Well, no, if somebody is saying he can do 100 down AND UP with CBRS LTE, he's just plain lying (or an idiot), even if it is only 1 cpe... and it's in the same room as the eNB.
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 11:51 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've seen physical audits to confirm that when we submitted for > reimbursement for 100 base stations that we actually deployed 100 base > stations. There are financial audits of course, and they'll harp on any > perceived irregularity until they're satisfied. Sometimes the physical > auditor wants to see some examples of deployed CPE. > > In NY Connect and NY Broadband, the project plans had to be reviewed by an > outside engineering firm chosen by NY State. That firm was supposed to > assess the technical feasibility of the project. For wireless coverage we > had to tell the firm how we projected coverage and they attempted to > duplicate it and confirm that it wasn't made up. But if they were told > "the system has xxDb of gain and coverage is projected to -90RSSi because > this spec sheet here says the CPE will connect at -90" then that's what > they'll go by to verify that you projected it accurately. If anybody just > drew a circle they would not have made it past the feasibility study. > > I never saw or heard of a "testing node" to verify coverage in the field, > but if they could raise it to the CPE height used in the projection and > measure down to the signal shown on the map, then it would have been > totally fine. > > If you had a reasonable projection of coverage and a reasonable projection > of capacity then you'd pass feasibility study. The issue is I don't think > anybody put the coverage and capacity side by side and said "you can't > connect -xx RSSI and ALSO sell yy Mbps. It's one or the other". > > .....see I think the difference is you're assuming there's graft or > corruption when the reality is that it's just an idiot operator who's being > managed by an idiot regulator. The system will catch the truly incompetent > people, but if the operator is marginally competent and also can talk a > good game then he can get funded. It might help if he also plays golf with > a senator, but that's not strictly a requirement (nobody I was involved > with did that level of hobnobbing). See most people on this list are here > saying "100Mbps disqualifies me as a WISP from getting this funding." But > right now, there's some clown saying, "I can do 100Mbps with my CBRS > LTE." And he's RIGHT as long as he's careful about how many subs per base > station and what SNR's he's connecting, but he'll be WRONG if he promises > to do that for every census block out in the woods. In spite of being > wrong, he can produce documents from the vendor and empirical testing to > "prove" he's right. He's only wrong when all the pieces come together. > > -Adam > > > On 3/5/2021 12:21 PM, Steve Jones wrote: > > I see traffic counters set up on random rural roads for no good reason > (probably is a good reason) all over. There isnt any reason to not have > official testing nodes (I thought there were) to verify. Wireless coverage > can be propagated, and should be more than a circle on a map. I didnt like > it when this all began, When we were providing our data to one of the > mapping agents I called for assistance, basically was told to lie(ish). > list our coverage of what we "could" cover within 7 days. and that was very > loose, we had tranzeos laying around and that was enough for "could cover". > Irritated me to be grey area honest > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 11:03 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> A lot of them already work that way. In NY you don't get a grant until >> you've built something and then you get reimbursed for it. CAF gives you >> monthly distributions and does not cover any up front capital at all. I >> haven't seen every program, but the ones I have seen all required you to >> spend your own money first and then get reimbursed after. >> >> But think about why does that even matter? The two sources of data they >> have are both unreliable: >> >> 1. Reports from the end user who's ignorant. >> >> 2. Reports from the operator who might also be ignorant (or liar). >> >> They'll have what % of users are bitching at us, and how good are the >> excuses from the operator. Whether you distribute the funding before or >> after construction won't change that. Distributing afterwards means you >> can't take the money, buy a ferrari, and drive to Mexico. >> >> Besides....LOT's of people build shit networks with their own money. >> >> >> On 3/5/2021 11:53 AM, Steve Jones wrote: >> >> 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> 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> >>> 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> 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> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> 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
