Also, will there be an ePMP3000 Lite? I know the cost of developing the 3000 needs to be in your ROI math, but we have so many low subscriber count sectors that the value proposition is difficult for us too. We really like the Lite AP's which allow us to enter lower cost and then upgrade to full down the road. We kinda thought that was Cambium's deal - since it always has been - so when we decided to go 100% Cambium, that was part of our budgeting too. A full on new ePMP3000 & new sector, times 4 per tower, times all the towers we need to upgrade... that's spendy. Especially when we budgetted thinking Cambium would continue it's pattern of having a lower cost entry 'Lite' model, which would could license upgrade later.
1 Like
re: ePTP mode.
Thanks for the feedback. What you say makes sense. will keep you posted as we make progress on the Force 300 platfom in this area. - Bruce
re: ePMP 3000 Lite
No, we don't plan to introduce a Lite version of the ePMP 3000 in the same sense as the ePMP 2K (limited subscriber count). We tried to strike a balance with an aggressive price point on the ePMP 3000 with no limits to capacity.
Watch for upcoming product announcements in early April on new options for low subscriber count sectors.
- Bruce
1 Like
Is there any development coming in 2.4Ghz at all? I'm not asking about AC necessarily (I realize there is no commodity AC chipset) and I realize that beamsteering might not be that practical in the lower frequency with it's propagation characteristics, but is there any reconsideration of the e2K's type of filtering?
I realize that Cambium has said it's not that functional due to 2.4ghz only having less than 100 mhz of total spectrum. But people who have put in hardware filters report dramatic improvements with nearby near channel noise. As well, I'd argue that only having less than 100Mhz to operate in makes the need for filtering even more important. Besides, an external filter of course that means a tower climb every time you want to test a new channel... or even to just do a site survey on the AP.
A 2.4Ghz dynamic programmable filter would be a welcome addition to the 2.4ghz AP, and would show that 2.4Ghz development isn't dead.
re: 2.4 GHz
Thanks for the input. RIght now, there is no firm commitment on a new 2.4 GHz AP but it has been considered and your inputs do make sense regarding adjacent channel but the technique to address may be different in the end.
Which external filters have you seen used that have been effective?
- Bruce
2 Likes
@Bruce Collins wrote: Which external filters have you seen used that have been effective?
Yes, I'm referring to the thread in the link CWB posted above, the filters that Eric Ozrelic and Chris Bay were discussing a year and a half ago. It's a good thread, someone from Cambium should read it. If anything like that would be possible, that could be a Godsend in the 2.4Ghz arena.
I don't mind the cost if they make an AP functional vs non-functional, they are worth it for sure. However, the deal breaker is external physical filters which will require going to each tower, climbing, and manually changing them out, in order to even test another channel. That's not really practical in our situation. But having a 2.4ghz AP with dynamic programmable filtering in a similar cost range of ePMP2000 is fine if it can block nearby noise.
1 Like
What about incorporateing an LTE coexistence filter that protects the 2.4 GHz band receiver from spurious interference from adjacent band LTE transmissions similar to the one in the cnPilot™ E500?
1 Like
@WISE WiFi wrote:...an LTE coexistence filter... <edited> ...similar to the one in the cnPilot™ E500?
YES, even that would be nice. If all the 2300 and 2500 signals were blocked, even that would help a lot. I mean, that wouldn't solve nearby competative 2.4 interference like a dynamic filter could, and it wouldn't solve our own nearby non-Synced interference like a dynamic filter could - but even that would go a long way to quieting any 2300 and 2500 Mmhz signals. I actually didn't realize the E500 had that already... YES, if Cambium has that feature already in hardware for 2.x Ghz, then by all means, that would be a good addition.
Now that we have compatibility between ePMP3000 and Force100/180/190/200, and with ePMP1000/2000 to Force300 compatibility right around the corner... what about channel widths? I realize that 802.11n won't have (or need) 80Mhz widths, but in my opinion, everything should have 5, 10, 20, and 40 Mhz widths at least. Right now, some units have 5 and 10mhz wide channels, while other's don't. So, if we have an ePMP2000 AP that is running in 10mhz channel width, and if we try to use a Force300 with that in compatibility mode, that currently isn't going to work. Or if I wanted to change an ePMP1000 AP that is running in 10Mhz channels with an ePMP3000, I'd have to go to a wider channel.
Basically, everything will be limited to just 20 and 40 Mhz channels, and we should have 5 and 10 as well, if not also have nonstandard options like 25 and 30 and 50 Mhz widths as well.
Also, not all channel widths have all frame sizes... so we don't have the ability to select 2.5ms frame length and the lower latency, while also choosing 10 Mhz channels.
2 Likes
Agree Todd!
But lets go all the way
N based gear 5,10,15,20,25,30,35,40
Ac based gear, same below 40, 50,60,70,80.
Maximize the spectrum we have to work with!
2 Likes
Yes, absolutely - I should have said "AT THE LEAST' we need 5,10, 20, 40 available on all cross compatible gear. But yes, 15, and 25, and 30, and 50 are great options available on other gear as well. For sure, if Cambium wants ePMP to be as versatile as possible, then it should have 5,10,15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 50, 60, 70 and 80.
AND whatever is decided with channel widths (even if it's just 5, 10, 20 & 40 available in all cross-compatible gear) then both 2.5ms and 5.0ms frames in all channel widths.
1 Like
It would be really nice to have 10mhz channel width available in 2.5ms available.
30mhz would also be nice... and 50 or 60, but I'm not sure both would be necessary.
If I remember correctly, Cambium has said in the past that it's a significant amount of work to add in the addtional channel sizes, so it probably realistically isn't worth it to do anything beyond that.
Furthermore, I'd personally like to see the AC gear stay limited to 2.5ms frame lengths (assuming that's what it currently is... I guess I'm not completely certain), since that would encourage everyone to stick to the same settings for sync purposes. Actually, if the N based radios do get any additional channel sizes, I wouldn't mine seeing them limited to 2.5ms for the same reason.
@Mathew Howard wrote:It would be really nice to have 10mhz channel width available in 2.5ms available.
Yes - for us in particular, this is an issue for us in the ePMP 2.4Ghz gear. There isn't enough spectrum in 2.4gz to be burning up 20 Mhz at a time, and we find that 10Mhz channels work very well for us, and can fit between the noise better anyway.
BUT this limits our choices, which is frustrating. We can't choose BOTH the best channel widths, and also choose to have lower latency. We need to be able to have 10 Mhz channels with 2.5ms frame sizes, particularly in the 2.4Ghz gear.
1 Like
Also, while we are asking anything, the 550 should be able to make changes to one of the radios, without dropping the whole link on save/activate. That would make the dual radio product SO much more effective and valuable.
We should be able to be tweaking & optimising Radio2, and have Radio1 remain linked and passing data all the while. Then, once we had Radio2 dialed in with the best channel & width, we should be able to leave it online while we go back and optimize Radio1. The way it is no, pretty much any change to either radio, tears them both down. (sad face)
1 Like
Hi Ninedd,
We will have the 3000L announcement very soon!
I can't say too much, but it will work a little bit differently than how we have made our lite models in the past.
It is basically an 802.11AC wave2 chipset with 2x2 instead of the full blown MU-MIMO with the normal 3000 AP.
Stay tuned in the next couple weeks for more information, pricing, and availability!
2 Likes
@Mathew Howard wrote:Cambium has said in the past that it's a significant amount of work
to add in the addtional channel sizes, so it probably realistict to..
Yes, I appreciate that. They told me the same thing. I do get that, and I do appreciate that. I'd remind them that it's also a significant amount of work for us WISPs to be out there in the wild, trying to maximize spectrum use, and throughput, and performance, and to mitigate interference, and optimize latency, and...
This business is a lot of work for everyone involved, and on the front lines, we need the tools to deliver the best to our clients. For channel width's, we at least need compatibility between N-chipset gear and AC2-chipset gear's channel sizes and frame sizes. It does no good to work on Force300 compatibility to an ePMP2000 AP, if we're not going to also have compatibility with the ePMP2000's channel widths.... at the least. So that at least means 5, 10, 20, 40 widths in both 2.5 and 5.0 frames, on both N-chipset (2.4ghz and 5ghz) and AC2-chipset gear. Otherwise 'forward and backward compatibility' isn't really achieved.
And I want to add... I say these things from love. :) I'm not just complaining - I really, really, really like a ton of things about Cambium. If I didn't, I wouldn't be here commenting, I would have moved onto something I like better. The fact is, Cambium kicks butt in so many ways. The RF and 'secret sauce' is amazing. So when many of us are saying we need things that other vendors have, that's coming from love and from wanting Cambium to have everything (and more) than any other offering. :)
1 Like
Hello
in ePMP2000 sector and force180/force110/force200 as client I see the latency to be too high. 17 to 30ms.
link distance of 1.3 Km.
Why in TDD mode the Latency is always high?
Parfull,
Welcome to the forum. I think you know the answer already :) Its a 5ms frame so at a minimum you will get 15 to 17ms latency which will often go up when you have other data as ping is not prioritized.
Pleaswe work with Sreejith to get a full deep dive on this topic.
Hello, Please i urgently need an Acceptance test Plan for one of my customers, immediately, can you help