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 <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
<mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> 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 <ryan...@gmail.com
<mailto:ryan...@gmail.com>> 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
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>>
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
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>
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
