Cisco Wireless Reviews

The primary use case is providing network coverage to mobile devices in our company.

I find this solution easy to configure and use.

The coverage should be better.

There should be an option for a wireless bridge that can be used to join two access points.

Technical support takes too long and is something that should be improved.

It would be helpful if Cisco Wireless supported the Internet of Things (IoT).

I have been using Cisco Wireless for about five years.

This is a stable product.

Cisco Wireless is scalable, and we have more than 10,000 people on-premises who are connected to the cloud using it.

We have had problems with Cisco's technical support, so I would only rate them a five out of ten. They take too long to respond and also too long to resolve the issue.

We are also using Huawei wireless.

For somebody who knows about the configuration beforehand, the initial setup is easy. I can be set up an configured in half an hour.

The suitability of this product depends on the environment and the requirements, as every place has its own circumstances. Generally, I recommend this product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is wireless infrastructure for retail and enterprise usage.

This solution has improved our organization.

The most valuable features of this solution are the Cisco CleanAir and Cisco RRM.

I would like to see less dependency on other products such as ISE and Prime for certain implementations.

Please always keep the Spectrum Expert (SE) connect mode. I feel is useful when troubleshooting.

We as a system integrators provide wireless solution for big enterprise and PSU's. This solution primarily focuses on giving secured wireless access to employees and internet access to guests. 

We have seen that Our organization and many other organization for whom we have provided wireless solution have improved using this product because it helps enhance user experience. We use video communication a lot, like Skype, lync, etc and earlier we used to get a lot of jitters and faced lot of issues during voice or video calls. Presently the technology as moved to 802.11ac wave 2 which gives more bandwidth to the end users connecting to the 5ghz band.

From a technical point of view, I think the major difference in feature set has been the granular application visibility and control that an wireless administrator has over the wireless network. The other valuable point would the ease with which one can give secured access to anyone coming with a laptop, mobile , tabs etc..

I think the technology is already at a level where it's good enough. In some ways, it's better than wired. But there is always a backlash when it comes to lack of accessibility. It's not the solution itself, as much as how it's deployed.

The product could be improved with interference reduction. Because wireless frequency interferes with microwave or Bluetooth technologies, which are hindrances to a genuine wireless connection. A lot of users still use legacy wireless adapters and they do not experience the speed that they could get using the latest technologies. The number of devices on the market makes wireless communications complex. If the problem of interference could be reduced it would further improve utility and ease of system design.

The latest version of this technology is stable. It is stable but, the devices that are accessing the network are very dynamic. It is not as much the solution that is unstable as that the devices accessing it are constantly changing.

The scalability of the solution is excellent. Wireless used to be a non-critical part of the network earlier and it started with speeds as low as 11 Mbps. Now you're seeing the speeds of five gigabits with Wifi 6. Wireless is an innovative technology, and it has been changing. Scaling is something we need to do very frequently to meet the demands for higher speeds, higher bandwidth, and higher coverages. 

You need wireless expertise during the design phase, but I think a typical network engineer with fundamental knowledge can take care of day to day operations quiet easily. Once it is deployed and implemented, the operational costs are very low.

We get help from Cisco support whenever it is required. The level of service is excellent.

We definitely tried many solutions before going mainly with Cisco Wireless, including Ruckus and Aruba.

The major reason to go with cisco has been the support system. Nobody can beat Cisco when it comes to their support infrastructure and the SLA (Service Level Agreement) that they provide. The number of engineers who are available who are Cisco certified is much greater than those certified in Aruba or Ruckus. So anybody who deploys Cisco can easily get a Cisco Certified Engineer to take care of there wireless network.

We do the entire deployment as well as the design. It takes around an average 20 days to complete the entire deployment for a 1000-user network.

Cisco support has been a major help because right from the beginning Cisco support strength and the technical licensing centers played a major part in the success of deploying in the Enterprise Network. People buy it because of this. There are other, cheaper products available with a lifetime guarantee but without any support. Cisco took care of the critical issues whenever we needed them to. 

We are system integrators and we do have our own team who design and implement wireless solution..

We have definitely received a return on our investment because the major part of any wireless solution is the quality of connectivity. When you have good connectivity, you can access the environment, go inside the network and access production resources from a mobile device sitting basically anywhere. 

Cisco licensing is usually provided for 1 year, 3 years, or 5 years. You can get a hardware SLA or hardware and software SLA for a period of 5 years. Longer terms of SLA influences  the pricing.

License pricing also depends on the features that are being used.

Though cisco is our first choice, we have evaluated other options like Aruba and Ruckus.

Whatever solution used, the design of the wireless network is the most important part of how well it works. I would plan on putting in 60% of the effort to the design and 40% to the deployment. In the designing phase, you must actually get into the network, look for interference issues, create proper wireless heat maps and place the wireless network connection points in the exact location where it is required. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

Our primary use case for this solution is the provision of standard wireless access.

Service delivery is critical in our organization. Wireless access has enabled users to be mobile and as a result, more productive.

The most important feature for us is the standard service delivery. Once configured correctly, it is 95% reliable.

The cost model is expensive. The new licensing has no added value and seems to be Cisco's effort to take advantage of customers.

We have two main objectives. One is to provide a secure access network, that's secure wireless access across the network to our customers. The other is to provide access to our guests. Now, with the new centrally managed solution, we are able to leverage the interaction with the product and the different security solutions in the market. 

The tool has greatly improved the system interaction between employees. What I mean by that is with this wireless connectivity between networks, we have the ability to use mobile communication in remote and rural areas. Now we can leverage wireless work phones. This increased mobility has helped our organization. We can talk to one another from different locations and stay in constant contact with employees across the enterprise. Everyone has access to up-to-the-minute communications and all documents and applications on our network.

We can work together more effectively. Our customers who use the wireless LAN can roam around their office or to different floors without losing their connection. Similarly, using Voice over Wireless LAN technology, they can have roaming capabilities in their voice communications.

The most valuable features are the new centrally managed solution. The interaction of the product with the different security solutions in the market. 

Improvements can be made in the wireless connectivity. Particularly, the wireless, rods and, microchips and other access point components. I think that Cisco can improve its product line. 

Additionally, improvements can be made to the telemetry. The licensing gets in the way here. It makes it impossible to record the different flows across the wireless network. 

It's a stable product.

The solution is scalable. The scalability is interdependent and associated directly with our client's needs, budgeting constraints, and reach.

The initial configuration and setup were very simple. On average it takes half an hour to build access points and deploy. After that, all that is left to do is register the access points.

For the Green Sheet Project Updates, we use the documentation to do the initial configuration of the access points and then deploy them as we need them. As for the physical controllers, this allows us to do things the way we like. 

Our clients could have five to ten engineers working, but they could all be working with different solutions, they're not dedicated to the wireless box.

We are the wireless solution integrator, so we deploy the projects. We undertake the integration as well as convert the existing access points to conserve energy.

As far as pricing and licensing go it really depends. I think that it would be better to have more flexible licensing mostly for our clients because then we could commercialize those solutions and position them for a more broader market segment. The pricing depends on the size of the project and the support from the client side.

We evaluated other options for our client's needs. We evaluated solutions based on the client's budget and system requirements. In Nigeria, we need to take weather conditions into account. Our solution has to be temperature resistant. Cisco offers stable, portable, aerobics products.

I would advise someone considering this solution to be prepared. Understand your needs. Undertake a very clear site survey to be in a position to present the best-adjusted solution. If you don't do your due diligence you can buy a very good product response, but it won't resolve the wireless coverage problem; the key is to deploy a strategic wireless solution and adjust the parameters as needed. As well as being able to scope access points.

I rate this solution an 8 out of 10. I give it an 8 because it's a general rating of the overall product. Cisco is a network and security technology provider. Their strength lies in the network and security solution. The wireless solution can be built better.

I use the Cisco wireless network at my company. I also sell all of the Cisco solutions, and most of these are for wireless networks. I also sell the related security products.

Security is an important feature for my customers, and I am able to offer this to them with our Cisco products.

I find the most valuable feature to be the security. People in Thailand consider their machines to be valuable, and this is their way of protecting them.

At this time, Cisco solutions integrate with other Cisco products. This is necessary in order for them to work completely. I would like to see better and easier integration with third party products.

My impression as a re-seller is that the Cisco products are stable.

The scalability of the product depends very much on the customer and their needs.

At this time I have approximately ten customers, including the Airport of Thailand.

I have used other vendors for security related products.

At this time, I feel that setting up these products is complex and difficult for customers to understand. I have found that the classic Cisco wireless interface is difficult for users to learn.

The deployment time for these solutions is approximately two weeks.

We have less than five people to assist with deployment of these solutions.

I think that the solution is expensive because the customer has to pay for a full year, at a minimum, in up-front costs.

I would rate this solution eight out of ten.

Solve WiFi problems, getting the best WiFi coverage. This was our challenge. The addition of different WLANs by division pushed us to change the configuration of our controller, DHCP and the RADIUS server with NPS.

Between 2011 and 2013, we had a lot of problems with our WiFi, especially with the AD. However, with the addition of the RADIUS, it helped. In 2014, it was made better with the configuration of five new WLANs in FlexConnect mode and our environment improved.

Our number of students increased by 35% (more than 600 students) and we used different devices (Mac OS X, Windows, Chrome OS for grade 4 through grade 12, Android, and iOS), which need a very good roaming sensitivity between access points. The separation of our WiFi for guest, staff, SP staff and two for students, and setting up one IP address for user help to have visibility on our network.

Everything is online NWEA TestTaker, Google classroom and courses. This is why we need to have better WiFi coverage. 

We really have good stability. Because classes and work work well.

Everything in the cloud and the cloud printing are working find. 

Customer service is only good for money. While technical support is more flexible and they go straight as needed.

Yes, the network was horrible and everything was cascading. That's why we use cisco.

The initial setup was straightforward because we only had one WLAN SSID.

And after we went in second step by adding a radius for the certificates only.

Yes, we implemented that through with vendor team. Their level of expertise is very good.

Cisco is good but it expensive. That's why for me there is no better.

We have 10 Cisco 1552E and i ordered 10 more. 

Now, i have the release for 8.0 and 8.5 for my wlc but i stay with 7.4.100 software version.

I will stay with Cisco and see next time Insha ALLAH.

The coverage will be extended and the dead zones will be covered.

For the first configuration, we used apple access points and the HP procurve and D'Link switches.

I noticed with the 1552E access points, the local mode has more coverage than the flexconnect mode.

I have Cisco routers, switches, firewalls and wireless access points installed on my corporate network.

They are good, but my observation is that their signal strength and range is not that good. But their manageability is very good.

Manageability.

Signal strength and range.