:)
I try to be fair though.
josh reynolds :: chief information officer
spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.com
On 01/15/2015 10:46 AM, Ben Moore wrote:
If only you could read some of Josh's emails to us and you would see that
he isn't always showing us the love ;) He will dish it when it is due...I
have seen it publicly as well ;)
Healthy discussion on backhauls and backhaul pricing...I will say that
since the AF24 launch, I have not seen an email/post related to AF24
causing issues due to being installed by ignorant operators...
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:37 PM, TJ Trout <t...@voltbb.com> wrote:
Seth be careful stepping on the toes of ubiquiti's No#1 fanboi :)
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Seth Mattinen <se...@rollernet.us>
wrote:
On 1/15/15 11:02, Josh Reynolds wrote:
I don't understand how an 18GHz path has anything to do with Ubiquiti
here, since the closest product they make to that band is on 24GHz.
Ifyour problem is with ignorant operators, or just plain stupid
operators, say so.
If your problem is with Ubiquiti, say so.
If your problem is with people failing to do the proper path analysis
studies and frequency coordination (byyour PCN comment), say so.
In any of these cases, it sounds like you are angry about something that
has nothing to do with Ubiquiti or even an operator, but more or less
whoever was *supposed* to be in chargeof the link design and common
courtesy.
I agreed with the post I responded to and the points contained therein,
with my real life experience extrapolated to it a short response. I not
only agree that licensed bands get used up faster, but that it would
exacerbate existing instances of interference due to a higher percentage of
ignorant operators jumping on a lower entry point or companies like UBNT
making it easier for ignorant operators to enter the space and do bad
things (i.e. past issues with compliance test mode and TDWR).
~Seth
