I forgot to put weep holes or the holes got plugged during assembly of my first runs of super stingers.
The antennas would fill with water after some time.
I felt so bad and embarrassed that I also paid customers for their truck roll to replace them.
Somehow that took away their anger...
And I don't recall it costing all that much.

Many years ago I sent a programmer to Tokyo to replace about 2000 OTP mcu chips in dialers I was making at the time. That one was expensive. I think the chips cost me $20K and the flight was $2K and I was really struggling at the time.
The programmer was not happy but I had told him to never use a goto in C.
He did and had a stack overflow because of it...

I would never be able to sleep if I left a customer with a loss of some kind.

-----Original Message----- From: Matt Hoppes
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 12:33 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org ; Clay Stewart
Cc: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [WISPA Members] BaiCells Class Action Investigation

There's no requirement to use the BaiCells OMC and EPC.

When Ubiquiti royally screwed up the ToughCable situation, what did they
do?  They shipped out replacement ToughCable at absolutely no cost to
the end-user.  They acknowledged their screw up and they made it right.
 In some cases they even shipped extra boxes of cable to "cover the
time" for labor.

What did BaiCells do?  Basically said "yeah sorry... here buy some new

That's the difference in these two situations.

On 2/13/20 2:27 PM, Clay Stewart wrote:
Let's think, let's damage a WISP supporting innovative company (which are rare), that would affect our LTE *entire* investment, not just a small percentage of our Baicell investment, the 2-3-year-old CPEs... filling out a survey from an undisclosed source. Not a bright idea in my opinion. FCC created this timing issue, not Baicells, not Telrad, they created the specifications for connecting to SAS, not Baicells or Telrad.

I have always been against bashing the companies that support us, having watched UBNT for example occasionally getting bashed over the last decade off and on, and watching the stock hits and impacts on R&D and sales (OS issues, recalls, illegal knock offs)... not sure if our industry can withstand a hit against our complete LTE investment. But maybe pushing for another solution from FCC/SAS first and Baiscells second.

This action is short-sighted, is my current option.

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 1:32 PM Matt Hoppes <mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net <mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>> wrote:



    Companies and Persons who purchased BaiCells Atom R9 CPEs (EG7035,
    CW0100, CN6671) between inception and February of 2020.

Investigation is taking place regarding allegations that BaiCells made
    promises beginning as far back as 2016 regarding the Atom R9 CPEs
    (EG7035, CW0100, CN6671) that these CPEs would be compliant with and
    usable with the new FCC CBRS rules without needing to swap out any
    hardware or buy new equipment.    Many Internet Service Providers
    purchased this equipment, investing hundreds of thousands of dollars,
    based on numerous promises made in official public forums and
    documentation to this affect.

    Around the beginning of February (and with only 60 days to the  final
    CBRS transition period) BaiCells informed all ISPs that the Atom  R9
    CPEs (EG7035, CW0100, CN6671) would not be CBRS compatible due to
    reasons that BaiCells has not explained.

    BaiCells then offered a swap offer giving 50% off MSRP.
Internet Service Providers argue that such provisions at the 11th hour of the FCC CBRS rule changes, coupled with supply shortages due to the
    large about of radios that Internet Service Providers will need to
purchase, the CoronaVirus supply chain shortages, and the need to visit
    every customer physically and swap radios will produce an undue
       on them as well as render the need to purchase additional equipment
after investing thousands of dollars based on promises made by official
    BaiCells representatives.
    Members mailing list
    memb...@wispa.org <mailto:memb...@wispa.org>

Members mailing list

AF mailing list

AF mailing list

Reply via email to