TP-Link CPE210/510

I've got a 510

I have a 510, the one thing I note on it is it seems to me the manufacture may have overstated the power output (the FCC test reports several DB lower, though it looks like it was done with an "average" power meter,  but the MPE Equation also shows the lower value.  TP-Link Support claims that FCC allows both methods, I'm not that familar with the test myself, all I know is when reading Ubiquiti reports ive generally seen numbers ABOVE the rated power [but below the 30dbm fed max limit] )

Specifically the chip appears to be programmed to permit several db lower than max power  (and I'm not aware of an offs chip amplifier at the moment on these devices, but our knowledge of them is still evolving)  because of this the 510 support max power is likely going to be less than the manufacture claims when running under AREDN.

Physically, while it is a similar factor to the NanoStation and NanoStation Loco it feels a little 'cheaper' made, specifically the cap over the Ethernet port, On a TP-Link it slides off very easily, on the Ubiquiti device you have to press a release clip,  I have concerns how well the TP-Link cap will stay on in the field.

On the plus side of design however, the TP-Link devices do have a grounding lug at the device, instead of insisting you run shielded cable the whole way and use it for lightning ground, you can ground the device at the top of the tower.   I would however still run shielded cable because Ubiquiti has found that inducted EMI can pose an issue to frying the chips.   This begs the question of what issue grounding at both sides might have at a heavy RF site (Ground loop?)  (of course I've just heard of an RF site a node is going up on that the site tower rules require the CAT5e cable to be grounded/bonded at every 90 degree bend)

Personally, like you, I plan to stick with Ubiquiti hardware for now, but I do enjoy seeing another vendor in the mix just to give us some more options for hardware.

Note: The above are my own personal opinions and should not be considered to reflect the opinions of the AREDN development team.

I bought two of them for testing/ & deployment.  With the issue of the DTDlink being on the second port (in at least the b01 firmware), the one at my QTH isn't being used as all of the nodes on the tower come down to an POE ethernet switch and I'm reluctant to run (even temporarily) another Ethernet cable 50 feet down the tower.  The other 210 is running at a standalone site a distance away, with b01 code on it (and running very well, too).

Will the DtDLink / Ethernet port issue be resolved in the b02 firmware?  If so, I'll get that puppy upgraded, swivel it 180 degrees around the tower and it'll join the beta testing fray :-)

Good to know - thanks for the info.

I purchased a CPE210 to further assess that model. I agree with all the above comments. I found that while TPLink says the unit will output 27dBm, the AREDN firmware only shows up to 22dBm on channel -2 (2397MHz) at 5MHz band width. This places it slightly below the Loco. The price in Canada is $85 with a POE, from a significant computer vendor - this price is attractive for a new unit, compared to Ubiquiti prices here.
Very nice to have a choice.
Rick

Hi,

I have a TP-Link CPE210 that will not will not accept a firmware update.

I am logged in to it under TP-Link PHAROS and status shows:-
Device Name CPE210
Device Model CPE210 v1.1
Firmware Version 1.3.3 Build 20160705 Rel.52453  (it allowed me to update from 1.3.0 no problem)

The firmware I am trying to upload is AREDN-3.16.1.0b02-cpe210-220-510-520-squashfs-factory

The error message is The Hardware version is not supported.

Can anyone throw some light on this please.

73's
Robert M0NVQ