this is why i wish they would go to recovery awards. you get your money AFTER you serve the area and verify. A whole lot less grift when playing with your own money. Ill get shot here, but I think no funding for anything other than a hardline solution like fiber should be available anywhere within X miles of any town of population.
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 10:39 AM Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: > There's too much emphasis on Mbps, but my guess is the political decision > makers observe that cable and fiber companies selling 100M+ generate fewer > complaints from constituents than wireless operators offering 25Mbps. > > <rant mode> > > I'm not going to name any names, but I've seen a few grant funded wireless > networks who qualified for funding by "offering" 25mbps that they couldn't > actually deliver consistently. You can do 25Mbps if load isn't too high, > SNR is good enough, not too many inefficient low mod stations, etc. If the > design is built with maximal capacity in mind, then you can do 25Mbps for > sure, but to qualify for funding they typically have to hit every household > in a geographic area so they focus too heavily on coverage rather than > capacity. They'll get projections showing coverage down to a -80 RSSI when > really they couldn't deliver that 25Mbps consistently unless everybody was > getting -65 or better. (I saw one using -90 for projecting coverage in a > grant application, and ALSO using excessively generous system gains in > their link budget based on recommendations from some fool doing tech > support at the VAR.) > > There's reasoning motivated by the requirements of the funding. They're > told they HAVE to offer 25mbps AND they HAVE to cover 100% of the people in > a given area, and they end up stretching to try to make both things true > when they really can't ever both be true at the same time. They'll never > admit it. They've made it true in their own minds so they can talk to the > regulators about it and feel that they aren't lying. End result is a > funded network with poor performance and constituents bitching at somebody > about it. The politician getting bitched at doesn't understand the root > cause and couldn't prequalify applicants on any other criteria so they just > increase the required Mbps. > > I think usually these guys aren't really liars, they're just ignorant. > They listen to a vendor telling them a product can deliver eleventy > thousand Mbps without understanding the qualifying conditions. They'll > test with one or two CPE with perfect signal to "prove" that it's true. I > think they're honestly surprised when they call me in to troubleshoot and I > have to tell them that there's not much wrong with their network and it > just can't do what they're trying to do. There's really nothing to fix > except go to each CPE location and try to make them all 30 SNR. > > If you have to qualify for a grant by offering 100Mbps to EVERY household > in EVERY eligible census block in an entire town, then you are going to > have to do it with fiber or coax. There will still be people trying it > with wireless, but they'll only be the most egregious liars and fools. > Eventually the government agencies will stop being technology agnostic and > just say "no fixed wireless". > > <disclaimer>I do know some things, but I don't actually know what > motivates this specific decisions. That part is conjecture.</disclaimer> > </rant mode> > > > > On 3/5/2021 10:20 AM, Mathew Howard wrote: > > You would think that since they bothered coming up with excuses why the > current standard isn't good enough, they could at least come up with a > number based on their imagined need, instead of just coming up with a > random number with no basis in anything other than "100/100 sounds good". > > It's not that hard... according to them, Zoom needs 3.8mbps upload per > 1080p stream (and obviously everybody in the house absolutely needs to be > using 1080p), so lets say a lot of households are running 5 simultaneous > Zoom sessions (which I'm guessing is actually fairly rare)... that's > 19Mbps, so throw in some overhead and make it, say 25Mbps. That's > realistically going to be way more upload bandwidth than the vast majority > of people ever need, so why exactly do we need to make the standard four > times that? > > I guess it's one way to only fund fiber, which probably isn't a terrible > idea if we're going to insist on throwing tax payer money away on such > projects. > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:21 PM Steve Jones <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> As long as they're tossing arbitrary numbers for need out there without >> any fact based justification I think we should get carte blanche to do as >> we please to make it happen. No need for ROW, we will take the O out of >> OTARD and give it a big fat REeeee. Dont want us running cable through >> your living room to your neighbors house? Move. That 300 year old oak is in >> the way? Federal money for husqvarna solutions. 1 watt per mhz? F that, >> 1.12 gigawatt at the cpe. We will burn those obstructions out of the way, >> make it disappear like micheal j fox in a Polaroid. >> >> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021, 9:29 PM Ryan Ray <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Just create another CBRS database and let's get a huge swath of spectrum >>> dedicated to PTMP without huge fees for rural areas. Lots of places where >>> we could service 700-800 people if only more spectrum was available and it >>> wouldn't impact anyone else in that band. If it does? Shut it off. Spectrum >>> feels like such a wasted resource. We could be doing so much more with it, >>> we understand how it propagates and software can now handle that on the fly >>> in order to allocate to as many people as possible. I honestly think a >>> fluid and dynamic database like this is the future of wireless. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:45 PM Steve Jones <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/4/22312065/fcc-highspeed-broadband-service-ajit-pai-bennet-angus-king-rob-portman >>>> Meth and kickbacks. They need to just free up 500mhz-120ghz for just >>>> WISP use. Then each wisp can have a ton of spectrum to get that porn to >>>> every device >>>> -- >>>> AF mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>> >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> > > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >
-- AF mailing list [email protected] http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
