Well, since you mentioned the PTP550 replacement, that product highlights something that was almost perfect, but fatally flawed.
One of the benefits of a dual radio backhaul, should certainly be that each radio MUST be able to be tuned & tweaked individually… Need to be able to ‘unbond’ them… then tweak Radio1 and adjust Channel width, frequency, etc etc to get that link optimized (while the other link is still carrying active traffic) and then once both radio links are optimized, then be able to re-bond the traffic.
However, with the PTP550 any change to one of the radios, and any save/activate of those changes, tears down all the data on all the links and everything needs to re-associate. So, a dual radio backhaul was almost the perfect device… but that fatal flaw made them basically useless as a backhaul.
So, it would be great to see an AX version ‘ePTP4500’ but we’d need to be able to tweak and test the radio links individually, without tearing down both links upon saving.
James_Mifsud
(James Mifsud (Certified Instructor))
22
The dual radio in the PTP550 was a great radio for it’s time; with newer wireless standards and technology coupled with Cambium’s FPGA and custom design in addition to 802.11 AX and BE I could imagine an amazing unlicensed PTP solution
My complaint about SunMax, which I voiced directly to a former exec at UBNT was, Rather than marketing to their ISP customers who have solar sites and a need for a “UniFied” system, They decided to go 100% consumer level. This required Journeyman electricians in some states and didn’t match their “Cheap, simple, Plug N Play” model. Riddled with bugs that we could have helped sorted by testing at small comm sites.
But yes, there was definitely an overreach of power. Mr. Pera also owns a basketball team, so that was the reason for the Grizzlies joke. I don’t pay attention at all to basketball either.
I am still in shock they completely abandoned us nLOS customers. We have no recourse at this point. If it wasn’t for the secondary market I don’t know what we would do.
But its not just Cambium, its all vendors. I don’t really understand it. Not all of us operate in the desert.
James_Mifsud
(James Mifsud (Certified Instructor))
25
“Product Coming” doesn’t help when I still have 100s of customers on 2.4 and 900 who can not use any other frequency and the customer has issues today. Its like they want people to switch to starlink.
The 2.4AX thread is pretty much the most read, liked, and commented upon thread.
2 Likes
James_Mifsud
(James Mifsud (Certified Instructor))
30
As far as I’m aware, ePMP uses OTS hardware rather than custom FPGA like that’s found on 450, surely a 2.4GHz AX ePMP platform shouldn’t be an huge RnD investment
While 2.4Ghz AX gear would be a welcome addition and there would be some that would benefit from it’s availability, the number of units sold might not make the R&D costs ever worth it. 5Ghz gear sells at an order of magnitude higher than any other band I suspect.
One really needs to look at the direction of the market, which is a desire for high throughput numbers to (hopefully) a high number of subscribers per AP. Neither of these things are possible to today’s market standards at 2.4Ghz or 900Mhz due primarily to limited spectrum. Add noise to the equation and there are fewer and fewer places where 2.4Ghz or 900Mhz work “well enough” as-is.
If Cambium today were a privately held company with tons of free cash it might make sense to spend money developing more niche product lines like 2.4Ghz AX, but I’m not convinced that in the current situation it makes any sense at all.
James_Mifsud
(James Mifsud (Certified Instructor))
32
The one massive downside of a being a public company is short term shareholder gains are sometimes the only path forward; though it appears that Cambium Networks Board of Directors and CEO don’t seem to be trying short term bandaids, rather more long term solutions for financial viability which is great.
Lessor companies would find legacy companies and bury them in increase subscriptions, looking at you vmware.
