hey cannot put a price of it on their website, then I do not need it.
>
>
> --- On Fri, 7/25/08, Matt Ferre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> From: Matt Ferre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Freespace Systems Introduces the
>> first
radio.
>
> The only radio at that power level Compex produces now is our version and
> for us exclusively.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> George
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Matt Ferre
> Sent: Friday, Ju
Really
http://shop.defactowireless.com/s.nl;jsessionid=0a01074d1f43c80823dd5df943acac24b0d56d908581.e3eTaxaQbxmTe34Pa38Ta38LbNz0?it=A&id=1568
On 7/25/08, George Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just as many of our items, Compex does make them for us. And, as with our
> other hardware items w
ently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per
> month of now).
>
> If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP.
>
> Travis
>
> Matt Ferre wrote:
>>
>> One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'th
e question MT needs to ask themselves... are they are a hardware company
> or software company? Cisco is a software company. I think MT is a software
> company as well. They do not currently have a product that is even CLOSE to
> the Nanostation in price... why not sell a MT license for
esting that they be transmitted.
>
> Sam Tetherow
> Sandhills Wireless
>
>
> Matt Ferre wrote:
>> Not really because virus program will purposely keep opening new
>> connection. P2P apps will be doing the same.
>>
>> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL P
and ubiquiti
> really expressed and interest in working with them.
>
> Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...
>
> Sam Tetherow
> Sandhills Wireless
>
> Matt Ferre wrote:
>> Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd sa
nd shipping. I really don't see the downside to this,
> especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
> really expressed and interest in working with them.
>
> Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...
>
>
to back down just like limiting throughput?
>
> Sam Tetherow
> Sandhills Wireless
>
> Matt Ferre wrote:
>> It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second.
>> Get just one customer with computer infected with some decent virus
>> an
MT can manufacture NS alike hardware if they only want to. They don't
have to buy it from Ubiquiti and making Ubiquiti (competing company?)
profit from it.
On 7/20/08, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mk can buy nanostations in bulk,
>
> -Original Message
It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second.
Get just one customer with computer infected with some decent virus
and it will generate 5000 packets per seconds, which may account to
only 256kbps in raw traffic terms. But with regular Access Point this
will bring your AP to the
Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
see why.
Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
they are mo
12 matches
Mail list logo
