[173077] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Blake Dunlap)
Tue Jul 15 15:15:17 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <201407151859.MAA07123@mail.lariat.net>
From: Blake Dunlap <ikiris@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:09:57 -0500
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
This is a lot of why I have a lot of respect for the wireless guys I
know or have met that clearly know their wireless, even if some of
them are wingnuts outside of the wireless domain. Wireless is
Hard(tm), and doesn't really overlap a lot with other ISP knowledge
sets.
-Blake
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Brett Glass <nanog@brettglass.com> wrote:
> At 12:18 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
>> If you are picky enough to prefer other radios that cost more on Mbps/$,
>> that's your call,
>
>
> We need reliability. That particular radio wouldn't cut it. As I've
> mentioned, users can get away with much less bandwidth if the quality
> is high, so going for a less reliable radio with a high nominal speed
> does not actually save money.
>
> Also, that 5 GHz radio is a "spectrum spammer" and hence is a bad
> neighbor.
>
> After 25 years of doing wireless, one learns what really works and what
> is a false economy. Believe me, we've learned some hard and expensive
> lessons.
>
> --Brett Glass
>
