Probably the worst cause is that the people in charge of creating and appropriating for funding actually think the internet is a series of tubes and pipes
On another note regarding what the internet is, I'm trying to bring my kid in as an intern/apprentice (slave labor I can hit) so I have him doing the khan academy computer program. It's decent primer for new guys, it's free and it allows you to track progress. Maybe send a few senators through it On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 2:01 PM Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: > Final comment before I shut up: The idiots I'm thinking of in all cases > DID bring service to people who previously didn't have service. So it's > not as though the program was entirely useless. I'm not aware of a > circumstance where the operator didn't put in a a real effort to reach the > unserved households they were supposed to reach. So I'm not accusing > anyone of fraud and I'm not saying rural broadband funding is inherently > bad. You will also never, ever, read a story about someone who got > broadband funding to build cable on a road and actually built cable on that > road because that's just not an interesting thing to disect. > > I guess I'm just saying sometimes there are dumb people, and sometimes > they end up in a position where there are consequences to what they do. I > think if we're already primed to assume fraud and corruption then we look > at suboptimal outcomes and assume there's fraud and corruption there. > > "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by > stupidity." > > > On 3/5/2021 1:11 PM, Mathew Howard wrote: > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> [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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >> > > -- > 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
