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
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
WHO DOES THIS INVESTIGATION AFFECT?
Companies and Persons who purchased BaiCells Atom R9 CPEs (EG7035,
CW0100, CN6671) between inception and February of 2020.
WHAT'S GOING ON?
Investigation is taking place regarding allegations that BaiCells
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
of the FCC CBRS rule changes, coupled with supply shortages due to
large about of radios that Internet Service Providers will need to
purchase, the CoronaVirus supply chain shortages, and the need to
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
Members mailing list
Members mailing list
AF mailing list
AF mailing list