>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Thomas Fitzgerald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Too bad they chose such crappy gear, we might have been able to use it. > > I'm not certain that's entirely true. I think it's fair to say the > gear was ill-suited to accomplish what they were after, at the density > they adopted. It might be useful for something, if only to allow us to > determine the relative crappiness of it.
Mike is absolutely right, Tom. MetroFi had issues because (1) their business model didn't generate revenue and (2) they severely under-deployed the network hoping to save money. Clearly #1 and #2 are related. As far as I can tell, the Skypilot routers are just swell (if a little expensive) provided they are deployed with appropriate density. Of course, we shouldn't expect them to do any better than any other outdoor point-to-multipoint 802.11-based hardware (which will all suck to some degree, since it's probably not the ideal technology for the task). -- Caleb Phillips --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ The Personal Telco Project - http://www.personaltelco.net/ Donate to PTP: http://www.personaltelco.net/donate Archives: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.wireless.portland.general/ Etiquette: http://www.personaltelco.net/index.cgi/MailingListEtiquette List information: http://lists.personaltelco.net To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
