subject:"\[AFMUG\] PMP450 vs. ePMP"

Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP

2016-06-07 Thread George Skorup

Here's the stats from my SM. It varies a bit, but is still much more 
usable than the UBNT. We have a handful of customers in similar 
situations. Some we've even taken off of 900 FSK. Don't expect miracles, 
but don't say.. oh, there's a tree in the way, it's never going to work. 
Try it and see what you get.


Receive Power : 
-59.2 dB (-61.0 dB B / -64.0 dB A)
Signal Strength Ratio : 
3.0 dB B-A
Signal to Noise Ratio : 
34 B / 37 A dB
Beacons :   
100%
Receive Fragments Modulation :  
Path B:QPSK:65% 16-QAM:17% 64-QAM:8% 256-QAM:10%
Path A:QPSK:30% 16-QAM:26% 64-QAM:23% 256-QAM:22%
Latest Remote Link Test Efficiency Percentage : 
NA%
BER Total Avg Results : 
9.508931e-06


Transmit Power :
24 dBm
Max Transmit Power :
25 dBm
Power Level :   
-58.9 (-63.0 B / -61.0 A) dBm
Signal Strength Ratio : 
0.0 dB B - A
Signal to Noise Ratio : 
31 dB B / 33 dB A
Latest Remote Link Test Efficiency Percentage : 
NA%


Stats for LUID: 3   Test Duration: 2   Pkt Length: 1714   Test Direction 
Bi-Directional


*RF Link Test*
VC  DownlinkUplink  Aggregate   Packet Transmit Packet 
Receive
Actual  Actual
19  40906752 bps
(40.90 Mbps)10936320 bps
(10.93 Mbps)51843072 bps
(51.84 Mbps),  3732 pps)1574 (787 pps)  5891(2945 pps)


*Efficiency*
DownlinkUplink
Efficiency  Fragments
count   Signal to
Noise Ratio Efficiency  Fragments
count   Signal to
Noise Ratio
Actual  ExpectedActual  Expected
100%159792  159792  36 dB B
39 dB A 100%42720   42720   35 dB B
36 dB A

*
Link Quality
Downlink
*
RF Path Modulation  Fragments   Modulation
Percentage  Average Corrected
Bit Errors
B   QPSK19882   25% 1.382
B   16-QAM  19882   25% 1.730
B   64-QAM  19880   25% 2.144
B   256-QAM 19882   25% 1.481
A   QPSK19884   25% 0.469
A   16-QAM  19882   25% 0.745
A   64-QAM  19882   25% 0.903
A   256-QAM 19883   25% 0.481

*Uplink
*
RF Path Modulation  Fragments   Modulation
Percentage  Average Corrected
Bit Errors
B   QPSK635630% 1.741
B   16-QAM  633630% 1.979
B   64-QAM  631130% 2.140
B   256-QAM 229211% 3.737
A   QPSK637930% 0.722
A   16-QAM  637430% 0.861
A   64-QAM  636630% 0.984
A   256-QAM 232711% 2.063



On 6/7/2016 6:41 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:


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" > 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" > 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

Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP

2016-06-07 Thread Josh Luthman

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"  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"  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 > > 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 
>>> 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?

>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP

2016-06-07 Thread George Skorup

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" > 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
> 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
> 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?

Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP

2016-06-07 Thread Josh Luthman

Glad to hear.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Jun 7, 2016 4:52 PM, "Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc" <
t...@franklinisp.net> wrote:

> Josh,
>
>
>
> We have several customers in that situation.  No issues.  Using 10Mhz
> channel.  Getting ready to deploy the KP dual sectors with 5Ghz and 3.65Ghz.
>
> I can’t speak for everyone, but the 3.65 rocks in our area.
>
>
>
> *Tyson Burris, President*
> *Internet Communications Inc.*
> *739 Commerce Dr.*
> *Franklin, IN 46131*
>
> *317-738-0320 <317-738-0320> Daytime #*
> *317-412-1540 <317-412-1540> Cell/Direct #*
> *Online: **www.surfici.net* <http://www.surfici.net>
>
>
>
> [image: ICI]
>
> *What can ICI do for you?*
>
>
> *Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP
> Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.*
>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the*
> *addressee shown. It contains information that is*
> *confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,*
> *dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by*
> *unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly*
> *prohibited.*
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 7, 2016 2:50 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP
>
>
>
> 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" <geo...@cbcast.com> 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 <lists.wavel...@gmail.com>
> 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 <matt.mailingli...@gmail.com> 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?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7639 / Virus Database: 4598/12379 - Release Date: 06/07/16
>

Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP

2016-06-07 Thread Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc

Josh,

We have several customers in that situation.  No issues.  Using 10Mhz channel.  
Getting ready to deploy the KP dual sectors with 5Ghz and 3.65Ghz.

I can’t speak for everyone, but the 3.65 rocks in our area.

Tyson Burris, President 
Internet Communications Inc. 
739 Commerce Dr. 
Franklin, IN 46131 

317-738-0320 Daytime # 
317-412-1540 Cell/Direct # 
Online: www.surfici.net 

What can ICI do for you? 

Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP 
Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure. 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the 
addressee shown. It contains information that is 
confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, 
dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by 
unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly 
prohibited. 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 2:50 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP

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" <geo...@cbcast.com 
<mailto:geo...@cbcast.com> > 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 <lists.wavel...@gmail.com 
<mailto:lists.wavel...@gmail.com> > 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 <matt.mailingli...@gmail.com 
<mailto:matt.mailingli...@gmail.com> > 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?

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> 
Version: 2016.0.7639 / Virus Database: 4598/12379 - Release Date: 06/07/16

Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP

2016-06-07 Thread David

Hot Springs Ar,
Small City of 36.6K and inside a county with 110K

On 06/03/2016 09:29 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

Which and what type of urban environment?

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>

<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

*From: *"David" <dmilho...@wletc.com>
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Friday, June 3, 2016 9:17:12 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP

We have removed ANY 2.4 on our network and let it be the indoor useful
IOT access for all.

Urban areas is just to high for 2.4 in general.
3.65 pmp450 has brought us mucho success in this area and the newest
900 450i rocks. I just need those KP higher gain cpe Ant to get a
little deeper distance from the tower.

We have a few customers on new 900 running 17-20 Mbs through the
thickest crap around 3 mile out some less than this but with a little
more cpe gain we will get this.

With the dense urban area we have there is no way I could use epmp at
my dense tower locations or ubnt for that matter. I do however have
about 15 subs on a single epmp AP in an area that does fine with
10Mbx10Mb service rate.
The coolest thing about that site is that it has 2 epmp panels back to
back on same channel using the gps sync working great.

On 06/02/2016 05:05 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

I can only warn you that you'll have a very angry set of customers.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Mathew Howard
<mhoward...@gmail.com <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I've been meaning to do a direct comparison between the two,
by swapping one of our UBNT 2.4ghz APs to an ePMP and keeping
the exact same antennas and everything else... I just need to
figure out where I can do it that's going to give me some
useful information and not make too many customers angry.

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:49 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller
<par...@cyberbroadband.net <mailto:par...@cyberbroadband.net>>
wrote:

I do not believe we have had both on the same tower. We
had diverted to doing epmp 2.4 not long after it came out
as we had lots of problems with ESD on ubnt 2.4 rockets.
Changed some things and they are surviving storms much better.
Tests near EPMP vs. tests on other towers (3 miles away? -
totally same environment) just revealed in dramatically
different results. Not as much speed, maybe, but at least
we're getting a usable signal up to a mile or two away.
With epmp we're lucky to get a mile way.

Understand we are in THICK tree country. 900 is still our
primary product

- Original Message -
*From:* Mathew Howard <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>
*To:* af <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:31 PM
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP

But does it actually perform worse that UBNT 2.4ghz on
the same link, or is it maybe just differences in how
they calculate signal levels? It doesn't make any
sense that two different radios running on the same
frequency putting the same amount of power into the
same antennas would give significantly different
signal levels...

The closest thing I've done to a comparison was
playing with a Force 200 2.4ghz in wifi mode... there
didn't seem to be a significant difference between it
and a PowerBeam connecting to the same AP.

1 2 >

1 - 100 of 176 matches

Mail list logo