> Lost interest when I read: > >The test location had a rocky desert topology with minimal foliage, and tests were conducted using LTE Band 41 (2,500 MHz). Tes

> Lost interest when I read: > >The test location had a rocky desert topology with minimal foliage, and tests were conducted using LTE Band 41 (2,500 MHz). Testing was conducted in other locations as well. One use-case being discussed doesn't exclude the others. For example: > The Metcalf location has flat terrain with thick deciduous trees covering the land. Also... > Ignoring all the other social/anticompetitive issues there is with Facebook proposing this, it stinks like a scam to get a tax writeoff or jump onto the same sort of FCC rural internet grant money Starlink is bilking taxpayers out of. Facebook doesn't build and operate this kind of network. This project (and others such as efforts in middle mile fiber construction and funding cable consortiums) are largely intended to help regional carriers outside of the US past hurdles around capacity and density that limit their growth. Since it's not targeted at the US, the FCC's grants, spectrum allocation, and power limits are not relevant. Cui bono? Facebook's learned that just getting people connected to the internet in a content-agnostic way is sufficient for growth. This is why FB funds consortium fiber around and across Africa, funds internet exchanges, and makes free network planning tools available to carriers. https://www.internetsociety.org/issues/ixps/facebook-ixp-partnership/ https://www.internetsociety.org/issues/ixps/facebook-ixp-par... Disclaimer: I'm a Network PE at Facebook, in prod, not in connectivity labs where this project originated, and def not speaking for the company.