It will increase because 8ts the government, there is no historical case
where any government ever stopped.
We all know there is no legitimate reason for the current numbers, so there
is no legitimate reason to operate under the assumption that the government
will decide to do something no government has done in the past
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025, 10:27 AM Ken Hohhof <khoh...@kwom.com> wrote:
> We should also be careful about assuming that broadband speeds will
> continue to increase just because the graph says so. You’ve got to ask
> what is driving the increase from 4 to 25 to 100 and what applications will
> require 200, 500, 1000, 1000, 5000? CPU speed hit a plateau, for a while
> it was number of cores, then we discovered GPUs. Supersonic passenger
> planes didn’t become mainstream, nor did bullet trains (at least in this
> country). 8K video fizzled because you have to sit 2 feet away or have a
> >100 ft screen to tell the difference.
>
>
>
> I would argue that the current belief that you just can’t live without 100
> Mbps to gigabit Internet comes from several factors.
>
>
>
> - 4K streaming (but 8K ain’t happening)
>
> - inefficient use of bandwidth, CDNs bursting several seconds of video at
> a time because it’s more efficient for their servers
>
> - gamers downloading 150 GB game software
>
> - everybody in the family watching their own video
>
> - advertising by big ISPs
>
> - “decoy effect”, where they price medium speed to convince you to just
> get the highest speed
>
> - people signing up for gigabit Internet but never really using more then
> 50-100 Mbps except to run speedtests
>
> - self fulfilling prophecy as government declares 100 Mbps to be the
> minimum to be called broadband (I’m seeing IT depts adopt this for remote
> workers)
>
>
>
> So what applications will drive multigigabit Internet to be essential
> going forward? Not sure all the hype about AI justifies that. Video
> resolution has probably hit a plateau, everybody in the family is already
> streaming their own content, and Gen. Z and beyond are into short form
> video like YouTube and TikTok not movies and TV shows.
>
>
>
> The only thing I see on the list is game software size. Since they don’t
> even try to distribute it on physical media anymore, the sky’s the limit.
>
>
>
> But the idea that someone will need multigigabit Internet to work from
> home on a Teams video call is just silly, you can do it all day long in 2.5
> Mbps symmetric. And the visions of people accessing telehealth with it or
> the metaverse and VR, those people are dreaming. People use the Internet
> for streaming video, gaming, and some people work from home. If they are
> going to focus on more “speed”, I’d say upstream speed is where people
> might need more.
>
>
>
> Nobody wants to look like a dummy by questioning the trend line. But
> then, where’s my flying car?
>
>
>
> *From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 27, 2025 9:49 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] BEAD
>
>
>
> first,cancel bead, that's the right solution.
>
>
>
> I'd be more pissed if they paid for just cpe, since they're paying
> everybody else just for passing.
>
>
>
> this is why government should never subsidize, it messes up natural order.
>
>
>
> fiber is more sustainable
>
>
>
> satellite is refunded upgrades
>
>
>
> fw is a short term bandaid
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2025, 11:15 AM Adam Moffett <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> 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> wrote:
>
> OK, I see.
>
>
>
> BTW, what would you say about satellite?
>
>
>
> *From:* AF <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>
> *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> 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> *On Behalf Of *Chuck
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 23, 2025 10:16 PM
> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
> *Cc:* 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> 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>
> 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>
> 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>
> 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>
> 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> 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
> 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
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
> --
> 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
>
> --
> 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
>
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
