I think many of you have gotten in a rut. You defend GPS sync like you
don't know how operators can operate or compete without it, which is
pretty lazy problem solving.
It can bedone, is being done, and will continue to be done. GPS sync is
avery value tool. In some areas, it is virtually required to operate. In
ours, it isn't.
There are often may ways to skin the cat.
I'm not saying the PMP450 and others aren't great products, they
are.Great products can often be expensive though, and that drain on
cashflow can often be harmful to small businessesif there is another
method to solve a problem. Sometimes it's more efficient to use a
shovel, not an excavator.
Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com <http://www.spitwspots.com>
On 10/18/2014 10:15 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote:
But I think you missed Mark's point, or maybe part of it.
Synchronizing APs at the same site is also a very big benefit, not
just geographic/multi-site.
On 10/19/2014 12:07 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af wrote:
If we lived in an area where things were flat, you might be right.
We're full of hills and valleys, mountains and glaciers.
... but we're not flat, and Rory is doing similar things in his
environment by using low-to-the-ground microcells and using the
residential structures to create an urban canyon effect.
Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com <http://www.spitwspots.com>
On 10/18/2014 01:52 PM, Mark Radabaugh via Af wrote:
And now your completely out of spectrum and can't deploy anything
new. I suppose the good part for you is nobody else can do anything
given the amount of noise your making.
Mark
On 10/18/14, 1:27 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af wrote:
You just hit the nail on the head why wehave never considered
deploying 450 (and similar)in the past:
By the time "you" (relative term) have the cashflow to pay for
those sectors, "we" (another relative term, for people deploying
UBNTor similar) have already thrown up 4-6 shielded sectors and at
least 10 clients per. If we don't think we can hit a decent sub
densityor at least make the site a valuable repeater, then we don't
go there.
Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com <http://www.spitwspots.com>
On 10/18/2014 09:01 AM, Kurt Fankhauser via Af wrote:
I prefer sectors too but math doesnt always work out. I'll put the
omni in to get the site up and once the customers are there change
it to sectors. The 450 platform is very easy to drop sectors in
and have the existing clients link right up. I have a couple sites
with existing customers i am dropping a two sector 450 system in
with 120 segree KP antennas. cant afford any more sectors than
that per site right now...
Sent from my iPhone
Kurt Fankhauser
Wavelinc Communications
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
http://www.wavelinc.com
tel. 419-562-6405
fax. 419-617-0110
On Oct 18, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Mike Hammett via Af <af@afmug.com
<mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
I've noticed a lot of PMP operators are deploying omnis
(presumably because they can't afford 4 APs. Give me TDMA Atheros
with sectors over omnis on anything any day.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Kurt Fankhauser via Af" <af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>>
*To: *af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Sent: *Saturday, October 18, 2014 8:38:14 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Pmp450 vs epmp pros vs cons
TJ,
No difference between the 3 different frequencies bands (other
than NLOS range) as far as the product itself they are all the
same animal. 2.4ghz NLOS is slightly better than 3.65ghhz. They
all function the same and have the same expected throughputs per
channel width. They all use the same firmware and i love the
interface being the same across all 3. The only major difference
is the 5ghz is V/H versus slant on the other two. That just
translates to the 5ghz omni being ALOT smaller and lighter. There
are some places that i wish the 2.4ghz woulda been V/H because of
the omni size but overall I am still very happy with the 2.4ghz 450.
Kurt Fankhauser
Wavelinc Communications
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
http://www.wavelinc.com <http://www.wavelinc.com/>
tel. 419-562-6405
fax. 419-617-0110
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 4:57 AM, TJ Trout via Af <af@afmug.com
<mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
Kurt,
Any pros and cons on 450 between 2ghz, 3.65 and 5? Any
differences at all? Range vs throughput? Obviously 2ghz
penetrates better, 3 is licensed and 5 has more spectrum but
anything else? All bands are open for me
Thanks
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Kurt Fankhauser via Af
<af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
I started the spring deploying 450 in 2.4ghz, 5ghz, and
3.65ghz and then middle of the summer deciding i had
to"try" some ePMP because the cost was so low I couldn't
resist.... I can say now that I am fairly certain I will
probably stick with the 450. There are many small reasons
that when I considered them all i came to this
conclusion. Here are my reasons:
1. ePMP latency starts to go up quickly once you have
more than 10 clients on an AP. Once you get over 20
clients the latency is pretty much 25-30 ms. Cambium was
honest about this at the road tour and they noted if you
want the best latency to stick with the 450.
2. Sync between the two platforms is not there yet. If
you have adjacent towers on the different platforms that
can see each other you won't have sync.
3. No remote spectrum analyzer for clients. This is HUGE
for when the clients fire up their wireless camera and
baby monitors and trash the whole spectrum.
4.No burst bucket on CPE's
5.EPMP Interface is SLOWWW. Cambium explained at the tour
they were offloading alot of processing power to the PC
you are viewing the interface with and i can't be taking
a quad core machine up a tower to work on these radios
and do site surveys. I am working with a Panasonic
Toughbook and takes FOREVER to log into the EPMP radios.
6. Fore some reason site surveys are a PITA with ePMP.
Think its a combination of many factors here... slow
interface one of them...
7. EPMP in 5ghz DFS band has really low power output.
Something like 13-14db. When using an omni antenna you
can't get maximum legal EIRP out of the ePMP.
8. 450 link tests and SM modulation is pretty stable and
predictable. EPMP seems like its all over the place. I
don't think I have yet seen EPMP linktest get full up or
down outside of a lab environment.
There might be other reasons but I'm pretty tired and was
heading for bed.
Kurt Fankhauser
Wavelinc Communications
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
http://www.wavelinc.com <http://www.wavelinc.com/>
tel. 419-562-6405 <tel:419-562-6405>
fax. 419-617-0110 <tel:419-617-0110>
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:05 PM, TJ Trout via Af
<af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
I haven't been keeping real up to date on current
generation ptmp offerings but we have a new site
going up and I need to decide pretty quickly on some
equipment. For the guys who have been using both 450
and epmp do you have any pros and cons ? Any reason
to spend the extra money when epmp seems to have the
same if not better performance , sync, etc?
My gut says 450 is going to be my best long term
solution but with all of the positive epmp feedback
it's hard to justify the extra money?
--
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex
m...@amplex.net 419.837.5015 x 1021
