> On Feb 28, 2022, at 4:44 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> That is North Dakota, not population centers. Click the link.
>
> You're basing fiber availability everywhere on living? That's a poor excuse
> for data.
I did. The numbers are related to population, not area. If you move outside of
That is North Dakota, not population centers. Click the link.
You're basing fiber availability everywhere on living? That's a poor
excuse for data.
>These numbers are crap and nobody should believe them.
Lol ok but we should believe nearly 100% from you because you lived in a
couple places?
I said North Dakota, not population centers (they are where the legacy LECs
operate). I have lived and worked there for telecommunications Coops which
device the land mass of the state. They had no issues providing the most
cutting edge service to extremely rural areas. What is the excuse of
According to the 477 data it's less than 50% (updated 11/1/2021 and I think
the public 477 is 2 years? behind) What makes you believe it's nearly 100%?
https://broadbandnow.com/North-Dakota
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 4:22 PM Brian Johnson
wrote:
> Given this premise (that it is too expensive to
Given this premise (that it is too expensive to provide access to rural areas),
can you explain why nearly 100% of North Dakota is serviced by FTTH solutions.
The exceptions being the areas still run by the traditional LECs?
I’m not to sure this should be an urban/rural debate.
> On Feb 28,
Ryan,
This discussion was in regards to urban areas.
Regarding your example, though, I expect you're in a hard to reach rural
area based on your description. It looks like there are absolutely a
massive amount of trees, making it hard for fixed wireless. Since it
sounds like your only option,
> On Feb 16, 2022, at 4:46 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>
> On 2/16/22 1:36 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>> What is the embarrassment?
> That in the tech center of the world that we're so embarrassingly behind the
> times with broadband. I'm going to get fiber in the rural Sierra Nevada
> before
Go Mike!
Seriously, Like Owen, I'm in Evergreen and until recently, my home had very
poor speeds, but at least something. Today, I have no option other than
Comcast which has jumped to mediocre, and AT's DSL. Seriously. I also
get better service in the Sierra's, but alas, still only one choice.
swisp>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
> *From: *"Dorn Hetzel"
> *To: *sro...@ronan-online.com
> *Cc: *"Mike Hammett" , "NANOG"
> *Sent: *Saturday, February 19, 2022 10:16:06 AM
> *Sub
etzel"
To: sro...@ronan-online.com
Cc: "Mike Hammett" , "NANOG"
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2022 10:16:06 AM
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
Yeah, the evils of HOAs go *way* beyond shitty internet
On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 11:15 AM <
-
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
>
> The Brothers WISP
>
> From: "Cory Sell via NANOG"
> To: "Mike Lyon"
> Cc: "NANOG"
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 7:16:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Ne
Sell via NANOG"
To: "Mike Lyon"
Cc: "NANOG"
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 7:16:37 PM
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
See this is my point. People always dismiss these issues and say they could
easily get service. Then, when someone
Start with a neighborhood. A block. something. I'm sure there's a reason
behind why something is the way it is.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 5:10 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2022, at 13:13, Josh Luthman
> wrote:
>
>
> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to
e-by-case basis.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> --
> *From: *"Aaron Wendel"
> *To: *nanog@nanog.org
> *Sent: *Wedne
California in particular also has more stringent rules for commercial
buildings with seismic requirements. While a nonpen mount is great, you
still have to get the service into the building somehow.
Back in 2005 when I moved to this area, I worked directly across the street
from what is now the
I have to give a shout out here for Mike’s organization (Ridge Wireless).
They do provide excellent customer service and decent speeds, though they are
sub-fiber and at somewhat of a premium/Mbps vs. terrestrial fiber solutions.
I’m currently using Ridge as my primary connectivity with Comcast
The future belongs to wireless. Hopefully not 5g to any huge extent.
If it helps any, wiline in the bay area has been delivering fixed
wireless services for many, many years, 'round here. There's another
technology - free space optics - that can get stuff across the street.
I played around a lot
Well, if the HOA allowed us to install an antenna for the single customer, then
our standard rates would apply (google Ridge Wireless, if you want to see
pricing, i don’t want my NANOG messages to seem spammy).
Another problem with condos that were built before the 2000’s is inside wiring.
See this is my point. People always dismiss these issues and say they could
easily get service. Then, when someone comes in with an actual request for said
service, the answer we get is about structured deals with HOA/property
management. What about for a single customer? A single customer who
Infrapedia says there is Zayo fiber across the street to the south. Guessing a
DIA circuit might be a budget buster though.
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Matthew
Petach
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 4:47 PM
To: Josh Luthman
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband
Depends on many factors…
If the whole HOA wanted service, then a licensed link could possibly be put in
delivering a high capacity circuit delivering about 100 Mbps to the subscriber.
Price to the customer would vary depending on how the deal is structured with
the HOA/property management
Out of pure curiosity, let’s assume they COULD put an antenna on the roof…
What is the service? Bandwidth, latency expectation, cost?
Note that in almost every condominium or apartment complex I have heard of,
they do NOT allow roof builds. This is why satellite TV in those areas require
If they allow antennas on the roof, we can service them :)
Your house, on the other hand, we already lucked out on that one!
-Mike Lyon
Ridge Wireless
> On Feb 16, 2022, at 16:48, Matthew Petach wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman
> wrote:
>> I'll once again
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman
wrote:
> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the
> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>
You want a specific example?
Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a few
weeks ago.
> On Feb 16, 2022, at 13:13, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
>
> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the
> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
There are many such parts of San Jose. How specific do you want? Most of the
residential areas served by the
connected to Auckland). Something has gone horribly
wrong to produce this outcome I would suggest.
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Michael
Thomas
Sent: Thursday, 17 February 2022 10:47 am
To: Josh Luthman
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
Crap, slow internet options in the heart of Silicon Valley, I think..
https://www.broadbandmap.ca.gov
You can look around the billion dollar football stadium and international
airport and see neighborhoods with 1-3Mbps only.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:38 PM Josh Luthman
wrote:
> What is the
But the location has an internet service. Is it embarrassing because it
should have fiber or "better connectivity" because of its location?
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:47 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> On 2/16/22 1:36 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> What is the embarrassment?
>
> That in the tech
On 2/16/22 1:36 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
What is the embarrassment?
That in the tech center of the world that we're so embarrassingly behind
the times with broadband. I'm going to get fiber in the rural Sierra
Nevada before Silicon Valley. In fact, I already have it, they just
haven't
What is the embarrassment?
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> On 2/16/22 1:13 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the
> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>
> On the note of the generic area of San
On 2/16/22 1:13 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see
the generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this
has a lot to do with California and its extraordinarily
I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the
generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this has a
lot to do with California and its extraordinarily complicated and near
impossible accessibility to
> On Feb 16, 2022, at 10:13 , Aaron Wendel wrote:
>
> The reason government incentives exist is because, in a lot of rural America,
> a business case can't be made to connect to Grandma's farm that's 10 miles
> from the nearest splice box. If you believe that broad band is a basic
>
The reason government incentives exist is because, in a lot of rural
America, a business case can't be made to connect to Grandma's farm
that's 10 miles from the nearest splice box. If you believe that broad
band is a basic service now, like electricity, then getting Grandma her
porn is
> On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone
> complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200
> meg". Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had better
> speeds
Parts of San Jose are another example… The so-called “Capital of Silicon
Valley” has many neighborhoods where
fiber is less than 100 yards away and yet fiber services are unavailable. In
many of those locations, DSL is limited
to about 1.5M/384k (and that on good days).
This is true of many
towns through
wireless links and providing a better service than what is there.
Travis
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Josh
Luthman
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 3:15 PM
To: Brandon Svec
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
Because literally every case I've seen
20 miles from Sacramento.
Mother-in-law has an ATT DSLAM *at the end of her driveway* on
the other side of the street. ATT swears she can get internet. Until
she tries to sign up, and "oh no... wrong side of the street"
She is at 700Kbps over a WISP ... *after* she trimmed the trees to
The house was completed a year or two before my mother's purchase and it
took Comcast another year or two to lay cable. Imagine buying a house
and waiting three to four years for internet service. That does not
qualify as "got service right away" in my mind. The frustrating part,
for me as a
I believe what he said was "Comcast did eventually lay cable". That was in
a brand new development. It's a brand new house and got service right
away. What more do you want from providers?
Out in the country, yes, there are the 10k to 100k build out costs all the
time. But that's the country
Excellent example. I see this all.the.time. She could probably get Comcast
just fine by paying $50k buildout or signing a 10 year agreement for
TV/Phone/Internet and convincing 5 neighbors too ;)
*Brandon *
On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 1:32 PM Blake Hudson wrote:
> My mom moves to Olathe, KS. The
My example is just from experience. Not hypothetical, but also not a
specific address I can recall or feel like looking up now.
The reality on the ground as someone who sells access to smallish
businesses mostly in California is as I described. You can't see it on a
map or database because the
My mom moves to Olathe, KS. The realtor indicated that ATT, Comcast, and
Google Fiber all provided service to the neighborhood and the HOA
confirmed. Unfortunately for her, Google fiber laid fiber ~3 years
before and her cul-de-sac was developed ~2 years before she moved in. No
Google Fiber,
Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone
complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200
meg". Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had better
speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible customer service)
for
What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list with even
a passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the United States knows
how hit or miss it can be. An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber
and the houses across the street have no option but slow DSL. Houses
OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though.
On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher wrote:
> Can you provide examples?
>>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo_channel=NANOG
>
> Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living just outside Ann
> Arbor, MI, so he
>
> Can you provide examples?
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo_channel=NANOG
Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living just outside Ann
Arbor, MI, so he had to start his own CLEC.
I have friends in significantly more rural areas than he lives in ( Niagara
and Orleans
There are plenty of places with crappy dsl left in the US, 7mbit
down/1mbit up being fairly common in many small towns.
In my view, however, focusing on dragging fiber to farmland is kind of
silly and better wireless tech (WISP) to be preferred,
and in both the wireless and dsl cases, a real
I have a home in rural Washington state, and my access was definetly
substandard. I had to bond together multiple internet services to have a
somewhat modern internet experience. I now have a Starlink's service, which has
given me more robust speeds. That said, their service still has a ways to
>There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far worse
off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.
Can you provide examples?
On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:51 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG
wrote:
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On
> On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/2/21 11:04, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> I disagree… If it could be forced into a standardized format using a
>> standardized approach to data acquisition and reliable comparable results
>> across providers, it could be a very useful
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 8:44 AM Alejandro Acosta <
alejandroacostaal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello there,
>
>The other day I was in a place with a very limited internet access
> and I recalled this thread. Sometimes speed is important and many times
> also the amount of data we transfer is
Hello there,
The other day I was in a place with a very limited internet access
and I recalled this thread. Sometimes speed is important and many times
also the amount of data we transfer is too.
I wonder (sorry if there is and I'm not aware of) some kind of data
per month
GPON is full duplex. Two different wavelengths for the two directions.
1490/1310.
Wireless we'll say you're doing 20 MHz. That doesn't divide up. That's
simply 20 MHz half duplex. With fixed timing (for colocation) it means
that you simply can't shift your ratios.
Josh Luthman
24/7 Help
On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 1:49 PM Mike Hammett wrote:
> Assuming you were able to get the maximum capacity (you don't for a
> variety of reasons), the maximum capacity of a given access point is 1.2
> gigabit/s. On a 2:1 ratio, that's about 800 megs down and 400 megs up.
>
>
Here is a graph of
Exchange
The Brothers WISP
- Original Message -
From: "Baldur Norddahl"
To: "NANOG"
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 5:03:53 PM
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 11:46 PM Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > w
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 4:04 PM Baldur Norddahl
wrote:
> 66/34 is 2:1 or exactly the same as GPON (2.4 down, 1.2 up). We sell 1000
> symmetrical on that GPON and the customers are happy. You would have much
> less oversubscription with 100/100 on a 1.2 Gbps wireless with 66:34
> down/up ratio,
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 11:46 PM Mike Hammett wrote:
> 2.4 gigabit per channel, but only 1.2 gigabit from a given access point.
>
> Most often, WISPs choose down\up ratios between 85/15 and 66/34 and then
> sell plans appropriately. If we're now required to have a symmetric 100
> megs, you'll be
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
- Original Message -
From: "Baldur Norddahl"
To: "NANOG"
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 11:18:58 AM
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 2:40 PM Forrest Christian
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:21 AM Baldur Norddahl
wrote:
> But isn't that just proving my point? If you can do 2,4 Gbps per
> frequency, why are the WISPs whining about a 100 Mbps requirement?!
>
The problem is this, in the US: If the government decides anything under
100Mb/s second isn't
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021, Mark Tinka wrote:
There's been a bit of glass in Nairobi for some time now :-). But sure, the
more, the merrier.
https://afterfiber.nsrc.org/
Steve
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 2:40 PM Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
> I think you're really out of touch with what is going on in the WISP space.
>
> See the following product as an example:
>
>
>
Baldur,
Mike and I are both doing FTTH. We're listening but it doesn't appear you
are saying anything correct. The statement of 5G taking down all WISPs is
probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard on this list.
Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne
ect: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 12:47 AM Seth Mattinen < se...@rollernet.us > wrote:
UBNT's AirMax line is not "wifi". Their LTU line isn't either.
Mike and Josh are actual WISP operators. You've stated you have
I think you're really out of touch with what is going on in the WISP space.
See the following product as an example:
https://www.cambiumnetworks.com/products/pmp-450/5-ghz-pmp-450m-fixed-wireless-access-point/
14x14 beam-steering Massive Multi-User MIMO. This is able to talk, in the
same
www.ics-il.com/>
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> To: "Mike Hammett"
> Cc: "Abhi Devireddy" , nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 5:17:36 AM
> Subject: Re: New
Agree Mark, we are lighting fiber into EADC Nairobi as we speak. Watch
society’s next golden age come out of Africa.
-LB
Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
CEO
b...@6by7.net
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in
Thank you Baldur. I also operate an owned and designed FTTH network, as well
as global carrier networks.
If you look at this from first principles, glass fiber optical cable is cheap.
PVC/HDPE seething is also cheap. Underground space is cheap.
Construction, regulation, compliance, and
Having dealt with this personally, I can guarantee that CAF/RDOF require
phone service to be provided as an option (and no, pointing a customer
toward a third-party voip service doesn't count) to both have an area
counted as "served" (so that you're not overbuilt) and providing phone
service is a
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 12:47 AM Seth Mattinen wrote:
> UBNT's AirMax line is not "wifi". Their LTU line isn't either.
>
> Mike and Josh are actual WISP operators. You've stated you have no WISP
> experience. Listen to them.
>
Neither will listen to me when it comes to FTTH so nah :-)
On 6/3/21 00:26, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:
Then honestly we should organize and do a better job.
Imagine if all the carriers represented here worked together, combined builds,
etc.
We’ve finally got a few of the tier-1s playing ball with us, but it took 27
years.
On 6/2/21 23:27, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe wrote:
Agree Mark, we are lighting fiber into EADC Nairobi as we speak.
There's been a bit of glass in Nairobi for some time now :-). But sure,
the more, the merrier.
Mark.
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 7:14 PM Josh Luthman
wrote:
> Do you not see the irony here? It's suggested the government comes in and
> delivers fiber to every house in the country and yet today we're saying
> they haven't gotten it right in the last ~20 years.
>
>
Isn't the request actually to better
Do you not see the irony here? It's suggested the government comes in and
delivers fiber to every house in the country and yet today we're saying
they haven't gotten it right in the last ~20 years.
Grants and federal funds are available. It's a massive amount of work to
get them, at which point
On 6/2/21 2:00 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
The kind of WISP we have around here is one or more AP on a tower or
corn silo and that one tower will cover a huge area by line of sight.
There will be nothing like you describe as each AP has separate
frequency and therefore no conflict. The gear is
Then honestly we should organize and do a better job.
Imagine if all the carriers represented here worked together, combined builds,
etc.
We’ve finally got a few of the tier-1s playing ball with us, but it took 27
years.
Anyone interested, reach out. We’re going under the SF bay in a $50m
Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 03:25:01PM -0400, Josh Luthman:
> CAF/RDOF *requires phone service*. The internet was a happy byproduct.
the way that i interpret it, it does not require phone service but does
still offer grants for phone service.
anyway, that is irrelevant. the point is that grants are
s-il.com
>>
>> Midwest-IX
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>>
>> --
>> *From: *"Baldur Norddahl"
>> *To: *"NANOG"
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, June 2, 2021 11:07:45 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: New minimum speed f
- Original Message -
From: "Baldur Norddahl"
To: "NANOG"
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 4:00:27 PM
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
The kind of WISP we have around here is one or more AP on a tower or corn silo
and that one tower wi
uting Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> --
> *From: *"Baldur Norddahl"
> *To: *"NANOG"
> *Sent: *Wednesday, June 2, 2021 11:07:45 AM
> *Subject: *Re: New minimum speed for US br
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 3:25 PM Josh Luthman
wrote:
> CAF/RDOF *requires phone service*. The internet was a happy byproduct.
>
>>
>>
this seems like a useless engagement in hair splitting for the purposes
that don't actually make the original argument void.
My larger point here is that some time
G Operators' Group"
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 2:18:04 PM
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:02:00PM -0400, Josh Luthman:
> Phone is telecom. Internet is not telecom. Generally speaking.
>
> If you think both of those servi
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Baldur Norddahl"
To: "NANOG"
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 11:07:45 AM
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
tir. 1. jun. 2021 23.57 skrev Mike Hammet
Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:02:00PM -0400, Josh Luthman:
> Phone is telecom. Internet is not telecom. Generally speaking.
>
> If you think both of those services are US funded, why do you think we have
> this current situation where not everyone has fiber?
>
> To answer your question, there is
CAF/RDOF *requires phone service*. The internet was a happy byproduct.
Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 3:18 PM heasley wrote:
> Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:02:00PM -0400, Josh Luthman:
> > Phone is
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 7:05 PM Josh Luthman
wrote:
> WISP is not symmetrical. Wireless isn't symmetrical. Nor is cable/dsl.
>
DSL splits the available frequencies into downstream and upstream, such
that usually much more frequencies are allocated downstream. Wifi on the
other hand does no
y, June 2, 2021 9:29:53 AM
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
On 6/1/2021 10:50 PM, Haudy Kazemi via NANOG wrote:
On bandwidth: perhaps some kind of 80/20 or 90/10 rule could be applied that
uses broadly available national peak service speeds as the basis for a
h Luthman"
Cc: "NANOG Operators' Group"
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 8:39:11 AM
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
On 6/2/21 15:26, Josh Luthman wrote:
> I for one am not part of that goal (water for sure, power second).
> Not everyone needs fibe
WISP is not symmetrical. Wireless isn't symmetrical. Nor is cable/dsl.
WiFi 6E should have MU-MIMO which is something the WISPs have had for a few
years, but not on equipment that speaks 802.11 WiFi. That protocol wasn't
really designed to do 1-15 miles, it was designed for 1-150 feet. That
Phone is telecom. Internet is not telecom. Generally speaking.
If you think both of those services are US funded, why do you think we have
this current situation where not everyone has fiber?
To answer your question, there is some assistance to those big companies
(AT, Frontier, CenturyLink).
Ethernet AUI , LOL
tir. 1. jun. 2021 23.57 skrev Mike Hammett :
>
> Requiring a 100 meg upload really changes up the dynamics of the WISP
> capabilities, resulting in fiber-only at a cost increase of 20x - 40x...
> for something that isn't needed.
>
I will admit to zero WISP experience but wifi is symmetrical
On 6/2/2021 6:19 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
While I don't have any stats to back it up myself, one of my fixed
wireless colleagues reported moving nearly a whole neighborhood from
25 meg fixed wireless to 200 - 500 meg fiber. The 95th% usage changed
approximately 10%.
-
Mike Hammett
On 6/2/21 04:44, Peter Kristolaitis wrote:
On 2021-06-02 4:25 a.m., Mark Tinka wrote:
On 6/1/21 20:46, Andy Ringsmuth wrote:
How about the farmer using an HD or 4k drone with WAPs on his center
pivot irrigation sprinklers to monitor crops? Or monitor the cattle
herd that is currently
On 6/2/21 16:35, Josh Luthman wrote:
Oh I see where you're coming from.
"No such thing as a free lunch" is a phrase, basically stating nothing
is ever actually free. In other words, making it affordable for
everyone comes at a cost to everyone.
See:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 10:37 AM Josh Luthman
wrote:
> Oh I see where you're coming from.
>
> "No such thing as a free lunch" is a phrase, basically stating nothing is
> ever actually free. In other words, making it affordable for everyone
> comes at a cost to everyone.
>
>>
>>
isn't much of the
Oh I see where you're coming from.
"No such thing as a free lunch" is a phrase, basically stating nothing is
ever actually free. In other words, making it affordable for everyone
comes at a cost to everyone.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain%27t_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch
Josh
> Is that fair to the guy in a 150+ person apartment building? One gets
> solitude and fiber internet, the other has to deal with neighbors and gets
> fiber internet.
They both get fiber internet and chose where to live, so sure why not? Why are
so many of us in the US so against something
On 6/1/2021 10:50 PM, Haudy Kazemi via NANOG wrote:
On bandwidth: perhaps some kind of 80/20 or 90/10 rule could be
applied that uses broadly available national peak service speeds as
the basis for a formula. An example might be...the basic service tier
speed available to 80% of the
On 6/2/21 15:53, Josh Luthman wrote:
"If it was affordable" is a tricky statement. There's no such thing as
a free lunch. If taxes/government/municipalities/etc are required to
make it "affordable" that means all of the people are paying for it
with extra steps.
Nobody says we should
1 - 100 of 277 matches
Mail list logo
