like nearly everything from Cambium..it is too expensive and soo low Bandwith for the customers.
Too expensive or slow :P Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 9, 2015 9:44 AM, "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > He didn't say ePMP was too expensive, he said it had too many bugs. > > On 11/9/2015 9:40 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: > > Dude he thinks EPMP is way too expensive. Doesn't read like a very > rational post to me. > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > On Nov 9, 2015 9:35 AM, "Sean Heskett" <af...@zirkel.us> wrote: > >> You must be doing something wrong because our experience is the complete >> opposite with PMP450. >> >> What does your noise floor look like? >> >> -Sean >> >> On Sunday, November 8, 2015, Daniel Gerlach <danielgerl...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> the 450 is a 4 years old pointless product like nearly everything from >>> Cambium..it is too expensive and soo low Bandwith for the customers.We >>> have thrown it out of the Network..The epmp serie has only bugs( we >>> have found last week a new with heavy traffic and more than 35 CPE´s >>> on a AP) and Cambium told me that they can not fix it before >>> Christmas. >>> >>> >>> 2015-11-08 4:21 GMT+01:00 Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>: >>> > Same on any half duplex TDD platform with PtMP and low modulation >>> (QPSK) >>> > subscribers. If you have a ubnt 5 GHz AP with a bunch of clients in >>> 64QAM >>> > 3/4 to 64QAM 5/6 and a few are on the air using QPSK 1/2, it's going >>> to drag >>> > down the performance of that whole radio and sector significantly. It >>> can be >>> > as much as from 80 Mbps aggregate to 20 Mbps. Looking at the RSL >>> thresholds >>> > needed to operate at 1X in 450 terms, it sounds like a few of those >>> client >>> > radios are "just barely hanging on"... >>> > >>> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 10:37 AM, George Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> If those 1X and 2X downlink SMs are even moderately active, that >>> really >>> >> throws a wrench into the sector performance. This is true on any PMP >>> >> platform. We've seen our fair share of it. We've moved a couple back >>> to FSK >>> >> which is something I never, ever want to do, but it was unfortunately >>> >> necessary. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 11/6/2015 11:50 AM, Eric Muehleisen wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> We have a few 450 AP's with 30-40 subscribers and have been getting >>> >>> several slow speed complaints lately. I just chaulked it up to issues >>> >>> with the SM since the AP rarely got over 20mb/s downlink. We upgraded >>> >>> to 13.4 recently so we could watch our frame utilization. We started >>> >>> graphing it over night and as you can see, we are hitting 100% for >>> >>> sustained periods of time. During that time the AP is only doing >>> >>> approx. 23mb/s. This particular AP has 34 registered SM and the >>> >>> majority show 6x and 4x with 4 or 5 SM's at 2x and 1x. The >>> performance >>> >>> is a major disappointment. Anyone else have similar experiences? >>> >>> >>> >>> AP configuration: 20mhz channels, 2.5ms frame, 10 miles, 75% >>> downlink, >>> >>> 3 contention slots. >>> >>> >>> >>> Attached is a screenshot of the utilization and sector throughput >>> >>> calculator from the Capacity Planner R13. >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >
