I see traffic counters set up on random rural roads for no good reason (probably is a good reason) all over. There isnt any reason to not have official testing nodes (I thought there were) to verify. Wireless coverage can be propagated, and should be more than a circle on a map. I didnt like it when this all began, When we were providing our data to one of the mapping agents I called for assistance, basically was told to lie(ish). list our coverage of what we "could" cover within 7 days. and that was very loose, we had tranzeos laying around and that was enough for "could cover". Irritated me to be grey area honest
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 11:03 AM Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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 >
-- AF mailing list [email protected] http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
