Shared Airwaves, Public Good: Why CBRS Matters More Than Ever - Episode 652 of the Community Broadband Bits Podcast

David Zumwalt (00:07):
Connectivity is not the only thing that's happening here. What are you doing with that connectivity? How is it making your life better at home or at work? A lot of that relies on unlicensed spectrum.

Christopher Mitchell (00:19):
Welcome to another episode of the Community Broadband Bits podcast. I'm Christopher Mitchell. I'm at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance on a lovely day in [00:00:30] St. Paul, Minnesota as we wait for the thunderstorms to roll in. And that's actually a good metaphor for what we're going to be talking about today. I'm here with David Zumwalt, who is president and CEO of WISPA, which serves wireless ISPs. Welcome to the show.

David Zumwalt (00:45):
Thank you for having me. It's a pleasure to be here.

Christopher Mitchell (00:48):
I think we've had WISPA on before with Claude. Certainly. I hope the audience is well familiar with the organization. Today we're going to be talking about CBRS. It's [00:01:00] under threat. This is something that we've touched on in previous shows and previous years. I think we've talked about how CBRS is limited. We've talked about how it's really great and today we're going to be talking about the threat that it's facing in DC from discussions that are happening right now. So we're going to get this show up as fast as we can. But before we jump into that, if you could give people a sense of what WISPA's priorities are right now.

David Zumwalt (01:25):
So we really have four priorities that we refer to as our pillars. They are balance, [00:01:30] need, competition, and accessibility. I'll talk about each of those briefly. So for balance, we're in favor of utilizing balanced spectrum approaches which ensure that small and rural providers really have a fair shot at accessing the airwaves that are critical for building fast, reliable broadband, especially in communities that are unserved or underserved. So that's balance need. This has to do with subsidy programs where government support is warranted. [00:02:00] We want to see funding targeted to truly unserved communities through programs that are tech neutral, cost-effective, and can be easily accessed and administered by small providers. That speaks to BEAD right now, which we're very actively involved in. As you know, the third of the pillars is competition. We want to make sure that small businesses can be competitive and remain competitive. So wherever there are regulatory burdens that they face, we want to try to push back on those so that they can remain competitive. [00:02:30] And then the final one is accessibility. It has to do with fair and fast access to infrastructure for broadband deployments, no matter the location, whether it's federal, state or municipal private properties. This is sort of poll attachment rights permitting another hot topic in the industry today. So our four pillars are balance, need, competition and accessibility.

Christopher Mitchell (02:51):
I think a lot of people naturally think of rural wireless ISPs, but I expect you have members that cover all aspects of the way humans organize [00:03:00] themselves.

David Zumwalt (03:01):
Yeah, absolutely. So the WISP industry really kind of got started by operators who may have even been reluctant to get started. They were having trouble getting service from a service provider, might've been a cable company or a telephone company back twenty, twenty five years ago when WISPA was really getting started and they ended up finding a way to deliver broadband services to their communities on their own. And so you'll actually find WISPA members all over the place. We [00:03:30] have one that's in the shadow Capitol Hill in Washington DC in a neighborhood that was long overlooked by other larger providers. So they've deployed their own funds by and large, they've been involved in participating in some of the subsidy programs more recently. But yes, many of them are in rural areas because those are the areas that they received the least attention from major service providers.

Christopher Mitchell (03:56):
Alright, so there's so many things that I'd love to talk to you about. I mean, we are seeing hope [00:04:00] on the horizon for a variety of things. A letter of credit requirements may be going away. There's a lot of things we could talk about that are good, but it's a little bit of an emergency when I hear that there are scenarios in which Internet service providers and even private companies that don't provide service to the public who are using CBRS, who may be forced to turn it off. So let's just talk briefly, and I realize we could get really technical on this, but I think an overview of how CBRS works [00:04:30] just briefly and what it is.

David Zumwalt (04:31):
So CBRS occupies a part of the spectrum that's in what's called the three gigahertz band. And for people who aren't familiar with how spectrum works, that happens to be a pretty desirable part of the spectrum for a lot of reasons. It's desirable to a lot of different broadband providers. And so there's naturally going to be competition. A lot of that band is occupied presently by Department of Defense uses primarily radars. And so one of the things that's prevented the use of that band [00:05:00] by other commercial interests is how do you share it with a Department of Defense priority use? And so what ended up happening through industry efforts and through the FCC efforts is they came up with a notion called spectrum sharing and a way to create priority uses of the band with the Department of Defense having the ultimate priority. And then there's a tiered system below it for different commercial uses, both public and private.

(05:28):
So CBRS was really the first time [00:05:30] that a spectrum sharing model developed. And by the way, it works and it's been working and it's been constantly receiving improvements. The Department of Defense no longer has concerns about commercial utilization in the band because they haven't experienced interference to their priority uses. And it's been a good band for commercial uses, especially in the digital divide because it's important spectrum from being able to reach over larger distances. So in some [00:06:00] cases, people actually purchase the spectrum through spectrum auctions. In other cases, they're using what's called a lightly licensed or licensed by rule a flavor that does not require payment for the spectrum and through auction. And so this ecosystem has been growing, especially over the last four years, to include a number of wonderful uses that I think nobody saw coming. Major airports are using it, major school districts are using [00:06:30] it.

(06:30):
These are kind of on the private side. And then you have commercial ISPs that are deploying service and oftentimes very high speed service in areas that previously were unable to get those sorts of services. So there's a good cross section of uses that are there. The use of the band is growing exponentially. The first couple of years they had to work out the spectrum sharing mechanisms, so it took a while. Plus you had manufacturers that were building equipment for use in the band. [00:07:00] So CBRS kind of now has its sea legs and is a success story for shared use of spectrum. Now having said that, the reason that it's under threat is, like I said at the beginning, there are a lot of people who are looking for this so-called mid band spectrum and they're looking for ways to suggest that they'd be willing to pay more for it or willing to do some things to try to see the existing uses put somewhere else.

Christopher Mitchell (07:26):
I have to wonder if there's also a larger issue [00:07:30] at work, which is something that I think you're deeply familiar with, which is that spectrum is limited in that there's a certain amount of it and we can use it in different ways, more wisely or more wastefully. And some of the companies, like I would say AT&T is the first one that comes to mind. They have a fundamental interest in making sure that there are not a lot of other wise uses of spectrum that would diminish their very valuable exclusive licenses. [00:08:00] And so I have to think that that's a part of it too.

David Zumwalt (08:03):
So I can't crawl into the heads of the executives AT&T or at other mobile operators, but I think that you have a point if you take the position that spectrum is limited and that its value, it has great value and it can be monetized for the benefit of the US Treasury, then the argument naturally flows from that. Well, what is the best way to raise a heck of a lot of money?

Christopher Mitchell (08:27):
I feel like just so people are aware, the federal [00:08:30] government makes most of its money from taxes. It gets some from tariffs. Historically, right now there's a big thing about how much that will be in the future, but it's like a quarter of a trillion dollars. We've raised from spectrum sales and auctions and things like that. I think on the earth 240 billion or something like that. So it is significant.

David Zumwalt (08:46):
It is. But there are also legitimate claims that the major mobile operators are hoarding spectrum that has not been effectively used. And so they've basically banked it and put it to the side. It's not being shared with anyone else, it's [00:09:00] not being used effectively. Those are the arguments that are being made. You have to balance the need for treasury revenues against are the, how is this asset, the spectrum being put to use not only to meet the needs of people who have broadband connectivity needs, but also to drive innovation. If you look at innovation that's happened in the industry, it's oftentimes come, I'd argue all the time, has come ultimately from startups [00:09:30] or from emerging businesses that are actually looking for ways to do something that's new. And that's what you find in the W space. It not just WISP, WISPA and our members, but there are a lot of service providers that are out there that are innovating and having access to this kind of spectrum to be able to take things forward is hugely important.

Christopher Mitchell (09:49):
Yes, I am in full agreement and one of the things that I think people don't appreciate is the value that's hard to calculate from shared spectrum that allows [00:10:00] innovation and things like that. And I would say that if you think $240 billion is a lot of money for the listener, we can't put a figure on the amount of value that Wi-Fi and the 2.4 and 905 gigahertz space has created for us where we allow people to innovate, companies to innovate and use it and share it responsibly. I've seen estimates that are in the many trillions of dollars. So I'm not saying that I'm not going to come out and say everything [00:10:30] should be shared all the time. We need to figure out a way to move forward in a rational way. But I do feel like people don't appreciate the value that has come from having a commons that people can work with.

David Zumwalt (10:42):
That's a great point. And I think you're right in terms of talking about economic impact on the order of trillions of dollars, I think that is one of the things people get confused a lot about. Well, what is unlicensed spectrum? Is it basically the wild wild west? Is it some sort of big frontier? [00:11:00] No. What it is, is it's spectrum that can be deployed within specific frequency bands for specific purposes. That requires all the participants to play well with each other. And effectively, that's exactly what's happened. People who are using Wi-Fi on their homes and businesses don't oftentimes see any kind of conflicting issues with their next door neighbor's use of Wi-Fi. I mean, you may see that there are other transmitters that are out there, but you're able to [00:11:30] use it just perfectly fine in your home and business. And that's because that's the way the ecosystem is developed. And so when we talk about economic impact, it's not just the equipment that you're buying it, the local electronic store from your service provider or whatever, but it's what you're doing with that connectivity is not the only thing that's happening here. What are you doing with that connectivity? How is it making your life better at home or at work? A lot of that relies on unlicensed spectrum.

Christopher Mitchell (11:57):
Try using Airbuds without unlicensed spectrum.

David Zumwalt (12:00):
[00:12:00] Yeah, Bluetooth. Exactly right.

Christopher Mitchell (12:02):
Yeah. I'm curious. So what are the things that I've seen? Drives me a little bit crazy is you mentioned that the ISPs are using it. So right now, CBRS is used, you can put a transmitter on a tower and then you put the devices on people's homes, you connect those homes, those are using CBRS. It seems to me like that has worked out fairly well. I think in very urban areas we've talked about Yonkers. I think the costs were too great for the connectivity [00:12:30] that was allowed. And we can talk about that in a second, what we can do to improve CBRS in the future. But I saw that before we saw this reorganization of spectrum coming about. There was a campaign by CTIA, the wireless big company, the big mobile companies, their trade group suggesting that CBRS was a failure. And I'm just curious how you all reacted to that.

David Zumwalt (12:52):
Here's a word I don't use very often, but that was a canard that was basically just, they're floating bs, [00:13:00] if I could say that. And I get it, they, they're looking for a way to assert interest in this mid bend spectrum, which is so popular. They already have spectrum close by the operation of their handheld devices, your cell phones, things like that can benefit. If you have the spectrum kind of collated all in one bunch, it makes it easier to engineer the hardware that you're, I get it. I understand why they would come at it this way, but they legitimately didn't understand [00:13:30] the kind of pushback that they were going to be getting from the industry. DFW Air Airport for example, uses CBRS to keep 40,000 employees connected on a private network. That's not something that the mobility carriers are providing. I'm sure that they would like to have a cut at that business. So if you can make CBRS go away, well, maybe you have to go then to people who have private uses and say, sorry, we took it away from you. Now you've got to pay for it. I don't know.

Christopher Mitchell (13:56):
They want to go to large ag producers and take their networks [00:14:00] that currently are affordable and then charges them monthly fees for every device that needs to use it. And these are the sorts of things that drive me crazy is the centralized impact of CBRS that I love about it.

David Zumwalt (14:12):
I tend to try to look at the highest best motivation from any of the folks who are adverse or competing with our interests. And I'm going to, for the moment anyway, give AT&T credit for having come up with an approach to try to gain access [00:14:30] to this spectrum. But I think that what we need now is just to have an honest conversation about how important the spectrum is and how useful it has been and how valuable it has been in the way that it's been deployed now. Because the reality is AT&T can find other spectrum. They don't need to go damage an existing industry or ecosystem to simply serve their interests and not for a history lesson. But they tried this at the FCC, they tried to file, [00:15:00] basically tried to open a proceeding to reconsider CBRS. The reason this is blown up blatantly is because the Senate is in reconciliation discussions for the budget.

(15:12):
So AT&T tried a bank shot and they came in and said, Hey, we would like to be able to get this handled now, so why don't we just reassign all this and we'll get the OD to do that and we'll make billions of dollars for the treasury. And anyway, the Senate and the House have discovered that [00:15:30] that is not an easy button, and that's been partly through our efforts but also through others. So it's good to have the conversation because I think we ought to be having frank and candid conversations about the best use of spectrum, but also taking great note of what's already out there and what's being done to innovate in space.

Christopher Mitchell (15:49):
Yes, I agree. And just to wrap up the Senate discussion, I feel like there's three likely outcomes. There's three branches, one of which will be likely taken. One [00:16:00] is that Congress could basically say to the FCC, you have to effectively shut down CBRS or move it in some way. And they could also say you are not able to really move it and that they're specifically not making it a priority for the FCC to do it. Or they could just say to the FCC, you work it out in the future. And I think that's the one that a lot of us are kind of hoping will end up with, even though we'd prefer not to keep fighting on it. Well, let take it back. That is the wrong thing to say. I would prefer [00:16:30] if Congress was absolutely say it must be preserved because I feel like I don't often get nice things. I'm willing to settle for the, we're going to fight about it in the future is what I was really thinking.

David Zumwalt (16:40):
Well, I think that's well put. If you look at the math and the House and the Senate, the Republicans have a very thin majority right now. And so in a reconciliation action, they're going to have to keep everyone aligned in terms of getting the votes they need to pass it. So going in and asking for something that doesn't [00:17:00] have universal support is really hard to do at this point in time. And frankly, the Senate or the Congress, the house, they should not be in the business of making decisions for the FCC. If you're going to create an auction authority or reestablish it for the FCC, tell 'em what you want broadly and let the FCC handle it. They've got an internal process that's very well fleshed out over decades for being able to deal with these sorts of considerations. And I think to your point, that's where we're going to end up.

(17:26):
So I don't think that CBRS is going to be [00:17:30] reassigned through congressional action. I don't think it's going to be protected by congressional action, but we wouldn't even be having this discussion were it not for the fact that AT&T tried a bank shot. If they started it at the FCC, it's going to end up at the FCC, we're going to marshal our resources, we're going to have a big coalition of people who are going to go beat this back. But in the meantime, job number one is to get it past whatever discussion AT&T started at the Senate level in particular, so that [00:18:00] the Senate can go get what they need to get done. And this falls back to the hands of the

Christopher Mitchell (18:03):
FCC now as we talk about how to improve it, assuming that we're able to follow that path that you just noted. This is where I did respond to the CTIA study and others who were denigrating CBRS by saying, look, this is kind of like CBRS started with such a small section and the problems that have been identified are mostly the fact that there's not a lot of megahertz available for [00:18:30] usage. And everything that is wrong with CBRS would be solved by recognizing we have a process that works. We have a database for spectrum sharing that has worked. I mean, and we know a bit about it. On my team Ry is a CPI. You went through that and I've worked with a lot of CPIs and this works and everything that is wrong with it could be fixed by just making sure we tried it with larger areas of spectrum. And so that's the direction I would hope we would go.

David Zumwalt (18:58):
And even in a bigger [00:19:00] sense, the open question is where do we go with spectrum sharing? Because if you were to look at a big chart of spectrum that is usable for communication purposes, you'll see a lot of it is occupied by the Department of Defense. Now, the Department of Defense has legitimate uses for exclusive use spectrum as part of the process of protecting our country. At the same time, they're looking for ways to make sure that they're not hoarding spectrum [00:19:30] that isn't being used. So the spectrum sharing process that's being pioneered through CBRS has great potential for being able to meet the needs of future spectrum uses, mixed spectrum uses across priority uses like DOD. And maybe if you paid more for Spectrum as a commercial user, you'd have the next priority like CBRS, and then if you didn't but wanted to use it, you would be able to use it kind of a third tier basis.

(19:57):
Why don't we just go ahead and do that to all of AT&T spectrum? [00:20:00] They've got a bunch parked. Let's take spectrum sharing to AT&T and say, Hey, well, you're not using it. We're going to use it. We're going to come up with a tiered way of using it. Why don't we take that bank shot? So the notion that at and t needs more spectrum as not being received well by people who are actually using it because at t is making an argument that isn't correct, but we do have to continually prove that the path that we're on is one that is a path [00:20:30] to the future of the way that we use spectrum.

Christopher Mitchell (20:32):
Yeah, I think about this frequently when it comes to the work we've done with tribal nations. And I know that you have members of WISPA that are tribal nations, and obviously a lot of tribes are using wireless at this point in various ways. And in so many of those areas, there's just wide bands that are unused that should be available. And that's one of the, for us, is a priority too, whether it was done on a nationwide [00:21:00] basis or if there was a compromise and a need for greater tests. There's a lot of areas in the United States where we could expand CBRS without putting at issue the commercial interests of some of these folks if they wanted to actually test this out.

David Zumwalt (21:16):
Right. No, I think that that's kind of where it's going. Prior to COVID, we did not have a national priority for broadband connectivity to every location in the us. Now obviously [00:21:30] we do, and I'm speaking a little bit about BEAD here, but outside of the BEAD initiative, we're now recognizing as a country that we want everyone to be able to be serviceable by broadband. If that's going to happen, then you're going to have to use a mix of different models to get there, because as you get into sparser and sparser regions with lower population densities, it becomes more expensive per subscriber to roll out a service, especially a wired service, to be able [00:22:00] to reach those endpoint locations. So you're looking for a way to do it cost effectively where the service provider can generate a profit where they can reasonably handle the upkeep that's needed for a network, the ongoing operational expenses, for example.

(22:14):
And so operators who are operating in tribal areas or in rural areas almost always come back to, how can I use wireless to do this? I might have some customers that need wired or fiber all the way, but in many cases, I need to get the connectivity [00:22:30] out there. How do I do that? CBRS is a great option for being able to do it, and it's got a very rich assortment of manufacturers and vendors that are providing solutions in this space today, and these are very future oriented solutions. So I'm thrilled with what CBRS has achieved, and I love the spectrum sharing model and what it has achieved. We have just seen the implementation through some new standards of what's called CBRS 2.0, which took some of the lessons [00:23:00] learned as it was originally rolled out. There's a lot that's happening in the space. That's a wonderful thing.

Christopher Mitchell (23:05):
When I've talked to people about this fiber versus wireless inevitable fight, sometimes useful, sometimes just funny, shouting at people back and forth. One of the things that I've tried to say to people that are generally, I mean, I'm perceived as being more on the fiber side and I largely am, but one of the things I say is that's based on the fact that we don't manage the spectrum in a way to do it better. I expect that you would have lots of [00:23:30] good arguments why there is spectrum and we should do have less of a priority on fiber in rural areas. And I think that could be a good debate in the future. But I a hundred percent agree that if we manage the spectrum in a way to make it more efficient, the cost of connecting at a very high quality, low income, or not necessarily low income, but low density areas, it would be much better. I mean, there are homes on Navajo and Hopi as well as elsewhere who do not have electricity [00:24:00] from the grid. And the idea that we're going to figure out how to get them a wire, and maybe there is an argument for it, and we can argue about where that is, but I'll tell you that in the short term, if we could get 'em wireless this year, that would be great.

David Zumwalt (24:16):
Yeah, you've got a very informed audience, and so this will not be lost on 'em. But if you think about a highway system or something where you've got high densities, you've got multiple lane interstate highways and it carries a lot of traffic, but as you get into more [00:24:30] suburban and rural areas, the street sizes get smaller. And that's the way utility infrastructure is always engineered. WISPA members probably have more fiber running in the digital divide than any other association does that shocks some people because we're the wireless association. But the reality is the service providers are deploying fiber where it makes sense for them to do it and they're deploying a lot of it. But to your point, when you get to areas where you don't need the eight lane superhighway [00:25:00] to be able to get to last mile locations, service providers are looking for what's the most cost effective shirt certainly, but what's the fastest way I can get people connected?

(25:10):
And at the end of the day, this is sort of an obvious point too. Spectrum is a form of light. And so what we're doing with wireless is we're doing the same thing. Fiber is, it's just that we're not using glass to get there. We're basically using every other element that fiber has, including in many cases [00:25:30] the capacity characteristics. Although depending on the spectrum that you're operating in and how much you have to work with, you can be limited in terms of what you can get to an end point through wireless compared to fiber. Fiber has got great capacity, there's no question about that. But it's also expensive to deploy pound for pound, especially as you get out into rural areas.

Christopher Mitchell (25:52):
And this is where I think coming back to what is the future, we are either going to hit problems of scarcity [00:26:00] or we're going to figure out how to share the spectrum. I think there's people who've been working on this for a long time who said we would get here. We're starting to share the spectrum is working. The main pushback is from those who have an economic interest in not sharing, I would say, as opposed to a technical complaint, is what I see.

David Zumwalt (26:17):
So I remember Bill Gates once said that he set the limit on the I-B-M-P-C to 640 kilobytes of RAM memory because that's all the computer would ever need. [00:26:30] And if you look at what you're doing in your computers now, it's not anywhere close to that. It's many, many multiples. I remember when modems first came out for early broadband, they were 300 bits per and then 1200 bits per second. And there were actually some engineers and scientists who said that we had reached the theoretical limit of what you could do over copper at 1200. Then we ended up in DSL and beyond. So the efficiencies that we've been able to bring to bear [00:27:00] and using spectrum have been frankly glorious. If you look at the history, are we dealing with some theoretical maximum now? I don't know, maybe, but I'm not inclined to think so because within my lifetime I've seen people claim that, well, we've hit the ceiling of what this technology is capable of doing, and then someone comes up with a new innovation and lucky here, but especially in terms of spectrum sharing that has not been really tried before, not to the way that it's being tried now.

(27:26):
So when we look at how to get more spectrum into use [00:27:30] through spectrum efficiency, this is a huge model. And if AT&T had its way the ecosystem for shared spectrum would go away, there have been so many sort of understandings, relationships that have been built across government and private sector, including DOD, what had to be done from a standards perspective to make all this work, the ability to reestablish that in another spectrum band where the Congress could decide at a whim [00:28:00] because a major mobility carrier came in and asked that they're going to make it go away. People are not going to invest the time and energy to create that kind of an ecosystem again without some assurance that it has some staying power because you have people in that room who are not naturally inclined to agree. You think it was easy to get the DOD to agree to share spectrum that had previously been exclusively for their use. That required a lot of diplomacy and a lot of effort, a lot of technical [00:28:30] proof, a lot of trial and error to be able to show that that could happen. So in this particular case specifically, I think AT&T is way out of their league in asking to go take CBRS back. What they're basically asking to do is to undermine the first and only attempt and proven example of spectrum sharing, which is a path to the future of the use of spectrum. Knock it off.

Christopher Mitchell (28:57):
Yeah, I think as we're wrapping up, I'll say that people [00:29:00] are perceiving and it seems to be accurate, although I always wait for history to tell us wider and wider swings of the electorate and the president, and also testing the limits of power at and t, setting a precedent for the government. Just taking spectrum away from people without a lot of notice and a lot of planning ahead might not be the precedent they want when they don't know who the next administration will be.

David Zumwalt (29:28):
Well, right, and like I said at the top, [00:29:30] I can't get inside the heads of AT&T and they're certainly flooding the zone with very good advocates and very good lobbyists, and I know they have a reason for asking what they're asking for. But yes, we do change administrations from time to time. I'm sure people have noticed. And so you got to think about what's the long-term plan here for the way that we move spectrum forward?

Christopher Mitchell (29:57):
And that's, I think, cautious, [00:30:00] progressive in terms of being open to ideas but not rushing into things.

David Zumwalt (30:04):
Right, right.

Christopher Mitchell (30:06):
Alright, well thank you so much for coming on the show and working with us today on this.

David Zumwalt (30:10):
Thanks. And I'll just close by saying that this is watching a high paced basketball game where the action is on both ends of the court and the lead is going back and forth and you don't really know how it's going to land. So we're going to be very engaged in the process because make no mistake, over the next couple of years, presuming that the Senate pushes this to [00:30:30] the FCC to handle, there'll be a lot more action involving CBRS

Christopher Mitchell (30:35):
And that's where for people, whether it is through WISPA or other avenues, we need to make sure that elected leaders understand the value of shared spectrum and the importance of it.

David Zumwalt (30:46):
Thanks again for inviting me.

Ry Marcattilio (30:48):
We have transcripts for this and other podcasts available @communitynets.org/broadbandbits. Email us at podcast@communitynets.org with your ideas For the show, [00:31:00] follow Chris on BlueSky: His handle is @SportShotChris. Follow communitynets.org stories on BlueSky, the handle is @communitynets. Subscribe to this and other podcasts from ILSR, including Building Local Power, Local Energy Rules, and the Composting for Community Podcast. You can access them anywhere you get your podcasts. You can catch the latest important research from all of our initiatives if you subscribe to our monthly newsletter @ILSR.org. [00:31:30] While you're there, please take a moment to donate your support in any amount. Keeps us going. Thank you to Arnie Hesby for this on Warm Duck Shuffle, licensed through Creative Commons.