What advice do you have for others considering Cisco Wireless WAN?

I will recommend the solution to others. If a company wants something stable that will last them longer, they should go with Cisco, even if it's more expensive. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

I would recommend Cisco Wireless WAN to anyone who is considering using it. It is a great solution for campuses and universities. Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten.

Cisco wireless on-prem has moved to Cisco Meraki Access, and Cisco Meraki is the better. We can use the cloud solution. The only thing is the price is a little high. Other than that, all the features and security aspects are really good with Cisco. Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. The overall rating is seven due to the higher price and the need for enhancements in the console and security features. The guest Wi-Fi and non-console options are lacking in the older version, although I believe the new version might address that.

I give the solution an eight out of ten. Cisco Wireless WAN is not an affordable option, therefore I suggest making sure that the solution meets all the organization's requirements before making a purchase.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN nine out of 10. I recommend it if you're looking for a stable wireless solution with a wide coverage area.

I would give Cisco Wireless WAN a rating of six out of ten.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten. I wouldn't give it 10 out of 10 because the price is high and the solution can be complicated. I would recommend it to those who are interested in using it. There's a lot of advice and information on the internet. Some of it may be incorrect, so you just have to try it and see.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN a ten out of ten.

I'm a customer and end-user. I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. I've never had any issues with the product.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. I recommend the solution to new users.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN eight out of 10. If budget weren't an issue, I would highly recommend Cisco.

In summary, this is not a product that I recommend. I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

I’d advise those considering the solution to go onto the internet and find as much documentation about the solution as you can. I’d rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I’m a customer. We use the latest version of the solution. The solution is a market leader. It works great. I’d rate it nine out of ten.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. Cisco provides a good product, the stability and reliability are there but it's very expensive. Competitors deliver solutions that are more affordable and almost as good.

Cisco Wireless WAN is most suitable for enterprise companies. Before choosing this solution, remember that there are other good solutions, including Aruba and Ruckus, so you should explore which solution is best for your organization. I would give Cisco Wireless WAN a rating of eight out of ten.

I would rate Cisco Wireless WAN as nine out of ten.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN a nine out of ten.

My advice would be to negotiate the price as much as you can. I would rate it an eight out of ten.

It's a good solution, and I would rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten.

Since we have recently migrated to the new version of the Cisco Wireless WAN platform the interface has changed and I'm still getting used to it. I would recommend Cisco Wireless WAN. However, that's because my exposure is to Cisco Wireless. I'm probably a little bit biased. Overall, it's a fairly good solution. Whether this solution is suitable or not for a company depends on their deployment, if they were a Greenfield-sized company or a Brownfield-sized company I would have different tips. It does fully depend on the scenario. My key advice is with a wireless solution is for them to do a wireless survey first before purchasing. I rate Cisco Wireless WAN an eight out of ten.

For the Cisco Wireless implementation, the most important advice I would like to give is regarding the planning of the access points. The planning is very important because if you do not do proper planning based on the requirements, then the project might well turn out to be a big mess. That's because once you install an access point in one location, it's very hard to move around. Keep this in mind from the beginning. I would rate Cisco Wireless LAN an eight out of ten. I won't say it's the best there is, but it is definitely a leading solution.

The solution is good and very easy to deploy, manage and configure. We have encountered no issues in this regard. We now plan to convert the 802.11ac to 802.11.ax. We intend to purchase a new access point to meet the technology challenges. We are now planning to move all access points to a new access point involving 802.11.ax technology. The number of users making use of the solution depends on the employee count. I would say that perhaps 200 users are connected daily with the access point that we have. For the moment we have a very small area. In every department we have in excess of 100 to 150 users connected to one access point. This works fine. But, depending on the user size and the type of Wireless Card the user may possess, certain users experience some difficulties due to the Wireless Card's age and its lack of compatibility. As such, it is the user size which would account for certain issues, not the product size. My advice to others is that the product and its performance are very good and scalable. Cisco is very good and the product is nice to deploy and to work with. One can use it with freedom from any latency. Overall, the product is very good and established and the company has been working for some time to make improvements to it. This and the reputation involved are why I use the product. I rate Cisco Wireless WAN as a ten out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to others. I rate Cisco Wireless WAN a seven out of ten.

We are a customer and end-user. We don't have a business relationship with Cisco. We use a lot of Cisco products, including Cisco Catalyst Switches, Wireless WAN, and Cisco Nexus. We use one of the latest access points, however, we are not up to date on the newest controller versions as our versions are still supported. We plan to replace them probably in the next one or two years. It's not the latest, let's say, controller version. However, from a software standpoint, we are still up to date. I would recommend the solution to others. However, they have to be prepared to pay the price and have the budget for the product. In general, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been extremely satisfied with its capabilities.

Whatever they have in this product is already the best in the market, and I recommend it for people who can afford it. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

My advice to others is to understand the use case properly before deploying any solution. If you don't have a complex use case and if you can't afford it, don't get Cisco. But if you have a complex use case with a high frequency, high bandwidth of data usage in a wireless network, Cisco is the right product for you. The licensing strategy and the pricing could be improved, but it is a good solution. I rate it a seven out of ten.

Our clients are large enterprise companies. This solution is the best on the market. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I would want people to be aware that Cisco Wireless WAN is a top-end product and solution. Their portfolio is superb. They have major experience and maturity and are very much in tune with their field. I work in warehousing facilities. Like most things, though, there are pros and cons. Cisco is the top end, commercially. It's going to be double the price, and I mean double the price, of everything else. Other products that I use, and I have cross-referenced the price point with many solutions for the requirements of our enterprise customers, are half the price. They are a good product. Do they warrant the extra expense? I would have to say no, but they do have great maturity and their product portfolio is not just the access points but their other add-ons; their antennas, maturity and the information out there, which is invaluable. You pay for these from an engineering and consultative perspective. I need to research issues and other people's experiences. Cisco obviously has the world's best engineers, consultants who have that and very nicely post their experiences. That is invaluable. But unfortunately some markets, again I'm talking about Ireland here, sometimes can't afford that. And there are other products that can do the job just as well. Commercially they are quite flawed but in terms of technology, you can't really beat Cisco, to be honest. Commercially I would rate them as a 2 but technically they would be an 8 or 9 out of ten. I'm not a fan of the Meraki product so I'm taking it out of the equation. I'm talking about Cisco WLCs, and what would be the solution. Technically it's an excellent product. Unfortunately, their validity into other commercial markets is flawed. Majorly flawed. And they have too much competition, and Cisco being Cisco will just go "Well, that's fine, we didn't want to do that." Then we would not use their products. So that's unfortunate. Maybe that's just a bit of pretension on their part.

The reason why we chose Cisco over another solution, is that Cisco is very strong here in the Aruba and Ruckus region. We have a vendor specifically in Saudi Arabia. What I like about this solution, is that it is always available and it's up to me to integrate, something called the DNA. I like the features that Cisco provides and it a solution that's easy to work on. I like the integration between Cisco and all the other Cisco products when it comes to network roaming, the DNA. So this is the integration that I'm looking forward to integrating, Cisco wireless with the DNA. On a scale from one to 10, I will rate this an eight. The reason why I don't give it a ten is because Cisco is rather expensive. I would like to see it being more affordable.

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

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use dedicated wireless control for our campuses in a redundant topology, active/passive. We use both Flex connect and local, essentially switched networks. Our company uses physical machines, not cloud-based wireless controls. I would rate it a seven out of ten.

Wireless solutions are not something that you need to change very often. We have older models installed and they are still working fine. Changing the entire environment involves a lot of money and a lot of effort. My advice to anybody who is considering this type of solution is to first look at your ecosystem and then choose the product. Don't just choose one without looking at what other types of products, such as switches, you already have. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use the on-premises deployment model. We're a Cisco partner. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Our clients are mostly enterprise-level companies. Our first test of the solution will be to see how the new features are implemented in Wi-Fi 6. The new access point is smaller than the previous one, and I find it's very good, very pleasant, because the 3700, and especially the 3800 were very, very weak. I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. If the pricing was better, I'd rate it ten out of ten.