Cisco Wireless Reviews

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.

It's very useful in terms of mobility. Before this solution you would have to find a product to connect to and to have a security ICU. Now it's much easier with personal customization.

Ease of use is the most valuable feature. 

The configuration interface could be easier. They should make roaming easier and should fix it so that when you cross a building you can keep the signal.

It has very good scalability. 

I would rate their technical support a seven out of ten because the solution's support can always use improvement. 

We previously used Aruba. Their technique is the same but it's easier with Cisco.

You need to learn the technology but after that the setup is easy.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. It's good but it's not a ten because there are some specific technicalities they can improve on. I would recommend using this technology. 

We have an ISE solution, WiFi controller, Access Points, and a wifi controller. We have to integrate all of these components with each other and we do that with Cisco's solution and a local Cisco partner. The performance is better than before. We had an issue with the phone wifi but no other real issues. It fully integrates with ISE. 

We work in energy so we manage electric networks and gas networks. Someone had to move across the building and keep contact with the operator onsite for when there is an issue with the network so, for us sometimes it is a problem with gas. It's really important for us to stay connected with phone wifi. We have to study a lot of scenarios because if we have a data center on a remote site and if we lose the connection to the data center the telephone and the wifi has to continue to work. We connect to Cisco wifi and we're able to solve the issue. Even in emergencies, we can respond to a customer's needs. 

When you integrate a network access control with authentication with an ISE engine it's really complicated to put in place. Even if you're only using Cisco products you have a new algorithm and you have old material. For us, it's complicated because we have to maintain old parts or devices. We purchase new devices and we maintain several SSID which is not really recommended by Cisco. They prefer to have one and to dispatch based on the condition.

It's stable. Although we have had an issue but it's not related to Cisco technology. It's to do with the position of the access points. They move it and it's good. They don't like to see a box so they move it which is an issue. 

The initial setup was quite easy. We have a very good relationship with our integrator and our integrator has a good relationship with Cisco. The integrator that installs Cisco is quite knowledgeable about the technology. They are trained and have a good relationship with their tech. We cannot be experts in each domain and we have to be supported by an integrator.

I would rate it a seven out of ten and I would recommend this solution. 

It's cloud-based. We only work with on-premise devices and usually the prices are good for our customers. 

The license and prices are great. 

Their technical support is very good and important. 

The initial setup is basic and simple. 

I implemented myself. 

It's a bit expensive but it's professional and works properly. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten. No product can be a ten out of ten and there are some security issues. 

Most of our clients are in the office or on campus and they don't like to use cables so they use Wireless. We are partners with Cisco and our customers ask us which kind of product to use, we also have access to Cisco Advisor so we advise our clients to use Cisco Wireless. 

We also use a Cisco AP in our office and it is more secure than other devices so the accretion system is stronger than others.

Cisco Wireless is mostly stable with a low downrate and the signal rate is good. It is also easy to use. 

One of our customers complained about the ripple, that some of the data was incorrect. We opened a ticket and brought it to their attention that maybe some of the data was not correct. As of now, it has been two months since we opened the ticket and the issue still hasn't been resolved. 

It is stable. 

It is scalable. We can easily upgrade. We have around fifty users and we require two engineers for maintenance. It's used on a daily basis.

Our clients on the university campus have a plan to increase their users.

Their technical support is okay. It depends on the issue that you're experiencing. Sometimes they take too long. 

The initial setup is not complex. 

We also looked at Rocket Software. 

I would advise someone considering this product to use it. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten because it has easy digital effects, it's easy to use and, has good stability. 

A small office at the time that needed the ability to host network services that changed daily.

• Overall cost per unit including licensing was too high for the value.
• The range of the APs was not excellent but mediocre at best. 

The ability to control any device from the cloud.

Significantly reduce the licensing fees.

Checking out alternatives right now.

Don't use Cisco Meraki. While pretty, the devices and licensing aren't worth the cost.