It's more than "filters". I would expect that the ePMP would do better
in a low-noise environment because the frames are pretty large.
However, if there is a lot of interference, I would expect the PMP450 to
get better because it can fit a bunch of ATM-like frames in between bits
of interference.
bp
On 10/22/2014 2:24 PM, Paul McCall via Af wrote:
I have asked about that too, and I just hear crickets.... the only comment I head was
450 had better "filters" but I asked for follow-up comparison data vs. a guess
and got more crickets.
-----Original Message-----
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt via Af
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 5:18 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Kudus to Chuck and Beehive ePMP dishes
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Paul McCall via Af <af@afmug.com> wrote:
Yes, we have forklifted 5 or 6 towers now from a Canopy 100 series 2.4. In general, we
have been happy. There is a lot to learn on ePMP planning and best practices vs. the
Canopy 100 series "set it and forget it". The Frequency reuse and GPS does
seem to work pretty well on ePMP.
We have one POP that has UBNT and Mikrotik interference and that site is giving us some
challenges. Since going 802.11 2.4, we are abandoning the "FSK C/I throne" to
become one of the common folk. I find Cambium's implementation to be better than the
other guys, but interference is interference, so to speak.
But, I am not sure I would not be having the same exact "considerations" using
ANY radio with higher modulation requirements, including the 450 series.
I am really curious if the 450 would have done better in the face of
interference vs the ePMP. I have not heard of anyone doing a good comparison
yet.
/shrug ?
Overall, I give ePMP a 7.5 out of 10 with slow, regular advancements from the
software team.
