Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

I use this solution because I work for a Cisco partner. We use a lot of Cisco products and it makes it easy for us to position this wireless solution for most of our clients because they already have a Cisco base. It is very easy to propose it as an alternative.

The solution has all the features we need, but it is very expensive.

I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for over five years.

The program is very stable.

It is scalable enough for most of our clients. We have many users and don't have issues or problems with scalability.

I don't have any complaints about the technical support.

The initial setup was straightforward.

If I were to give advice to others, I would say is this: I haven't had much experience with any other option. Or if you were asking me to recommend this solution over another one, I'll generally recommend the Cisco Wireless WAN, because that's the only one I know and have experience of. I would like to see better pricing. It would also be great if one of these wireless cards could support multiple service providers. On a scale from one to ten, I will rate this solution an eight. 

We use Cisco Wireless WAN for normal campus access, for voice roaming, regular setup, some employee networks, network using portals, and simple registrations.

We acquired the Cisco Identity Service Engine (ISE), and what I found the most valuable, is the integration between Cisco wireless and the ISE. It is very useful. 

The integration support technology should be improved. We have more sites to the technology itself and before we only had to connect the access points to a controller. Now we use most of the pieces of what the wireless as a concept can provide. So more integration and support will be great. 

I have been using the solution for eight years now.

The program is very stable.

I believe the solution is scalable and it is easy to add more users.

The technical support is really good.

We have been working on Cisco for many years now, so we just upgraded to Cisco Wireless WAN.

The initial setup was really easy and straightforward.

Cisco is more expensive than other solutions.

The reason why we chose Cisco over another solution, is that Cisco is very strong here in the Aruba and Ruckus region. We have a vendor specifically in Saudi Arabia. What I like about this solution, is that it is always available and it's up to me to integrate, something called the DNA. I like the features that Cisco provides and it a solution that's easy to work on. I like the integration between Cisco and all the other Cisco products when it comes to network roaming, the DNA. So this is the integration that I'm looking forward to integrating, Cisco wireless with the DNA.

On a scale from one to 10, I will rate this an eight. The reason why I don't give it a ten is because Cisco is rather expensive. I would like to see it being more affordable.

We use this solution to provide wireless service in our hospitals.

The most valuable feature of this solution is that it is stable and the support is good.

The worst thing about the Cisco controllers is that they only have two ports. The design of having only two physical ports is very bad.

I have been using this solution for six or seven years.

This stability is one of the major reasons to stick with this product.

We have about ten thousand users in our environment.

We run different hospitals and on a daily basis and we have between eight and ten thousand clients.

Cisco is always number one in terms of technical support. There is no doubt that they are better than any other vendor.

I also have experience with solutions from Aruba and Avaya XE. We removed the Avaya units after their merger and are sticking with solutions from Cisco and Aruba.

I have a lot of experience with this solution, so I find the setup to be easy.

Between Cisco and Aruba, I would say that the features are similar. Each of them is better at different features.

Wireless solutions are not something that you need to change very often. We have older models installed and they are still working fine. Changing the entire environment involves a lot of money and a lot of effort.

My advice to anybody who is considering this type of solution is to first look at your ecosystem and then choose the product. Don't just choose one without looking at what other types of products, such as switches, you already have.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

It's a good solution and it works very well. It has great integration with other Cisco products. It's good for the management team to only have one brand, one manufacturer of products. 

I like how the look and feel of the product are standardized to match other Cisco solutions. 

The pricing could be improved in future releases. It's quite expensive.

I've been using the solution for six or seven years.

The stability of the product is good. I haven't heard anything bad from customers, who seem quite happy with it.

The solution is scalable.

The technical support for the solution is pretty good. I'd rate it eight out of ten.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The solution is quite expensive.

We use the on-premises deployment model. We're a Cisco partner.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Flex-connect.

It helps to connect AP's in multiple branches.

There are a few software bugs.

Cisco 5500 Series Wireless Controller. We have used it for about 4 years.

No.

No.

No.

Customer Service:

It's the best available in the market.

Technical Support:

Also excellent.

Very straightforward.

In-house.

It's very reliable and can be used for long term purpose.

1.One of the reasons we selected this WWAN modem is the underlying support for all the high speed modules and speed which is higher than 100Mbps. 2.Can be used to easily setup a high speed ISP or mobile network 3.Another deciding factor was the support for large number of devices that can interoperate easily with Cisco WWAN card 4. Failover support. There is a secondary link which can take over in case the primary goes down. 5.It provides transparent handoff support for devices which are using older technologies. 6.Provides higher bandwidth to support high definition video calls. 7.Supports advanced features like quality of service (QoS)

While deploying the module, we had to struggle with the telemetry system server setup as it had some module compatibility issues with tracking system

Cisco LTE WWAN provides an easy way to setup an high speed, robust and secure network with speeds of 100Mbps and above. It supports a large number of network devices and can easily integrate with devices running on older technologies as well. We tested the HD video call feature as well and found it to be of very good in terms of video, voice quality and overall speed. We faced some module compatibility issues with Cisco WWAN while setting up the telemetry system server setup. Overall a good product and provides large number of features for providing high speed network.

This product is fulfilling our technological requirements to setup a high speed 4G environment in a large ISP / Mobile network. Easily manage and configure in existing network without any changes. This module provides automatic secondary link whenever the main link is down.

When I tried to setup in Cisco ASA 5500 series IPv6 network then I faced a module compatibility issue. Cisco will remove this obstacle in future. It is not possible to setup a GPS tracking system and telemetry system server with this module.

We use the product as access points in our organization. 

I am impressed with the tool's packet tracing so that connection with the devices is always consistent. 

The tool's speed and IP address acquisition from the domain controller should be improved. 

I have been using the product for ten years. 

The tool is stable and I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

The product is scalable because we can create a mesh network using multiple devices. I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

I have contacted the tech support and have got the support that I needed. 

Positive

The product's setup is straightforward. It is just plug-and-play. The tool's deployment took ten minutes to complete. You would need one staff to manage the tool's deployment and maintenance. 

There is no technical staff required for the product's deployment. 

The product offers good ROI. 

The solution is not expensive. 

On-premises