Cisco Wireless Reviews

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.

We used Cisco wireless for medical centers, including remote locations where the regional GMO and RMO are situated. They required real-time connectivity to maintain in-patient reports.

Cisco is one of the leading brands, particularly in the commercial sector. Other brands such as Extreme, cater to different categories at lower levels. Cisco maintains a comprehensive product range across all levels and excels in comparison to other networking sites. They also boast a team of highly qualified professionals, a feature that sets them apart from competitors like Netgear, which lacks such expertise.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable but they have a limitation to each and every product based on the price points. If you go beyond that, there is a proxy error.
Five people are using this solution. 

We have good support from Cisco Wireless. We've never encountered any technical issues when going through them because once we follow the deployment plan and its steps, any repairs or detections are usually straightforward. If we deviate from the plan, we might encounter difficulties, as we lack the necessary tools.

The initial setup is straightforward unless it's a manageable task; otherwise, we must configure their own parameters.

For deployment, there are manuals available with instructions for both manual setup and automated setup. Based on these instructions, the technician will proceed to configure the Cisco wireless system using the provided panels.

Most devices are connected wirelessly. Previously, there were few security features, but now security measures are robust. They offer protection, so people trust the technology and use it.

The product is expensive.

They have to have a permanent license. Without a license, we can't access the cloud. There is cloud management available, but it comes with a cost.

These devices are not very complicated. They have a standard but extensive functionality that is really helpful. The standard feature is reliable data connectivity followed by bandwidth. However, the devices are almost the same because they meet the user requirements.

Mostly, government or any corporate clients will prefer a standard product in their infrastructure.

I recommend the solution depending on their budget. If they are willing to opt for a brand with prestige and reliability, then they can choose Cisco. Additionally, for a budget-friendly option, Alibaba is also available. So, if they aim to keep costs within certain limits, they can consider these options. However, government institutions may face constraints due to their funding limitations. In such environments, they may not prioritize premium solutions. Let's delve deeper into this. They might include that particular brand in a closed-end project. However, companies typically prioritize their annual costs and overall expenses.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine to ten out of ten.

When we transitioned to using Cisco Wireless for our network access, it significantly improved our reliability and coverage. Previously, we had sporadic access points and inconsistent configurations, leading to security issues and disruptions. We implemented a policy-based infrastructure, securing our Wi-Fi network and ensuring connectivity to our ERP and email systems.

The most valuable features for network security with Cisco Wireless were the policy enforcement capabilities. Once the approved policy was implemented, it ensured secure access and control over the network, which was crucial for maintaining security standards.       

The deployment of Cisco Wireless is centralized, offering native security features at the access points. Regarding price, it might be considered expensive, but if the features and ease of use are proven effective, it's worth it.

I have been using Cisco Wireless since the least 10 years.

The stability of Cisco Wireless was excellent, with no complaints about downtime.

Regarding scalability, our organization, being a public sector entity, didn't face scalability issues as we were already optimized. There were no plans for expansion or increasing device numbers.

We never had to contact tech support for Cisco Wireless as we didn't encounter any issues requiring assistance. Maintenance services weren't utilized, so I can't comment on their impact. 

Deploying Cisco Wireless was straightforward for us as it was managed by the IT department. We didn't encounter any major issues during deployment. The process involved assessing placement for access points across the campus to ensure seamless coverage. Deployment could be done on-premises if needed.

One piece of advice I'd give is to understand the deployment process thoroughly before starting. It's important to have a solid infrastructure design in place before implementing Cisco Wireless. Regarding cost, while it may seem expensive initially, if the features align with your needs, it's worth considering. 

We primarily use the solution for our handheld devices. We have about 30 most likely that are medical hand-held devices. We do have a lot of wireless devices out there, including carts. We've got Vocera Badges that we use.

The support offered by Cisco is excellent. They are very responsive and knowledgeable.

The functionality of the solution is very good.

The most difficult part of the solution is us juggling everything. There are eight access points that we have to deal with. They have a tendency to age out. After five years, they go off sale. Then, five years after that, that they're out of support. Usually, when you get a new access point, we have to get to a certain version to get everything to work. However, on top of that, the ones we had 10 years ago are no longer functioning. They make it a complicated battle to try to keep your equipment at proper revisions, all at the time. They kind of force you to upgrade now. 

Apple is definitely causing a lot of issues by turning on more security features on its equipment. It is causing more problems on the business side. One is what they call a randomized Mac address that Apple has put out. As far as I know, Cisco doesn't have a fix for that. In other words, it's there to protect the end-user when they're on a guest network or they use randomized Mac addresses. We were trying to implement an employee group that would track the individual via the Mac. Now that it's rotating, we don't have a way to configure that.

I need to figure out how to handle security features that product lines have that offer a non-standard type of security feature that is being turned on constantly by different vendors. iPad also gives us isses. They have it set up so that you don't see the Mac address and the wireless at all. You can't even track your device anymore. I just discovered that last week.

We've been using the solution for about 15 years at this point It's been a good long while.

The solution is pretty solid in terms of stability. Out of a rating of ten, I would give them a nine. It's reliable and doesn't crash or freeze. It's not buggy at all.

I would describe the solution as scalable. If a company needs to grow it out they can do so pretty easily.

We're big fans of technical support. It's one of the solution's big selling features. We've very satisfied with the level of support they provide us.

I also have experience with Aruba. I'd say that Cisco is a bit more complicated to set up.

That said, we went to Cisco from day one - even before they had wireless controllers. Cisco is our go-to solution.

The initial setup is probably a little bit more complex than Aruba from what I've seen so far. It's not simple per se.

I don't handle the pricing. I don't have it in front of me. I'm not sure what the monthly costs are for our organization.

We're just a customer.

The solution is fairly up-to-date, however, we aren't using the most recent version of the solution right now.

Overall, I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. We've used it for years and it's worked quite well for us with very little issues to speak of.

We have to set up the whole solution. The wireless network is a big part of the solution because of the mobility within the hospital. Doctors use their smartphones to access the system, so they need very stable and strong wireless connectivity. 

The hospital layout means a doctor might be quite far from the room, and there could potentially be a significant signal problem. With Cisco, we don't have this problem.

Cisco Wireless improves mobility and flexibility. The only case we are working on is with hospitals, focusing on the mobility of doctors within the hospital.

Everywhere, doctors need to be connected to the network, even within the operating theater, patient rooms, and even the basement, like the radiology department. As far as the solution goes, the coverage is usually very comprehensive.

I would rate the impact of the implementation of Cisco Wireless on the overall IT infrastructure and user experience a seven out of ten, with ten being very positive impact. 

It offers good security, coverage, and stability. I like these aspects.

For pricing, Cisco has to make an effort, or Cisco has to improve the distribution channel.

It means when I send an email or when I have a complaint, for example, there is a Cisco distributor, and it's in competition with others. 

I have to escalate this case to Cisco, and it will help us to improve our business with Cisco and prevent us from going to other solutions like Aruba or now Fortinet. We have some good switches and access point controllers now.

So, sometimes, when we find some problems with Cisco's distribution channel, we switch our customers to other brands.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. Within our customers, the hospital infrastructure is established from the first day, and it's still stable. 

The hospital was 100 beds and still is, for ten years. So, we didn't really experience the scalability of this kind of solution.

So, I don't have experience with the scalability of the solution. We usually have medium-sized businesses. We work ith hospitals that have 100 to 200 beds. This is our market. We have the same kind of clients. 

The initial setup was difficult the first time, but now it's easy for us.

We have to test the coverage area; the configuration will take us one day. But to test the coverage area, it will take maybe ten days to two weeks.

We set up the whole network, including the privileged network, wireless network, and security with firewalling.

It is an expensive product. I would rate the pricing a nine out of ten, with ten being expensive. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

I would recommend using it because of my good experience with it. They are stable and secure. All good experiences.

We have some clients with hotels who use Cisco wireless systems. Others have entertainment centers that use Cisco wireless systems. Additionally, we have retail businesses utilizing Cisco wireless systems. However, we are primarily transitioning towards TP-Link Omada systems because they do not require subscriptions, which is cost-effective for our customers.

The features include maintenance and monitoring functionalities. Additionally, knowledge-based data is available for implementation and installation scenarios. Currently, Cisco systems are highly robust but need to catch up slightly compared to Ruckus and Omada systems regarding innovation. Using alternative suppliers can be advantageous as they provide cutting-edge innovations and detailed information about roadmaps.

The security and encryption features of Cisco Wireless are robust but need to be updated compared to other providers. Cisco offers enterprise-grade encryption. Setting up a radio server based on networking filtering may require some effort to configure profiles. Once established, Cisco provides clean and straightforward possibilities for configuring functionalities like setting up a radio server system.

The solution's pricing is high. Pricing, features, and innovation are the fundamentals of choosing a provider or supplier. Despite the higher price, we migrated to other profiles like Ruckus and Omada because they offer more robust solutions. If you look at benchmarks, you'll see that Ruckus is one of the top-tier providers, with Cisco falling behind.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for 5 years.

The product’s stability is great.

The internet speed is high within environments. As you move further away from the access point, there is a decline in speed. Omada or Ruckus don’t have the speed degradation as you move away from the access point.

I rate the solution’s stability a seven out of ten.

The solution is suited for medium-sized businesses.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

We sometimes need second-line agencies because the first-line agencies may not have sufficient expertise to address complex issues.

Neutral

The initial setup depends on the complexity of the infrastructure, ranging from hours to days.

I rate the initial setup a 7 out of 10, where 1 is difficult, and 10 is easy.

The product is nearly too expensive in terms of quality. It varies depending on the project’s scope and specific requirements. Prices range from around 5000 euros to 30,000 for larger, more complex implementations.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven to eight out of ten.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

The most valuable feature of the solution is the coverage it provides. My company bought six to eight pieces of the tool, considering the coverage it offers.

With Cisco Wireless, users need the solution to offer good coverage and receive good support from Cisco Meraki.

Even though the tool offers a cloud-based central management option, the product needs to work on improving the security part a bit since it is an area of concern.

I have been using Cisco Wireless since April 2023. My company is a customer of the tool.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

There are some instances where the connectors in the tool don't allow users to browse the internet.

It is a very scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Around 2000 people in my company use the product.

The support offered for the solution is good. I rate the support a seven out of ten. Sometimes, users have to talk to support to get updates.

Neutral

To handle the setup phase of the tool, one just needs to be tech-savvy. The setup and implementation are easy for anyone who has dealt with such processes in the past for any business.

I rate the product's initial setup phase an eight on a one to ten scales, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

If I consider the access points, the solution is deployed on-premises.

The solution deployment phase doesn't even take an hour.

I rate the product price an eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price.

The tool is available on the cloud to manage and optimize our company's network performance. Through a cloud-based, the tool allows you to access your access points. You can choose to change or optimize your network from a central location to all the sites that your organization has, which is a good feature for me.

I have integrated Cisco Wireless with other network management tools, like Cisco DNA Center, in my previous job but not at my current workplace.

The integration capabilities of the product are good. I would rate the tool's integration capabilities an eight out of ten.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it.

I rate the tool a seven and a half out of ten.