With or without…. Made like difference. Sometimes the reflector made no different and on occasion made it worse depending on the densities of the trees.
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:36 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Were you using a reflector on the 450SM? On 6/4/2015 9:30 AM, Paul McCall wrote: Ben, The testing was based on using the standard Cambium antenna, respectively, for both platforms. Paul From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ben Royer Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:11 AM To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using What antenna are you using in your testing of the 450 vs. 320 NLOS? I’m just curious because this is an interesting report, as we have a network of around 2,500 320 customers, and we are in the same position of looking for that next great thing. Thank you, Ben Royer, Operations Manager Royell Communications, Inc. 217-965-3699 www.royell.net<http://www.royell.net> From: Paul McCall<mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:40 PM To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using But, if you are using 320 for NLOS solutions, the 450 trade up means you’re going to lose customers since the 450 doesn’t do nearly as good a job as the 320 Paul From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:37 PM To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on? Kind of a 3650 MHz cash-for-clunkers program. From: That One Guy /sarcasm<mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy. The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites. We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out. I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall <pa...@pdmnet.net<mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net>> wrote: I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already have? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800<tel:772-564-6800> office 772-473-0352<tel:772-473-0352> cell www.pdmnet.com<http://www.pdmnet.com/> pa...@pdmnet.net<mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net> -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. ________________________________ avast! Antivirus<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 150604-0, 06/04/2015 Tested on: 6/4/2015 8:10:34 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2015 AVAST Software.
