Me either.

We're getting 8.9 miles with the 5 GHz version, and based on power levels and the antennas we're using, I could see the 5 GHz going 18 miles with the right antennas. We're getting a little over 90 Mbps aggregate with our setup as is; and only running in 256QAM 10-15 % of the time.

Not sure about the power differences going to 3.65, but you'd probably have a lower noise floor, so it might be worth exploring. Price doesn't seem to be a big factor.


bp


On 10/22/2014 10:10 AM, Paul McCall via Af wrote:

I was hoping it might be usable to replace a UBNT 3.65 link at 18 miles that is getting me only about 35 to 40Mbit of throughput. 60 to 70 Mbit would be a help. Not sure if that is a reasonable expectation

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mark Radabaugh via Af
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 22, 2014 12:37 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PTP450 3.65

Sorry - didn't catch the extra P

I have one 5.4 version running. It's actually better on throughput that I was expecting but we have seen long delays in getting it to establish a link even with excellent signal strength.

Mark

On 10/22/14, 12:27 PM, Paul McCall via Af wrote:

    I want to make sure we are on the same page.  Not asking about the
    PMP450 3.65    I am asking about the *PTP*450 3.65

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh
    via Af
    Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 12:05 PM
    To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
    Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP450 3.65

    I do have a 450 on a KP Omni with 44 customers on it.   Seems to work

    quite well so far.   The longest is at 2.9 miles, most are inside
    1 mile.

    This is a very space constrained tower with a propensity for
    getting hit by lightning.

    At some point it will likely be converted to 4 sectors.

    Mark

    On 10/22/14, 11:53 AM, Matt via Af wrote:

    >> Anybody using these yet? Results?

    > Expensive.  Works great.  Omni results in less then half range
    if you

    > go that way though.

    --

    Mark Radabaugh

    Amplex

    m...@amplex.net <mailto:m...@amplex.net> 419.837.5015 x 1021




--
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex
m...@amplex.net <mailto:m...@amplex.net> 419.837.5015 x 1021

Reply via email to