only if the power is set wrong. On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
> Epmp is like 6 dB less power? > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > On Jun 6, 2016 10:47 AM, "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The only direct comparison I've seen with the same antennas at the AP was >> the one Jerry Head mentioned here... and he wasn't able to confirm that TX >> power was the same. >> >> The other thing that I'm wondering about is if the fact that the Cambium >> sectors are dual slant instead of H/V has something to do with it. >> >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: >> >>> Someone asked whether the xmt power was apples-to-apples, has that been >>> answered? >>> >>> If the antennas are comparable, it would seem the only explanations for >>> different rcv signal would be xmt power, or calibration error. >>> >>> >>> *From:* Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> >>> *Sent:* Monday, June 06, 2016 8:18 AM >>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP >>> >>> I think if I was cambium, I would have a couple of guys on a plane or in >>> a car with a suitcase of equipment to visit you in the field. >>> This was not the intended or expected outcome for that product. >>> >>> *From:* Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> >>> *Sent:* Sunday, June 05, 2016 8:17 PM >>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP >>> >>> >>> Never really left. I would have to lose customers with epmp 2.4 wifi >>> due to lack of signal. >>> >>> Josh Luthman >>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>> 1100 Wayne St >>> Suite 1337 >>> Troy, OH 45373 >>> On Jun 5, 2016 10:12 PM, "Paul McCall" <pa...@pdmnet.net> wrote: >>> >>> So you went back to UBNT in 2.4? >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman >>> *Sent:* Sunday, June 5, 2016 9:57 PM >>> >>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP >>> >>> >>> >>> No. I have no pmp450 in my network simply due to cost. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Josh Luthman >>> >>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>> 1100 Wayne St >>> Suite 1337 >>> Troy, OH 45373 >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Paul McCall <pa...@pdmnet.net> wrote: >>> >>> Josh, >>> >>> >>> >>> Have you tried 450 2.4 in the exact situation where ePMP 2.4 “sucked”? >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman >>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 2, 2016 5:10 PM >>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP >>> >>> >>> >>> No...it's not. The EPMP 2.4 radios just suck at penetration. I've done >>> Ubnt KPP and IT Elite - they all performed terribly. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Josh Luthman >>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>> 1100 Wayne St >>> Suite 1337 >>> Troy, OH 45373 >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:59 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller < >>> par...@cyberbroadband.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> hmm, i will check into that. Pretty sure with ubnt we're using kp >>> performance. With epmp, i think it is bundled antennas... >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >>> *From:* Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> >>> >>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 3:50 PM >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP >>> >>> >>> >>> Jay, I suspect the difference you are seeing may be mainly in the >>> antennas. 2.4 GHz from any vendor should penetrate the same, the radio >>> waves don’t care what brand radio launched them. And I think the >>> difference between the platforms will be most evident in low interference >>> environment where they can achieve their full modulation and throughput. >>> With low SNR, I think it’s kind of like arguing Ferrari vs Porsche for off >>> road racing, neither will be able to show off its capabilities. Receiver >>> sensitivity and bits/sec/Hz won’t matter. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* CBB - Jay Fuller <par...@cyberbroadband.net> >>> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 3:28 PM >>> >>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Also interested in interference rejection of the pmp450 - is there any >>> (in 2.4) >>> >>> we are getting better foliage penetration with ubnt 2.4 than epmp 2.4 - >>> - and from the performance of >>> >>> the epmp 2.4 i wish wish wish it penetrated better! >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >>> *From:* Matt <matt.mailingli...@gmail.com> >>> >>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 2:25 PM >>> >>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP >>> >>> >>> >>> We have mostly PMP100 and PMP450 deployed. Some Ubiquiti we tried and >>> some we inherited as well. Have some ePMP we have tested but so far >>> have not deployed more then couple test links. >>> >>> For those who have tried both ePMP and PMP450 what are the differences >>> you have seen in performance? Interference tolerance among others? >>> >>> For those that have gone with PMP450 over ePMP what was the reasoning? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>
