Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | jeremywho's comments login

This has been my view for a while. Basically health-care != health-insurance.

People I've talked to can't quite to wrap their heads around that idea. Not sure why.


What should we say? I'm a licensed ham, meshtastic user and z-wave user but I'm not sure exactly what to include in an FCC comment that would be useful, other than "Hey! I use this!".


You could say it's unethical, you use the spectrum, it leaves regular citizens even less experimental bandwidth, it's never coming back after it's gone, and there is an enormous amount of privately held spectrum in the USA they could purchase rather than seizing a public resource.


I used Claude to draft something, might help others submit comments:

RE: WT Docket No. 24-240, RM-11989

To the Federal Communications Commission:

I strongly oppose NextNav's petition to reconfigure the 902-928 MHz band. As an amateur radio operator and user of various devices operating in this spectrum, I believe this proposal would have significant negative impacts on both hobbyists and consumers.

1. Impact on Amateur Radio: This band is crucial for amateur radio experimentation and innovation. I personally use it for Meshtastic devices, which provide valuable experience in mesh networking and could be vital for emergency communications. Displacing these activities would hinder technological advancement and public service capabilities.

2. Consumer Device Disruption: Many common household devices operate in this band. For example, I use Z-Wave devices for home automation. The proposal could render these devices inoperable, forcing consumers to replace expensive equipment and potentially reducing the availability of affordable smart home technologies.

3. Unlicensed Innovation: The 902-928 MHz band has fostered significant innovation in unlicensed devices. Restricting this spectrum could stifle future developments in IoT, smart cities, and other emerging technologies that rely on license-free operation.

4. Inadequate Protection for Incumbents: NextNav's vague assurances about working with incumbents are insufficient. The proposal lacks specific, enforceable protections for existing users, including amateurs and Part 15 devices.

5. Potential Windfall Concerns: The proposed "spectrum swap" appears to grant NextNav significantly more valuable spectrum rights without clear public interest benefits. This raises concerns about equitable spectrum management.

6. Alternative Solutions: The Commission should explore alternative methods to support PNT systems that don't involve disrupting a heavily used and innovative spectrum band.

I urge the Commission to reject this proposal and maintain the current diverse ecosystem in the 902-928 MHz band, which supports amateur radio, consumer devices, and technological innovation.

Respectfully submitted,

[Your Name]

Amateur Radio Operator, [Your Call Sign]


At some point we'll have to be ok with longer names?


I’ll believe it when the lock-picking lawyer signs off :)


I’ve never had to consider transport level failures with this granularity. What work is one doing where this info becomes useful?


All kinds of critical systems, but how critical they are it depends both on domain and contracts.

Rather well known is payment processing, but also sensitive document chains, legal documents, but it might also be game saves (this one from experience: game progress was graded).

When adding limited time processing everything starts to be very complex very quickly :)


Good-enough seems to be the sweet spot. After that I think you run into diminishing returns.


Especially if you're inventing Lithium batteries.


I don’t think you read the whole article. I had the same thought as you from the headline, but they gone on to state that good code is so easy to read when you need to make changes that you don’t have to go through it multiple times to make the required changes.


I don’t think you read the whole article. I had the same thought as you from the headline, but they gone on to state that good code is so easy to read when you need to make changes that you don’t have to go through it multiple times to make the required changes.


I agree. Clever abstractions are often the antithesis of this.


> The only reliable solution appears to be running your own router behind AT&T's BWG router-modem-all-in-one.

This. I wish they had an ONT setup that allowed me to fully bypass everything of theirs.


There are people that have successfully added their own ONT setup to by-pass AT&T awful BGW-320 500/505 gateways. But it seems that its an uphill battle. dslreports.com has an entire thread dedicated to this.

I myself looked into it and realized as much as I'd like to have true bridge mode, it just wasn't worth the headache if AT&T made a change on their end. So I have BGW-320 configured for passthrough mode and an OPNSense box behind it. With Unbound recursive DNS resolver and Pihole - I fortunately don't have the problems as described in the github writeup


In the past, I got AT&T FTTN, and their router somehow managed to break my NAT firewall. I've never had this problem before or since, and spent over a day debugging it. If I had to use their stuff at this point, I'd probably set up an SSH tunnel from my local router to some machine elsewhere, and then run ppp or similar over it. I'd also stick their wifi access point garbage inside a faraday cage.

Annoyingly, I had these problems in California when network neutrality was in full force. One of the rules said that ISPs were not allowed to discriminate against customer-owned network devices. Clearly, it didn't apply to AT&T.


If you have had ATT fiber for years the the ONT is separate from the router/gateway. They use 802.1x port security but the key and cert are easily extracted from the gateway due to firmware bugs and they are probably available online too (but doing the former is easy enough). No need to use any AT&T provided equipment other than the ONT.

If you have the newer combined device you can put it in bridge mode which is probably sufficient for most needs though some have procured and installed their own ONT only setup (SFP modules are like $50).


Even if you don't have a separate ONT you can bypass the BGW320 completely with an SFP GPON-ONT-on-a-stick into SFP+ interface or a 2.5g media converter if you are in a GPON area. If you are XGSPON the common option is to buy a WAG-D20. Either way you still need certs for 802.1x.


>WAG-D20

The WAG-D20 is no longer supported/works if you're on AT&T. At least according to the discussion on dslreports and also 8311 discord server.

https://discord.com/invite/8311-886329492438671420

Also, even Baltic networks has a warning about using it with AT&T.

https://www.balticnetworks.com/products/azores-1x-10gbe-1x-2...

The new working ONT is the WAS-110.


> The WAG-D20 is no longer supported/works if you're on AT&T. At least according to the discussion on dslreports and also 8311 discord server.

The WAG-D20 is basically not recommended generally due to chipset bugs on newer revs and reduced speeds, nothing specifically with AT&T, though the VEIP issue is a specific sticking point.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13gucfDOf8X9ptkj5BOg12V0x...

The Baltic link you provided also is not limited to AT&T, and that is more a disclaimer because they are probably sick of return attempts by people with just enough to knowledge to find a cite for WAG-D20 but otherwise clueless. I doubt they want to encourage any residential customers for any model regardless if it works.

The WAG-D20 still works ok for existing setups.


thanks for the clarification. Do you know if WAG-D20 chip issues have been resolved? Back when i had first looked into replacing the BGW-320 505 with my own ONT setup, the WAG-D20 instructions I found were straightforward. The newer setup process with ONT like the WAS-110 seem to be a bit more complicated to me.


Yes, I did mention that.

> Either way you still need certs for 802.1x.

Actually for GPON the 802.1x is enforced on the ONT, so if you use an ONT SFP stick you do not need 802.1x. I already had pulled mine years ago and they’re good until 2038 or something so I haven’t bothered bypassing the ATT ONT.


Yeah, I meant for newer customers. The ONT is built into the BGW320 with no separate ONT box. You still need the certs from a BGW-210 etc. in that scenario.


Does having control of the ONTs allow them to throttle traffic/abuse in a GPON/passive fiber system?

I downshifted my ATT Fiber recently, I was getting a full gigabit when I was the first customer in the neighborhood but lately I couldn't do better than 700. So why pay for the full boat?


I was under the impression that you could clone the ONT... SFP ONTs are only like $50. Their router thingamajig was always hot garbage.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: