28 0 mode (GeV) 1 st KK exc. (GeV) 2 nd KK exc. (GeV) Left charg. 80 1316 16076 Right charg. - 1000 16054 Neutral 0 , 91 1070 , 1316 16058 , 16076 0 mode (GeV) 1 st KK exc. (GeV) 2 nd KK exc. (GeV) Left charg. 80 1307 8672 Right charg. - 1000 8632 Neutral 0 , 91 1067 , 1307 8640 , 8672 TABLE II: Low lying masses of the spectrum (zero modes and first two KK excitations) for the model in the RS limit, with the following parameter choice: k = 6 . 6 · 10 18 GeV , kπR = 35 , ¯ g$_{5}$ = 1 , naive unitarity cut-off equal to 19 · 10 3 GeV . TABLE III: Low lying masses of the spectrum (zero modes and first two KK excitations) for the model in the RS limit, with the following parameter choice: k = 4 . 7 · 10 18 GeV , kπR = 10 , ¯ g$_{5}$ = 1 , naive unitarity cut-off equal to 34 · 10 3 GeV . The qualitative analysis made for the flat case generalizes almost verbatim to the AdS case. The main difference is the typical distance between two adjacent eigenstates, which is given by Δ M rather than simply by 1 /R . In Tables II and III, we show examples of spectra corresponding to particular choices of the model parameters. It is interesting to compare this situation to the one of flat case; even though the masses of the first KK level in each sector are roughly the same, the appearance of the second KK level is delayed to a much higher scale. Also in this case, we have checked the model against EW precision data using the ϵ parameters. In Fig. 5, we show the allowed region at 95% C.L. in parameter space ( M$_{1}$, ¯ g$_{5}$ ); experimental data and SM radiative correction are the same of the flat case. The regions slightly depend on the choice of kπR ; here we have chosen kπR = 35; Fig. 5 also reports contours that correspond to different values of the naive unitarity cut-off, (81) . Notice that