Signal strength disparity

Our field techs have been having a rough time lately with radios reporting very different signal variables.

We use -70 and 1350 as our no service points in the winter and -74 in the summer months.

That has been working fairly well over the last two winter to spring transitions.

What they are finding now with the new 8.22 900 Mhz radios is that any two different radios at the same location, show 7-15db gain difference in signal strength.

Same antennae, same location. We never saw this huge disparity with the 7.36 equipment.

It is taking twice the time now to determine quality links with the AP’s because we can’t trust the SM’s signal strength reporting.

My techs usually try two radios before they trust that the signal is strong enough to rely on when at a questionable site.

Has anyone else seen this disparity between SM’s?

We use the CTI 17 Dbi gain antennae and they are great. They do transmit better than they receive.
The AP’s show a lot better signal from the SM than the SM’s see from the AP’s.

What are some of you doing as far as setting thresholds for a quality signal?

Thanks in advance,

Try 8.2.4

Moto is working to try and make the dB level more accurate (and failing).

Thank you Jerry,

Aren’t we glad Moto and Microsoft do not build aircraft systems!

I get more nervous every day.

I get more nervous every day.

Once in a while I have to throw a jab out there but all in all they have done a pretty decent job with what amounted to a major major issue with the RoHS compliance and software.

They stuck with it and we now have a better product capable of more features and we are still paying the same price.

An issue of this magnitude would have crippled or killed a smaller company.


I agree that they are trying.
I just wish a little more info such as “product alerts” were more forthcoming from Moto to keep those of us whom are heavily invested in their products aware of issues and fixes.

In my day job, I program SCADA and write control code for Elec. substations and natural gas utilities.

If I had these kinds of quality control issues with that hardware and software, stuff would be blowing up.

Don’t get me wrong, I like the product, we just need a little more support and better communication about the products problem areas.

We should hear of known issues from the manufacturer. There is a product alert portion of this forum. Moto could use it a little more often to keep us informed.

I would have liked to have heard from them that signal strength readings from the new equipment and or firmware may be misleading.

Maybe we would not have turned so many customers down thinking that the signal was so poor.

That would make me less nervous.



I have two SM’s on my desk, purchased in two seperate lots of 100, ten months apart and both SM’s have the same MAC address.

Tech support claims that it was not possible.

That was fun.

Yikes! The same MAC on two radios???

Wow. As if I didn’t have enough paranoia and OCD, here’s something new to obsess about! :shock: :wink:

Anyway, I completely agree with both Jerry and rculp. They have done an admirable job at pulling this mess out of the fire.

But, sadly, Moto has hurt themselves much more than necessary by not communicating with the user base, even to say "Yeah we know we’ve screwed this up, but we’re working really hard to fix it."

The only place I’ve heard that was from other users in this forum. It’s disappointing in general to have to rely on other users of a product more than the manufacturer for information on those products.

Having said all that, though, I wouldn’t trade Canopy products for the world. Now if we had NAT that really worked (even for GRE packets), I’d be a very happy man. :slight_smile:

Well said