Re: [AFMUG] DC power supplies in parallel

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

Since I accidentally derailed your thread, I figure I should reply to your
original query.

I'm a fan of reducing complexity where possible.  The problem is that
defining complexity is often ISP and site specific, and sometimes the least
complex solution is also impossible to have staff maintain.  Regardless:

One strategy I use is to try to reduce the number of active "blocks".  I'd
rather have one really good 48V supply instead of several.  The reason
behind this is that each piece of electronics has a certain failure rate.
When you have multiples you find that the failure rate is the combination
of all so if you have 5 supplies with similar failure rates,  you're going
to visit the site 5 times as often for failed supplies.

At an AC site, I'd use one supply for each voltage.   I wouldn't do any
DC-DC since a DC-DC would rely on one of the AC supplies working.   Note
that this statement doesn't apply to a DC site.

The main exception to the above at an AC site is that I would, in some
cases, choose to do multiple power supplies if it gains redundancy.  I.E.
if you do one big power supply which fails, your entire site is down.  If
you do small ones, then only the items on the failed supply is down.  How
extreme you want to go here is up to you - but you're also trading
redundancy for a mess. If I did this, I'd probably just do the 'a/b side'
thing where I essentially build two sites connected to each other, with
redundant backhauls (one per side).




On Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 12:49 PM Steve Jones 
wrote:

> I have a bunch of various meanwell 48 vDC power supplies mostly  120 and
> 350 watt models with most loads being 45wattish and some 108wattish.
>
> One site im re-cabling has 1100w in PSUs taking a ton of space providing
> for a total demand of around 440w. Seems overkill and only accounts for the
> DC direct powered stuff, not the other 300w or so
>
> Whats the consensus on an AC powered site? individual PSUs for ever
> equipment. Big PSU/rectifier for all?
> Our battery capacity at this particular site is on the APC at the base
> providing just AC to the top, we are not bringing the batteries up for
> reasons and all electronics are up top.
>
>
> --
> 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

Re: [AFMUG] DC power supplies in parallel

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

Tesla is recommending this because LFP has a very flat discharge curve, so
it is difficult to know the state of charge just from the battery voltage.
In order to provide an accurate battery meter, they have to do coulomb
counting (or some similar method) which keeps track of energy in and out of
the battery.  In theory (and to some extent, in practice), this will allow
them to know exactly how much energy is left in the battery, and provide a
correct "percentage or miles left" indication.

Where reality diverges from theory is the fact that it is impossible to be
100% accurate when counting coulombs. As a result, one has to reset the
coulomb counter to match the state of charge of the battery every once in a
while so the gauge is accurate. For LFP batteries, the easiest way to do
this is to charge the batteries to 100% charge. This is a tradeoff Tesla
has made between being able to have a reliable battery gauge and having a
battery which lasts as long as possible. I can definitely see the reasoning
behind Tesla choosing the reliable battery gauge since I think I would be
pissed if I got stranded because I thought I had plenty of range left when
I didn't.

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 7:23 PM Robert  wrote:

> This is what Tesla is recommending for the LFP based model 3 and model Y
> versions.   100% charge.  VS the 80% for the other chemistries.   Tesla is
> also going more in on LFP solutions and the latest investor presentation
> said their proprietary model "breakthrough" battery is no longer an
> emphasis because third party batteries are getting cheaper than they can
> make.
>
> On 4/26/24 1:06 PM, TJ Trout wrote:
>
> Storing a fully charged lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) battery has a
> minimal impact on its lifespan. In fact, it's recommended to fully charge
> LiFePO4 batteries before storing them for long periods of time. These
> batteries have a low self-discharge rate, typically losing 2% of their
> charge per month. However, fully charged lithium-ion batteries can be
> dangerous if left unused for long periods of time.
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 12:43 PM Forrest Christian (List Account) <
> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 1:02 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>
>>> And I'm still using AGM batteries while all the cool kids are using
>>> LiFePO4 with BCMs, so definitely don't listen to me.
>>>
>>
>> The more I learn about lithium batteries, the more I feel that lithium
>> has relatively few advantages for standby applications.
>>
>> My most recent knowledge acquisition is the fact that if you want to
>> shorten the life of a lithium battery the best way to do so is to keep it
>> fully charged.   The higher the average state of charge,  the shorter the
>> life of the battery, although admitted there isn't much change in lifetime
>> between about 20% and 80%.   But keeping them at 100% isn't great.
>>
>> If you want to store a lithium battery without charging,  it's best to
>> drop the charge below 80% then store.
>>
>> In a standby application you really want to keep a battery at 100% which
>> shortens it's life greatly.   A better choice would be to keep it at 80%
>> max but then you have other issues, not to mention the fact you now have to
>> buy a bigger battery array.
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
>
> --
> Thank you,
>
> TJ Trout
> Volt Broadband
> 209.480.3122 Cell
>
>
> --
> 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

[AFMUG] sale bulk used Mikrotik swtiches

[Zach Underwood]

We are working on pulling out Mikrotik switches from the network and
looking for vendors to buy the used switches. I have tried SWG and they
went silent on emails so I am looking for another vendor. All hardware is
located in ATL but can bulk ship.

We have almost all models of crs1xx, crs2xx, crs3xx with a mix of poe and
non poe

Example we have close to 100x CRS328

-- 
Zach Underwood (RHCE,RHCSA,RHCT,UACA)
My website 
advance-networking.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Govt funded fiber - Utopia

[Robert]

In a lot of the US fire stations aren't getting staffed because the 
firefighters are totally keeping the jobs staffed at levels that require 
massive overtime at 2x pay to spike their income for the purpose of 
maximizing retirement pay. And that's not a California specialty.   
Happening in NV and all across the other states.   And not just Fire 
Fighters, civil servants across the board.   Why many of the cities get 
into retirement dept that was unforcasted when the retirement levels 
were funded..


On 4/26/24 4:35 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
Fire stations here are failing.  They can't staff them.  Townships 
can't fund them so they're paying cities much higher rates per call.


On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 7:01 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

Everything’s political now, of course.

But he does have a point when he says “Government-owned broadband
networks cost millions of dollars and divert essential funding
away from services that really matter to the public — services
such as police and fire, roads, water and sewer.”

In the past, the government has undertaken vast programs at
taxpayer expense like rural electrification, the interstate
highway system, the space program.  Now apparently high speed
Internet is the thing of the moment that takes precedence over all
the other broken things that we might wish government to fix. I
sometimes wonder why Internet?  Maybe because it seems easy and
gives people the power to hand out billions of dollars.  Could
they cure cancer or get lead out of drinking water or fix all the
deteriorating bridges with something like a BEAD program?

Maybe they think broadband and AI and neural implants will lead to
a future where everyone is plugged into the network and doesn’t
need any of those other things. Maybe we’ll all be heads in jars
like in Futurama.

*From:*AF  *On Behalf Of *Chuck McCown via AF
*Sent:* Friday, April 26, 2024 5:38 PM
*To:* Josh Luthman ; AnimalFarm
Microwave Users Group 
*Cc:* ch...@go-mtc.com; John Brewer 
*Subject:* [AFMUG] ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Govt funded fiber -
Utopia

I am surprised they have never broke even.

*From:*Josh Luthman

*Sent:*Friday, April 26, 2024 4:02 PM

*To:*AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group

*Cc:*John Brewer ; ch...@go-mtc.com

*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] ***SPAM*** Govt funded fiber - Utopia

Article:

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2024/04/19/government-internet-service-bad-for-taxpayers/

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 4:59 PM Chuck McCown via AF
 wrote:

By John Dougall

For the Deseret News

Most Utahns probably agree that government should stick to essential
government services and stay out of enterprises that are better
performed by
the private sector.

Yet, across the country and right here in Utah, more and more
governments
are building government-owned internet networks, despite numerous
private-sector providers being available.

The number of government-owned networks is increasing by the day, and
taxpayers, not users, are often footing the bill. Government-owned
broadband
networks cost millions of dollars and divert essential funding
away from
services that really matter to the public — services such as
police and
fire, roads, water and sewer.

Two unfortunate examples of government-owned broadband networks
right here
in Utah are iProvo and UTOPIA.

In 2004, Provo launched iProvo to provide broadband internet
services to
homes and business. Provo reportedly bonded for $36.5 million to
bring
service to every home in the city and wrote off $5.4 million that
the city’s
telecommunications fund owed the Energy Department’s reserve fund
to finance
the costly deployment. After struggling to make the network
viable, iProvo
was sold in 2008. But its buyer failed to fulfill the terms of the
sale, and
iProvo reverted back to the city. In 2013, in a desperate attempt
to free
itself of the failed venture, the city ultimately sold iProvo to
Google for
$1.

Similarly, UTOPIA (Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure
Agency) was
launched to provide broadband internet services to a consortium of
cities.
But UTOPIA has failed to fulfill its promises for more than two
decades now.
The project, which started in 2002, was projected to be finished
in three to
four years. Fast forward to today, and it is still incomplete. Not
only is
UTOPIA incomplete, but the project has racked up $300 million
worth of debt.
And despite iProvo’s example of failure, UTOPIA continues to expand.

For years, UTOPIA consistently lost money, expecting taxpayers to
cover
those losses. In addition to this, the government-owned network
continues to
expand and pull other cities into this trap. What’s more egregious
is that

Re: [AFMUG] DC power supplies in parallel

[Robert]

This is what Tesla is recommending for the LFP based model 3 and model Y 
versions.   100% charge.  VS the 80% for the other chemistries.   Tesla 
is also going more in on LFP solutions and the latest investor 
presentation said their proprietary model "breakthrough" battery is no 
longer an emphasis because third party batteries are getting cheaper 
than they can make.


On 4/26/24 1:06 PM, TJ Trout wrote:
Storing a fully charged lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) battery has a 
minimal impact on its lifespan. In fact, it's recommended to fully 
charge LiFePO4 batteries before storing them for long periods of time. 
These batteries have a low self-discharge rate, typically losing 2% of 
their charge per month. However, fully charged lithium-ion batteries 
can be dangerous if left unused for long periods of time.


On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 12:43 PM Forrest Christian (List Account) 
 wrote:




On Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 1:02 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

And I'm still using AGM batteries while all the cool kids are
using LiFePO4 with BCMs, so definitely don't listen to me.


The more I learn about lithium batteries, the more I feel that
lithium has relatively few advantages for standby applications.

My most recent knowledge acquisition is the fact that if you want
to shorten the life of a lithium battery the best way to do so is
to keep it fully charged.   The higher the average state of
charge,  the shorter the life of the battery, although admitted
there isn't much change in lifetime between about 20% and 80%.
 But keeping them at 100% isn't great.

If you want to store a lithium battery without charging,  it's
best to drop the charge below 80% then store.

In a standby application you really want to keep a battery at 100%
which shortens it's life greatly.  A better choice would be to
keep it at 80% max but then you have other issues, not to mention
the fact you now have to buy a bigger battery array.
-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com



--
Thank you,

TJ Trout
Volt Broadband
209.480.3122 Cell

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] ***SPAM*** Govt funded fiber - Utopia

[Robert]

Kinda makes you wonder what the actual return is on the MASSIVE $$ that 
the feds are dumping into broadband providers?   Anyone want to fill in 
actual numbers?


On 4/26/24 3:02 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
Article: 
https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2024/04/19/government-internet-service-bad-for-taxpayers/


On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 4:59 PM Chuck McCown via AF  
wrote:


By John Dougall

For the Deseret News

Most Utahns probably agree that government should stick to essential
government services and stay out of enterprises that are better
performed by
the private sector.

Yet, across the country and right here in Utah, more and more
governments
are building government-owned internet networks, despite numerous
private-sector providers being available.

The number of government-owned networks is increasing by the day, and
taxpayers, not users, are often footing the bill. Government-owned
broadband
networks cost millions of dollars and divert essential funding
away from
services that really matter to the public — services such as
police and
fire, roads, water and sewer.

Two unfortunate examples of government-owned broadband networks
right here
in Utah are iProvo and UTOPIA.

In 2004, Provo launched iProvo to provide broadband internet
services to
homes and business. Provo reportedly bonded for $36.5 million to
bring
service to every home in the city and wrote off $5.4 million that
the city’s
telecommunications fund owed the Energy Department’s reserve fund
to finance
the costly deployment. After struggling to make the network
viable, iProvo
was sold in 2008. But its buyer failed to fulfill the terms of the
sale, and
iProvo reverted back to the city. In 2013, in a desperate attempt
to free
itself of the failed venture, the city ultimately sold iProvo to
Google for
$1.

Similarly, UTOPIA (Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure
Agency) was
launched to provide broadband internet services to a consortium of
cities.
But UTOPIA has failed to fulfill its promises for more than two
decades now.
The project, which started in 2002, was projected to be finished
in three to
four years. Fast forward to today, and it is still incomplete. Not
only is
UTOPIA incomplete, but the project has racked up $300 million
worth of debt.
And despite iProvo’s example of failure, UTOPIA continues to expand.

For years, UTOPIA consistently lost money, expecting taxpayers to
cover
those losses. In addition to this, the government-owned network
continues to
expand and pull other cities into this trap. What’s more egregious
is that
UTOPIA misrepresented its performance as it pitched cities on
buying into
the expansion fever. For example, UTOPIA once claimed the network
had “no
cost to taxpayers since 2009.” This statement was patently inaccurate.

As your watchdog, I help you to hold your government accountable.
My office
investigated this and other claims, then we wrote a letter
identifying these
inaccurate statements. We instructed UTOPIA to do the following:

•Discard or destroy marketing materials with misleading statements.

• Ensure future communications more accurately reflect the
dependence on
taxpayer support.

•Take steps to remedy the misrepresentations regarding the lack of
taxpayer
support to any individual or entity that received the inaccurate
information.

UTOPIA’s shortcomings do not stop there, however. Rather than
providing
internet access to the more than 40,000 homes and small businesses
that lack
internet access today, UTOPIA, like other government-owned
networks, builds
redundant networks that compete with existing private providers,
many who
are also regulated by the cities in which they operate.

Unfortunately, iProvo and UTOPIA are no different from other
government-owned fiber networks across the country, which fail
financially
about 90% of the time.

When taxpayer money is being diverted from critical services into pet
broadband projects, that money is not going where it is needed most.
Taxpayers expect government to maintain roads, provide safe
drinking water
and keep their communities safe. Money spent propping up broadband
services
costs taxpayers money, encumbered by decades of debt, and deprives
them of
important and sufficient government services they want and
deserve. Plus,
higher taxes burden families, many of whom are struggling today
just to
provide for themselves.

Government-owned broadband has done enough harm to taxpayers.
iProvo and
UTOPIA should be seen as an example for policymakers of what to
avoid.
Public officials across the country, and especially here in Utah,
should

Re: [AFMUG] DC power supplies in parallel

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

That is a "lie" the BMS is telling you.

When the BMS reports zero,  there is always a certain percentage of power
left in the battery.Often around 20%.  This is because a battery under
20% (or a similar amount) can be dangerous.

My understanding is that some manufacturers do the same thing at the top
side as well,  but I don't have a specific example (except that when one
turns on the limit charge to 85% on Android,  it actually starts reporting
85% as 100%)

What the companies which say that you can discharge to zero are actually
saying is that their battery has X amp hours before the BMS will shut the
battery down.   So yes,  if you have a 80ah battery that you can discharge
to zero, you'll likely find 100Ah of energy in the battery...  you just
can't access the last 20%.   All based on the specifics of the cells used
in the battery.

If instead, you have a battery manufacturer who wants to engage in
specmanship, they'll call it a 100Ah battery but neglect to tell you that
20% of that isn't accessible.

Like I said in the last message,  the exact percentage of energy left at
empty is going to vary.  It's just never 0%.

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 3:27 PM TJ Trout  wrote:

> Not to mention you get twice the capacity because lifepo4 can take 0%
> depth of discharge without damage
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 1:26 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> I've been an AGM guy, but the last quote we did, it was about $777 for
>> just the AGMs and $900 for LiFePO4 with everything in a neat and tidy
>> rack-mount box.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Ken Hohhof" 
>> *To: *af@af.afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Friday, April 26, 2024 2:01:22 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] DC power supplies in parallel
>>
>> I tend toward a minimum of AC/DC power supplies, and fuse blocks or DC
>> breakers for the loads. But the other network engineer I work with prefers
>> a dedicated PSU for each load. So you may not get a uninamous
>> recommendation.
>>
>> Note I tend toward DC sites and other guy sees that as unnecessary
>> expense and hardware. So if you are doing AC sites, maybe don't listen to
>> me.
>>
>> And I'm still using AGM batteries while all the cool kids are using
>> LiFePO4 with BCMs, so definitely don't listen to me.
>>
>>  Original Message 
>> From: "Steve Jones"
>> Sent: 4/26/2024 1:49:48 PM
>> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"
>> Subject: [AFMUG] DC power supplies in parallel
>>
>> I have a bunch of various meanwell 48 vDC power supplies mostly  120 and
>> 350 watt models with most loads being 45wattish and some 108wattish.
>>
>> One site im re-cabling has 1100w in PSUs taking a ton of space providing
>> for a total demand of around 440w. Seems overkill and only accounts for the
>> DC direct powered stuff, not the other 300w or so
>>
>> Whats the consensus on an AC powered site? individual PSUs for ever
>> equipment. Big PSU/rectifier for all?
>> Our battery capacity at this particular site is on the APC at the base
>> providing just AC to the top, we are not bringing the batteries up for
>> reasons and all electronics are up top.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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

Re: [AFMUG] DC power supplies in parallel

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

Just to clarify..

In lithium chemistry batteries there are several aging mechanisms.  Many of
them occur most often below 20% or above 80% (or 85%).   There are also
aging mechanisms which work more slowly the less energy is in the battery.
This applies just as much to LiFePO4 as other chemistries.  Obviously, each
battery variation (chemistry, anode/cathode structure) is optimized in
different ways but all of them are remarkably similar.  For example,  some
specific variants seem to do just fine up to 85% instead of 80%.

As a result of the degration increase outside the 20/80 range, the
recommendation for long term storage is often to charge to 80% and then
make sure the battery is not permitted to self discharge below 20%.  Where
one can reliably maintain the batteries through periodic charges, it isn't
unreasonable to charge to 30% every couple of months and keep the battery
between 20 and 30%.  This last option is, of course, only useful when you
don't need the batteries stored with charge.

For standby applications it's also best if your charger is set to allow the
battery to cycle a bit instead of keeping the battery "full".  That is,
charge to 80% then let it sit until it drops to 75% and then recharge all
at once.

I do need to soften this slightly... cycling a battery up to 100% and then
discharging isn't nearly as bad as dropping below 20%.  This is all a game
of capacity vs life vs cost.   If keeping a battery at 100% only reduces
its life by 10% vs using a 80% max charge, then it might be more cost
effective to use a 100% since you can buy a smaller battery which may be
10% less.  I'm not sure I'd set my charger to go over 95% or so even then
as there are some pretty aggressive degradation methods right at 100% and
sometimes it's hard to be sure if you're getting too close to that line.

On the other hand, where the battery life is a small portion of the cost of
a bigger product and the battery is not replaceable, limiting charge to 80
(or 85%) can push the life out further.   Many android phones have a
setting to limit charge to 85% to make the battery last longer as a result.

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 2:12 PM TJ Trout  wrote:

> Storing a fully charged lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) battery has a
> minimal impact on its lifespan. In fact, it's recommended to fully charge
> LiFePO4 batteries before storing them for long periods of time. These
> batteries have a low self-discharge rate, typically losing 2% of their
> charge per month. However, fully charged lithium-ion batteries can be
> dangerous if left unused for long periods of time.
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 12:43 PM Forrest Christian (List Account) <
> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 1:02 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>
>>> And I'm still using AGM batteries while all the cool kids are using
>>> LiFePO4 with BCMs, so definitely don't listen to me.
>>>
>>
>> The more I learn about lithium batteries, the more I feel that lithium
>> has relatively few advantages for standby applications.
>>
>> My most recent knowledge acquisition is the fact that if you want to
>> shorten the life of a lithium battery the best way to do so is to keep it
>> fully charged.   The higher the average state of charge,  the shorter the
>> life of the battery, although admitted there isn't much change in lifetime
>> between about 20% and 80%.   But keeping them at 100% isn't great.
>>
>> If you want to store a lithium battery without charging,  it's best to
>> drop the charge below 80% then store.
>>
>> In a standby application you really want to keep a battery at 100% which
>> shortens it's life greatly.   A better choice would be to keep it at 80%
>> max but then you have other issues, not to mention the fact you now have to
>> buy a bigger battery array.
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
>
> --
> Thank you,
>
> TJ Trout
> Volt Broadband
> 209.480.3122 Cell
> --
> 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

Re: [AFMUG] ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Govt funded fiber - Utopia

[Josh Luthman]

Fire stations here are failing.  They can't staff them.  Townships can't
fund them so they're paying cities much higher rates per call.

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 7:01 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> Everything’s political now, of course.
>
>
>
> But he does have a point when he says “Government-owned broadband networks
> cost millions of dollars and divert essential funding away from services
> that really matter to the public — services such as police and fire, roads,
> water and sewer.”
>
>
>
> In the past, the government has undertaken vast programs at taxpayer
> expense like rural electrification, the interstate highway system, the
> space program.  Now apparently high speed Internet is the thing of the
> moment that takes precedence over all the other broken things that we might
> wish government to fix.  I sometimes wonder why Internet?  Maybe because it
> seems easy and gives people the power to hand out billions of dollars.
> Could they cure cancer or get lead out of drinking water or fix all the
> deteriorating bridges with something like a BEAD program?
>
>
>
> Maybe they think broadband and AI and neural implants will lead to a
> future where everyone is plugged into the network and doesn’t need any of
> those other things.  Maybe we’ll all be heads in jars like in Futurama.
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Chuck McCown via AF
> *Sent:* Friday, April 26, 2024 5:38 PM
> *To:* Josh Luthman ; AnimalFarm Microwave
> Users Group 
> *Cc:* ch...@go-mtc.com; John Brewer 
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Govt funded fiber - Utopia
>
>
>
> I am surprised they have never broke even.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Josh Luthman
>
> *Sent:* Friday, April 26, 2024 4:02 PM
>
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
>
> *Cc:* John Brewer ; ch...@go-mtc.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ***SPAM*** Govt funded fiber - Utopia
>
>
>
> Article:
> https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2024/04/19/government-internet-service-bad-for-taxpayers/
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 4:59 PM Chuck McCown via AF 
> wrote:
>
> By John Dougall
>
> For the Deseret News
>
> Most Utahns probably agree that government should stick to essential
> government services and stay out of enterprises that are better performed
> by
> the private sector.
>
> Yet, across the country and right here in Utah, more and more governments
> are building government-owned internet networks, despite numerous
> private-sector providers being available.
>
> The number of government-owned networks is increasing by the day, and
> taxpayers, not users, are often footing the bill. Government-owned
> broadband
> networks cost millions of dollars and divert essential funding away from
> services that really matter to the public — services such as police and
> fire, roads, water and sewer.
>
> Two unfortunate examples of government-owned broadband networks right here
> in Utah are iProvo and UTOPIA.
>
> In 2004, Provo launched iProvo to provide broadband internet services to
> homes and business. Provo reportedly bonded for $36.5 million to bring
> service to every home in the city and wrote off $5.4 million that the
> city’s
> telecommunications fund owed the Energy Department’s reserve fund to
> finance
> the costly deployment. After struggling to make the network viable, iProvo
> was sold in 2008. But its buyer failed to fulfill the terms of the sale,
> and
> iProvo reverted back to the city. In 2013, in a desperate attempt to free
> itself of the failed venture, the city ultimately sold iProvo to Google
> for
> $1.
>
> Similarly, UTOPIA (Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure Agency) was
> launched to provide broadband internet services to a consortium of cities.
> But UTOPIA has failed to fulfill its promises for more than two decades
> now.
> The project, which started in 2002, was projected to be finished in three
> to
> four years. Fast forward to today, and it is still incomplete. Not only is
> UTOPIA incomplete, but the project has racked up $300 million worth of
> debt.
> And despite iProvo’s example of failure, UTOPIA continues to expand.
>
> For years, UTOPIA consistently lost money, expecting taxpayers to cover
> those losses. In addition to this, the government-owned network continues
> to
> expand and pull other cities into this trap. What’s more egregious is that
> UTOPIA misrepresented its performance as it pitched cities on buying into
> the expansion fever. For example, UTOPIA once claimed the network had “no
> cost to taxpayers since 2009.” This statement was patently inaccurate.
>
> As your watchdog, I help you to hold your government accountable. My
> office
> investigated this and other claims, then we wrote a letter identifying
> these
> inaccurate statements. We instructed UTOPIA to do the following:
>
> •Discard or destroy marketing materials with misleading statements.
>
> • Ensure future communications more accurately reflect the dependence on
> taxpayer support.
>
> •Take steps to remedy the misrepresentations regarding the lack of
> 

Re: [AFMUG] ***SPAM*** Govt funded fiber - Utopia

[Josh Luthman]

You're surprised the government doesn't waste?  What did you do with Chuck?

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 6:38 PM  wrote:

> I am surprised they have never broke even.
>
>
>
> *From:* Josh Luthman
> *Sent:* Friday, April 26, 2024 4:02 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> *Cc:* John Brewer ; ch...@go-mtc.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ***SPAM*** Govt funded fiber - Utopia
>
> Article:
> https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2024/04/19/government-internet-service-bad-for-taxpayers/
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 4:59 PM Chuck McCown via AF 
> wrote:
>
>> By John Dougall
>>
>> For the Deseret News
>>
>> Most Utahns probably agree that government should stick to essential
>> government services and stay out of enterprises that are better performed
>> by
>> the private sector.
>>
>> Yet, across the country and right here in Utah, more and more governments
>> are building government-owned internet networks, despite numerous
>> private-sector providers being available.
>>
>> The number of government-owned networks is increasing by the day, and
>> taxpayers, not users, are often footing the bill. Government-owned
>> broadband
>> networks cost millions of dollars and divert essential funding away from
>> services that really matter to the public — services such as police and
>> fire, roads, water and sewer.
>>
>> Two unfortunate examples of government-owned broadband networks right
>> here
>> in Utah are iProvo and UTOPIA.
>>
>> In 2004, Provo launched iProvo to provide broadband internet services to
>> homes and business. Provo reportedly bonded for $36.5 million to bring
>> service to every home in the city and wrote off $5.4 million that the
>> city’s
>> telecommunications fund owed the Energy Department’s reserve fund to
>> finance
>> the costly deployment. After struggling to make the network viable,
>> iProvo
>> was sold in 2008. But its buyer failed to fulfill the terms of the sale,
>> and
>> iProvo reverted back to the city. In 2013, in a desperate attempt to free
>> itself of the failed venture, the city ultimately sold iProvo to Google
>> for
>> $1.
>>
>> Similarly, UTOPIA (Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure Agency)
>> was
>> launched to provide broadband internet services to a consortium of
>> cities.
>> But UTOPIA has failed to fulfill its promises for more than two decades
>> now.
>> The project, which started in 2002, was projected to be finished in three
>> to
>> four years. Fast forward to today, and it is still incomplete. Not only
>> is
>> UTOPIA incomplete, but the project has racked up $300 million worth of
>> debt.
>> And despite iProvo’s example of failure, UTOPIA continues to expand.
>>
>> For years, UTOPIA consistently lost money, expecting taxpayers to cover
>> those losses. In addition to this, the government-owned network continues
>> to
>> expand and pull other cities into this trap. What’s more egregious is
>> that
>> UTOPIA misrepresented its performance as it pitched cities on buying into
>> the expansion fever. For example, UTOPIA once claimed the network had “no
>> cost to taxpayers since 2009.” This statement was patently inaccurate.
>>
>> As your watchdog, I help you to hold your government accountable. My
>> office
>> investigated this and other claims, then we wrote a letter identifying
>> these
>> inaccurate statements. We instructed UTOPIA to do the following:
>>
>> •Discard or destroy marketing materials with misleading statements.
>>
>> • Ensure future communications more accurately reflect the dependence on
>> taxpayer support.
>>
>> •Take steps to remedy the misrepresentations regarding the lack of
>> taxpayer
>> support to any individual or entity that received the inaccurate
>> information.
>>
>> UTOPIA’s shortcomings do not stop there, however. Rather than providing
>> internet access to the more than 40,000 homes and small businesses that
>> lack
>> internet access today, UTOPIA, like other government-owned networks,
>> builds
>> redundant networks that compete with existing private providers, many who
>> are also regulated by the cities in which they operate.
>>
>> Unfortunately, iProvo and UTOPIA are no different from other
>> government-owned fiber networks across the country, which fail
>> financially
>> about 90% of the time.
>>
>> When taxpayer money is being diverted from critical services into pet
>> broadband projects, that money is not going where it is needed most.
>> Taxpayers expect government to maintain roads, provide safe drinking
>> water
>> and keep their communities safe. Money spent propping up broadband
>> services
>> costs taxpayers money, encumbered by decades of debt, and deprives them
>> of
>> important and sufficient government services they want and deserve. Plus,
>> higher taxes burden families, many of whom are struggling today just to
>> provide for themselves.
>>
>> Government-owned broadband has done enough harm to taxpayers. iProvo and
>> UTOPIA should be seen as an example for policymakers of what to avoid.
>> Public officials 

Re: [AFMUG] ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Govt funded fiber - Utopia

[Ken Hohhof]

Everything’s political now, of course.

 

But he does have a point when he says “Government-owned broadband networks cost 
millions of dollars and divert essential funding away from services that really 
matter to the public — services such as police and fire, roads, water and 
sewer.”

 

In the past, the government has undertaken vast programs at taxpayer expense 
like rural electrification, the interstate highway system, the space program.  
Now apparently high speed Internet is the thing of the moment that takes 
precedence over all the other broken things that we might wish government to 
fix.  I sometimes wonder why Internet?  Maybe because it seems easy and gives 
people the power to hand out billions of dollars.  Could they cure cancer or 
get lead out of drinking water or fix all the deteriorating bridges with 
something like a BEAD program?

 

Maybe they think broadband and AI and neural implants will lead to a future 
where everyone is plugged into the network and doesn’t need any of those other 
things.  Maybe we’ll all be heads in jars like in Futurama.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 5:38 PM
To: Josh Luthman ; AnimalFarm Microwave Users 
Group 
Cc: ch...@go-mtc.com; John Brewer 
Subject: [AFMUG] ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Govt funded fiber - Utopia

 

I am surprised they have never broke even.  

 

 

 

From: Josh Luthman 

Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 4:02 PM

To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 

Cc: John Brewer ; ch...@go-mtc.com   

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ***SPAM*** Govt funded fiber - Utopia

 

Article: 
https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2024/04/19/government-internet-service-bad-for-taxpayers/

 

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 4:59 PM Chuck McCown via AF mailto:af@af.afmug.com> > wrote:

By John Dougall

For the Deseret News

Most Utahns probably agree that government should stick to essential 
government services and stay out of enterprises that are better performed by 
the private sector.

Yet, across the country and right here in Utah, more and more governments 
are building government-owned internet networks, despite numerous 
private-sector providers being available.

The number of government-owned networks is increasing by the day, and 
taxpayers, not users, are often footing the bill. Government-owned broadband 
networks cost millions of dollars and divert essential funding away from 
services that really matter to the public — services such as police and 
fire, roads, water and sewer.

Two unfortunate examples of government-owned broadband networks right here 
in Utah are iProvo and UTOPIA.

In 2004, Provo launched iProvo to provide broadband internet services to 
homes and business. Provo reportedly bonded for $36.5 million to bring 
service to every home in the city and wrote off $5.4 million that the city’s 
telecommunications fund owed the Energy Department’s reserve fund to finance 
the costly deployment. After struggling to make the network viable, iProvo 
was sold in 2008. But its buyer failed to fulfill the terms of the sale, and 
iProvo reverted back to the city. In 2013, in a desperate attempt to free 
itself of the failed venture, the city ultimately sold iProvo to Google for 
$1.

Similarly, UTOPIA (Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure Agency) was 
launched to provide broadband internet services to a consortium of cities. 
But UTOPIA has failed to fulfill its promises for more than two decades now. 
The project, which started in 2002, was projected to be finished in three to 
four years. Fast forward to today, and it is still incomplete. Not only is 
UTOPIA incomplete, but the project has racked up $300 million worth of debt. 
And despite iProvo’s example of failure, UTOPIA continues to expand.

For years, UTOPIA consistently lost money, expecting taxpayers to cover 
those losses. In addition to this, the government-owned network continues to 
expand and pull other cities into this trap. What’s more egregious is that 
UTOPIA misrepresented its performance as it pitched cities on buying into 
the expansion fever. For example, UTOPIA once claimed the network had “no 
cost to taxpayers since 2009.” This statement was patently inaccurate.

As your watchdog, I help you to hold your government accountable. My office 
investigated this and other claims, then we wrote a letter identifying these 
inaccurate statements. We instructed UTOPIA to do the following:

•Discard or destroy marketing materials with misleading statements.

• Ensure future communications more accurately reflect the dependence on 
taxpayer support.

•Take steps to remedy the misrepresentations regarding the lack of taxpayer 
support to any individual or entity that received the inaccurate 
information.

UTOPIA’s shortcomings do not stop there, however. Rather than providing 
internet access to the more than 40,000 homes and small businesses that lack 
internet access today, UTOPIA, like other government-owned networks, builds 

[AFMUG] ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Govt funded fiber - Utopia

[Chuck McCown via AF]

I am surprised they have never broke even.  



From: Josh Luthman 
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 4:02 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Cc: John Brewer ; ch...@go-mtc.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ***SPAM*** Govt funded fiber - Utopia

Article: 
https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2024/04/19/government-internet-service-bad-for-taxpayers/

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 4:59 PM Chuck McCown via AF  wrote:

  By John Dougall

  For the Deseret News

  Most Utahns probably agree that government should stick to essential 
  government services and stay out of enterprises that are better performed by 
  the private sector.

  Yet, across the country and right here in Utah, more and more governments 
  are building government-owned internet networks, despite numerous 
  private-sector providers being available.

  The number of government-owned networks is increasing by the day, and 
  taxpayers, not users, are often footing the bill. Government-owned broadband 
  networks cost millions of dollars and divert essential funding away from 
  services that really matter to the public — services such as police and 
  fire, roads, water and sewer.

  Two unfortunate examples of government-owned broadband networks right here 
  in Utah are iProvo and UTOPIA.

  In 2004, Provo launched iProvo to provide broadband internet services to 
  homes and business. Provo reportedly bonded for $36.5 million to bring 
  service to every home in the city and wrote off $5.4 million that the city’s 
  telecommunications fund owed the Energy Department’s reserve fund to finance 
  the costly deployment. After struggling to make the network viable, iProvo 
  was sold in 2008. But its buyer failed to fulfill the terms of the sale, and 
  iProvo reverted back to the city. In 2013, in a desperate attempt to free 
  itself of the failed venture, the city ultimately sold iProvo to Google for 
  $1.

  Similarly, UTOPIA (Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure Agency) was 
  launched to provide broadband internet services to a consortium of cities. 
  But UTOPIA has failed to fulfill its promises for more than two decades now. 
  The project, which started in 2002, was projected to be finished in three to 
  four years. Fast forward to today, and it is still incomplete. Not only is 
  UTOPIA incomplete, but the project has racked up $300 million worth of debt. 
  And despite iProvo’s example of failure, UTOPIA continues to expand.

  For years, UTOPIA consistently lost money, expecting taxpayers to cover 
  those losses. In addition to this, the government-owned network continues to 
  expand and pull other cities into this trap. What’s more egregious is that 
  UTOPIA misrepresented its performance as it pitched cities on buying into 
  the expansion fever. For example, UTOPIA once claimed the network had “no 
  cost to taxpayers since 2009.” This statement was patently inaccurate.

  As your watchdog, I help you to hold your government accountable. My office 
  investigated this and other claims, then we wrote a letter identifying these 
  inaccurate statements. We instructed UTOPIA to do the following:

  •Discard or destroy marketing materials with misleading statements.

  • Ensure future communications more accurately reflect the dependence on 
  taxpayer support.

  •Take steps to remedy the misrepresentations regarding the lack of taxpayer 
  support to any individual or entity that received the inaccurate 
  information.

  UTOPIA’s shortcomings do not stop there, however. Rather than providing 
  internet access to the more than 40,000 homes and small businesses that lack 
  internet access today, UTOPIA, like other government-owned networks, builds 
  redundant networks that compete with existing private providers, many who 
  are also regulated by the cities in which they operate.

  Unfortunately, iProvo and UTOPIA are no different from other 
  government-owned fiber networks across the country, which fail financially 
  about 90% of the time.

  When taxpayer money is being diverted from critical services into pet 
  broadband projects, that money is not going where it is needed most. 
  Taxpayers expect government to maintain roads, provide safe drinking water 
  and keep their communities safe. Money spent propping up broadband services 
  costs taxpayers money, encumbered by decades of debt, and deprives them of 
  important and sufficient government services they want and deserve. Plus, 
  higher taxes burden families, many of whom are struggling today just to 
  provide for themselves.

  Government-owned broadband has done enough harm to taxpayers. iProvo and 
  UTOPIA should be seen as an example for policymakers of what to avoid. 
  Public officials across the country, and especially here in Utah, should 
  resist the appealing allure of expanding or deploying government-owned 
  networks, which allure has been shown to be deceptive, and ultimately 
  destructive, to taxpayers.

  John Dougall is the Utah State Auditor 

Re: [AFMUG] DC power supplies in parallel

[castarritt]

The thing about a good DC site with gear like ICT-2U4 shelf is that you
don't need to talk someone through troubleshooting individual power
supplies because there are none to fail and cause a truck roll in the first
place, there is just the DC shelf and it's 12 load outputs that all read
out current draw and can be individually power cycled remotely.  Where we
need 24v, we just run a meanwell dc-dc converter off one of the ICT outputs
and then use it to power one of the inputs on a packetflux injector.

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 2:13 PM Nate Burke  wrote:

> I think it depends on a case by case basis.   I've kept everything as AC
> with Power supplies for each device simply because I will need to
> describe to someone over the phone, in a downpour, at night, how to
> troubleshoot a site, when their idea of small tools ends with a 4' Pipe
> wrench.  Saying 'is there a green light on power supply X' is easier
> than trying to track down DC Wires/fuses/breakers.  Just have them swap
> the bad Powersupply and that either fixed it or, didn't.  We also have a
> very good Power grid in our area, so we're not overly concerned with
> long runtimes.  Our average utility failure is <4 hours to restoration.
> And I have a pallet of brand new APC XL's that I paid $50 each for.  I
> can't build a DC plant for less than that. Let alone with all the power
> Monitoring the APC Gives me.
>
> If you have a flaky grid and need long runtimes, then DC is the way to
> go, no question.
>
> Another Network Engineer I work with prefers all DC Sites.  I've never
> been able to justify the cost/complexity of pure DC Setups. Especially
> when needing to do a mix of 24/48V, as is often present with older gear
> at most of our sites.
>
>
> On 4/26/2024 1:40 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
> > I have a bunch of various meanwell 48 vDC power supplies mostly  120
> > and 350 watt models with most loads being 45wattish and some 108wattish.
> >
> > One site im re-cabling has 1100w in PSUs taking a ton of space
> > providing for a total demand of around 440w. Seems overkill and only
> > accounts for the DC direct powered stuff, not the other 300w or so
> >
> > Whats the consensus on an AC powered site? individual PSUs for ever
> > equipment. Big PSU/rectifier for all?
> > Our battery capacity at this particular site is on the APC at the base
> > providing just AC to the top, we are not bringing the batteries up for
> > reasons and all electronics are up top.
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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

Re: [AFMUG] ***SPAM*** Govt funded fiber - Utopia

[Josh Luthman]

Article:
https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2024/04/19/government-internet-service-bad-for-taxpayers/

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 4:59 PM Chuck McCown via AF  wrote:

> By John Dougall
>
> For the Deseret News
>
> Most Utahns probably agree that government should stick to essential
> government services and stay out of enterprises that are better performed
> by
> the private sector.
>
> Yet, across the country and right here in Utah, more and more governments
> are building government-owned internet networks, despite numerous
> private-sector providers being available.
>
> The number of government-owned networks is increasing by the day, and
> taxpayers, not users, are often footing the bill. Government-owned
> broadband
> networks cost millions of dollars and divert essential funding away from
> services that really matter to the public — services such as police and
> fire, roads, water and sewer.
>
> Two unfortunate examples of government-owned broadband networks right here
> in Utah are iProvo and UTOPIA.
>
> In 2004, Provo launched iProvo to provide broadband internet services to
> homes and business. Provo reportedly bonded for $36.5 million to bring
> service to every home in the city and wrote off $5.4 million that the
> city’s
> telecommunications fund owed the Energy Department’s reserve fund to
> finance
> the costly deployment. After struggling to make the network viable, iProvo
> was sold in 2008. But its buyer failed to fulfill the terms of the sale,
> and
> iProvo reverted back to the city. In 2013, in a desperate attempt to free
> itself of the failed venture, the city ultimately sold iProvo to Google
> for
> $1.
>
> Similarly, UTOPIA (Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure Agency) was
> launched to provide broadband internet services to a consortium of cities.
> But UTOPIA has failed to fulfill its promises for more than two decades
> now.
> The project, which started in 2002, was projected to be finished in three
> to
> four years. Fast forward to today, and it is still incomplete. Not only is
> UTOPIA incomplete, but the project has racked up $300 million worth of
> debt.
> And despite iProvo’s example of failure, UTOPIA continues to expand.
>
> For years, UTOPIA consistently lost money, expecting taxpayers to cover
> those losses. In addition to this, the government-owned network continues
> to
> expand and pull other cities into this trap. What’s more egregious is that
> UTOPIA misrepresented its performance as it pitched cities on buying into
> the expansion fever. For example, UTOPIA once claimed the network had “no
> cost to taxpayers since 2009.” This statement was patently inaccurate.
>
> As your watchdog, I help you to hold your government accountable. My
> office
> investigated this and other claims, then we wrote a letter identifying
> these
> inaccurate statements. We instructed UTOPIA to do the following:
>
> •Discard or destroy marketing materials with misleading statements.
>
> • Ensure future communications more accurately reflect the dependence on
> taxpayer support.
>
> •Take steps to remedy the misrepresentations regarding the lack of
> taxpayer
> support to any individual or entity that received the inaccurate
> information.
>
> UTOPIA’s shortcomings do not stop there, however. Rather than providing
> internet access to the more than 40,000 homes and small businesses that
> lack
> internet access today, UTOPIA, like other government-owned networks,
> builds
> redundant networks that compete with existing private providers, many who
> are also regulated by the cities in which they operate.
>
> Unfortunately, iProvo and UTOPIA are no different from other
> government-owned fiber networks across the country, which fail financially
> about 90% of the time.
>
> When taxpayer money is being diverted from critical services into pet
> broadband projects, that money is not going where it is needed most.
> Taxpayers expect government to maintain roads, provide safe drinking water
> and keep their communities safe. Money spent propping up broadband
> services
> costs taxpayers money, encumbered by decades of debt, and deprives them of
> important and sufficient government services they want and deserve. Plus,
> higher taxes burden families, many of whom are struggling today just to
> provide for themselves.
>
> Government-owned broadband has done enough harm to taxpayers. iProvo and
> UTOPIA should be seen as an example for policymakers of what to avoid.
> Public officials across the country, and especially here in Utah, should
> resist the appealing allure of expanding or deploying government-owned
> networks, which allure has been shown to be deceptive, and ultimately
> destructive, to taxpayers.
>
> John Dougall is the Utah State Auditor and is a candidate for Utah’s 3rd
> congressional district.
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] DC power supplies in parallel

[Ken Hohhof]

Sometimes I wonder if 50% DoD is really 50%.

 

At least with AGMs, once the battery voltage gets to 42V (or 10.5V per 
battery), the curve always seems to be accelerating downward.  My gut tells me 
that without an LVD, if we got 8 hours runtime to 42V, the batteries would be 
dead in more like 2 to 4 more hours.  I’ve never actually tried that though.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of TJ Trout
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 4:20 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] DC power supplies in parallel

 

Not to mention you get twice the capacity because lifepo4 can take 0% depth of 
discharge without damage

 

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 1:26 PM Mike Hammett mailto:af...@ics-il.net> > wrote:

I've been an AGM guy, but the last quote we did, it was about $777 for just the 
AGMs and $900 for LiFePO4 with everything in a neat and tidy rack-mount box.



-
Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
   
  
  
 
  Midwest Internet Exchange
   
  
 
  The Brothers WISP
   
 





  _  


From: "Ken Hohhof" mailto:khoh...@kwom.com> >
To: af@af.afmug.com  
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 2:01:22 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] DC power supplies in parallel

I tend toward a minimum of AC/DC power supplies, and fuse blocks or DC breakers 
for the loads. But the other network engineer I work with prefers a dedicated 
PSU for each load. So you may not get a uninamous recommendation.

Note I tend toward DC sites and other guy sees that as unnecessary expense and 
hardware. So if you are doing AC sites, maybe don't listen to me.

And I'm still using AGM batteries while all the cool kids are using LiFePO4 
with BCMs, so definitely don't listen to me.

 Original Message 
From: "Steve Jones" 
Sent: 4/26/2024 1:49:48 PM
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
Subject: [AFMUG] DC power supplies in parallel

I have a bunch of various meanwell 48 vDC power supplies mostly  120 and 350 
watt models with most loads being 45wattish and some 108wattish.

 

One site im re-cabling has 1100w in PSUs taking a ton of space providing for a 
total demand of around 440w. Seems overkill and only accounts for the DC direct 
powered stuff, not the other 300w or so

 

Whats the consensus on an AC powered site? individual PSUs for ever equipment. 
Big PSU/rectifier for all?

Our battery capacity at this particular site is on the APC at the base 
providing just AC to the top, we are not bringing the batteries up for reasons 
and all electronics are up top. 

 

 


-- 
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

Re: [AFMUG] DC power supplies in parallel

[TJ Trout]

Not to mention you get twice the capacity because lifepo4 can take 0% depth
of discharge without damage

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 1:26 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> I've been an AGM guy, but the last quote we did, it was about $777 for
> just the AGMs and $900 for LiFePO4 with everything in a neat and tidy
> rack-mount box.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Ken Hohhof" 
> *To: *af@af.afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, April 26, 2024 2:01:22 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] DC power supplies in parallel
>
> I tend toward a minimum of AC/DC power supplies, and fuse blocks or DC
> breakers for the loads. But the other network engineer I work with prefers
> a dedicated PSU for each load. So you may not get a uninamous
> recommendation.
>
> Note I tend toward DC sites and other guy sees that as unnecessary expense
> and hardware. So if you are doing AC sites, maybe don't listen to me.
>
> And I'm still using AGM batteries while all the cool kids are using
> LiFePO4 with BCMs, so definitely don't listen to me.
>
>  Original Message 
> From: "Steve Jones"
> Sent: 4/26/2024 1:49:48 PM
> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"
> Subject: [AFMUG] DC power supplies in parallel
>
> I have a bunch of various meanwell 48 vDC power supplies mostly  120 and
> 350 watt models with most loads being 45wattish and some 108wattish.
>
> One site im re-cabling has 1100w in PSUs taking a ton of space providing
> for a total demand of around 440w. Seems overkill and only accounts for the
> DC direct powered stuff, not the other 300w or so
>
> Whats the consensus on an AC powered site? individual PSUs for ever
> equipment. Big PSU/rectifier for all?
> Our battery capacity at this particular site is on the APC at the base
> providing just AC to the top, we are not bringing the batteries up for
> reasons and all electronics are up top.
>
>
>
> --
> 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

[AFMUG] ***SPAM*** Govt funded fiber - Utopia

[Chuck McCown via AF]

By John Dougall

For the Deseret News

Most Utahns probably agree that government should stick to essential 
government services and stay out of enterprises that are better performed by 
the private sector.


Yet, across the country and right here in Utah, more and more governments 
are building government-owned internet networks, despite numerous 
private-sector providers being available.


The number of government-owned networks is increasing by the day, and 
taxpayers, not users, are often footing the bill. Government-owned broadband 
networks cost millions of dollars and divert essential funding away from 
services that really matter to the public — services such as police and 
fire, roads, water and sewer.


Two unfortunate examples of government-owned broadband networks right here 
in Utah are iProvo and UTOPIA.


In 2004, Provo launched iProvo to provide broadband internet services to 
homes and business. Provo reportedly bonded for $36.5 million to bring 
service to every home in the city and wrote off $5.4 million that the city’s 
telecommunications fund owed the Energy Department’s reserve fund to finance 
the costly deployment. After struggling to make the network viable, iProvo 
was sold in 2008. But its buyer failed to fulfill the terms of the sale, and 
iProvo reverted back to the city. In 2013, in a desperate attempt to free 
itself of the failed venture, the city ultimately sold iProvo to Google for 
$1.


Similarly, UTOPIA (Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure Agency) was 
launched to provide broadband internet services to a consortium of cities. 
But UTOPIA has failed to fulfill its promises for more than two decades now. 
The project, which started in 2002, was projected to be finished in three to 
four years. Fast forward to today, and it is still incomplete. Not only is 
UTOPIA incomplete, but the project has racked up $300 million worth of debt. 
And despite iProvo’s example of failure, UTOPIA continues to expand.


For years, UTOPIA consistently lost money, expecting taxpayers to cover 
those losses. In addition to this, the government-owned network continues to 
expand and pull other cities into this trap. What’s more egregious is that 
UTOPIA misrepresented its performance as it pitched cities on buying into 
the expansion fever. For example, UTOPIA once claimed the network had “no 
cost to taxpayers since 2009.” This statement was patently inaccurate.


As your watchdog, I help you to hold your government accountable. My office 
investigated this and other claims, then we wrote a letter identifying these 
inaccurate statements. We instructed UTOPIA to do the following:


•Discard or destroy marketing materials with misleading statements.

• Ensure future communications more accurately reflect the dependence on 
taxpayer support.


•Take steps to remedy the misrepresentations regarding the lack of taxpayer 
support to any individual or entity that received the inaccurate 
information.


UTOPIA’s shortcomings do not stop there, however. Rather than providing 
internet access to the more than 40,000 homes and small businesses that lack 
internet access today, UTOPIA, like other government-owned networks, builds 
redundant networks that compete with existing private providers, many who 
are also regulated by the cities in which they operate.


Unfortunately, iProvo and UTOPIA are no different from other 
government-owned fiber networks across the country, which fail financially 
about 90% of the time.


When taxpayer money is being diverted from critical services into pet 
broadband projects, that money is not going where it is needed most. 
Taxpayers expect government to maintain roads, provide safe drinking water 
and keep their communities safe. Money spent propping up broadband services 
costs taxpayers money, encumbered by decades of debt, and deprives them of 
important and sufficient government services they want and deserve. Plus, 
higher taxes burden families, many of whom are struggling today just to 
provide for themselves.


Government-owned broadband has done enough harm to taxpayers. iProvo and 
UTOPIA should be seen as an example for policymakers of what to avoid. 
Public officials across the country, and especially here in Utah, should 
resist the appealing allure of expanding or deploying government-owned 
networks, which allure has been shown to be deceptive, and ultimately 
destructive, to taxpayers.


John Dougall is the Utah State Auditor and is a candidate for Utah’s 3rd 
congressional district.




--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] DC power supplies in parallel

[Mike Hammett]

I've been an AGM guy, but the last quote we did, it was about $777 for just the 
AGMs and $900 for LiFePO4 with everything in a neat and tidy rack-mount box. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Ken Hohhof"  
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 2:01:22 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] DC power supplies in parallel 

I tend toward a minimum of AC/DC power supplies, and fuse blocks or DC breakers 
for the loads. But the other network engineer I work with prefers a dedicated 
PSU for each load. So you may not get a uninamous recommendation. 

Note I tend toward DC sites and other guy sees that as unnecessary expense and 
hardware. So if you are doing AC sites, maybe don't listen to me. 

And I'm still using AGM batteries while all the cool kids are using LiFePO4 
with BCMs, so definitely don't listen to me. 

 Original Message  
From: "Steve Jones" 
Sent: 4/26/2024 1:49:48 PM 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
Subject: [AFMUG] DC power supplies in parallel 


I have a bunch of various meanwell 48 vDC power supplies mostly 120 and 350 
watt models with most loads being 45wattish and some 108wattish. 


One site im re-cabling has 1100w in PSUs taking a ton of space providing for a 
total demand of around 440w. Seems overkill and only accounts for the DC direct 
powered stuff, not the other 300w or so 


Whats the consensus on an AC powered site? individual PSUs for ever equipment. 
Big PSU/rectifier for all? 
Our battery capacity at this particular site is on the APC at the base 
providing just AC to the top, we are not bringing the batteries up for reasons 
and all electronics are up top. 





-- 
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

Re: [AFMUG] DC power supplies in parallel

[TJ Trout]

Storing a fully charged lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) battery has a
minimal impact on its lifespan. In fact, it's recommended to fully charge
LiFePO4 batteries before storing them for long periods of time. These
batteries have a low self-discharge rate, typically losing 2% of their
charge per month. However, fully charged lithium-ion batteries can be
dangerous if left unused for long periods of time.

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 12:43 PM Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 1:02 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> And I'm still using AGM batteries while all the cool kids are using
>> LiFePO4 with BCMs, so definitely don't listen to me.
>>
>
> The more I learn about lithium batteries, the more I feel that lithium has
> relatively few advantages for standby applications.
>
> My most recent knowledge acquisition is the fact that if you want to
> shorten the life of a lithium battery the best way to do so is to keep it
> fully charged.   The higher the average state of charge,  the shorter the
> life of the battery, although admitted there isn't much change in lifetime
> between about 20% and 80%.   But keeping them at 100% isn't great.
>
> If you want to store a lithium battery without charging,  it's best to
> drop the charge below 80% then store.
>
> In a standby application you really want to keep a battery at 100% which
> shortens it's life greatly.   A better choice would be to keep it at 80%
> max but then you have other issues, not to mention the fact you now have to
> buy a bigger battery array.
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>


-- 
Thank you,

TJ Trout
Volt Broadband
209.480.3122 Cell
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] DC power supplies in parallel

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 1:02 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> And I'm still using AGM batteries while all the cool kids are using
> LiFePO4 with BCMs, so definitely don't listen to me.
>

The more I learn about lithium batteries, the more I feel that lithium has
relatively few advantages for standby applications.

My most recent knowledge acquisition is the fact that if you want to
shorten the life of a lithium battery the best way to do so is to keep it
fully charged.   The higher the average state of charge,  the shorter the
life of the battery, although admitted there isn't much change in lifetime
between about 20% and 80%.   But keeping them at 100% isn't great.

If you want to store a lithium battery without charging,  it's best to drop
the charge below 80% then store.

In a standby application you really want to keep a battery at 100% which
shortens it's life greatly.   A better choice would be to keep it at 80%
max but then you have other issues, not to mention the fact you now have to
buy a bigger battery array.
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] DC power supplies in parallel

[Nate Burke]

I think it depends on a case by case basis.   I've kept everything as AC 
with Power supplies for each device simply because I will need to 
describe to someone over the phone, in a downpour, at night, how to 
troubleshoot a site, when their idea of small tools ends with a 4' Pipe 
wrench.  Saying 'is there a green light on power supply X' is easier 
than trying to track down DC Wires/fuses/breakers.  Just have them swap 
the bad Powersupply and that either fixed it or, didn't.  We also have a 
very good Power grid in our area, so we're not overly concerned with 
long runtimes.  Our average utility failure is <4 hours to restoration.  
And I have a pallet of brand new APC XL's that I paid $50 each for.  I 
can't build a DC plant for less than that. Let alone with all the power 
Monitoring the APC Gives me.


If you have a flaky grid and need long runtimes, then DC is the way to 
go, no question.


Another Network Engineer I work with prefers all DC Sites.  I've never 
been able to justify the cost/complexity of pure DC Setups. Especially 
when needing to do a mix of 24/48V, as is often present with older gear 
at most of our sites.



On 4/26/2024 1:40 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
I have a bunch of various meanwell 48 vDC power supplies mostly  120 
and 350 watt models with most loads being 45wattish and some 108wattish.


One site im re-cabling has 1100w in PSUs taking a ton of space 
providing for a total demand of around 440w. Seems overkill and only 
accounts for the DC direct powered stuff, not the other 300w or so


Whats the consensus on an AC powered site? individual PSUs for ever 
equipment. Big PSU/rectifier for all?
Our battery capacity at this particular site is on the APC at the base 
providing just AC to the top, we are not bringing the batteries up for 
reasons and all electronics are up top.






--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] DC power supplies in parallel

[Ken Hohhof]

I tend toward a minimum of AC/DC power supplies, and fuse blocks or DC breakers 
for the loads. But the other network engineer I work with prefers a dedicated 
PSU for each load. So you may not get a uninamous recommendation.Note I tend 
toward DC sites and other guy sees that as unnecessary expense and hardware. So 
if you are doing AC sites, maybe don't listen to me.And I'm still using AGM 
batteries while all the cool kids are using LiFePO4 with BCMs, so definitely 
don't listen to me. Original Message From: "Steve Jones" Sent: 
4/26/2024 1:49:48 PMTo: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" Subject: [AFMUG] DC 
power supplies in parallelI have a bunch of various meanwell 48 vDC power 
supplies mostly? 120 and 350 watt models with most loads being 45wattish?and 
some 108wattish.One site im re-cabling has 1100w in PSUs taking a ton of space 
providing for a total demand of around 440w. Seems overkill and only accounts 
for the DC direct powered stuff, not the other 300w or soWhats the consensus on 
an AC powered site? individual PSUs for ever equipment. Big PSU/rectifier for 
all?Our battery capacity at this particular site is on the APC at the base 
providing just AC to the top, we are not bringing the batteries up for reasons 
and all electronics are up top.?

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] DC power supplies in parallel

[Josh Luthman]

AC powered site?  GTFO.

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 2:49 PM Steve Jones 
wrote:

> I have a bunch of various meanwell 48 vDC power supplies mostly  120 and
> 350 watt models with most loads being 45wattish and some 108wattish.
>
> One site im re-cabling has 1100w in PSUs taking a ton of space providing
> for a total demand of around 440w. Seems overkill and only accounts for the
> DC direct powered stuff, not the other 300w or so
>
> Whats the consensus on an AC powered site? individual PSUs for ever
> equipment. Big PSU/rectifier for all?
> Our battery capacity at this particular site is on the APC at the base
> providing just AC to the top, we are not bringing the batteries up for
> reasons and all electronics are up top.
>
>
> --
> 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

[AFMUG] DC power supplies in parallel

[Steve Jones]

I have a bunch of various meanwell 48 vDC power supplies mostly  120 and
350 watt models with most loads being 45wattish and some 108wattish.

One site im re-cabling has 1100w in PSUs taking a ton of space providing
for a total demand of around 440w. Seems overkill and only accounts for the
DC direct powered stuff, not the other 300w or so

Whats the consensus on an AC powered site? individual PSUs for ever
equipment. Big PSU/rectifier for all?
Our battery capacity at this particular site is on the APC at the base
providing just AC to the top, we are not bringing the batteries up for
reasons and all electronics are up top.
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Fiber: Radisys

[Joe Novak]

This isn't exactly the first time I've heard of issues with getting quotes
from Adtran, I had the same experience. We went with another vendor in the
end, you can only chase around people for quotes for so long.

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 1:16 PM Jeff Broadwick - Lists 
wrote:

> Matt and Nabeel should be reaching out shortly.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeff
>
> Jeff Broadwick
> CTIconnect
> 312-205-2519 Office
> 574-220-7826 Cell
> jbroadw...@cticonnect.com
>
> On Apr 26, 2024, at 10:28 AM, Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>
> Jeff -
>
> I've been working with CTI on quotes for these. I had a conference call in
> December with (I believe) you and Mark from Adtran. Nabeel recently reached
> out to me seeing if I needed anything and I asked him about getting an
> Adtran quote earlier last week, but I still have not heard anything on that
> front. He did get me the Radisys quote.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jason McKemie
> Veloxinet
>
> On Thursday, April 25, 2024, Jeff Broadwick - Lists 
> wrote:
> > 
> > Thanks Josh!
> > I can actually help with both.  My contact info is below.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jeff
> > Jeff Broadwick
> > CTIconnect
> > 312-205-2519 Office
> > 574-220-7826 Cell
> > jbroadw...@cticonnect.com
> >
> > On Apr 25, 2024, at 4:59 PM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> >
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> the content is safe.
> >
> > Jeff has some pretty good deals on Adtran stuff.
> > Not sure what the Radisys product is but talk to Jeff about the
> fiber/Adtran gear.
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 1:48 PM Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I've been trying to get a quote from Adtran for months with no luck.
> These guys recently came to my attention. The product and pricing looks
> reasonable, has anyone used their gear? --
> >> 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

Re: [AFMUG] Fiber: Radisys

[Jeff Broadwick - Lists]

Matt and Nabeel should be reaching out shortly.Regards,Jeff Jeff BroadwickCTIconnect312-205-2519 Office574-220-7826 Celljbroadw...@cticonnect.comOn Apr 26, 2024, at 10:28 AM, Jason McKemie  wrote:Jeff -I've been working with CTI on quotes for these. I had a conference call in December with (I believe) you and Mark from Adtran. Nabeel recently reached out to me seeing if I needed anything and I asked him about getting an Adtran quote earlier last week, but I still have not heard anything on that front. He did get me the Radisys quote.ThanksJason McKemie VeloxinetOn Thursday, April 25, 2024, Jeff Broadwick - Lists  wrote:> > Thanks Josh!> I can actually help with both.  My contact info is below.>> Regards,> Jeff > Jeff Broadwick> CTIconnect> 312-205-2519 Office> 574-220-7826 Cell> jbroadw...@cticonnect.com>> On Apr 25, 2024, at 4:59 PM, Josh Luthman  wrote:>> >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.>> Jeff has some pretty good deals on Adtran stuff.> Not sure what the Radisys product is but talk to Jeff about the fiber/Adtran gear.> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 1:48 PM Jason McKemie  wrote: I've been trying to get a quote from Adtran for months with no luck. These guys recently came to my attention. The product and pricing looks reasonable, has anyone used their gear? -->> AF mailing list>> AF@af.afmug.com>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
-- AF mailing listAF@af.afmug.comhttp://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

Re: [AFMUG] Fiber: Radisys

[Jason McKemie]

Jeff -

I've been working with CTI on quotes for these. I had a conference call in
December with (I believe) you and Mark from Adtran. Nabeel recently reached
out to me seeing if I needed anything and I asked him about getting an
Adtran quote earlier last week, but I still have not heard anything on that
front. He did get me the Radisys quote.

Thanks

Jason McKemie
Veloxinet

On Thursday, April 25, 2024, Jeff Broadwick - Lists 
wrote:
> 
> Thanks Josh!
> I can actually help with both.  My contact info is below.
>
> Regards,
> Jeff
> Jeff Broadwick
> CTIconnect
> 312-205-2519 Office
> 574-220-7826 Cell
> jbroadw...@cticonnect.com
>
> On Apr 25, 2024, at 4:59 PM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:
>
> 
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
the content is safe.
>
> Jeff has some pretty good deals on Adtran stuff.
> Not sure what the Radisys product is but talk to Jeff about the
fiber/Adtran gear.
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 1:48 PM Jason McKemie <
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've been trying to get a quote from Adtran for months with no luck.
These guys recently came to my attention. The product and pricing looks
reasonable, has anyone used their gear? --
>> 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