Love this....ha: 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.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:18 PM, That One Guy <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
