Do you really think robots are going to pay into SSI?
On 3/21/25 14:24, Darin Steffl wrote:
Do we think when Tesla Optimus robots are mass produced in a few years, that some of the manual labor can be replaced with robots? That would drive down fiber construction cost considerably. Instead of 5 guys per drill crew, it could be 1-2 guys and the rest are robots.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025, 3:50 PM dbernardi <dberna...@zitomedia.net> wrote:



    But the expensive/important part (fiber) is in place.  If the
    gubment is
    going to piss away tax dollars for unserved/underserved broadband,
    fiber
    construction seems like a decent urinal.

    XGS-PON can co-exist with GPON on the same fiber so eventual upgrades
    are fairly easy.  Do combo GPON/XGS-PON at the OLT out of the gate
    so a
    CPE swap is the only thing require for an upgrade to a shared 10Gb
    service.   When XGS-PON isn't enough bandwidth for the 32
    subscribers on
    a PON, I'd rather replace equipment at either end than deal with
    another
    construction project.  Or do a 1:16 split.

    Preparing for AE when doing the construction is probably
    worthwhile too
    even if you only light for PON initially, or mix/match.  The cost of
    deploying high count fiber cable isn't that significant in the big
    picture.

    And why does fiber construction have to be so (artificially?)
    expensive.
      Buy America will certainly make broadband deployments more
    expensive
    but that's a good thing if it truly provides jobs and manufacturing
    investment, but I have my doubts.



    On 3/21/2025 2:04 PM, Josh Luthman 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://bsky.app/profile/
    >  craigsilverman.bsky.social/post/3lkiye5n2dk2p>
    >
    > https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/s/seq3uoU1L5
    >                 <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
    >               
     <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
    >             <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 <http://
    > af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/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 <http://
    > af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/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

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Reply via email to