This email has more angst than my 15 year old at 8am on a Saturday. On January 15, 2015 8:09:07 AM AKST, Seth Mattinen <[email protected]> wrote: >On 1/15/15 7:25 AM, That One Guy wrote: >> Excluding license fees, high quality unlicensed radios are at or >higher >> than the cost of licensed radios. Granted this is my limited >experience >> with one link and five vendors vetted. The trade off in path profile >> validity with no interference has an immeasurable value, pricing the >> licensed links way under the unlicensed gear. >> you also want to take into account the price point keeping the >spectrum >> cleaner. If say UBNT came out with some licensed link at 2k. >Everybody >> and their brother would hop on those links, eat up the available >> spectrum shut down the market, leaving you only the option to put >fiber >> in the ground, now that licensed link wouldnt seem so expensive. I >dont >> want to see licensed links come down in price for that very reason >> alone. We cover an area where the average joe is priced out of that >> market, we just finally got to the point we can get into licensed >links >> on a small scale. I know there are alot of regular entities putting >up >> air fiber to get 100mbit throughput. There are tons of ptp cambium >> radios in the air around here, all of which would be licensed links >if >> they came down even 5%. Then there would be nothing left in a short >> period of time >> > > >How optimistic to think that people that would buy a licensed band UBNT > >goldfish would actually license it with the FCC. They'd probably just >turn it on with the highest power and widest channel it supports and >f*ck over everyone else chasing down interference. > >~Seth
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
