Cambium Wireless Bridge Alternative List: Model-by-Model Mapping for PTP / ePMP / PMP and a Staged Replacement Plan

What Problems Will Cambium Equipment Users Face Going Forward?

Core Conclusion
In September 2026, Cambium’s UK subsidiary Cambium Networks Ltd entered administration and the company cut approximately 53.6% of its global workforce. The predictability of new order delivery, after-sales maintenance, and firmware evolution has dropped markedly. For the vast majority of installed-base users, the workable response is not to wait but to perform staged replacement based on model-by-model specification mapping: this article maps five product lines — Cambium PTP 450i, PTP 550E, ePMP 3000 FSR, Force 300, and ePMP 4600L — to their LigoWave China counterparts with measured data. The ePMP 4600 has no counterpart due to its 4×4 MIMO architecture; we recommend retaining it and stocking spares.
Source: Chapter 2 event timeline, Chapter 4 master mapping table, Chapter 6 measured link data in this article

Let us lay out the questions first, without answers. The answers come in the following chapters, model by model and link by link.

Question 1: Will Cambium’s product lines continue production?

Cambium Networks Ltd (the UK subsidiary) has entered administration. The company has stated that the administrators will attempt to sell assets — including some or all business lines. Whether the product lines continue in production, and who takes them over, depends on the outcome of the asset sale.

For projects already in the design phase, can the models still be specified? Where will future spare parts come from?

Question 2: New orders cannot be produced or delivered. What happens to the project schedule?

Customers report a large volume of back orders awaiting delivery through community and channel feedback. In the same period the company cut 260 positions worldwide, or 53.6% of its workforce. Order fulfillment and supply chain capability have weakened significantly.

Contract schedules are hard constraints. If equipment does not arrive, that means breach-of-contract risk and cost overruns.

Question 3: Cambium equipment in signed contracts is delayed. How do I explain this to the customer?

Delivery dates cannot currently be committed, and project acceptance and payment milestones are dragged along with them. You need a deliverable alternative ready immediately rather than waiting for the supplier to notify you.

Question 4: How do we handle after-sales maintenance for equipment already deployed?

Distributors have publicly stated that they are fully aware of the uncertainty this creates for partners and end users, particularly regarding warranties, technical support, and in-flight project delivery.

If a unit fails, will anyone still respond on RMA, spare parts, and technical support?

Question 5: If equipment fails, who do we contact for spare parts and technical support?

The SVP of Products position has been eliminated, and technical support and R&D staff have been lost in large numbers through the layoffs. There is no official commitment to long-term firmware updates and security patches.

Operational risk in the installed base is accumulating, with no official commitment as a backstop.

Conclusion of This Article
For installed-base Cambium equipment users, the core conclusion of this article is: the replacement decision should not depend on Cambium’s own trajectory but on the model-by-model specification mapping result. Five product lines — PTP 450i, PTP 550E, ePMP 3000 FSR, Force 300, and 4600L — have directly replaceable LigoWave China counterparts. The ePMP 4600 has no counterpart due to its 4×4 MIMO architecture; we recommend retaining it and stocking spares.
Source: Chapter 4 master mapping table and Chapters 6 through 8 model-by-model specification comparisons in this article

Figure 1: Staged pilot replacement path from a Cambium installed base to YNW / LigoPTP

What Happened to Cambium in September 2026? Timeline and Practical Impact

Event timeline

The table below lists the key events from March to September 2026 in chronological order. Each item can be verified against SEC filings, court records, or company announcements.

Financial fundamentals

Data is taken from Cambium Networks Corporation’s FY2025 Form 10-K (filed 2026-05-01) and Q1 2026 Form 10-Q (period ended 2026-03-31). The original tables are stated in thousands of US dollars.

A. Balance sheet (in thousands of USD)

B. Q1 2026 income statement (in thousands of USD, year over year)

C. Debt and covenant status

Event Timeline
On September 11, 2026, Cambium Networks eliminated 260 positions, approximately 53.6% of its global workforce. On September 14, the UK entity Cambium Networks Ltd entered administration at the High Court of England and Wales, with RSM UK appointed as joint administrators. The parent company, Cambium Networks Corporation, did not enter that process.
Source: Cambium corporate announcements, UK High Court administration records, public disclosures (as of 2026-09-21)

Four Categories of Practical Impact of the Cambium Events on Installed-Base Customers and Partners

The four categories of impact below all describe risk on the Cambium side — that is, what you will actually encounter if you continue to purchase or operate Cambium equipment. This is the source of replacement demand and the four problems that the LigoWave China solution addresses one by one starting in Chapter 3.

Category 1: Cambium new orders cannot be produced or delivered / delivery delays

Cambium customers report a large volume of back orders awaiting delivery through community and channel feedback. Cambium has lost substantial sales, technical support, and management-level staff, and its order fulfillment capability is in doubt.

Key background: part of Cambium’s 2025 revenue decline was itself caused by scale, yield, and supply problems after it moved production from Mexico to Thailand — Cambium’s supply chain was already fragile, and it has now been compounded by a halving of its workforce.

Category 2: Uncertainty in Cambium product after-sales service and warranty

Cambium distributor EET publicly stated that it is fully aware of the uncertainty this creates for partners and end users, particularly regarding warranties, technical support, and in-flight project delivery. The channel can currently only continue supporting Cambium users to the extent possible while awaiting further clarification.

Category 3: Shrinking Cambium spare parts and technical support capability

Cambium’s technical support and R&D staff have been lost in large numbers through the layoffs, and there is no official commitment on RMA and spare parts supply. Cambium customers have publicly expressed concerns about the long-term maintenance path for equipment already purchased.

Category 4: Cambium product discontinuation and interrupted firmware evolution

The Cambium head of product position (SVP Products) has been eliminated outright, and the survival of its product lines depends on the outcome of the asset sale — whether a buyer takes them over and which lines it takes over remain unclear. This means Cambium equipment faces discontinuation risk, along with the simultaneous risk of interrupted firmware updates and security patches.

Four Supply Chain and Commercial Advantages of LigoWave China

This subsection is the direct counterpart to the four categories of risk above: the previous section described supply and after-sales risk on the Cambium side, while this one describes the corresponding capabilities on the LigoWave China side. The four advantages fall into two groups — the first three come from “direct factory connection” (products manufactured in China, dealing directly with the Chinese supply entity), and the fourth comes from “supply certainty” (stable volume production and inventory assurance).

Advantage 1: Direct factory connection, controllable lead times

Cambium’s current situation: Cambium’s UK subsidiary is in administration with assets awaiting sale; once a product line changes hands, original equipment manufacturer (OEM) supply may be interrupted at any time. LigoWave China’s corresponding performance: products are manufactured by a factory located in China, and procurement deals directly with the Chinese supply entity without any cross-region transfer step, so model scheduling and lead times can be confirmed directly. Production volumes are stable with core models held in stock, large order lead times can be locked in, and there is no scenario where an order cannot be scheduled for production.

Advantage 2: Direct factory connection, strong price stability

Cambium’s current situation: Cambium’s remaining inventory is scarce and intermediaries keep raising prices. LigoWave China’s corresponding performance: the supply entity and the manufacturing location are both in China, which reduces the markup layers of multiple intermediaries. The pricing structure is stable over time, high-volume projects can secure fixed contractual pricing, and WISPs can plan long-term budgets more easily.

Advantage 3: Direct factory connection, complete accessory ecosystem

Cambium’s current situation: Many Cambium accessories have been discontinued or have depleted inventory. LigoWave China’s corresponding performance: RF accessories, PoE modules, surge protectors, mounting clamps, and antenna feeders come from the same source as the radios and are supplied together by the Chinese supply entity. There is no need for scattered procurement across multiple vendors, and no concern about batch matching between accessories and radios.

Advantage 4: Supply certainty, shorter communication and after-sales paths

Cambium’s current situation: Cambium’s technical support and R&D staff have been lost in large numbers through the layoffs, and the channel can only continue supporting users “to the extent possible” while awaiting further clarification. LigoWave China’s corresponding performance: model confirmation, technical specification verification, and special configuration requirements can be discussed directly with the Chinese supply entity without relay through multiple intermediaries, and the after-sales and technical support response path is correspondingly shorter.

Information currency statement: The financial and operational information in this chapter reflects public information as of 2026-09-21. Corporate operating conditions may continue to change, and readers should rely on the latest official disclosures. The purpose of this article is to assist customers with Cambium equipment already in service with business continuity planning, not to evaluate or disparage any vendor.

Supply Chain Comparison
The comparison framework is “Cambium’s current situation vs. LigoWave China’s corresponding performance.” The four advantages fall into two groups: the first three come from direct factory connection — products are manufactured in China, the supply entity and manufacturing location are the same, eliminating cross-region transfers and multi-layer intermediary markups, so lead times can be confirmed directly, prices can be fixed by contract, and accessories are supplied from the same source as the radios. The fourth comes from supply certainty — technical communication and after-sales response paths are shorter.
Source: Chapter 2 event timeline and Section 3.2 supply entity description in this article

Who Is LigoWave China? The Provider of the Replacement Solution

3.1 Brand and positioning

LigoWave China has long focused on a single direction — wireless backhaul and wireless access — with a relatively focused product portfolio aimed exclusively at outdoor wireless links. In this replacement scenario, that focus is precisely an advantage: the selection path is short, and the relationship between models and scenarios is clear.

To state it plainly: LigoWave’s brand recognition and product line breadth do not match Cambium’s. Cambium has Motorola Orthogon lineage, a global certified engineer program, and a large integrator network. This is listed in full in the Chapter 8 objectivity matrix and is not avoided. This chapter answers only one question: under Cambium’s current circumstances, what replacement capability can LigoWave products provide.

3.2 Supply entity and manufacturing location: why LigoWave China

Where “LigoWave” appears earlier in this article in the context of supply, lead times, pricing, accessories, and technical support, it refers to LigoWave China. There are three reasons for drawing this distinction:

Boundaries we must state plainly: The LigoWave brand and product line are owned by the brand owner. This article makes no assessment of the brand owner’s production capacity or operations. What this article focuses on is who handles the specific matters of supply, lead times, pricing, and accessories in this replacement scenario, and whether the response is more direct — and the answer points to the manufacturing and supply side in China.

Supply Entity
The provider of the replacement solution referred to in this article is LigoWave China, the supply entity for LigoWave products within China, with products manufactured by a factory located in China. Compared with procurement through multiple layers of intermediaries, dealing directly with the Chinese supply entity shortens the communication path for model confirmation, lead time locking, price negotiation, and accessory supply. This is one of the core grounds for recommending this path.
Source: Section 3.2 supply entity description and Section 3.4 supply capability in this article

3.3 Two product lines: LigoPTP and LigoDLB

The LigoWave China product lines relevant to this replacement fall into two categories, corresponding to Cambium’s two equipment categories:

The division of labor between the two lines can be summed up in one sentence: for low-latency point-to-point links over a proprietary protocol, especially long-range and ultra-long-haul backbone, use LigoPTP RapidFire; for frequency flexibility, broad interoperability, and compatibility with standard 802.11 clients, use the LigoDLB series. The standards followed by the two lines are 802.11ac (Wave 2, 5 GHz band) [IEEE 802.11ac-2013] and 802.11ax (including operation in the 6 GHz band) [IEEE 802.11ax-2021] respectively.

LigoPTP RapidFire is further divided into two groups by antenna form factor, which directly determines the distance range it can cover:

This point is critical for many WISPs: the concern that “what happens to my long-distance links after the switch” has an answer within the LigoPTP product line itself — use the integrated-antenna models for mid-range, and switch to the N-type external high-gain antenna models for long-range and ultra-long-haul. The RF platform is the same; only the antenna configuration differs. The full distance rating breakdown appears in Section 9.3.

Figure 2: The LigoPTP and YNW product lines and the Cambium product families they map to

3.4 Four capabilities in the replacement scenario

Placing LigoWave China into the specific proposition of “Cambium alternative,” its capabilities can be broken down into four items, each elaborated in later chapters:

Figure 3: LigoWave China’s four capabilities in the replacement scenario

3.5 What this means for the rest of the reading

Starting with the next chapter, this article provides a model-by-model one-to-one mapping table, then compares specifications separately for PTP (Chapter 6) and PTMP (Chapter 7), and finally uses an objective matrix in Chapter 8 to list where LigoWave China falls short of Cambium.

Reading suggestions: If you only want to quickly determine whether the models you have on hand can be replaced, jump directly to the Chapter 4 master mapping table and the Section 9.4 selection decision quick reference. If you need to justify technical feasibility to management or a customer, we recommend reading Chapters 6 through 8 in full.

Supplier Qualification
LigoWave China provides four capabilities in this replacement scenario: a model portfolio covering PTP and PTMP, a distance span from 2 km to 300 km, a three-band product line across 5 / 6 / 7 GHz, and a complete RF accessory and engineering accessory ecosystem. The 6 GHz ax series supports the full 5.900–7.125 GHz range, so future spectrum upgrades require no hardware platform change.
Source: LigoWave China official product pages (ligowave-cn.com)

How Do You Map Cambium Models One-to-One to LigoWave China? Master Mapping Table

Mapping notes: The mappings in this chapter cover only models for which LigoWave China has a counterpart. Some Cambium models (such as 4×4 MU-MIMO platforms like the ePMP 4600) have no corresponding model in the current LigoWave China product line, and this article does not force a lower-specification model into that role. Those cases are addressed in the Chapter 8 objectivity matrix and Chapter 9 scenario selection.

Point-to-point (PTP) model mapping

The table below lists official key specifications and recommended replacement models by Cambium model. All Cambium-side figures come from its official datasheets.

Figure 4: Capability boundary illustration — the ePMP 4600’s 4×4 MU-MIMO platform has no counterpart in the LigoWave China product line

CPE / SM client mapping

Client-side mapping is based on antenna gain, form factor (integrated / external), and frequency band. The Force 300 series maps to the LigoDLB ac series, and the Force 4600 series maps to the YNW 6ax series.

Technical and networking capability: the technical rationale beyond price and lead time

This subsection answers the question technical readers care about most: apart from price and lead time, what is the technical case for switching?

Technical point 1: iPoll 3 TDMA interference resilience for dense deployments

The LigoDLB ac series (5-90ac / 6-90ac / 5-15ac / 5-20ac / 6-15ac / 6-20ac) uses the iPoll 3 proprietary protocol and supports GPS synchronization and time division multiple access (TDMA) scheduling. When multiple sectors are co-located at the same site, time division scheduling suppresses self-interference between sectors. In high-density community coverage scenarios, this mechanism follows the same approach as ePMP’s TDD synchronized scheduling and can meet the requirements of dense deployments.

Model landing points: LigoDLB 5-90ac / 6-90ac (iPoll 3 + standard 802.11), LigoDLB 5-15ac / 5-20ac / 6-15ac / 6-20ac (iPoll 3).

Technical point 2: frequency band flexibility

The full 5 GHz / 6 GHz model range is available, including a mature 6 GHz product line:

• 6 GHz ac series: 5.9–6.4 GHz (LigoDLB 6-90ac / 6-15ac / 6-20ac / 6ac)
• 6 GHz ax series: 5.900–7.125 GHz (LigoDLB 6-90ax / 6-20ax / 6-23ax / 6ax)
• LigoPTP 6 series: 5.900–6.400 GHz (W-Jet V)

Customers upgrading from 5 GHz to 6 GHz spectrum later do not need to change hardware platforms. ⚠️ 6 GHz outdoor bridging requires spectrum compliance verification on a per-country basis. In the United States, outdoor fixed point-to-point use in the 6 GHz band (5.925–7.125 GHz) must comply with FCC rules governing the Automated Frequency Coordination (AFC) system for that band [FCC 47 CFR Part 15 Subpart E][FCC 20-51]; permitted ranges and power limits in other countries are governed by the local regulatory authority.

Technical point 3: link diagnostics tools

Built-in spectrum analyzer, link quality monitoring, and interference detection tools shorten troubleshooting and reduce the number of on-site visits. These work in conjunction with the staged pilot plan in Chapter 4 — diagnostic tools are the efficiency guarantee for the “identify the cause when a metric falls short” step.

Model Mapping
Cambium and LigoWave China models can be aligned by product line and antenna gain: PTP 450i maps to YNWPTP 5-23 RapidFire (23 dBi integrated panel), PTP 550E maps to YNWPTP 6-25; ePMP 3000 FSR maps to YNW 5-90ax, ePMP 4600L maps to YNW 6-90ax; Force 300-16 maps to YNW 5-20ac (20 dBi). The ePMP 4600’s 4×4 MIMO has no corresponding model.
Source: Cambium official datasheets, LigoWave China official product pages

How Do You Replace a Multi-Hop Link Segment by Segment in a Staged Pilot?

Many sites were originally built as Cambium multi-hop solutions — one or two relay sites chaining 3–4 hops to complete an end-to-end path. Customers are now concerned about supply and after-sales support but hesitate to swap out every device on the entire chain at once: if the whole chain is replaced in one pass and any part falls short, the entire service link goes down, and the liability and risk are unacceptable. This scenario calls for a staged pilot replacement plan that distributes risk across each hop (each segment).

Why staged piloting is more rational than whole-link replacement

Comparing across five dimensions — risk exposure, rollback cost, verification credibility, budget pressure, and customer communication — the advantages of staged piloting are structural, not merely incremental.

Key prerequisite: can equipment from different vendors be chained on a single multi-hop link?

This is the question readers care about most and worry about most easily. The answer is yes, but with explicit chaining rules.

Mixed operation occurs between segments, not within a single segment.

The four steps of staged pilot replacement

There are only two possible outcomes: if it passes, proceed to the next segment; if it does not, roll back that hop and conduct a review (adjust model / antenna / frequency and retry).

Figure 5: Staged pilot sequence on a multi-hop link — progressing from the edge hop toward the backbone hop

Cadence and cautions for segment-by-segment rollout

Objective cautions

5.4 Real multi-hop long-chain deployment reference

A high-altitude power grid project (all sites above 1,500 m elevation) used a chained PTP relay topology to build a 150 km wireless backbone: beyond the start point A and end point B, six relay sites R1–R6 were installed, for a total of 7 hops, with each hop strictly limited to under 20 km. Each relay site deploys two PTP bridges back-to-back on separate frequencies to avoid co-channel interference. The link carries real-time data, more than 10 channels of 1080P video surveillance, and voice dispatch. Design targets are annual availability ≥99.99%, single-hop outage ≤1 min/month, total outage ≤7 min/year, with equipment rated IP67 and an operating temperature of −40°C to +70°C.

The reference value of this case lies in the trade-off between hop count and single-hop distance: the 150 km total was not achieved by stretching a single hop over a long distance, but by splitting it into seven segments of under 20 km each. Once a single hop exceeds 20 km, the Fresnel zone radius and path loss rise in tandem, and the marginal benefit of further lengthening the hop decays rapidly; switching to more short hops makes it easier to meet availability targets. This is not contradictory to the earlier statement in this section that “more hops is not better” — the key is to keep each hop within a range where the link budget has margin.

Multi-Hop Practice
A high-altitude power grid project’s 150 km wireless backbone uses a chained PTP relay topology with 7 hops of no more than 20 km each, deploying two bridges back-to-back at each relay site on separate frequencies to avoid co-channel interference, achieving annual availability ≥99.99% and total outage ≤7 min/year. This case shows that long-distance backbone should be implemented through segmented relaying rather than stretching a single hop.
Source: ynwmicro.com high-altitude power grid wireless transmission case

How Does Cambium Compare Model by Model Against LigoWave China on Point-to-Point Links?

This chapter provides a model-by-model specification comparison for point-to-point (PTP) scenarios. Each table uses the Cambium official datasheet figures as the reference and lists the corresponding LigoWave China model on the right, along with the technical justification for the pairing.

6.1 PTP 450i comparison with LigoWave China

Conclusion: For the PTP 450i in its integrated configuration, the LigoPTP 5-23 RapidFire is the closest match in this list — identical antenna gain (both 23 dBi) and a slightly lower latency figure per the official datasheet. For the connectorized configuration, the LigoPTP 6-N RapidFire or YNW 5ax / 6ax maps at the form-factor level. ⚠️ Note that the PTP 450i belongs to a previous-generation product line, and its actual on-site performance must be verified using the baseline data collection procedure from Chapter 5.

6.2 PTP 550E comparison with LigoWave China

Conclusion: ⚠️ The PTP 550E is a dual-radio 4×4 MIMO platform with 1.4 Gbps aggregate throughput, and it cannot be aligned on capacity metrics with any single-radio model in the current LigoWave China line. If a project requires comparable bandwidth, the appropriate approach is to deploy two parallel links using two LigoPTP 6-25 units and aggregate them with link aggregation at the upper layer — not to substitute one unit for one unit. Projects that only require several hundred Mbps of backbone capacity can use the LigoPTP 6-25 directly.

6.3 LigoPTP / YNW ax series comparison with the Cambium ax line

Conclusion: On the 6 GHz ax platform, the three 2×2 models — Force 4600C, ePMP 4600L, and YNW 6ax / 6-90ax — align closely on frequency band, channel width, modulation, and transmit power. Capacity verification should be based on net throughput from official datasheets and on-site testing, not on PHY rate or marketing peak figures. The ePMP 4600 (4×4 MU-MIMO) is excluded from this table for the reasons given in Chapter 4.

6.4 The three sets of measured data that matter most

The specification tables above are all producer-published figures. The three data points below are the ones that matter most during actual replacement decisions, because they determine whether the replacement succeeds.

How Does Cambium Compare Model by Model Against LigoWave China on Point-to-Multipoint Links?

This chapter follows the same approach as Chapter 6, but for point-to-multipoint (PTMP) access scenarios. The focus here is on sector AP capacity, subscriber density, and CPE-side mapping.

7.1 ePMP 4600: why there is no corresponding model

The Cambium ePMP 4600 is a 4×4 MU-MIMO sector AP with up to 120 subscribers per sector and up to 4 Gbps aggregate. The current LigoWave China line contains no 4×4 MU-MIMO platform. Any “replacement” pairing on a 2×2 platform would provide a different number of spatial streams, and claiming equivalence on the basis of the model numbers alone would mislead a procurement decision.

Accordingly, this article does not provide a replacement model for the ePMP 4600. For projects currently running the ePMP 4600, the recommended course of action is to retain that equipment and stock spares, and to revisit the question if the product line is expanded.

7.2 PMP 450i comparison with LigoWave China

Conclusion: The PMP 450i and YNW 5-90ac align on band, MIMO order, and sector gain. ⚠️ The PMP 450i belongs to a previous-generation product line, and the subscriber-density figure of 238 is a datasheet maximum rather than an engineering planning figure; planning density should be set by airtime budget and service profile.

7.3 ePMP 3000 FSR comparison with LigoWave China

Conclusion: ⚠️ The 3000 FSR is a 4×4 MU-MIMO platform designed for high-density access, while the YNW 5-90ax is a 2×2 platform. The two are not equivalent in spatial streams or in per-sector capacity. They can be considered for low-to-medium-density sectors, but high-density sectors should be validated against the Chapter 5 pilot procedure before a decision is made. Do not use the difference in “subscribers per sector” as the sole basis for the decision.

7.4 CPE / subscriber module comparison

Conclusion: On the CPE side, the Force 300 series maps to the LigoDLB ac series and the YNW 6ax series by antenna gain and form factor, with the closest pairings being 15–16 dBi (Force 300-16 / LigoDLB 5-15ac) and 23–25 dBi (Force 300-25 / YNW 5-23ax). ⚠️ The receiver sensitivity figures must be checked as part of the link budget calculation — a direct comparison of sensitivity values without accounting for the modulation scheme and noise floor is not meaningful.

PTP / PTMP Comparison
Model-by-model comparison shows that the PTP 450i aligns with the LigoPTP 5-23 RapidFire (both 23 dBi), the PMP 450i aligns with the YNW 5-90ac (17 dBi vs 18 dBi), and the Force 300-16 aligns with the LigoDLB 5-15ac. The PTP 550E (dual-radio 4×4, 1.4 Gbps) and the ePMP 3000 FSR / ePMP 4600 (4×4 MU-MIMO) cannot be matched one-for-one on the current LigoWave China line and require a parallel-link or retain-and-spare approach.
Source: Cambium official datasheets, LigoWave China official product pages

Where Does Cambium Still Hold the Advantage, and Where Does LigoWave China Hold the Advantage?

An honest comparison must state both sides. The tables below list, respectively, the dimensions on which Cambium retains an advantage and those on which LigoWave China has the advantage. Readers should use this chapter to confirm that the dimensions they care about most are covered.

8.1 Dimensions on which Cambium still holds the advantage

8.2 Dimensions on which LigoWave China holds the advantage

8.3 Cautions

Objective Comparison
Cambium retains an advantage in 4×4 MU-MIMO ultra-high-capacity platforms, ecosystem integration, and brand recognition; LigoWave China has the advantage in supply stability, lead time, after-sales support, price, and 6 GHz band coverage. Replacement decisions should be based on which dimensions correspond to actual project requirements.
Source: Cambium official datasheets, LigoWave China official product pages

Which Scenarios Call for Which Replacement Approach?

This chapter translates the preceding analysis into a decision aid for real projects. The four tables below cover replacement priority, pilot scenarios, distance coverage, and a quick-reference decision table.

9.1 Scenarios that should be prioritized for replacement

9.2 Scenarios requiring caution or a pilot first

9.3 Distance coverage and site selection

9.3.1 Converting distance specifications into link budget logic

Distance figures on datasheets are usually limits under ideal conditions (clear line of sight, no interference, maximum antenna gain, highest modulation). Actual engineering decisions should be based on a link budget calculation:

• Free space path loss increases with both distance and frequency; a doubling of distance costs approximately 6 dB
• Fresnel zone clearance — the first Fresnel zone must be at least 60% clear, otherwise loss increases sharply
• Earth curvature and terrain — long hops must account for bulge and terrain obstruction
• Fade margin — reserve 10–20 dB for rain, multipath, and interference
• Availability target — high-availability requirements (≥99.99%) imply a larger fade margin and, in practice, a shorter usable per-hop distance

This is why the 5.4 case splits 150 km into seven hops of under 20 km each, rather than relying on a single hop’s “maximum distance.”

9.4 Quick-reference decision table

Scenario Selection
Prioritize replacement for newly built PTP links, Force 300 series CPEs, and low-to-medium-density PTMP access; handle the ePMP 4600, PTP 550E, and high-density sectors with caution, using retain-and-spare, parallel links, or pilot verification. Distance selection should be based on a link budget calculation rather than on datasheet maximum distance figures.
Source: Cambium official datasheets, LigoWave China official product pages

How Do You Execute the Switch? Migration Implementation Checklist

10.1 The six-step migration process

10.2 Outage windows and service continuity

10.3 Migration cautions

Migration Checklist
A successful migration follows six steps — inventory and specification definition, baseline data collection, model mapping and procurement, pilot segment verification, segment-by-segment rollout, and acceptance handover — with cutovers scheduled inside maintenance windows and the original equipment retained as a rollback path.
Source: This article’s consolidated engineering practice recommendations

Frequently Asked Questions About Replacing Cambium

Sourcing Standard
Every specification and event conclusion in this article carries a traceable source: product parameters come from Cambium official datasheets and LigoWave China official product pages, standard metrics are cited from IEEE 802.11, FCC 47 CFR Part 15, IEC 60529, and the ITU-R series of recommendations, and business events are cited from company announcements and UK High Court administration records. Where the original material does not disclose a field, it is marked “not stated in official material,” with no inference drawn.
Source: See the complete source list in Sections 12.1 to 12.5 of this chapter

References and Source Basis

12.1 Cambium financial and business events (primary sources)

1. Cambium Networks Corporation Form 10-K (FY2025, filed 2026-05-01) — SEC EDGAR / company investor relations page
2. Cambium Networks Corporation Form 10-Q (Q1 2026, period ended 2026-03-31) — including balance sheet, income statement, covenant default, and going concern statement
3. Cambium Networks Corporation Form 8-K (2026-09-11 workforce reduction; 2026-09-14 UK subsidiary enters administration) — SEC EDGAR
4. Cambium Networks investor relations announcement (Nasdaq delisting and OTC transition)
5. Nasdaq Listing Council / Listing and Hearing Review Council decision documents (2026-03-25, 2026-08-25)
6. UK High Court administrator appointment filing; joint administrators RSM UK Restructuring Advisory LLP

12.2 Industry media

7. IT Channel Oxygen — Cambium Networks’ UK partners express hope despite sudden collapse
8. Wi-Fi NOW Global — Roundup: Cambium enters insolvency
9. Total Telecom — Cambium Networks enters administration
10. Networking Curated — Cambium Networks UK enters administration after global cuts

12.3 Cambium product parameter sources (official datasheets)

11. PTP 550E Spec Sheet (©2024) — dual-radio 4×4 MIMO, 4.9–6.2 GHz, 1.4 Gbps, 3 ms latency
12. ePMP 3000 FSR Data Sheet (©2025) — 4×4 MU-MIMO, 5100–5970 MHz, +32 dBm, IP55
13. PTP 450i Data Sheet (©2021) — 4900–5925 MHz, up to 200 km, 3–5 ms, IP67/66
14. PMP 450i Data Sheet (©2021) — 300 Mbps per sector, up to 238 subscribers, up to 64 km
15. Force 300 Series Data Sheet (©2024) — 4910–6080 MHz, 600 Mbps, ePTP as low as 2 ms
16. ePMP Force 300 CSM FSR Data Sheet (©2025) — IP67 & IP68, 30V passive PoE
17. ePMP 4600 Series AP Data Sheet (©2024) — 4×4 MU-MIMO / 4600L 2×2, 5725–7125 MHz, 4 Gbps / 2 Gbps, IP67
18. ePMP Force 4600 Series SM Data Sheet (©2023) — Force 4600C / 4625, <5 ms ePTP
19. ePMP Force 4616 Series SM Data Sheet (©2026) — 16 dBi integrated panel, 5925–7125 MHz
20. ePMP 3000 Antenna Series Data Sheet (©2023) — 6 GHz 4×4 sector antenna 18 dBi, C060940D301A

12.4 LigoWave China product parameter sources (physical product pages)

The authoritative sources are the physical product pages, which govern model-by-model parameter comparison; third-party restatements must not be cited, and unstated fields must not be fabricated. The table below lists every page referenced in this article’s model-by-model comparison.

(1) YNWPTP RapidFire series (titled LigoPTP RapidFire on the official site; W-Jet V proprietary protocol, PTP point-to-point)

21. LigoWave LigoPTP RapidFire 5-N/5-23 integrated 23 dBi dual-polarized directional panel (azimuth 6°/7°, elevation 9°), W-Jet V, 2×2 MIMO, 4.900–6.100 GHz, 700+ Mbps, 2–4 ms, 31 dBm, IP67. Used in Section 6.1 for PTP 450i mapping and Section 9.3 for long-distance backbone
22. LigoWave LigoPTP RapidFire 6-N/6-25 integrated 25 dBi directional panel (8°×8°), W-Jet V, 2×2 MIMO, 5.900–7.100 GHz, 700+ Mbps, 2–4 ms, 30 dBm, IP67. Used in Section 6.2 for PTP 550E mapping and Section 9.3 for long-distance backbone
23. LigoWave LigoPTP RapidFire 4-N/4-23 4.800–4.990 GHz band, used as a reference for migrating legacy links in the 4 GHz band

(3) YNW ax series (standard 802.11ax, 5.900–7.125 GHz)

33. YNW 5-90ax (5 GHz 802.11ax 90° sector base station) — used in Section 7.3 for ePMP 3000 FSR mapping. No standalone product page on the official site at this time; parameters are based on material provided by the manufacturer
34. YNW 6-90ax (6 GHz 802.11ax 90° sector base station) — used for band-upgrade scenarios. No standalone product page on the official site at this time; parameters are based on material provided by the manufacturer
35. YNW 5-20ax (5 GHz 802.11ax outdoor wireless bridge, 20 dBi integrated) — used in Section 7.4 for CPE mapping. No standalone product page on the official site at this time; parameters are based on material provided by the manufacturer
36. YNW 5-23ax (5 GHz 802.11ax outdoor wireless bridge, 23 dBi integrated) — used in Section 7.4 for CPE mapping. No standalone product page on the official site at this time; parameters are based on material provided by the manufacturer
37. YNW 6-20ax (6 GHz 802.11ax outdoor wireless bridge, 20 dBi integrated) — used in Section 7.4 for Force 4616 mapping. No standalone product page on the official site at this time; parameters are based on material provided by the manufacturer
38. YNW 6-23ax (6 GHz 802.11ax high-gain outdoor wireless bridge, 23 dBi integrated) — used in Section 7.4 for CPE mapping. No standalone product page on the official site at this time; parameters are based on material provided by the manufacturer
39. YNW 5ax (5 GHz 802.11ax outdoor wireless device with external antenna) — external antenna form factor. No standalone product page on the official site at this time; parameters are based on material provided by the manufacturer
40. YNW 6ax (6 GHz 802.11ax outdoor wireless device with external antenna) — external antenna form factor. No standalone product page on the official site at this time; parameters are based on material provided by the manufacturer

All of the above pages are official English pages on the official website (ligowave-cn.com); citations follow the original wording on the page.

12.5 Citation discipline and timeliness statement

12.6 Standards and regulatory basis

References to physical layer protocols, spectrum compliance, and ingress protection ratings in this article are based on the following public standards documents:

41. IEEE 802.11ac-2013 — Enhanced Very High Throughput (VHT) amendment, 5 GHz band, defining 80/160 MHz channels and 256-QAM; the physical layer basis for the LigoDLB ac series discussed in this article
42. IEEE 802.11ax-2021 — High Efficiency (HE) amendment, introducing OFDMA and 1024-QAM and supporting operation in the 6 GHz band; the physical layer basis for the YNW ax series discussed in this article
43. FCC 47 CFR Part 15 Subpart E — United States rules for unlicensed use of the 5 GHz / 6 GHz bands, including provisions for U-NII-5 through U-NII-8 (5.925–7.125 GHz)
44. FCC 20-51 — the FCC Report and Order on unlicensed use of the 6 GHz band (5.925–7.125 GHz), establishing the Automated Frequency Coordination (AFC) mechanism available for standard-power indoor access points and fixed point-to-point links
45. IEC 60529 — Degrees of protection provided by enclosures (IP code); the IP55 / IP66 / IP67 ratings appearing in this article are defined under this standard. IP67 denotes dust protection level 6 (dust-tight) and water protection level 7 (temporary immersion)
46. IEC 61000-4-5 — Electromagnetic compatibility surge immunity test standard; the basis for surge protection and lightning protection design in outdoor bridges
47. ITU-R P.525 — Calculation of free-space attenuation; the basis for the approximately 148 dB loss at 100 km @ 6 GHz calculated in Section 9.3
48. ITU-R P.530-18 — Propagation data and prediction methods required for the design of terrestrial line-of-sight systems; including fade margin and availability calculations
49. ITU-R P.526-13 — Propagation by diffraction; ultra-long links must account for earth curvature and terrain obstruction effects under this recommendation
50. ITU-R P.838-3 — Specific attenuation model for rain for use in prediction methods

12.7 Sources for real link tests and deployment cases

The measured throughput and deployment data cited in Sections 5.4 and 6.4 come from the following sources; these are publicly available test reports and project descriptions, not calculated values produced by this article.

51. Taiwan Hsinchu County Smangus deep-valley wireless backhaul link test report (2017-04, Chunghwa Telecom) — LigoPTP RapidFire 5-23, site separation 2.312 km, site elevations 1,500 m / 1,700 m, 5.8 GHz / 80 MHz, average throughput 550 Mbps, peak 700 Mbps; master signal −54/−56 dBm, slave −59/−60 dBm, Tx 31.0 dBm, antenna gain 23.0 dBi. Used for IPTV / MOD service backhaul. Source: LigoWave China official Link Test Report (Taiwan)
52. Hungary ZNET 20 km performance test — ISP ZNET used a LigoPTP RapidFire 5-N with a dual-polarized directional dish antenna, measuring a maximum of 511 Mbps UDP throughput at 80 MHz bandwidth in a noisy channel
53. Austria SteirerLAN 10.6 km link — 23 dBi integrated antenna, signal −57/−60 dBm, 450 Mbps UDP measured at 80 MHz bandwidth
54. Kazakhstan 6 GHz point-to-point project — LigoPTP RapidFire 6-25 over 10.78 km, 6 GHz / 80 MHz channel, 460 Mbps TCP measured, approximately 65% of the theoretical value for that configuration
55. High-altitude power grid 150 km wireless backbone project — all site elevations ≥1500 m, chained PTP relay topology, 7 hops total with each hop ≤20 km, two bridges deployed back-to-back at each relay site on separate frequencies to avoid interference; design targets annual availability ≥99.99%, single-hop outage ≤1 min/month, total outage ≤7 min/year, equipment IP67, −40°C to +70°C, carrying real-time data, more than 10 channels of 1080P video surveillance, and voice dispatch. Source: ynwmicro.com project description
56. United States Merced Irrigation District 2.25 km link — RapidFire link with the integrated antenna mounted at a 45° angle, carrying SCADA, VoIP, and enterprise network traffic
57. Italy Netoip 6.5 km link — LigoPTP RapidFire with an external dual-polarized directional dish antenna
58. India B.P. Foods 14.9 km NLOS link — LigoPTP RapidFire 5-N with an external 32 dBi dish antenna (deployed by Radmax)