Yeah, I suspect that 50% off MSRP is somewhere close to their cost, or a bit below - keep in mind that it's not actually 50% off, it's 50% off MSRP, and nobody pay more than MSRP-20% to begin with (and a lot of people are paying less than that). They aren't asking for the old radios back, so they obviously aren't planning to try selling them in a non-FCC market. I suppose anybody that has these things is free to do that, but even if somebody can find a use for them, once you deal with shipping to another country, I don't imagine there'd be a lot of value.
Fortunately, I had the sense to switch to the gen 2 radios as soon as they started selling them, so this is having relatively little affect on us. Baicells has been saying for quite awhile now that they might not be able to get the gen 1 radios certified for CBRS, so it's not like this just came out of nowhere... On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:20 PM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm betting they would have a hard time eating the costs of thousands of > CPE. Even 50% off is probably tough for them to eat since CPE hardware > doesn't often have a large margin. I suppose there might be a non-FCC > market where they could unload a bunch of refurbished R9 CPE. > > Don't get me wrong. They *should* find a way to make it right. > > In any case I'm glad I'm not a Baicells customer right now. > > > On 2/13/2020 2:59 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote: > > See, and that's how you build brand loyalty. > > > > On 2/13/20 2:50 PM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: > >> I forgot to put weep holes or the holes got plugged during assembly > >> of my first runs of super stingers. > >> The antennas would fill with water after some time. > >> I felt so bad and embarrassed that I also paid customers for their > >> truck roll to replace them. > >> Somehow that took away their anger... > >> And I don't recall it costing all that much. > >> > >> > >> Many years ago I sent a programmer to Tokyo to replace about 2000 OTP > >> mcu chips in dialers I was making at the time. > >> That one was expensive. I think the chips cost me $20K and the > >> flight was $2K and I was really struggling at the time. > >> The programmer was not happy but I had told him to never use a goto > >> in C. > >> He did and had a stack overflow because of it... > >> > >> I would never be able to sleep if I left a customer with a loss of > >> some kind. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- From: Matt Hoppes > >> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 12:33 PM > >> To: memb...@wispa.org ; Clay Stewart > >> Cc: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group > >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [WISPA Members] BaiCells Class Action Investigation > >> > >> There's no requirement to use the BaiCells OMC and EPC. > >> > >> When Ubiquiti royally screwed up the ToughCable situation, what did they > >> do? They shipped out replacement ToughCable at absolutely no cost to > >> the end-user. They acknowledged their screw up and they made it right. > >> In some cases they even shipped extra boxes of cable to "cover the > >> time" for labor. > >> > >> What did BaiCells do? Basically said "yeah sorry... here buy some new > >> stuff". > >> > >> That's the difference in these two situations. > >> > >> On 2/13/20 2:27 PM, Clay Stewart wrote: > >>> Let's think, let's damage a WISP supporting innovative company > >>> (which are rare), that would affect our LTE *entire* investment, not > >>> just a small percentage of our Baicell investment, the 2-3-year-old > >>> CPEs... filling out a survey from an undisclosed source. Not a > >>> bright idea in my opinion. FCC created this timing issue, not > >>> Baicells, not Telrad, they created the specifications for connecting > >>> to SAS, not Baicells or Telrad. > >>> > >>> I have always been against bashing the companies that support us, > >>> having watched UBNT for example occasionally getting bashed over the > >>> last decade off and on, and watching the stock hits and impacts on > >>> R&D and sales (OS issues, recalls, illegal knock offs)... not sure > >>> if our industry can withstand a hit against our complete LTE > >>> investment. But maybe pushing for another solution from FCC/SAS > >>> first and Baiscells second. > >>> > >>> This action is short-sighted, is my current option. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 1:32 PM Matt Hoppes > >>> <mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net > >>> <mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>> wrote: > >>> > >>> http://www.baicellsclassaction.com > >>> > >>> WHO DOES THIS INVESTIGATION AFFECT? > >>> > >>> Companies and Persons who purchased BaiCells Atom R9 CPEs (EG7035, > >>> CW0100, CN6671) between inception and February of 2020. > >>> > >>> WHAT'S GOING ON? > >>> Investigation is taking place regarding allegations that > >>> BaiCells made > >>> promises beginning as far back as 2016 regarding the Atom R9 CPEs > >>> (EG7035, CW0100, CN6671) that these CPEs would be compliant with > >>> and > >>> usable with the new FCC CBRS rules without needing to swap out any > >>> hardware or buy new equipment. Many Internet Service Providers > >>> purchased this equipment, investing hundreds of thousands of > >>> dollars, > >>> based on numerous promises made in official public forums and > >>> documentation to this affect. > >>> > >>> Around the beginning of February (and with only 60 days to the > >>> final > >>> CBRS transition period) BaiCells informed all ISPs that the > >>> Atom R9 > >>> CPEs (EG7035, CW0100, CN6671) would not be CBRS compatible due to > >>> reasons that BaiCells has not explained. > >>> > >>> BaiCells then offered a swap offer giving 50% off MSRP. > >>> Internet Service Providers argue that such provisions at the > >>> 11th hour > >>> of the FCC CBRS rule changes, coupled with supply shortages due > >>> to the > >>> large about of radios that Internet Service Providers will need to > >>> purchase, the CoronaVirus supply chain shortages, and the need > >>> to visit > >>> every customer physically and swap radios will produce an undue > >>> hardship > >>> on them as well as render the need to purchase additional > >>> equipment > >>> after investing thousands of dollars based on promises made by > >>> official > >>> BaiCells representatives. > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Members mailing list > >>> memb...@wispa.org <mailto:memb...@wispa.org> > >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/members > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Members mailing list > >>> memb...@wispa.org > >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/members > >>> > >> > > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
