Talking about the match. I see BEAD projects that would expand the awardee's footprint more than 10x. No way they could fund even the 25% organically.
Or are you saying the 25% match is an illusion because the 75% is actually 200%? On October 6, 2026 10:26:59 AM CDT, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: >BEAD is a grant, not a loan. Match is 25%. And our award is like 2X the cost >of construction. >How do you default on a grant? > > > > >________________________________ >From: AF <[email protected]> on behalf of Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> >Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2026 7:08 AM >To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PON and UPC > > >I’ve noticed a lot of medium to large FTTH providers are very heavily >leveraged, all their fiber assets are pledged as collateral to get loans to >build more. I would guess as BEAD rolls out, the copays are also borrowed >money. My gut tells me if revenue fails to meet projections there could be a >lot of loan defaults. > > > >Which gets me to my question. In the popular fiber architectures, what parts >are generic and can easily be used by a new owner? The glass itself would >seem to be useful no matter what. But what about ONTs, OLTs, and customer >prem equipment like routers? And other headend equipment like routers. > > > >What happens if a fiber equipment manufacturer like Calix goes though a >bankruptcy or liquidation (thinking about the Cambium situation). Is this >stuff all proprietary, closed ecosystem? > > > >From: AF <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Adam Moffett >Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2026 7:55 AM >To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PON and UPC > > > >I've made the same switch myself. PON is definitely easier. Everyone >(including me) likes Ethernet when they're new at it because it seems more >simple and familiar, but PON is easier to manage. I'd keep Ethernet around >for enterprise stuff, but bulk tier3 services are better off on PON. > >There was also a business case for Ethernet in a rural area where you might >have small clusters of potential customers. You could add a 24 port or 48 >port Ethernet switch a lot more cheaply than adding an OLT, but in the past >decade you could also use Ubiquiti's UFiber in that same scenario. Or use >XGS-PON where you can get long reach by adjusting min and differential range >and minding your link budget. In that case you can look at it as the cost of >adding ports on a central system vs the cost of adding a new point-of-presence. > >In other words, I think the tech based argument for Ethernet was at least >partially wrong from the start, and the most compelling business case for it >has evaporated. > >I also see Ethernet in open access networks where they put each provider in a >VLAN and each ISP is just providing a router and customer service. I won't go >on that rant today, but that model seems incredibly dumb in my eyes. > > > >-Adam > > > > > > > >On Mon, Oct 5, 2026 at 5:22 PM Nate Burke ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >I don't have any PON in the field, only Active, but I'm curious why >you're converting your active network to a PON network? Network >Management? Future Scalability with existing fiber? What's driving the >switch. I'm genuinely curious. > >On 10/5/2026 3:53 PM, Jason McKemie wrote: >> I have an active optical network that I would like to convert to PON. >> Unfortunately, the connectors at the cabinet are all UPC. Am I asking >> for a headache if I connect those customers via an APC to UPC cable vs >> re-splicing everything at the cabinet? The lengths from the cabinet to >> the customer locations are all less than a mile. I'll be splicing on a >> new APC connector at the customer locations. >> > >-- >AF mailing list >[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- AF mailing list [email protected] http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
