Oh no, not at all. I once accused Josh of being a UBNT fanboy. It got quite 
heated. He either changed his tune or I was mistaken. ;-) 

There are plenty of fanboys, don't put Josh in that category. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



----- Original Message -----

From: "TJ Trout" <t...@voltbb.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 1:37:48 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Licensed backhaul pricing - still ridiculous 


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: 

<blockquote>
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 

</blockquote>


Reply via email to