Globochem. On Tue, Oct 6, 2026, 4:09 PM Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote:
> MomCorp. > > > > *From:* AF <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 6, 2026 3:58 PM > *To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PON and UPC > > > > There's definitely consolidation occurring. I can't wait to find out who > my new evil overlords will be. Maybe Catbert's Fiber. > ------------------------------ > > *From:* AF <[email protected]> on behalf of Ken Hohhof < > [email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 6, 2026 4:19 PM > *To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PON and UPC > > > > No BEAD projects have actually been funded yet in Illinois, and we haven’t > seen the latest map negotiated with NTIA. The plan from a year ago > definitely involved some really small companies stepping up to wire really > big areas. > > > > But what got me thinking about all the money being borrowed was this: > > > https://www.kirkland.com/news/press-release/2026/06/kirkland-advises-metro-communications-on-completion-of-second-securitization-issuance-at-459-million > > > > Metro Communications aka Conxxus is expanding like crazy in small Illinois > towns (no government cheese), and they seem to be borrowing crazy amounts > of money to do it. In addition to the new builds, they have bought > Clearwave and MTCO this year, and they seem to immediately turn around and > use those assets as collateral for more loans. So as long as FTTH is a > can’t lose business proposition, that makes sense. It does kind of remind > me of the period when leveraged buyouts were common, someone described it > to me as they would buy you with your own cash. > > > > I remember Frontier doing the same thing to fund their fiber buildout, but > then they got bought by Verizon, apparently on the basis of their fiber > network. So that worked out for them. I think at one point they did have > to sell off some west coast fiber assets to pay the bills. > > > > *From:* AF <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 6, 2026 3:00 PM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PON and UPC > > > > What I think you're getting at is if they had 25% of the money to expand > their footprint tenfold, then they could have expanded it by 2.5x with > their own money, and if they could have done that then they would have > already been expanding. > > > > They could have investors who provided the cash for the sake of the BEAD > application because a grant makes a return more likely. Or maybe they had > access to the money all along and just sat on it to see if they could get > four times the value by adding government cheese into the mix. > > > > I never got involved in BEAD, so I couldn't speak to other possibilities, > but Chuck seems to say the match could have been other assets besides > cash. I wonder how creative they allowed people get with that. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* AF <[email protected]> on behalf of Ken Hohhof < > [email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 6, 2026 11:51 AM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PON and UPC > > > > 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]> 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] > 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 >
-- AF mailing list [email protected] http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
