Glad to hear. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 7, 2016 4:52 PM, "Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc" < t...@franklinisp.net> wrote:
> Josh, > > > > We have several customers in that situation. No issues. Using 10Mhz > channel. Getting ready to deploy the KP dual sectors with 5Ghz and 3.65Ghz. > > I can’t speak for everyone, but the 3.65 rocks in our area. > > > > *Tyson Burris, President* > *Internet Communications Inc.* > *739 Commerce Dr.* > *Franklin, IN 46131* > > *317-738-0320 <317-738-0320> Daytime #* > *317-412-1540 <317-412-1540> Cell/Direct #* > *Online: **www.surfici.net* <http://www.surfici.net> > > > > [image: ICI] > > *What can ICI do for you?* > > > *Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP > Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.* > > *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the* > *addressee shown. It contains information that is* > *confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,* > *dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by* > *unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly* > *prohibited.* > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 7, 2016 2:50 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP > > > > Has anyone tried 450 3.65 for near Los situations like this discussion? > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > On Jun 7, 2016 2:46 PM, "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com> wrote: > > Take into account the 24-25dBm Tx power on a 2.4 FSK AP vs 22dBm on a 2.4 > 450 AP. And you'll probably get a better pattern on a sector vs omni. A > V-pol omni doesn't typically have a horrible pattern though. Except for > vertical beamwidth. Then you play with electronic downtilt models, etc. So > it's probably moot as far as Rx power levels go between the two. > > We get OK penetration on the 2.4 450 sector we have up. Not so much the > noise at the tower as it is at the SMs. We're going to get rid of it > eventually along with all of the other 2.4 shit. It's a dead band just like > 900 to us now. > > On 6/7/2016 1:33 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: > > Omni to a sector, of course. You're probably getting more than 2 db > unless it was a bonkers big omni and super small sector. > > > > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Kurt Fankhauser <lists.wavel...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I have moved from pmp100 to 450 on 2.4ghz. Didn't do a cluster though. > Went from a 2.4FSK on a 12db Omni to a two 450 sectors from KP 120 beam > width (think 14db) . Was able to hook up every single customer I has on the > FSK to the 450 and some were near-LOS. The 450 in 2.4ghz actually has > impressively decent nLOS. I think its a lot better than the 3.65 for NLOS. > ( I have used all the 450 frequency bands except 900) > > > > If you thinking about going 450 in 2.4 and you already have FSK up on 2.4 > and nothing abmormal with your noise floor then do it. You'll love it. The > 450 is actually better because you can run 10-mhz channels to get around > some of the noise in 2.4 vs the FSK which was stuck at 20mhz > > > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Matt <matt.mailingli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So has anyone moved a PMP100 2.4 cluster too PMP450 2.4 and how did > that go? With PMP100 in 2.4 we do pretty good on near LOS > connections. Only deployed PMP450 in 3.6 and 5ghz so far though. > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7639 / Virus Database: 4598/12379 - Release Date: 06/07/16 >
