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 <dmmoff...@gmail.com
<mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> 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
<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 <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>
