Not following. As far as like a towercoverage type thing?
> On Oct 18, 2017, at 08:29, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote: > > I was with WISPMon because of it's superior RF capabilities over every other > billing\OSS platform. It is my understanding that Sonar will be adding this > capability, thus retaining the most capable platform, RF-wise. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > > Midwest Internet Exchange > > The Brothers WISP > > > > > From: "Matt Hoppes" <mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> > To: af@afmug.com > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 7:14:31 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Sonar > > Mike. What does powercode not do that you want it to do? > > On Oct 18, 2017, at 07:55, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote: > > Please don't become a Sonar customer just to demonize them because you don't > like their service model. > > Seriously. That'd be a super shitty thing to do. > >> On Oct 18, 2017 6:52 AM, "Mike Hammett" <af...@ics-il.net> wrote: >> I will be using it shortly as Sonar bought WISPMon. >> >> All of the major billing\OSS platforms with modern features are also >> cloud-based, so there's not really anywhere else to go. >> >> That's fine for you that it works that way, but many WISPs are increasing >> their use of on-premises virtualization. What about your monitoring, DNS, >> RADIUS, syslog, Unimus, mail, etc., etc. servers? >> >> Yes, my reasons do outweigh arbitrary reasons to keep it in a cloud >> environment. >> >> Actually, I've been fairly quiet on this particular issue and will be >> increasing my advocacy efforts in this regard to all billing\OSS platforms. >> As I said, it's the SFP port of the billing\OSS world. >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> >> Midwest Internet Exchange >> >> The Brothers WISP >> >> >> >> >> From: "Darin Steffl" <darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> >> To: af@afmug.com >> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 10:08:47 PM >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Sonar >> >> I'm in agreement with Simon that it's much faster and reliable to host in >> the cloud than a server on site. It would cost me many more hours, hand >> holding, and worry if I had to host this server in my network. If I went on >> vacation and something happened, I'd be stressed. >> >> With sonar living in the cloud, there's less to worry about as it's hosted >> in a much more reliable datacenter than I could afford to build. It's also >> managed by sonar's team so if there's an issue, they take care of it. Stress >> free for me. >> >> I see why you might want to host it in house but those reasons do NOT >> outweigh all the benefits of letting sonar host it in the cloud for you and >> take care of the problems. >> >> Mike, if you don't like Simon's decision to leave it in the cloud, shut up >> and move on. There's no reason for you and Matt Hoppes to keep beating a >> dead horse and sound like a broken record. Use something else you're happy >> with and let the rest of us grow our business and make more $ while you two >> complain about a product you don't even use. Jeez ha >> >> >> >>> On Oct 17, 2017 8:31 PM, "Seth Mattinen" <se...@rollernet.us> wrote: >>>> On 10/17/17 6:14 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: >>>> Expect repeated harassment until a good reason is presented or you >>>> capitulate. >>>> >>>> It's the SFP of the billing\OSS world. >>> >>> >>> I always welcome my competitors to have external dependencies. When they >>> try to hand wave their problems away as vendor or cloud problems it helps >>> me gain new customers. >>> >>> ~Seth >> >
