Dear AFMUG, Cambium Networks performed measurements of ePMP against a competitor recently in 2.4 GHz with regard to Tx Power and RSSI. This is what we found.
We set AP transmit power to 21 dBm. This would allow for total EIRP of 36 dBm assuming a 15 dBi antenna was used. We measured actual transmit power out of each AP in 5 MHz steps from 2412 GHz to 2467 GHz. We found ePMP transmit power ranged from 20.05 to 20.78 dBm. The competitor AP transmit power ranged from 21.76 to 22.36 dBm. The actual difference in transmit power ranged from 1.14 dBm to 2.26 dBm with an average 1.84 dB. We measured the actual RSSI at the AP from -95 dBm to -40 dBm in 5 dB steps. ePMP reported values in the 0 to 1 dB higher range. The competitor AP reported values 5 to 6 dB higher than actual up to -65 dBm, 7 dB higher from -60 to -50 dBm, and 8 to 9 dB higher from -45 to -40 dBm. It appears to us that transmit power should be increased by 2 dB on ePMP or decreased by 2 dB on the competitor to get an equal comparison for a test and deployment. With regard to RSSI, a good test would be to compare actual MCS used once the transmit power difference is corrected. We also have optimized out transmit power control accuracy in the 3.0 release, which is resulting in improved uplink transmit power. We have release 3.0 available for limited trial if anyone is interested in trying this out on their 2.4 GHz ePMP network. Please send me an email offline for this for this software. Daniel Sullivan ePMP System Architecture and Software Manager From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Head Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 11:34 AM To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP All of the above. On 6/6/2016 10:52 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller wrote: What were the symptoms of problems with ubnt? low modulation? sector capacity issues? What made your friend and you decide to switch to epmp? ----- Original Message ----- From:Jerry Head<mailto:li...@blountbroadband.com> To:af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP Yup 36 Max ptmp and no I cannot confirm what power levels were being run on UBNT. On 6/6/2016 10:03 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: 21+15 just checked Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com<mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote: Isn't it 21+18 max? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340<tel:937-552-2340> Direct: 937-552-2343<tel:937-552-2343> 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 6, 2016 10:52 AM, "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com<mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote: only if the power is set wrong. On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com<mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote: Epmp is like 6 dB less power? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340<tel:937-552-2340> Direct: 937-552-2343<tel:937-552-2343> 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 6, 2016 10:47 AM, "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:18 AM To:af@afmug.com<mailto: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<mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 8:17 PM To:af@afmug.com<mailto: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<tel:937-552-2340> Direct: 937-552-2343<tel:937-552-2343> 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 5, 2016 10:12 PM, "Paul McCall" <pa...@pdmnet.net<mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net>> wrote: So you went back to UBNT in 2.4? From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2016 9:57 PM To: af@afmug.com<mailto: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<tel:937-552-2340> Direct: 937-552-2343<tel: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<mailto: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<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 5:10 PM To: af@afmug.com<mailto: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<tel:937-552-2340> Direct: 937-552-2343<tel: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<mailto: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<mailto:af...@kwisp.com> To:af@afmug.com<mailto: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<mailto:par...@cyberbroadband.net> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 3:28 PM To:af@afmug.com<mailto: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<mailto:matt.mailingli...@gmail.com> To:af@afmug.com<mailto: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?
