Four GPS ePMPs with 90* sectors is $2,260. One PMP450 AP without antenna is 
$2,316. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Kurt Fankhauser via Af" <af@afmug.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 11:23:00 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Pmp450 vs epmp pros vs cons 




Huh? are you putting the cheap connectorized CPE on them or the $500 gps sync 
AP on them? 

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 12:04 PM, Mike Hammett via Af < af@afmug.com > wrote: 





The four sectors are still cheaper than one 450 on an omni. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Ken Hohhof via Af" < af@afmug.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 10:41:32 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Pmp450 vs epmp pros vs cons 




Which problem is easier to fix? You deployed an omni and take rate has been 
phenomenal and you need more capacity? Or you deployed 4 sectors and only have 
5 subs between them? Well, I guess the second one, if the answer is 
decommission the site and redeploy the equipment. 





From: Tyler Treat via Af 
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 10:28 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Pmp450 vs epmp pros vs cons 


Afford/justify. Either way I pretty much agree. And I was an omni fanboy. 


___________________________ 
Mangled by my iPhone. 
___________________________ 

Tyler Treat 
Corn Belt Technologies, Inc. 

tyler.tr...@cornbelttech.com 
___________________________ 


On Oct 18, 2014, at 10:21 AM, Mike Hammett via Af < af@afmug.com > wrote: 


<blockquote>


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 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Kurt Fankhauser via Af" < af@afmug.com > 
To: 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 
tel. 419-562-6405 
fax. 419-617-0110 

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 4:57 AM, TJ Trout via Af < af@afmug.com > wrote: 

<blockquote>

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 > 
wrote: 

<blockquote>

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 
tel. 419-562-6405 
fax. 419-617-0110 

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:05 PM, TJ Trout via Af < af@afmug.com > wrote: 

<blockquote>

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? 



</blockquote>


</blockquote>



</blockquote>


</blockquote>

Reply via email to