my point in mentioning UBNT and irfiber was a reference to the guys putting up a gigabitish link when they only needed 100mbps. The price point is so low you can afford to do that. Bring down the price points on licensed gear and the same guy will sit on bigger chunks of spectrum because he can. Right now you have to think about how much spectrum youre using to get X amount of bandwidth because its limited and essentially not reusable. Granted you can hopefully re-license new gear down the road, but its pretty cost prohibitive to just squat spectrum. The license is pretty much nothing, works out to what, about 100 bucks a year if you use a coordinator to have ownership and technical recourse. Its simply a hardware cost issue.
UBNT and their "disruptive" pricing, should they delve into the licensed market should be re-branded "destructive pricing. Now, I complain about this, but If I was the first guy to get the license at UBNT hardware pricing, Im down with squatting, but im a hypocrite. And the FCC has teeth right now because spectrum disputes and illegal links are few and far between to some degree. You disrupt the market with UBNT pricing, the complaints will shoot way up and johnny WISP wont have any real recourse because the FCC wont have the resources to deal with complaints from anyone other than their honeytit lovers at the cellcos On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Ben Moore <ben.mo...@ubnt.com> wrote: > Yes, one did ;) > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > >> Damned radomes blow off in the wind... >> >> (at least one of them did) >> >> *From:* Ben Moore <ben.mo...@ubnt.com> >> *Sent:* Thursday, January 15, 2015 12:46 PM >> *To:* af@afmug.com >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Licensed backhaul pricing - still ridiculous >> >> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
