Uplink Utilization 450 vs. 450B

I’m getting a “plateau’d” reading on some 450i’s operating in 5.1GHz with only 450B high-gain SM’s connected. All colocated 5.1GHz AP’s have same frame configurations/radio settings. Auto Contention enabled network-wide with “8” in the contention slots field cause I read somewhere here that still matters somehow… Noise is not an issue, and all of the subs are modulating in 8/6X or better on the UL and DL. None of them are out of parameter or running in QPSK.

I appear to not be getting the same UL throughput in comparison with another 450i on my network operating in 5.4GHz (which is quite noisier where I am) with all the same parameters but exclusively 450 sm’s attached - and at even at worse modulations. Thoughts??

Are you using reflector dishes on your original 450 SM’s? Do you have the correct gain set on the SM’s? What does the overall uplink modulation health look like if you compare the AP’s link status pages?

A lot of time people complain that they’re not getting the same signal performance out of their 450b’s, especially with low power/DFS channels that they were getting with their original 450’s with dishes. This is typically because they never entered the reflector dish gain into the SM which plays a huge part in determining the EIRP for these low power bands.

Yes we are using reflector dishes/stingers on the original 450 SM’s - no the gain is not set so I presume we are seeing an added benefit to receive power there. Whenever I adjust the external gain field on a 450, the UL Link Capacity just absolutely tanks to QPSK…

Regarding Link Status pages - the receive power IS weaker on my 450B’s but their modulations are pretty dang healthy since the 5.1 band was clean upon deployment (21 of them are in 8/6X on UL/DL, 3 are in 8/4X on UL/DL @ about 12+ mi)

From my experience with the original 450’s, a great looking link status page = great throughput. So thus my dilemma…