Cambium ePMP 5 GHz Replacement Guide: Official Timelines, Item-by-Item Comparisons and a Migration Plan for Force 180 / 190 / 200 and ePMP Base Stations

Where Things Stand: A Timeline You Can Work Backwards From

Cambium is the most formalized of the three vendors when it comes to retirement: its Product Lifecycle page publishes both End of Sale (EOS, the last order date) and End of Support (EOL, the support cutoff), and for fixed wireless products it applies a strict “end of support four years after end of sale” rule. That has one clear benefit — for any ePMP unit you own, knowing the official EOS date tells you exactly how much support life remains, so replacement scheduling needs no guesswork.

Across the 5 GHz line as a whole, risk falls into three tiers, from most to least urgent:

• Already past EOL: Force 190, Force 200 (5 GHz) and the entire ePMP 1000 line — no vendor technical support, no firmware updates (including security patches), no hardware repair. If one fails, your only options are salvaging spares or buying secondhand, which is a genuine availability risk for carrier-grade links.
• Past EOS, still within support: Force 180 (last order 2025-03-31), Force 300 CSM (2025-06-30) and Force 300-19 (2025-09-30) — the new-purchase channel is closed, so anything buyable now is channel stock. Support remains, but the clock is running down.
• Just past or approaching EOS: ePMP 3000 AP (withdrawn 2026-03-24), ePMP 3000L and MP 3000 — note this tier, because even the “upgrade to a newer Cambium base station” path is narrowing. If your migration plan was “replace ePMP 1000 with ePMP 3000,” that plan needs revisiting.

The conclusion is straightforward: for installed Cambium 5 GHz sites, restocking the same model is no longer viable, and upgrading within the brand is getting harder. Replacement options need evaluating now, not at the next hardware failure.

The Complete Official EOS / EOL List

Still in production, for reference: ePMP Force 300-16 (16 dBi panel / 600 Mbps / 12 W), Force 300-25 (25 dBi dish / 600 Mbps / 12 W), Force 425, Force 400C and the ePMP 4600 series — none of which appear on Cambium’s Discontinued list.

Official Retirement Reasons and Lifecycle Policy

What Cambium says about why products retire

Cambium does not explain reasons model by model. Two official policy pages give portfolio-level language instead:

In plain terms, three factors: market demand, technology innovation, and regulatory change. Cambium never cites component obsolescence as a model-level reason, so we do not either. What the wording does signal — usefully, for buyers — is that Cambium is concentrating resources on newer platforms, which is why every recommended replacement points to one (see section 4).

The official lifecycle policy: why EOL can be predicted

Checking the rule against the table: Force 190’s EOS of 2021-11-03 gives an EOL of 2025-11-03, and Force 180’s EOS of 2025-03-31 gives 2029-01-31 — exactly four years in both cases. The practical value: for any Cambium device with a known EOS date, add four years to get its support endpoint; subtract the spares-procurement and migration lead time you need, and you have the date by which replacement must start. If you are still running ePMP 2000, for instance (EOL 2026-09-30 — this very month), starting the assessment now is not early.

Cambium’s Own Recommended Replacements (Same-Brand Path)

The official lifecycle table names a recommended replacement for every retired SKU. Cambium defines “Recommended Replacement” as follows (verbatim):

Read that path carefully: every recommendation is a new-generation platform (the Force 425 is already 802.11ax with an SFP port), not a like-for-like swap. In practice, going the official route means a generational migration — more platform capability, and a correspondingly higher unit price — and moving from an ePMP 1000/2000 base station to an ePMP 4500 is a whole-site architecture upgrade. That path suits sites that already planned to expand and upgrade.

LigoWave occupies a different position: it offers a same-tier, low-disruption replacement — keeping the existing 5 GHz architecture, reusing the existing antenna system (connectorized sites) and converting power with a low-cost 24 V injector. The two paths are not mutually exclusive; it is common to see a mixed approach on one network, with core sites moving to Cambium’s new platform and edge sites taking the low-disruption LigoWave route. Every comparison below assumes that framing.

LigoWave Substitution Master Table

How to read the verdicts: full substitution = form factor matches, gain difference ≤2 dB, same interface class, and a clear power method, with no need to re-survey the site (power conversion is costed separately). Partial substitution = one factor needs recalculating (3–5 dB gain difference or a changed beam shape), so the link budget must be rechecked before the swap.

Spec Comparison, Item by Item

6.1 Force 300 CSM vs LigoDLB 5ac — the head-to-head for connectorized sites

6.2 Force 180 vs LigoDLB 5-15ac — why the beam shape matters more than the gain figure

6.3 Force 190 / Force 200 vs LigoDLB 5-20ac — replacing the two models past end of support

6.4 ePMP 1000 / 2000 base stations vs LigoDLB 5-90AC — an architectural replacement on the base-station side

Six Decision Dimensions Beyond the Datasheet

Dimension 1: Network architecture — GPS Sync and frequency planning

This is the dimension that matters most in any Cambium replacement, ahead of any spec sheet figure. If an ePMP site used GPS Sync for co-channel sector reuse, then once it moves to an iPoll 3 sector architecture the old “one frequency for the whole tower” approach no longer holds and channels must be rearranged (staggered within the available spectrum plus polarization isolation). Treat “frequency replanning and network-wide coordination” as a separate work package. Conversely, if your site never used GPS Sync and its sectors already had staggered channels, this dimension is close to zero work.

Dimension 2: Power conversion — the mandatory change specific to Cambium

Suggested sequence: power down, swap the injector, confirm 24 V at the far end, then install the new unit. On sites with very long cable runs (80–100 m), check conductor gauge and voltage drop at the same time. This is a low-cost change, but it is the biggest difference between a Cambium replacement and a Ubiquiti or MikroTik one — the latter two are usually zero-touch on 24 V sites, whereas Cambium always requires it.

Dimension 3: Management and bulk operations

cnMaestro is a mature cloud management platform with broad functionality; WNMS provides bulk configuration, firmware upgrades and centralized monitoring. They are peers, so this dimension is not a reason to switch or stay — we do not count it as an advantage. What genuinely needs evaluating is management during the transition: with Cambium on cnMaestro and LigoWave on WNMS in the mixed period, the shorter the overlap between the two platforms, the better — which directly shapes how batches are divided (see phase 5).

Dimension 4: Lifecycle and supply certainty

Cambium’s lifecycle process is the most transparent of the three: dates are published and the rules are fixed, which deserves credit. But transparency also means the risk is quantifiable — ePMP 2000 support ends 2026-09-30, and Force 190 / 200 / ePMP 1000 have already crossed the line. After EOL a unit still runs, but there are no firmware updates (including security patches), no official repair and no Cambium Care renewal. Sort every device in your register into three tiers — past EOL, within support, approaching EOS — and replacement priority falls out on its own.

Dimension 5: Evolution path (6 GHz and new platforms)

Credit where it is due: on 6 GHz, Cambium is the best prepared of the three — ePMP 4600 / 4600L AP (5725–7125 MHz, MU-MIMO/OFDMA, up to 120 subscribers, SFP+, 802.3at) plus Force 4600C / Force 4625 SM form a complete 6 GHz line. The LigoDLB 6 series (5.9–6.4 GHz, built on the same platform as the 5ac) also offers a 6 GHz option, but it trails Cambium in platform generation (ac versus ax) and interfaces (no SFP+). If your network operates where 6 GHz is already authorized and you have a clear next-generation upgrade plan, the Cambium 4600 route is the more appropriate choice; if the goal is “keep the existing 5 GHz network running cheaply while retaining a smooth 6 GHz option,” LigoWave’s value is a lower evolution cost thanks to a shared platform and protocol. One regulatory caveat: 6 GHz policy varies widely by country (in mainland China, 5925–7125 MHz is not opened for civilian use), so confirm local rules before planning around it.

Dimension 6: Procurement and cost structure

The two paths differ in how the cost breaks down. The official path (Force 300-16/300-25/425, ePMP 4500) buys new-generation platform capability in exchange for a generational unit cost and possibly a whole-site architecture upgrade. The LigoWave route is a same-tier ac platform plus antenna reuse (on CSM sites) plus a small 24 V injector change, with less site work and spares shared across the 5ac and 6 series. When comparing budgets, list three items separately: unit price, per-site conversion cost (injector plus labour), and five-year cost of ownership (including a probability-weighted allowance for a future whole-site replacement). That third item is the one most often left out, and it is usually the largest in any end-of-life decision.

How to Calculate the Link Budget (Do This First)

Wherever the replacement involves a gain difference — the Force 200 (25 dBi → 20 dBi) or the Force 300-19 (19 dBi) — run the numbers before touching anything. Four steps, all built on official figures.

Step 1: FSPL (free-space path loss)

At 5.8 GHz: 5 km ≈ 121.7 dB; 8 km ≈ 125.8 dB; 10 km ≈ 127.7 dB; 15 km ≈ 131.2 dB.

Step 2: RSL (received signal level) worked examples

Example 1 (Force 190 → 5-20ac, 8 km link): taking the mid-range 80 MHz transmit power of 25 dBm and 1 dB of cable and connector loss:

RSL = 25 + 20 + 20 − 125.8 − 1 = −61.8 dBm. Against the 5-20ac’s 80 MHz sensitivity range (−90 to −64 dBm), the top rate tier (around −64 dBm) is usable with margin to spare. The original Force 190 (22 dBi, +27 dBm ceiling) works out at roughly −57.8 dBm on the same link — about 4 dB better, mostly from the 2 dB gain and the higher power ceiling. Conclusion: within 8 km, swap directly.

Example 2 (Force 200 → 5-20ac, 10 km link): RSL = 25 + 20 + 20 − 127.7 − 1 = −63.7 dBm, right at the edge of the top rate tier with no fade margin. The original Force 200 (25 dBi, +30 dBm ceiling) was around −56.7 dBm with margin to spare. Conclusion: at the 10 km tier, the 5-20ac needs de-rating (a 40 MHz channel improves sensitivity by about 3 dB, or drop one modulation step), or move to a LigoDLB 5ac with a 25 dBi dish to preserve the original margin — which is exactly why the substitution table draws the line at 8 km.

Step 3: Choose a tier from the gain difference

Step 4: Three things easily missed

• Fresnel zone: on a 5.8 GHz / 8 km link the first Fresnel zone radius at the midpoint is about 10 m; confirm at least 60% clearance — obstruction loss is far more damaging than a 5 dB gain difference.
• Rain fade: allow 5–10 dB for long links in wet regions.
• EIRP compliance: after replacement the gain and power combination at each end changes, so recheck against the local 5 GHz EIRP limit and dial the transmit power down accordingly. This is not only a compliance matter but also a way to avoid interfering with neighbouring cells — especially after moving to a wider 35° CPE beam.

Deployment Scenarios and Configurations

Strengths and Limitations

Five genuine strengths

1. A “same-tier, low-disruption” replacement option: the official path is a generational migration, whereas LigoWave offers a one-to-one swap on a same-tier ac platform — no re-survey (all-in-one) and no interference with the antenna system (connectorized). It suits installed sites that just need to keep running healthily.
2. A complete connectorized product line: once the Force 300 CSM retires, Cambium’s connectorized options narrow; the LigoDLB 5ac keeps a 2×N connectorized model, and reusing the antenna system saves the largest single slice of site cost.
3. A pure upgrade for end-of-life models, in interface and speed: Force 190 (200 Mbps / Fast Ethernet) → 5-20ac (500+ Mbps / gigabit), 2.5× the throughput.
4. Better protection on sector base stations: the LigoDLB 5-90AC is IP-65, higher than the Force 180’s IP55.
5. Definite link design figures: the official datasheet gives PtMP / PtP coverage guidance that can be cited directly in a bid, reducing disputes over calculations.

Three limitations we will state plainly

Migration Plan (Six Phases)

The biggest difference between a Cambium replacement and the other two brands: some devices are already past end of support (which gives a natural priority split), and there is a base-station architectural replacement (which adds two work packages — frequency replanning and capacity recalculation). The process below is designed around that.

Per-site switching checklist

References

1. Cambium Networks, Product End-of-Life Policy: cambiumnetworks.com/eol
2. Cambium Networks, Product Lifecycle (including the Discontinued list): cambiumnetworks.com/support/product-lifecycle
3. Official data sheets for the ePMP Force 300 Series and ePMP 3000 Series; product pages for the Force 180 / 190 / 200
4. LigoWave official data sheets (LigoDLB 5ac / 5-15ac / 5-20ac / 5-90ac): download.ligowave.org

All EOS / EOL dates, official quotations and specifications were verified on 2026-09-14. Vendor policies can change, so re-check the latest Cambium pages before a formal publication or tender submission.

Frequently Asked Questions