They've said they will. Don't know price. Probably a major rev down the road.
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jul 21, 2015 6:21 PM, "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote: > Have they confirmed that you will be able to get a key? I assumed they > would eventually, but I hadn't heard anything about it... that would be > very good news. > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com > > wrote: > >> Software limited to 10 SMs. You can (eventually, I don't think >> currently) get the software limit up with a key. >> >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I thought that I had been told both ePMP radios had the same CPU, but >>> somebody said that the GPS radios are supposed to be able to handle more >>> PPS, so I'm not sure... I'm pretty sure they do have more RAM, so that may >>> make the difference. >>> >>> But there are really only two variants - GPS and non-GPS. The PTP 110 is >>> exactly the same hardware as the other GPS radio, it's just limited to 10 >>> SMs. >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: >>> >>>> OK, ignore me, I seem to be having a bad math day. >>>> Also trying to grasp the concept of actually using a 40 MHz channel. >>>> But I was also remembering an ePMP data sheet with a 150 Mbps number. >>>> Probably because there are so many ePMP variants. >>>> I assume the lesser model is limited by CPU, not RF? >>>> >>>> *From:* George Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com> >>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 21, 2015 5:02 PM >>>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP force 110 gps sync >>>> >>>> ePMP is 64QAM. 256 would be nice, but there's always the PTP450 for >>>> that, which of course is limited to 20MHz though. I have a 10 mile ePMP >>>> link on 2' dishes running in the 5.1 band. 20MHz channel. I get 98Mbps >>>> aggregate. I see no reason why a 40MHz channel couldn't do 200Mbps, maybe a >>>> little more. >>>> >>>> On 7/21/2015 1:31 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >>>> >>>> The answer you are looking for is 802.11ac? >>>> >>>> Anyway, I guess I’m mistaken and 220M may be the right number for >>>> 256QAM in 40 MHz. Assuming the planets align and every sub is at max >>>> modulation with no retries. >>>> >>>> *From:* Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> >>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 21, 2015 1:23 PM >>>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP force 110 gps sync >>>> >>>> >>>> And Mimosa is... >>>> >>>> Josh Luthman >>>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>>> 1100 Wayne St >>>> Suite 1337 >>>> Troy, OH 45373 >>>> On Jul 21, 2015 2:19 PM, "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Really, 220 Mbps in a 40 MHz channel? That’s a bunch for something >>>>> based on an 802.11n PHY. >>>>> >>>>> I think the regular Force 110 spec sheet says 150M, does the GPS sync >>>>> version really say 220M? I’m not disputing it, just surprised/amazed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> >>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 21, 2015 1:15 PM >>>>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP force 110 gps sync >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 220 would be perfect. I've had nothing but great RF performance. Did >>>>> you see my story about going from Beams to force110? >>>>> >>>>> Josh Luthman >>>>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>>>> 1100 Wayne St >>>>> Suite 1337 >>>>> Troy, OH 45373 >>>>> On Jul 21, 2015 1:51 PM, "Joshua Heide" < <j...@velociter.net> >>>>> j...@velociter.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Looking into these units. Wondering what kind of throughput people >>>>>> are getting with these. Are you getting the 220mbps real world throughput >>>>>> that they claim? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Josh Heide >>>>>> >>>>>> Network Engineer >>>>>> >>>>>> Velociter Wireless, Inc. >>>>>> >>>>>> (209)838-1221 x108 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
