I have worked with different solutions in the past and switched to Alcatel-Lucent OmniAccess Stellar because of its quick installation time. It requires no additional preparation.

We migrated from Aruba Instant as the solution price was lower, and it had the same functionality. Also, the virtual controller functionality was included for free in OmniVista NMS for ten access points.

Before Alcatel-Lucent OmniAccess Stellar, I worked with solutions like Aruba, Huawei, Ruckus, Aerohive, and Cisco.

We are a solution provider and we have more than 500 customers that have purchased similar equipment from many different vendors. As such, I have experience with similar products from Cisco, Juniper, Ubiquity, HPE, Aruba, and others.

The Alcatel-Lucent feature set is similar to what Cisco and Aruba are providing. The use cases are similar, as well. This is one of the reasons that we recommend Alcatel-Lucent.

The choice of product is largely dependent on the customer's preference. For example, some people like Cisco products. If their mind is set on Cisco then we can't often change it, so we sell them the Cisco product. If it is just a question of performance, then whatever the customer needs can be provided by Alcatel-Lucent.

I previously worked with Aruba HPE products. Configuring Alcatel-Lucent OmniAccess Stellar is easier than Aruba HPE.

No, we studied others solutions but none of them were deployed by us.

We used CISCO AP but client was not happy with the number of client connections per AP. OmniAccess WLAN Stellar AP1230 Support for up to 768 associated clients per AP. Up to 512 APs when managed by OmniVista 2500 managed but no limit on the number of AP groups.

We also use Aruba. We use both simultaneously.

Before Alcatel had the new, cheaper solutions, we used D-Link, Tp-Link. Today there is no need for those solutions.

Yes, I used solutions based on different Access Points, with independent management. I switched to OmniAccess because it is centralized, and has great scalability.