A lot of them already work that way. In NY you don't get a grant until
you've built something and then you get reimbursed for it. CAF gives you
monthly distributions and does not cover any up front capital at all. I
haven't seen every program, but the ones I have seen all required you to
spend your own money first and then get reimbursed after.
But think about why does that even matter? The two sources of data they
have are both unreliable:
1. Reports from the end user who's ignorant.
2. Reports from the operator who might also be ignorant (or liar).
They'll have what % of users are bitching at us, and how good are the
excuses from the operator. Whether you distribute the funding before or
after construction won't change that. Distributing afterwards means you
can't take the money, buy a ferrari, and drive to Mexico.
Besides....LOT's of people build shit networks with their own money.
On 3/5/2021 11:53 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/4/22312065/fcc-highspeed-broadband-service-ajit-pai-bennet-angus-king-rob-portman
<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] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<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
