Tranzeo has had their problems too..I went round and round with them
on 5 and 10 mhz channels for the CPQ when it first came out. Their
first units did it and did it great, we still have them in production.
Then they changed them and they didn't even though their advertising
said they d
No, Tranzeo has not removed threads or given curt answers. I live 2
hours south of Pitt Meadows and had the great opportunity to go up to
one of Tranzeo's training sessions. My wife is the ?only? at least the
first, female certified Tranzeo installer. We had a great time and were
able to reall
The big difference for me is I have never heard of Tranzeo removing
threads from forums or changing wiki pages when there is a problem. It
seem to me that Damien and staff roll their sleeves up and take care of
the problem.
On the other hand I know of a couple of threads that have vanished an
We go with whomever solves the problem fastest and with the least
hassle. That's the company to go with in our book.
Robert
D. Ryan Spott wrote:
I mentioned that. While it might not be correct when it comes to karma,
it is correct when you have a board and shareholders to contend with.
_I_
StarOS's refusal to work with MT in the 5 an 10mhz channel sizes is what
caused me to drop StarOS. If I see one of my suppliers playing the
proprietary game in an area that has been non-proprietary i.e. ubiquiti
works with all... I will drop them. Proprietary hurts my business in
the long
I mentioned that. While it might not be correct when it comes to karma,
it is correct when you have a board and shareholders to contend with.
_I_ have a fiduciary responsibility to my investors and my customers but
(and I think Tranzeo did this):
"If we do the right thing all the time, the nu
Throwing in my 2 cents:
Someone mentioned something about one of the parties having a fiduciary
duty to not help a competitor. That attitude, which I hope is not
prevailing in this and future instances, will only end up hurting both
parties.
An eye for eye only ends up making the whole wor
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Josh Luthman wrote:
That letter makes me sick. I still stand by Tranzeo on this issue
as I believe they did the right thing.
The truth of the matter is that it doesn't matter who, exactly, was
at fault. It is clear from some of my customers that the problem is
not just
That letter makes me sick. I still stand by Tranzeo on this issue as I
believe they did the right thing.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
--- Henry Spencer
On Wed
Just a FYI, I got this from Mikrotik.. I wanted to make sure I sent it
out to everyone..
The tranzeo timestamp issues comes from tranzeo implementing a timestamp
check that is not included in the 802.11 standard for ap to client
communications.
The timestamp check is included in the standar
I must say I quit using Tranzeo a couple of years ago, not by anything they
did wrong but by what alternatives did right. After reading this I am very
impressed with their effort towards this issue!
Your post was very well written, easy to understand and the perfect amount
of comedy. I, too, am
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008, D. Ryan Spott wrote:
(Please pardon my extensive use of () and "" in this here email, I
am not so good with the typin' stuff!
VERY good post. I'm glad you got it done. My hat's off to you AND
Tranzeo for finding this rather irritating bug.
--
*
That would be one of the best posts I have ever seen on any of the
wireless lists. Thank you!
My hat is off to you and Damian ( again ) for really caring about how
stuff works and sharing it. If Tranzeo had a 19db 5/10mhz cpe at a
better price I still would be installing their gear. Mos
Ladies and Gentlemen,
(Please pardon my extensive use of () and "" in this here email, I am
not so good with the typin' stuff!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
A few weeks ago (years in some cases, hi Travis!) there was discovered a
"random disconnect issue between Tranzeo CPE and Mtik APs."
14 matches
Mail list logo
