On any network, sync is a better rf deployment solution than non sync. Gino A. Villarini @gvillarini
On Oct 19, 2014, at 3:23 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote: 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 be done, is being done, and will continue to be done. GPS sync is a very 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 businesses if 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 we have 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 UBNT or 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 density or 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<mailto:m...@amplex.net> 419.837.5015 x 1021
