There are lots of ways this could have been resolved... the way it was,
was not one of them.
On 2/13/20 3:08 PM, Clay Stewart wrote:
Doesn't change the simple fact that bashing any WISP Industry supporting
vendor publically is good for the WISP industry. There are other venues.
In this case for example, the failure of the FCC SAS design not to take
in architecture that was new in the field during software design phase
needs to be brought to the table with the FCC by the industry, as well
as all the LTE vendors. A one year payment of SAS would help resolve
this issue, or a design change in SAS. Spoken by a 30 plus year
government mainframe system designer and developer... me.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020, 14:33 Matt Hoppes
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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
stuff".
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
> <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
>
> http://www.baicellsclassaction.com
>
> 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 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
> hardship
> 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
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/members
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/members
>
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
