No Transmit due to DFS - so long, interference you say?

Hi all! It was my last hope that cambium will solve all the troubles, but...

Is there a point for those interference filters and for that price we pay for 2000 radio if it doesnt work at all?

It seems like those device was never tested in real interference or i am so stupid.  I am sorry , i am little bit angry.

Compare to the ubnt's, 2000 is an expensive radio and i expected that it would work at least somehow. 

We have up to -55 interference because nobody cares to put full tx power and compliance test. All our competitors use ubnt, we have no rf regulator here and there is no way to talk to any of them to turn power down. 

False DFS detection makes your product useless and all those filters you work on as well. 

I am still hoping that this thing can work and will do good but only if dfs will be corrected. If it could somehow ignore airmax transmitters wile monitoring radar i think it would work... 

I have read so many good reveiws and tests and comments about these radios and fall in love with them..until i have installed them .. 

Can you provide more details about your setup?
Frequency, width, location, firmware version, what city are you in ? Are you using the BSA antenna ?

The 2000 is a wonderful product but dfs rules are something everyone has to comply with or major penalties from the fcc.

1 Like

If you're operating in an area where a bunch of WISP's are operating on DFS bands using non-DFS compliant radios OR turning off DFS compliance somehow, and blasting way beyong the EIRP... then nothing, short of using the same equipment that they're using, and going illegal as well will help you.

The other option would be to complain to the FCC... assuming you're in the USA.

ePMP 2000 is not a magic bullet for dealing with crazy high co-channel interference. It's filtering works best when the interference is adjacent to the channel.

There are no radios that I know of that can effectively stomp co-channel interference and maintain high data rates... unless maybe you go back to the PMP100 FSK days, and even then it's going to suck.

Maybe think about a different band? 2.4? 3.65?

Hi!  First of all, thank you for the reply.

I start from location - Cyprus, Paphos. Bandwith doesnt matter as all frequencies are taken, analyzer shows up to -55 all  the way through. 

Fw version is 3.3. 

Antenna is RF elements carrier class 20dB sector. 

I believe it is wonderful but dfs rules - are something that nobody follows here. I agree to follow the rules, but the hardware doesnt let me. Ads say that the radio has  interference filter. I've got interference, but filter rather then do its job, thinks that interference come from radars not just interference itself, which is redicuolous because its supposed to filter and to work in tough environment or I dont understand something. I agree that it must turn off as soon as it sees a radar, but the  thing is that the detection algorhytm doesnt seem to do it's job properly as well, i mentioned that

1 Like

So 5ghz band is finished in cyprus then i suppose. 

Despite that ubnt sucks in throughput it can still deliver connection through the interference. 

Complaining does not care anybody, we have no regulator. Actually the biggest provider now has taken all the band and is intallling his staions each 500 sq meters  everyday, which doesnt help him to work i believe but makes it difficult to the others.

The epmp2000 has a filter to deal with co-band noise, meaning a reallly loud radio on the next channel wont bother it, but same channel interference will. The next tool is a beam steering antenna, it will improve uplink rates from interference. In your shoes, I’d move away from dfs, tilt the sector as far forward as you possibly can to limit uplink interference without loading more than 3 or 4 db on your furthest cpe, or add the BSA to reduce on channel interfence, do this will allow the e2k to give you its best without fighting with dfs. If no one is following the rules, you’ll likely still get false hits. Dfs can be triggered on any product from a sudden high power burst of rf whuch is why the rules are the way they are. Anything blowing 50db erip past you will eventually give you false hits.

Well i have to give up then. 

eDetect detects 42 interferers. The sector is pointed down from a high building.

Most of the interferers are behind the sector about 100m away and it picks  them up at -48 dBm. The only way i see here is a good bunch of 5ghz jammers, which i am sure will not teach these guys.

If you know exactly where they are, then you can avoid them fsirly easy. Rf element horns have extremely good out of beam rejection. Take the time to find a clean center channel, use more narrow sectors, watch the webinars on interference mitigation and understand your environment. Wireless isnt something that is easy, its a challenge with many many facets and tools, learn your tools and environmental variables and you’ll realize success. Wide sectors without a BSA in the city wont do you any good.


If you post screen shots and map a few things out, we can help you solve this puzzle. There is always an answer.


The beam forming antenna is designed to reduce interference from points within its 90 degree coverage. I don't know if it has any capabilities of overcoming very strong signals from the rear. The best way to deal with that is probably extra metallic shielding. RF Armor makes shilelds for those cheap plastic UBNT antennas. Normally you wouldn't expet to need one with an ePMP sector, but some custom metal work might be helpful, to improve the front:back ratio when the signal from behind is that strong.

I'll second that.  The Cambium Sectors are great and the Front/Back ratios are industry best.  BUT, an RF-Armor Shield would obviously help even more.   I've talked to RF-Armor and they''ve said ''by summer'' they'd have shields for the Cambium antennas - but I'd recommend that anyone who wants to see that come to fruition should contact RF Armor and bump that up their to-do list. 

1 Like

Sorry to jump in late but it looks like your main issue was no transmit due to DFS.  You said you were running firmware 3.3.  Try installing firmware on the AP and then try your DFS channels. Firmware 3.3 has a continuing bug where it sees "phantom" DFS hits and turns off the radio (or changes to a backup channel if you set one). 

You can leave your SMs on 3.3 but put the AP on and see if that works for you.

1 Like is not supported on the epmp2000. Release 3.0 was support for the epmp2k

Arghhh! You're right. Shoot. Have we found a stable DFS firmware in the 3.x release?  

3.3 has been fine for me on my epmp2000, just loaded 3.4 on them and i haven't had any issues.   I had dfs problems on 3.2


Hi.  I talked to the OP a couple weeks ago with some suggestions, and he reported that it's working AMAZING now. Now that he's tried new settings, he's very pleased with the ePMP2000 in his high noise environment.

Sent: ‎06-08-2017 03:54 AM
Hi! Yesterday night i have got it workin and it was amazing! 20mbps throughput a near los , high interference , force180 as a client!  I have rf elements 20 dbm sector and i did not turn tx power fully, ive put it to 15dbm to follow the rules, not like the others. I believe it can work at even less power , because ive tested it from inside the car down by the sea. I am really impressed

So - he's really impressed and it's working amazingly for him. :)

Yes on the metal containers.  I used them, and still have few out there.  I was my own worst enemy when I had several 5.8 MTik running on the same tower, or in your case someone else.  Don't know if it will 'solve' your issue but my experience was that it sure did help.

Hi. I have a ePMP1000 in production operating fine with FW version 3.5.6, but since migrate de FW version to 4.4 this problem doesnt let the system work, with random interruptions. So dont let another choice that rollback to the previusly FW Version that work!!! I hope that my experience help others. Regards.