Hi
We are testing TAP200 in our local Ethernet.
The installation consists of a Huawei S110-16LP2SR Switch - 16 GE Ports, 124W PoE+ and testing of 5 TAP200 connected in the building’s rooms.
There are problems with our internal Ethernet after switching to PoE with TAP200.
Download WiFi speed is always below 50% and often fluctuates towards 30% speed with TAP200.
Upload is always 100% speed from TAP200.
When testing TAP200 directly connected to the PoE switch in the technical room, the result is excellent 100/100.
When testing using a PoE injector via Ethernet to the TAP200 located in the building, the result is fine at 100/100.
Ethernet connections from the same PoE switch with a cable from the wall connection are 100/100.
Can you help with a solution/explanation so that connections via Ethernet with a PoE switch to connected TAP200 devices can transmit stable data at 100/100% WiFi speed?
We had a conversation with support today.
Best regards
Danish Veterans Homes
Greetings, @Veteranhjem ,
Welcome to Teltonika Community!
Thank you for the detailed write-up - the information you’ve provided is actually very helpful for narrowing this down.
The key observation here is that the issue is asymmetric (download affected, upload fine) and only occurs when the TAP200 is powered by the PoE switch over in-wall cabling. This rules out the TAP200 itself and points toward the cable infrastructure interacting with the switch’s PoE delivery.
The most likely causes at this stage are:
• Cable quality or termination issues - PoE injects current on the same pairs carrying data. Marginal cabling (poor terminations, substandard cable, or long runs) can introduce noise that degrades throughput, often asymmetrically.
• Duplex or speed mismatch - The ports may be auto-negotiating a degraded link when PoE is active. Half-duplex in particular would explain why download suffers more than upload.
• PoE power budget - The Huawei S110-16LP2SR has a total budget of 124W. With 5x TAP200s and any other powered devices, it’s worth verifying the switch isn’t running close to its limit.
To help investigate further, could you confirm the following:
- Cable category and approximate run lengths for the affected wall connections (Cat5e, Cat6, etc.)?
- How many PoE devices are currently connected to the switch in total, and what is the reported PoE power usage on the switch?
- Are the speed issues present on all 5 TAP200 units over wall cabling, or only specific ones?
- What firmware version is running on the TAP200 devices?
- Have you checked the switch port statistics for any errors, discards, or CRC issues on the affected ports?
As an immediate test, I’d recommend locking the affected switch ports to 100 Mbps / Full Duplex (disabling auto-negotiation) to rule out a negotiation issue - this can be done via the Huawei S110 web interface.
Looking forward to your response so we can get this resolved.
Best regards,
V.
Hi Vilius
Thank you for your kind response.
My deeper investigating is delayed due to influenza.
I will submit test results as soon as the viruses permit further action.
Regards
Hello,
Thank you for your message,
I look forward for an update.
Best regards,
V.
HI Vilius
Finally, I am back on track.
Visiting the Veterans home and the network it seems that the TAP200 access points has ‘socialized’ in the network in good manner .
The users with variant PC`s and tablets though now have more differentiated experiences than before with an older mesh networ k.
Users with newer PC´s has OK results. Users with older PC´s has often lover data rates than expected.
I think they can live with it, but has hoped for better results in th is.
The signal penetration in the building for both 2 and 5 GHz is lower than expected. Is there a way to increase the transmitting power to more than the used standard po wer?
The cables are cat6 and a max distance is 35 m eter.
5 TAP200 are connected in this test setup.
All TAP200 are expiring same as des cribed.
The TAP200´s firmware is 07.20.3
The switch is unmanaged. No lo gs there.
TAP200 is using 50 volt and max 5.5 watt. For now it will be max 27,5 watt.
Thank again for looking into this.
Regards
Jan
Greetings, @Veteranhjem ,
I hope you are doing well,
Thank you for your detailed observations. Based on your setup and the TAP200 behavior, here’s some feedback:
- Older devices: It’s normal for older PCs and tablets to experience lower speeds than newer ones. Their Wi-Fi hardware and protocols aren’t optimized for the latest standards, so differences in performance are expected.
- Signal coverage: The 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz signals can be affected by walls and building materials. The TAP200’s transmit power is fixed to regulatory limits, so it can’t be increased beyond the standard. The best way to improve coverage is by repositioning the APs for better line-of-sight or adding a few extra APs if needed.
- Cabling & PoE: Your Cat6 cables at 35 m are fine. The PoE budget with 5 APs at 5.5 W each is sufficient, so power isn’t limiting performance. Using an unmanaged switch is okay, but fixing the AP ports to 100 Mbps/full duplex (if possible) can help stabilize speeds for older devices.
- Firmware consistency: Make sure all TAP200s run the same firmware (07.20.3) to avoid inconsistencies.
Some variation between old and new devices is expected. Optimizing AP placement and ensuring proper cabling will help improve reliability and coverage without exceeding regulatory power limits.
Kind regards,
V.
Hi Vilius
Thank you for kind reply and your good informative support.
I am doing fine and hope the same for you.
We will look into better positions for the TAP´s and see if this gives improvements.
Alterative more TAP´s will be ordered - good for Teltonika, which we gladly support by more purchases.
Kind regards,
Jan
Greetings, @Veteranhjem,
I hope this message finds you well.
Please provide an update on the matter once you have more information available. Additionally, if you have any further questions or require assistance, feel free to reach out at any time.
Best of luck with your project.
Best regards,
V.