Me too. But a heavy loaded tower is 100 people. I'm sure there are operators pushing 100 subs on a single 450 AP...
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 9, 2015 10:43 AM, "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote: > Too expensive for me... considering the alternatives. > > But yeah, that's true. A lot of operators are using it and making money... > it certainly has it's place. We'll likely even be putting up more PMP450 in > 900mhz and 3.65ghz in the future, since there really aren't cheaper > alternatives there (UBNT 900mhz and 3.65ghz doesn't count...). > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> > wrote: > >> Define too expensive... >> >> If operators can buy it, sell a service and be profitable than I don't >> think it's too expensive. >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> On Nov 9, 2015 10:25 AM, "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I can't disagree that PMP450 is too expensive, but slow? ...compared to >>> what? and what is less buggy than ePMP, other than PMP450? >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Josh Luthman < >>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 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>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. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >
