Ruckus Wireless WAN Reviews

We use Ruckus Wireless WAN for mobile users only to access data from the server and use the server space.

Wireless six is the most valuable feature of this solution right now. It has supported the most recent laptop model.

It is good, and the Antenna position of the device is very good.

I have not found that there is anything that needs to be improved on the Ruckus side. It's good for me, and overall it is good in comparison. It is a good product.

I would like to see IoT device support available with WiFi six. IoT is used by all businesses. They are now using IoT devices. It is required.

Ruckus Wireless WAN should support IoT devices.

I have been working with Ruckus Wireless WAN for four years, and the 510 models for the last three.

We are using the 510 and 550 models.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is stable. 

I have had my Ruckus device for over four years and have never complained about it. 

The device is functional. It does not hang. 

We have not had any issues, in the four years that we have used it.

The scalability of Ruckus Wireless WAN is good. We have not had any problems.

We increased to 11. Only four were deployed; seven were required.

We have approximately 100 users. All levels of positions are using this solution, we have engineering using it as well as others.

I am satisfied with the service that technical support provides.

I would rate the response time a four out of five.

We are doing a demo with Cambium. Ruckus is much better than Cambium.

I use Ruckus, Cisco, and Netgear. It is a common brand.

The device was deployed by the service provider. Only we purchased the device.

Our service provider installed the device, and it is now operational. We are currently using four devices, and everything is fine. However, we are now recording seven devices.

The service provider had one person install the device. It took one day to complete the installation.

It is less expensive than Aruba and Cisco.

I am comparing both models, a total of four. Aruba, Ruckus, Cisco, and Cambium.

Ruckus is more convenient for me because it is cost-effective compared to Aruba and Cisco. Also, the technology is different.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

We are a manufacturing company. I'm not any business partner. Only this company is in the automotive sector. We are end-users.

I would rate Ruckus Wireless WAN an eight out of ten.

In terms of the use case for Ruckus Wireless WAN, we have a WiFi First network design, so that's how we connect. We got rid of 50 percent of our ports, so WiFi First, it's mostly enterprise, and then in our malls, it's where we connect to a shopping center's WiFi while advertising and also focus advertising on products and specials inside the mall.

The best feature of Ruckus Wireless WAN apart from its seamless roaming feature where you roam beautifully on the network is its analytics tool that gives you so much insight into your deployment, so it has become more of a business intelligence type of tool as well.

I also like that Ruckus Networks, in terms of WiFi security issues on the WiFi protocols, is also the first company to give you notices of security issues, and also the first to provide patches for those issues. Ruckus Wireless WAN is very proactive and much, much faster than Cisco, Aruba, and Meraki.

In terms of room for improvement in Ruckus Wireless WAN, I cannot find a fault with it. It's pretty decent and it deploys easily. The product is also easily maintained. It has very few issues. The RMA process in Ruckus Wireless WAN also works brilliantly. There is nothing I can think of at the moment. I'm not an engineer.

Pricing could be improved in Ruckus Wireless WAN because obviously, everybody wants things to become cheaper. Another room for improvement in the product is from a delivery perspective, particularly the heavy delivery delays because of the chip shortage that a lot of manufacturers have to deal with. The chip shortage is not coming to an end, but Ruckus Networks has to make a plan because the ETA has slipped out from the average of three months on switches to fourteen months, which is very, very rough on the industry at the moment. Ruckus Wireless WAN could lose business to Chinese competitors, for example, HTC has a good wireless solution that I haven't tested yet, other than on POC, and it works great. I haven't yet experienced the HTC wireless solution in large deployments, so you never know how it's going to go, but HTC has managed to circumvent the chip shortage, so the ETA provided by HTC is much more preferred than the ETAs provided by Ruckus Networks, Cisco, and Aruba products.

What I would love, from a service delivery management perspective, is for Ruckus Wireless WAN to look at things like repeat offenders and best practices such as "your power settings on your APs are too high or too specific". APs are constantly fighting for airspace and it would be good if there was some type of analytics in the background that shows you the little nitty-gritty repeat offenders, instead of always looking at the big issue picture. It would be good for the product to focus on the small issue picture as well.

In the next release of Ruckus Wireless WAN, I would also like it to focus on the small things that optimize opportunities within a wireless network because if you sit with a network with five thousand access points, sometimes two APs are too close to one another or are on the same channel, and though auto channel settings sound very cool, if a third party comes in with a wireless device that's on channel sixty for five gigahertz, then that specific Ruckus AP might try to change the channel to another channel, but then the access point next to it needs to change, and so does the access point next to it, and it becomes a ripple effect of changing channels, just because a third party user is interfering with your channel. This sounds cool, but it creates so much overhead on your resources for your access points that it's not worth it because that person will just move along and then cause more confusion as he works with that device. If it's a static device, then an AP can just tell you that there's a third-party device that is interfering with a specific access point so that you can go to the site, locate the third-party device, and negotiate with the third-party owner to change the channel or lower the power settings.

Ruckus Wireless WAN having a more focused approach than a blanket approach is what I'd like to see in its next release.

I've been using Ruckus Wireless WAN for five years now.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is a very stable product.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is a very scalable product.

I haven't contacted the technical support for Ruckus Wireless WAN, but based on the emails I've read from the engineering department, the response time of the support team is very fast. Technical support for Ruckus Wireless WAN is very proactive, and it's a pleasure working with support. On a scale of one to five, with one being bad and five being excellent, I would rate support five out of five, particularly compared to other vendors.

My company decided to work with Ruckus Wireless WAN because of its price and scalability. Its licensing is very uncomplicated compared to Aruba and Cisco where the licensing structure is much more complicated. Ruckus Wireless WAN is easier to work with from a commercial perspective, and it is a very good technology. Ruckus Networks has a very strong R&D department that's constantly coming up with innovations. The product is a market trendsetter rather than a follower. Ruckus Networks also foresee future utilization. The radios on Ruckus Wireless WAN keep on improving and there's this amazing smart team functionality on radios that minimizes end-user connects and disconnects from the network. There's also a smooth handover from one access point to another. Ruckus Wireless WAN is good technology. My company researched technology and commercials, and on the decision matrix, this product came out at the top.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is easy to set up. It's very quick to deploy. Once you set up your wireless LAN controller and you start deploying access points, you can deploy the product out-of-the-box. Ruckus Wireless WAN has a self-updating function, and it immediately knows where to go. It's very easy to deploy.

The deployment of Ruckus Wireless WAN was done in-house. You can deploy an entire hotel in one day from installation to commissioning, etc. If your backbone is working and your routing is up, then the product is very easy to deploy. It's definitely not a long, painful process.

Licensing for Ruckus Wireless WAN when you compare it to other vendors, it's on par and not expensive. For me, all licensing is expensive by default, but you do get lifelong licenses, and what's cool about it is the license for Ruckus Wireless WAN, especially on the LAN controller, is not linked to an access point. It's just a quantity access point deployment, so you can rip out old APs, and put new ones in and they'll work on the wireless LAN because the license is not linked to a specific access point which is much easier to work with.

I evaluated Cisco, Aruba, and Meraki.

I'm not an engineer, but I do manage the Ruckus Wireless WAN deployment project and the network, and I've used it myself. My company is still using the product.

At the moment, some of the customers are already on the new version of Ruckus Wireless WAN. Some customers are upgraded and are on the old version because the nice thing about that product is that you can use it for ten years, but the upgrade paths at a point stop for an old device, so you'll see you can only upgrade it to a certain point. My company maintains that until the customer embarks on a network refresh where you rip and replace your old kit with the new kit, so my company works on various versions of Ruckus Wireless WAN. It all depends on the model number. Currently, in the region, my company has fourteen thousand Ruckus access points under management, and then for SmartZones or Virtual SmartZones or controllers, there are approximately eighteen wireless LAN Ruckus controllers under management.

In terms of how Ruckus Wireless WAN is deployed, for some customers, it's on the public cloud, while for some, it's on-premises. Some have hybrid cloud setups. It all depends on what the customer requires. Some customers want full control over everything, while others share a Virtual SmartZone with other customers, just under different zones.

Everybody in my company uses Ruckus Wireless WAN, and from a customer perspective, eighteen big customers use it. Customers are in the food deployment, hospitality, hospitals, and schools industries. Schools use the product a lot. Private schools in South Africa use Ruckus Wireless WAN a lot because these days, COVID has forced education to go online, so my company had a massive rollout on those access points.

In terms of why someone would not use Ruckus Wireless WAN, wireless LAN is an expensive exercise, so on the day that you submit your tender, it would still depend on what the customer looks for. The customer might look for a cheaper solution. It would depend on what solution the customer chooses, but a big company usually chooses between Juniper Mist, Aruba, and Ruckus Networks. It could also be because the company has invested so much in Cisco that it just doesn't make financial sense to go with another solution or because the company uses Cisco Meraki across all offices that it could be an international decision. You have those companies that have invested so much in technology and stick to that technology, even though it's not necessarily the best or the cheapest. It will just be too expensive to go to another solution.

I would give Ruckus Wireless WAN a high rating simply because of the ease of setup, deployment, and management. It's a simple solution. Commercially, you can compare the product to other enterprise networks very well. I would give Ruckus Wireless WAN a rating of eight out of ten. There's always room for improvement, so I can't give it a perfect rating.

My company is a Ruckus partner.

We use Ruckus Wireless WAN for connectivity.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is an easy-to-use solution.

The solution's AI offering and pricing could be improved.

I have been using Ruckus Wireless WAN for three years.

I rate Ruckus Wireless WAN ten out of ten for stability.

Around 400 users are using the solution in our organization on a daily basis.

I rate Ruckus Wireless WAN ten out of ten for scalability.

The solution's initial setup is easy. I rate Ruckus Wireless WAN ten out of ten for the ease of its initial setup.

We implemented the solution through a third-party integrator. Two people are required to deploy the solution. The solution's deployment took a few hours.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a six out of ten.

The solution is maintained by one person in our organization.

Overall, I rate Ruckus Wireless WAN ten out of ten.

We use the product to provide WiFi connectivity to hotels and large buildings.

The product’s unleashed feature works as an access point and WiFi controller. We don’t require an extra set of hardware or any licensing with it.

Ruckus Wireless WAN’s most valuable feature is unleashed.

There could be more power supply for the radio features. This particular area of the product needs improvement. They should add a reset factory feature without resetting IP addresses as well.

We have been Ruckus Wireless WAN for at least eight years. At present, we use the latest version.

I rate the product’s stability a ten out of ten.

I rate the product’s scalability a ten out of ten.

I have used HP before. We switched to Ruckus Wireless WAN, especially for its advanced radio features. I have also used less expensive products. We encountered a lot of field failures using them. For our business model, if we have failures in the field, it is a very expensive product.

The initial setup process is very simple.

The product generates a return on investment for us. We have been using it for eight years and it is still working. 

The product has competitive pricing, but always a little low price is better.

We haven’t contacted the technical support team, as we don’t have failures in the field. It is a solid product. I advise others to do a site survey and a well-thought-out design.

I rate Ruckus Wireless WAN a ten out of ten.

We primarily use it for enterprise environments, including home, hotspots, and hot zones.

The product performs exceptionally well. They provide stable performance. While there might be limited information available, they are among the best Wi-Fi solutions I've encountered.

Pricing is an area for improvement. The devices are relatively expensive.

I have been using it for a couple of years. 

Stability is very good and rock solid. I would rate the stability a nine out of ten.

It's highly scalable as long as the licenses are in place. You can expand it easily.

We primarily set it up for customers, and we have deployments of up to 2,000 users.

We do have plans to expand the user base.

We considered Extreme, Cisco and Juniper before choosing Ruckus.

The setup is quite straightforward and very easy.

The deployment involves setting up the controller and deploying the wireless units at the specified locations. It's relatively straightforward.

We have an in-house engineer who handles the deployment. We mostly use on-premises deployment.

The ROI is quite good, despite the initial cost being somewhat expensive.

There is licensing involved. For on-premises, it's a one-time purchase, albeit relatively expensive.

You only need to pay for license management. There are no additional costs. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. I would definitely recommend using this solution.

We use this solution for our customers with multiple branches who do not need experienced IT personnel to manage it. They can remotely manage their access points and switches using the cloud solution. 

It is very straightforward because it is plug-and-play and automatically onboard the APs to the cloud. It is a highly recommended solution for people with a little bit of IT experience who need a simple and fast deployment.

The most valuable solution is its simplicity. The solution is simple and easy to use. 

The company is investing in adding more features day after day. The analytics and network automation Ruckus added recently are also good features.

The product needs to improve its latency and performance.

I have been using Ruckus Wireless WAN for three years. Since it is a cloud-based solution, it always offers the latest version. 

It was recently renamed to Ruckus Wireless WAN from Ruckus Cloud.

The solution is stable, and Ruckus performs frequent maintenance windows to enhance its stability day after day.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is a cloud solution. When it comes to complex solutions, it is not a good fit. The solution is not scalable for complex solutions for the customers. For this, we consider an on-prem solution rather than a cloud solution.

We have about 25 customers using Ruckus WAN.

We are a system integrator. For example, one of our food and beverage companies has 12 branches of restaurants. We installed one single AP connected to Ruckus WAN in each restaurant. We consider each cafe or restaurant a separate customer, so one customer can have 12 branches.

I am quite satisfied with the support they provide. 

The initial setup of the solution is very straightforward.

The end user can complete the deployment in 10-15 minutes. 

You don't need an integrator, service, or solution provider to use Ruckus Wireless WAN. The end user can do things by themselves. 

The product comes with a yearly subscription. 

In general, it is a packaged solution with analytics, support, and a cloud license. The pricing is acceptable for licensing the cloud for a bundle.

I recommend the solution for people who need something simple, fast, and stable. 

It is a very simple and straightforward solution. It can help them have a stable wireless network consultant without much IT knowledge.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I have not found any issues with the solution so far. Whenever I encounter an issue, I chat with support and open a ticket. I have found the communication, hardware, and time to be fine. I have not found any issue in communicating and getting a service. However, the pricing of the solution is very high. I have found Aruba to be cheaper compared to Ruckus. I believe that there should be a reasonable difference in price in the market.

I have not used the location services feature. I don’t know how to monitor it. Cisco has a working Aruba where the latter also has a server. I have not used the monitoring tools either.

I have been using Ruckus Wireless WAN for more than ten years. We are resellers of the solution.

The tool offers stable, reliable, and consistent connectivity over WiFi.

The solution is scalable.

Technical support was helpful. I had sought technical support over one report three to four months back. They were fine. I would rate the technical support between eight to nine.

The initial setup is very easy and you can customize it as per the customer’s LAN and WAN requirements. The installation is different from client to client. It depends on the physical condition to install or finish the project.

I have a couple of people who do the physical deployment while I handle the configuration and server settings.

We do a survey where we ask customers about the kind of WiFi service that they are going to use like voice service, data service, etc. After the survey, we generate a heatmap using my account in the zone planner. I forward the report to the presales team after which they forward the quotation to the customer. If the customer approves the quotation, we go ahead with the installation.

The point where we get stuck is when the customer asks for multiple quotations. When we provide multiple quotations, there is a high chance of customization.

I am not satisfied with the pricing of the solution.

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. We are the resellers of the solution and we work with it on an infrastructure level. I have experience in the installation of the solution. I have installed ZoneDirector 1200, SmartZone 100, Wi-Fi 5, Wi-Fi 6, and a couple of access panels. You can trust and rely on the consistency and reliability of Ruckus Wireless WAN on the WiFi. I had instances where customers had asked me to replace the competitor products with Ruckus.

I have been working with WiFi for more than 17 years. I am not able to convince customers because of the pricing of the solution. Otherwise, we could have sold lots of this tool to the customers. We provide maintenance to our customers. There is also no specific maintenance required for this solution since I have installed a couple of solutions for customers and they are working fine. There is no maintenance required to upgrade until the customer complains that ‘We do not upgrade anything and all the soft software is available on this.'

Ruckus has multiple radios. Therefore, it supports high speed for users and clients. Other vendors have fluctuations in speed. The main thing about Ruckus is that you can trust it and rely on its speed. I am simply satisfied with it.

We use Ruckus Wireless WAN for business purposes, particularly in health institutions such as nursing homes and hospitals. Our users are mainly nurses who use their mobile devices, including long-term residents who need private and safe wireless access.

What I like best about Ruckus Wireless WAN is easy administration. After installation, you'll benefit from how easy it is to administer the product.

I also like that the product can cover the whole area with just a few endpoints.

What needs improvement in Ruckus Wireless WAN is the initial setup. It could be easier.

Availability is also another area for improvement in the product.

Another huge disadvantage of Ruckus Wireless WAN is the cost you must continuously pay for the licenses.

I've been working with Ruckus Wireless WAN for three years now.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is very stable and has no problems with stability.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is a scalable solution.

I have no direct contact with the Ruckus Wireless WAN technical support team. A different person directly contacts the support team, but I have not heard any bad feedback. Ruckus support isn't the best in response time, but it's okay, technical support-wise.

We purchase Ruckus Wireless WAN whenever we have a high percentage of usage, where many people have access points, for example. For countries with lower densities where the wireless WAN is primarily used for business purposes, we use cheaper solutions than Ruckus Wireless WAN.

The initial setup for Ruckus Wireless WAN was challenging.

Compared with Cisco Wireless WAN, the pricing for Ruckus Wireless WAN is two out of five. Ruckus Wireless WAN is twice the price of Cisco Wireless WAN.

My company is currently using Ruckus Wireless WAN.

I'm responsible for several countries, with the leading country focused on Ruckus Wireless WAN. In contrast, a decision has yet to be made in other countries, so other countries use different equipment. For some countries, my company is still deciding which vendors to work with, in this case, WiFi access points.

The management console for the WiFi access points is on-premise, and Ruckus Wireless WAN is deployed on-premises.

As my company has ninety facilities, its users of Ruckus Wireless WAN reach approximately three thousand to four thousand.

I would rate Ruckus Wireless WAN as eight out of ten because the functionality is excellent. The stability is great. You also get high reliability from the product. I can't rate it a ten, though, because of its price and you need to pay continuously.

I recommend the product to others for specific use cases. A disadvantage is that Ruckus Wireless WAN isn't always available. You can reserve it, but you can't buy it instantly, particularly in higher volumes. For a new nursing home, my company needs to buy forty to sixty at once, but that can't be done.

My company has no partnership with Ruckus.

The primary objective of these devices is to provide Wifi or a wireless environment.

We’ve had a wonderful experience so far.

It usually operates on mass technology, which is good. It has a controller, and you can control overall the map work or the equipment performance through that controller very efficiently. It has quite good bandwidth availability to accommodate many concurrent users.

It’s a stable solution. It’s reliable.

The solution is scalable.

I don't see anything which I can say there was a negative point for this product. In the last few years, we have never experienced any failure or any problem with this product.

The initial setup is complex.

We’ve been using the solution for the last five years.

The solution is stable and has been problem-free. It’s reliable. There are no bugs and issues. IT works smoothly and efficiently.

We have more than 200 users some days.

The scalability has been good so far.

We do plan to increase usage. We are adding some new areas, locations, and offices. We already have planned to deploy these. We’ve had excellent experiences over the past five years. We shall be extending a similar solution to the new locations.

Technical support is good. Sometimes we have to upgrade the firmware. At the time, we needed to upgrade the firmware, so we contacted the service teams and did everything. They are professional. We pay them and get good service. It’s not free. We have to pay.

We did use something in a previous building.

I have some experience with Cisco.

The implementation was complex. The setup was done in a multi-story building. Setting up the whole environment so that the different areas, different zones, and different localities we covered was a challenge. We had to work in quite a bit of detail. That was the concern at the time. You have to go into details so that you can manage it well.

The deployment was in two parts. One is the physical part, where we must deploy all equipment and the configuration part. The configuration took just one day to complete. The deployment part, over a multi-story building, took some time. It took maybe four to seven days. I don't remember exactly.

Since it was a new setup, it was a new environment; we had plenty of time to set up everything. That gave us quite enough room to cover any challenges which we faced. That said, being new, this was the first time that we were using this product. It took some time to understand some of the functions and some of the features of that product.

The deployment and maintenance is a one-person job. There isn’t much maintenance required. Sometimes if we see something overloaded or some switch is actually crowded, or if we connect with more users than the connections, we have to look at that. However, there's nothing much that we have to keep an eye on.

We had some local support available. With that help, the setup was no big challenge.

The deployment was kind of a mix of in-house versus outside assistance. Five years back, this was a new product for us. Based on the global reviews of this product, we took the decision to get some help.

We have witnessed an ROI. We saw an ROI after three or four years.

We pay a licensing fee on a yearly basis. It's for the support, what we’re paying for.

It’s moderately priced. I’d rate it 2.5 out of five in terms of affordability.

There are no additional costs involved.

We had other options in mind. We have a setup that is 15 years old. Before this, there were other equipment and hardware. This was a switch over to a new building and this actually caused us to switch over to new infrastructure.

If a potential new customer wants scalability, reliability, or efficiency, this one may be a better choice.

I’d rate the solution eight out of ten. There could be some improvements made in the future. However, I am mostly happy with the product.

We’re end-users of the product.

We are authorized distributors for Ruckus Wireless WAN.

I use Ruckus Wireless WAN and deploy it for my customers.

They use it for a variety of business cases, including the WiFi deployment for the business setup. If there are a lot of customers, with more than 100, or 200 branches, they prefer to have their own private cloud. They may want to deploy their own private cloud or simply use the public cloud. Corporate clients would prefer to use a virtual environment if they already have one; otherwise, they will opt for an on-premises hardware solution.

They have better WiFi coverage, in my opinion. The user has consistent network connectivity with no interruptions or business interruptions. 

They can use a voice video from the same device at the same time, and they have a great experience because my customers now have a greater number of our devices and are progressing to high-speed devices. 

My customer has requested that I increase the speed and bandwidth. They have achieved very high speed, stability, and reliability with the Ruckus deployment.

There are numerous features, but what I like about Ruckus is that they have a good coverage range due to their BeamFlex technique. When it comes to technology, we have a wide range of coverage in WiFi coverage scenarios. Based on that, we determine how many access points to allow in comparison to others. The BeamFLex+ is amazing. 

The demonstration and configuration of the GUI, are very easy. I don't have to be an expert on it. In terms of deployment, the GUI is very simple and user-friendly.

There are numerous other features, but this is one of the most impressive.

The method of documentation could be improved. To be honest, I don't like the documentation available on the Ruckus website. They are inserting multiple PDFs for each category of the PDF. There should be proper software with universal documentation. It is being done by a large number of vendors. They do not upload multiple documents in this manner. They only have one universal document. When you go there, you will find everything in one place. 

The documentation they do have is very difficult to understand. There should be some scenarios, deployments, complications, or techniques to follow. They are inadequate in that regard, and the documentation needs to be greatly improved.

The majority of WiFi competitors cover all of the features. WiFi standards have changed in response to the new versions. They compliment the new standards in the new versions or optimize it if there is a bug or a software release. However, in terms of the feature sets required in WiFi, I believe Ruckus has covered all of them.

I have been working with Ruckus Wireless WAN for more than five years.

I'm using the 5.0. I use the older version as well, but the most recent one is 5.2.

It can be deployed both on-premises and in the Cloud.

I have also deployed it on a private and public cloud. I did not use the public cloud for the customer, but I did use it for some testing.

I am completely satisfied and have no reservations. I have no complaints about the performance or stability of Ruckus Wireless WAN.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is scalable. A large number of devices can be scaled. If you already have a deployment, you can add more than 60 to the existing setup. They are related to the campus requirement, which is a very detailed part.

We have many customers who are using this solution. It is for corporate users, or anyone else. It's not just for IT professionals. It is available to everyone. There are no problems. You only require WiFi connectivity to use Ruckus WAN.

We may plan to increase our usage in the future, but not right now.

The initial setup is easy. It is not complex.

The deployment time is determined by the end customer's work and requirements. 

If the customer is a small business, we can finish it in one or two days.  If a corporate deployment type is required, we will need to integrate with another vendor.  If there are any special requirements, it could be more than that. As a result, we anticipate a corporate requirements deployment taking longer than a week. 

If there are a hundred access points, the process will take longer. The number of access points may also be reduced. Essentially, the features vary depending on the features. If you see that they have basic feature requirements, we can finish it in one or two days at most.

The first thing we do is hold a site meeting. End-to-end site meeting with the end customer to understand what they want from the deployment, and what features they want to deploy. We conduct a thorough site survey. We verify the BOQ and check that everything is as it should be. We crosscheck the requirements, to determine the challenges.

Then we look at the site's construction and implementation, as well as the current state of the site. We will devise a strategy.

The resellers will do the deployments, but if the reseller does not want to do it themselves, we will do it for them.

One person is more than enough for maintenance from a configuration standpoint, while two or three people are required for complete deployment and repair of the AP switches devices.

Technicians who will help us with mounting, follow-up, and other similar tasks.

The cost of licensing varies. It is determined by the discounts offered.

It is simple to implement, it works well, the performance is good, and easy to manage. I would definitely recommend it to others who are interested in using it.

From a WiFi perspective, I would rate Ruckus Wireless WAN a nine out of ten. I didn't give it a ten, because there is always some room to improve.