Why am I thinking Skynet?
From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Adam Moffett Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 11:36 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] BEAD When they did this in the past, they just gave the satellite guys a waiver on the rules. Yeah they already served the areas, and yeah they didn't count as broadband under the rules everyone else had to follow, but they were provided money for CPE installs anyway. <speculation mode>My completely unsubstantiated assumption is that after the proposals were reviewed, they didn't see the amount of new coverage they wanted, so they did this to inflate the numbers and report a bigger success. I have no evidence for that, and I can't name "they" specifically. It's just an explanation that makes sense to me. I.e.: PoliticianX wants to go on TV and say they brought broadband to a zillion people. Program Administrator comes up with a way to oblige them. </speculation> -Adam _____ From: AF on behalf of Jason McKemie Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 12:19 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] BEAD Wouldn't the rules of BEAD need to be changed for this to happen? If we're including satellite in the eligible services category, then the areas that they currently cover should already be considered served, correct? On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 11:15 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> > wrote: Ok. I don't think we're actually very far apart then. If they are going to use BEAD funding for satellite only for CPE installs, then would you find that acceptable? I don't know if that's what they'll do, but historically that's what they did when broadband grants went to satellite services. -Adam _____ From: AF on behalf of Steve Jones Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 11:15 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] BEAD not at all, I'm saying new infrastructure as in new locations are required as new iterations of minimums come out. satellite, being a planned obsolescence with scheduled updates allows for the continuous forward path in the same footprint. I'm not saying fed dough should go there, I'm saying it shouldn't exist. but if it's going anywhere that's not fiber, it shouldn't definetly not go to terrestrial FW that won't have a physical footprint capable. it definetly shouldn't be going to 14k access points for 2 customers since it will never ROI before end of equipment life, and will require a new handout. terrestrial FW has the shortest shelf life built into the plant lifespan On Tue, Mar 25, 2025, 7:48 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> > wrote: Steve, If you're saying BEAD should help Starlink buy more/newer/better satellites then I could at least see a rational argument for that, but those satellites are only intended to have a 5-year lifespan, so I don't see how that's any different than funding fixed wireless. And historically when they awarded grants to satellite it was used to subsidize CPE installation. To me that's a copout. It's not building infrastructure; it's just inflating numbers so they can go on TV (or Xwitter) and say they provided broadband to twice as many people as they actually did. -Adam _____ From: AF on behalf of Steve Jones Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 10:10 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] BEAD Satellite has a planned obsolescence so will maintain cyclical growth, but will hit the same hurdles. Still a better placement of fed money than fixed wireless, but not the same as fiber On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 6:09 PM Ken Hohhof <khoh...@kwom.com <mailto:khoh...@kwom.com> > wrote: OK, I see. BTW, what would you say about satellite? From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf Of Steve Jones Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 3:11 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] BEAD Can you meet the FCC minimums today, at the same distances as you could when the minimums came in? Nope. You would have to get closer to the customer., that means buildout. and when the minimum is inevitably 500 mb, youll buildout again, and when its a gig, youll build out again, getting closer and closer and closer to the customer each time. Fiber, you just swap some electronics for the most part. On Sun, Mar 23, 2025 at 10:34 PM Ken Hohhof <khoh...@kwom.com <mailto:khoh...@kwom.com> > wrote: I don’t understand why fiber is just some electronics but wireless requires a buildout. Aren’t they both just some electronics, but one requires installing a long piece of glass, while the other just goes through the air? Or free space, as in “free space loss”? The difference in my mind is that you don’t need the FCC to sell you spectrum over glass. “You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat.” ― Albert Einstein From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf Of Chuck Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2025 10:16 PM To: af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> Cc: af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] BEAD Some of the early multimode was monofilament fishing line. It was not glass. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 23, 2025, at 8:39 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com <mailto:part15...@gmail.com> > wrote: Not really. Early versions of fiber were much larger diameter. I worked for a company that had implemented fiber internally back in the 80s, but could not use it when the fiber got thinner and none of the new connectors would work on the old fat stuff. bp <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> On 3/23/2025 5:51 PM, Steve Jones wrote: fiber installed in the 80s is capable of ten gig. the infrastructure stays the same as technology grows. when I started in wireless we could serve most anybody with good capacity 15 to 20 miles out all day long. fiber is just some electronics, wireless requires build outs. not a drop of tax dollar should go to that On Fri, Mar 21, 2025, 1:12 PM Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com <mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> > wrote: Is GPON good enough? That can only do gigabit and each port is 2.5G. Should these projects require NGPON? Or maybe every location should have AE so they can do 100G to start with. On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 2:01 PM Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote: Because in X years they won't be. With fiber they will be upon the same Infrastructure. On Fri, Mar 21, 2025, 10:59 AM Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com <mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> > wrote: But people that currently have fixed wireless of 100x20 are sufficiently served? How does that make any sense? On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 11:44 AM Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote: they should not allow fixed wireless, they never should have allowed technology with a short shelf life On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 9:17 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> > wrote: Well.... https://bsky.app/profile/craigsilverman.bsky.social/post/3lkiye5n2dk2p https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/s/seq3uoU1L5 The director of BEAD quit. He says the previous rules interpreted the bill to mean that only FTTH would meet the performance and future-proofing requirements. He is claiming that there are proposed rule changes that will allow Starlink but not allow fixed wireless. I don't know whether the changes intentionally benefit Starlink, but this guy is crying foul and felt strongly enough about it to resign over it. -Adam _____ From: AF on behalf of Ken Hohhof Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 12:19 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: [AFMUG] BEAD I’m surprised BEAD hasn’t run into problems because the E stands for Equity and DEI is now banned. But if they eliminate the E, would it just be BAD? -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
