slant on the 450 helps quite a bit. Even when the tree > wasn't wet and I'd be at like -62 on the UBNT, I still couldn't get more > than 15-16Mbps out of it. I mostly sit at 256QAM up and down on the 450 and > get about 37x11Mbps. 10MHz channel. We have other sectors in the area so I > can't run a 20MHz channel on that sector. :( > > On 6/7/2016 1:49 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: > > Has anyone tried 450 3.65 for near Los situations like this discussion? > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > On Jun 7, 2016 2:46 PM, "George Skorup" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Take into account the 24-25dBm Tx power on a 2.4 FSK AP vs 22dBm on a 2.4 >> 450 AP. And you'll probably get a better pattern on a sector vs omni. A >> V-pol omni doesn't typically have a horrible pattern though. Except for >> vertical beamwidth. Then you play with electronic downtilt models, etc. So >> it's probably moot as far as Rx power levels go between the two. >> >> We get OK penetration on the 2.4 450 sector we have up. Not so much the >> noise at the tower as it is at the SMs. We're going to get rid of it >> eventually along with all of the other 2.4 shit. It's a dead band just like >> 900 to us now. >> >> On 6/7/2016 1:33 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: >> >> Omni to a sector, of course. You're probably getting more than 2 db >> unless it was a bonkers big omni and super small sector. >> >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Kurt Fankhauser <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> I have moved from pmp100 to 450 on 2.4ghz. Didn't do a cluster though. >>> Went from a 2.4FSK on a 12db Omni to a two 450 sectors from KP 120 beam >>> width (think 14db) . Was able to hook up every single customer I has on the >>> FSK to the 450 and some were near-LOS. The 450 in 2.4ghz actually has >>> impressively decent nLOS. I think its a lot better than the 3.65 for NLOS. >>> ( I have used all the 450 frequency bands except 900) >>> >>> If you thinking about going 450 in 2.4 and you already have FSK up on >>> 2.4 and nothing abmormal with your noise floor then do it. You'll love it. >>> The 450 is actually better because you can run 10-mhz channels to get >>> around some of the noise in 2.4 vs the FSK which was stuck at 20mhz >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Matt <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> So has anyone moved a PMP100 2.4 cluster too PMP450 2.4 and how did >>>> that go? With PMP100 in 2.4 we do pretty good on near LOS >>>> connections. Only deployed PMP450 in 3.6 and 5ghz so far though. >>>> >>>> >>>> > We have mostly PMP100 and PMP450 deployed. Some Ubiquiti we tried and >>>> > some we inherited as well. Have some ePMP we have tested but so far >>>> > have not deployed more then couple test links. >>>> > >>>> > For those who have tried both ePMP and PMP450 what are the differences >>>> > you have seen in performance? Interference tolerance among others? >>>> > >>>> > For those that have gone with PMP450 over ePMP what was the reasoning? >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
