Counter-Argument Against HIP 113: Reward CBRS As Experimental #973
Replies: 7 comments 7 replies
-
|
Best use case I found for cbrs was allowing them to be used as a wisp for helium mobile home internet subscribers. Would act as a stop gap while handoff issues get sorted and open up a new revenue stream for the network. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This HIP would reward CBRS proportionally to its value it has today, not tomorrow. If that value changes, the reward mechanism can be changed. A lot of the arguments above are BS and look straight out of chat GPT. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I like the wisp comment. I like the CBRS value comment also. Both scenarios seem to have valuable meaning. Thank you both! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
What about those individuals who have already invested thousands of dollars for their CBRS radio setup? Or future investments for that matter? We understand risk when we invest our hard earned money into projects, but this proposal is a slap in the face to those who have recently obtained a CBRS radio, especially in recent time. So where’s the incentive for providing coverage with a CBRS radio? Or is there any all? Not to mention there are much options when purchasing equipment in terms of CBRS vs purchasing a hotspot. I understand the purpose of deploying HIP 113, but following such an occurrence should be addressed in a way that looks towards utilizing CBRS radios to their full potential. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The writing on the wall has been there for CBRS for months. Everyone in discord would basically recommend Wi-Fi over CBRS for purchasing. If you did any research at all, you’d come to the conclusion that the future of CBRS is uncertain. If you either did not listen to advice, or failed to do research, then there is no one to blame but yourself. This isn’t getting rid of CBRS rewards. CBRS radios can earn 40k plus mobile a day for providing no utility. How is that fair? Even if they are earning half (20k mobile a day) that is still great rewards. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Referring to discussions on Discord is not a strong enough argument in my opinion. And the writing is not “on the wall” based on the CBRS community. And 40K a day? Even in the most optimal setup I couldn’t achieve those numbers unless it was in a rural area, which we know oracle locations would reduce those earnings in such a location. Opinions aside, let me ask you this: Since a high power outdoor radio (i.e. Nova 436H) has a multiplier of 4X, will HIP113 take away this concept of the multiplier on top of reducing POC earnings by said percentage? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Nova 436 does not have a multiplier of 4x. It is awarded the same value for points for coverage as a 430 is. I’ll refer to the CEO of Nova’s comment below on the future of CBRS. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
You might to let RAK Wireless know they’re committing false advertising then, lol |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I already did numerous times on their twitter lol. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I get it! I recently purchased a 2 radio setup along with a WiFi unit.
Those that invested over 12 months ago are probably in a better to position
to, if you want to call it Take a Hit. I agree that the CBRS coverage is
much more powerful than WiFi but if no use case over the past years I can
see a possible change being made. Again I just don't want the whole CBRS
experiment to fall by the wasteside. Hopefully the community can evaluate
the concerns and keep pushing forward with CBRS.
Change the percentages I understand, so Drastically could be a BIG BLOW to
the Network.
…On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 12:39 PM RetroParc ***@***.***> wrote:
What about those individuals who have already invested thousands of
dollars for their CBRS radio setup? Or future investments for that matter?
We understand risk when we invest our hard earned money into projects, but
this proposal is a slap in the face to those who have recently obtained a
CBRS radio, especially in recent time.
So where’s the incentive for providing coverage with a CBRS radio? Or is
there any all? Not to mention there are much options when purchasing
equipment in terms of CBRS vs purchasing a hotspot. I understand the
purpose of deploying HIP 113, but following such an occurrence should be
addressed in a way that looks towards utilizing CBRS radios to their full
potential.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#973 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AUAJ7AIONT7XYXA52GLOROLY3QWEVAVCNFSM6AAAAABFUPQ6PSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43SRDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHM4DSOJZGYZTO>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Reducing rewards by 50% for CBRS will be a blow to the crappy CBRS installs. The good installs will continue to still do well, even after a 50% decrease. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
FYI, copying a message from Nova's CEO on Discord:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
for sure
…On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 1:01 PM Andy Zyvoloski ***@***.***> wrote:
Reducing rewards by 50% for CBRS will be a blow to the crappy CBRS
installs. The good installs will continue to still do well, even after a
50% decrease.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#973 (reply in thread)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AUAJ7AOPHP2QS5K4EJI73MTY3QYU5AVCNFSM6AAAAABFUPQ6PSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43SRDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHM4DSOJZHEZTC>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Introduction:
The proposal outlined in HIP 113 suggests adjusting Proof-of-Coverage (PoC) rewards for CBRS radios, citing their limited utility and experimental status on the network. While the proposal raises valid concerns about the current state of CBRS technology, it overlooks several crucial factors that warrant a more balanced approach.
Overlooking CBRS Potential:
The proposal fails to acknowledge the long-term potential of CBRS technology. While it acknowledges certain drawbacks and challenges, it underestimates the ongoing research and development efforts in the field. Many emerging technologies face initial hurdles that can be overcome with time and investment. History has shown that experimental technologies can evolve into mainstream solutions with perseverance and innovation.
Unfair Reward Reduction:
The proposed reduction in rewards for CBRS radios is disproportionate and unfair. Such a significant decrease in rewards may discourage current CBRS operators and deter potential investors from exploring CBRS technology further. CBRS technology is inherently more costly to deploy compared to Wi-Fi, and the added rewards are necessary for its continued existence and development.
Inadequate Justification for Reward Changes:
The proposal lacks concrete evidence or data to support the proposed changes in reward distribution. While it cites technical and operational shortcomings of CBRS, more thorough research and analysis are needed to substantiate these claims. Without sufficient justification, it's premature to implement such drastic changes to reward allocation.
Ignoring Market Dynamics:
The proposal overlooks the dynamic nature of the telecommunications market and the importance of allowing for diverse technological solutions. CBRS may have niche applications or unique advantages that are not fully captured in the proposal. While Wi-Fi technology may have lower deployment costs, its limited range and capacity make it less suitable for certain use cases. CBRS is competing against major industry players, and the added rewards are necessary to level the playing field.
Inconsistencies in Reward Allocation:
The proposed reward allocation lacks consistency, particularly regarding the treatment of CBRS versus Wi-Fi technologies. Without objective criteria, it's challenging to justify why Wi-Fi hotspots inherently deserve higher rewards. The reward structure should be based on performance metrics and contributions to network efficiency rather than subjective judgments.
Lack of Stakeholder Consultation:
The proposal lacks consultation with key stakeholders in the CBRS ecosystem. Decision-making should be inclusive and involve input from CBRS operators, manufacturers, and other relevant stakeholders. Ignoring stakeholder perspectives may lead to unintended consequences and hinder the progress of CBRS technology.
Need for Comprehensive Evaluation:
A comprehensive evaluation of CBRS technology is necessary, taking into account its technical capabilities, market potential, and regulatory environment. This evaluation should involve input from industry experts, regulatory authorities, and end-users to ensure a well-informed and balanced decision-making process.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while the proposal raises valid concerns about CBRS technology, its proposed solutions are disproportionate and overlook the long-term potential of CBRS. A more balanced approach is needed, one that fosters innovation, encourages stakeholder collaboration, and ensures fairness in reward distribution. Only through comprehensive evaluation and inclusive decision-making can we achieve the desired outcomes for the CBRS ecosystem.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions