The following transcript has been edited for length and readability. Listen to the entire discussion here on The Broadband Bunch. The Broadband Bunch is sponsored by ETI Software.
Pete Pizzutillo:
This episode of the Broadband Bunch is sponsored by ETI Software and VETRO FiberMap.
Joe Coldebella:
Hello, and welcome to another episode of the Broadband Bunch. We are at Fiber Connect 2023 in Orlando, Florida, along with my co-host, Pete Pizzutillo. I’m Joe Coldebella. Joining us is the CEO of Mountain Connect, Jeff Gavlinski. Jeff, welcome back to the Broadband Bunch.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Thank you for having me.
Joe Coldebella:
Hey, it’s always great to see you. I just came back from your event. Obviously, we’re here at Fiber Connect, but I would love it, before we dive in, if you could give the folks a little bit of information about yourself and your event.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Yep. So as you say, we just got done with Mountain Connect. It was two weeks ago, we had close to 900 people and 15 state broadband offices. I did something a little different and maybe strange for some people this past year; I interviewed a robot. But I wanted to do that because I wanted people to think about the future and the emerging technology applications that are coming. So it was also a good use case study, because the robot, while in use, had to touch the cloud.
As I already mentioned, we had close to 900 people. I think we had folks from nine other countries as well. So it was a pretty exciting event. A little daunting moving to a tier-one facility especially the morning that they set up my general session ballroom for the first time. When I went and had a look at it, it was a little overwhelming to see that many tables. But yeah, it was a good event. I always like to say, it’s like Christmas. There’s a huge lead-up to it, and then it’s over.
Pete Pizzutillo:
Well, congratulations on that growth, I know that’s a big step for you guys. But I heard great things about the event. Unfortunately, I missed the robot conversation. Is that videotaped? Can we watch that?
Jeff Gavlinski:
Yeah, it should come out here in the next week or so.
Joe Coldebella:
It’s funny. There’s sort of a fight between Pete and myself in terms of who gets to go to the event. Obviously, in the last few years, Pete has gotten to go. This year, I got to go. It was so awesome. But I really want to compliment you on bringing out the robot. And the reason why is, it wasn’t perfect, but I think that’s important, that as an industry, we have to make sure that it’s okay to push the outside of the envelope, and would love to get your thoughts in terms of why you were doing that?
Jeff Gavlinski:
Well, as I said earlier, I wanted to shock people. But I also want people to look ahead because I don’t think we spent enough time… With this BEAD program, I think all the attention’s on, obviously leading up to the conference, who was going to get what money. And then, obviously, now we’re going to wait for the plans to come out to see where the money’s going to be spent. So, not a lot of people are thinking about it, at least in my humble opinion, they’re not thinking about the future.
Pete Pizzutillo:
When you say that, are you talking purely about what life looks like five years from now, the affordability, or all the potential applications that we should be planning and building for?
Jeff Gavlinski:
So I’m always looking out five to seven years, in terms of where the industry’s going and what’s going to have the most profound impact. Hence the reason for the robot. And next year, I’ll have to figure out a way to top that.
Pete Pizzutillo:
Hologram.
Jeff Gavlinski:
But I do think we do need to talk about these things because I do think we’re going to see… I think the application that’ll have the most impact in the coming years will be probably related to healthcare. So I do think we’re going to see robots play a dual role. One is elder care. And then one is, you’re going to find that robots have the capability of providing some advanced diagnostic telehealth.
Pete Pizzutillo:
So Uber Eats, there’d be Uber Health.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Yeah.
Pete Pizzutillo:
So I walk onto the University of Tennessee’s campus, and there are a dozen Uber Eats autonomous robots flying around, delivering Tacos to 19-year-olds. We can do that, but we can’t help put robots in healthcare.
Jeff Gavlinski:
I think we will. I think people have to get over it. It’s like anything else that’s different, and it’s new. And I think people have to get over the shock value of having something that’s not alive in the home.
Pete Pizzutillo:
That’s sentient.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Right.
Pete Pizzutillo:
So who’s the shortcoming? Is it a consumer shortcoming; is it an ISP shortcoming? Or is it a state or local; is it technology? Is it federal? Who needs to pick their head up and look downstream a little bit more?
Jeff Gavlinski:
So two areas. I think, one, our industry needs to build a bridge to the folks that are innovating.
Pete Pizzutillo:
Okay.
Jeff Gavlinski:
And then, likewise, the innovators need to build a bridge over to telecom because I have found over the last four years in talking to companies that are innovating, they’re not actually thinking about the enabling technology until they’re done which is a profound error, I think. So I can remember four-plus years ago, talking to some folks who were innovating around healthcare. And they asked me why I was interested in what they were doing and why, effectively, I was in this facility. And I basically said, “Without a wired or wireless connection, and probably both, for as great as your technology is, it doesn’t work. You won’t get adopted as fast as you want it to be adopted.” And then, they realized, of course, that they hadn’t thought about that.
Joe Coldebella:
But it’s interesting as well, because do we always think that technology is going to get here sooner than we think it is? I always think it’s more of, it’s an incremental or slower adoption, where we would love it. I think ChatGPT is an outlier in the sense that everyone wanted to be a part of it because I think it was super easy. But I think in terms of adopting new technology into our lives, it’s a slow process. The iPhone is amazing where we started and where we are now, it’s incredible. So, I don’t know, I might disagree with you guys. It’s going to take a lot longer than we think.
Pete Pizzutillo:
You’re showing your age, Joe. I think you’re right. I think technology adoption curves are a consideration, but they have to be accelerating. You were talking about kids who have never seen cable. They have no idea what cable TV is, but they’re eight, or nine years old.
Joe Coldebella:
Yeah, but their cache is clear…
Pete Pizzutillo:
That’s right, but those kids that are going to be able to absorb new models or innovate, push the models themselves because they’re not grounded with all the garbage that we have in our head. So it’s a good question about what the adoption… I think what you’re saying is, you cannot ignore the adoption as a part of the process.
Joe Coldebella:
Right, because I think that, unfortunately, it’s one of those things where the older you get, the less you’re apt to adapt to things.
Pete Pizzutillo:
But to your point, the baby boomers are squarely into retirement, assisted living, and end-of-life care. So they got the biggest paychecks, they’re still the wealthiest group of folks on the planet, and so there’s a big market. Capital chases return. So there are people that will go after improving the quality of that service because there’s money to get from that world.
Joe Coldebella:
And just, anecdotally, the baby boomers, it’s amazing in terms of just looking at them as a grand scale of how influential they have been.
Pete Pizzutillo:
Detrimental.
Joe Coldebella:
Okay, I guess that’s a matter of opinion. But it’s amazing how much of a sea change that particular age group has been throughout the world. So, hopefully, maybe the adoption will become a little more open as opposed to the generations before.
Jeff Gavlinski:
And by the way, I’m not suggesting that five years is the timeline. I don’t know.
Joe Coldebella:
Yeah.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Just like none of us know. But to ignore it, I think, is a mistake.
Joe Coldebella:
Sure. Well, we want to bring all this technology, all this adoption, but do we have the horses to pull the carriage?
Jeff Gavlinski:
So what I’ll say is controversial, but I think…
Joe Coldebella:
That’s why we got you on.
Jeff Gavlinski:
I think, though, there was a mistake made here with the BEAD funding program in that there wasn’t enough money allocated to middle-mile infrastructure. And without that, the last mile, although you’re future-proofing the connection to a premise, doesn’t serve the premise well if there’s no access to a redundant and abundant middle mile if there’s no access to internet exchange facilities. There are 14 states that don’t have internet exchange facilities.
Joe Coldebella:
I found that out this year. When you see all the money that comes out for the BEAD funding, $42 billion, you’re like, “Yay.” And then if you dive a little deeper, and you look at the BEAD funding in terms of what was allotted to the middle mile, you’re like, “Hey, wait, let’s pump the brakes here.”
Pete Pizzutillo:
So that’s another shortcoming. Is that a fault of the industry, or is that a fault of the government on there? And not that we need to place blame, but let’s at least poke somebody.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Well, I think if you’re going to poke anyone, if we’re talking about federal funding programs, you’ve got to poke the federal government. It’s something that was missed, clearly. And I think if you talk to states where building middle-mile infrastructure is a challenge, I think they’ll tell you that, that’s a concern now. Of course, you can use BEAD funding for the middle mile, as long as you’re also building the last mile out of that, but are we going to see enough of that?
Pete Pizzutillo:
So why doesn’t private industry step in?
Jeff Gavlinski:
Now you’re asking me about the real controversy. Well, to be honest with you, we have incumbents who have a lot of middle-mile infrastructure built, but you can’t get access to it. And listen, this money, if you go back to 2009 and come forward, I think the thing that gets missed is, this is taxpayer-funded money. There ought to be more transparency, and there ought to be more accountability back to the taxpayers. You and I are paying for this.
Pete Pizzutillo:
Is that NTIA, the FCC, or State Congress people?
Jeff Gavlinski:
So with BEAD at least, this is the first program, as you know, where the money is being… Oversight is at the state level, not the federal level.
Pete Pizzutillo:
Right.
Jeff Gavlinski:
But I think that the challenge, historically, has been there have not been enough qualified people in the federal government to provide the kind of oversight that’s necessary. My concern is a little bit that the same thing will be at the state level. All of a sudden, states now have to have a broadband office, and they have to find qualified people. And hopefully, all the states will find enough qualified people so that they can evaluate the merit of the proposals that are going to be put in front of them.
Joe Coldebella:
It’s interesting you bring that up. I look at all the states and the territories, and the one state that’s an anomaly is California. But California issued, I think it was about $3 billion for the middle mile. Did they figure out that there was a critical need and that other states needed to follow their lead? Or are we going to have to address this issue later down the line? Because I think you’re right, the middle mile was overlooked.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Well, you must applaud the state of California for doing that.
Joe Coldebella:
Absolutely.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Because they obviously saw a need. And I live in a state where I think there’s not enough middle-mile infrastructure in Colorado either. So, again, if you’re going to spend all this money to connect high-cost areas or unserved areas, there’s not a lot of benefits if the connection, say, gets cut because you’ve got only one way out in terms of your middle mile. Then you lose connectivity for, perhaps, a whole region. In a lot of cases, it’s not just the internet that’s being provided for the premises, a lot of times it’s also carrying cell traffic.
Pete Pizzutillo:
Are we applying private industry principles to a public service? So there are a lot of cases, because a lot of people are saying, “Look, there’s not enough resources dedicated or knowledgeable in the broadband telco space to support this money. There’s not enough infrastructure from a policy or bureaucracy to support the flow of this money effectively. There’s no checks and balances, there’s no verification. But the money’s flowing.” So is the government thinking this isn’t the last check?
I know we keep saying it’s a generational investment, but the government’s done this many times. And they’re like, “Listen, we can sit there and make a perfect system and give us five to 10 years to figure all that stuff out, and then we could start funding it? Or we can get going and then we’ll iterate to evolving.” Do you understand what I’m saying?
Jeff Gavlinski:
No, but let me see if I can answer it anyway. So for the last year or year and a half, we’ve heard that this is… Now, this is the part where nobody really wants to hear this, I don’t think. We’ve been told this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and this is it. But I think if you go back to 2009 and you fast-forward to today, and you look at federal funding programs, all of them, state broadband funding, local regional funding, private equity, almost half a trillion dollars has been invested in this industry. Last year alone, the wireless industry invested over $200 billion in infrastructure. So why are we sitting here talking about this today?
Pete Pizzutillo:
Well, because I think part of the rational outsider perspective is that there needs to be a national broadband strategy to solve this problem. And that fragmented investment approach is achieving objectives, just not an objective that adds up to a comprehensive best strategy for all of our citizens. Does that make sense?
Jeff Gavlinski:
Well, one of the questions I asked my own audience at my conference was, “What are you prepared to do to ensure that the intentions of BEAD are actually met?” Because if we’re students of our own history, we could end up with some of this money not being utilized in the way that was intended, and I think that would be a real shame.
Joe Coldebella:
Sure.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Going back to my point about this is taxpayer-funded dollars, we need to be better stewards of this money.
Pete Pizzutillo:
But it’s almost guaranteed. Is RDOF completely spent in the way it was intended? Is it even allocated?
Jeff Gavlinski:
I think it is. Some of it’s allocated, but I don’t know.
Pete Pizzutillo:
I think it’s like 20% allocated.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Right. So the question then is, does BEAD supersede some of the grants that were approved? Because you’re looking at the same areas to be funded.
Pete Pizzutillo:
Right.
Jeff Gavlinski:
So who knows where RDOF is going to end up? But even that was fraught with issues.
Pete Pizzutillo:
Right.
Joe Coldebella:
Yeah, but isn’t that always the case, though? It’s a constant course correction because it’s all new territory. So you’re basically going to make mistakes, and it’s going to happen. And I think that the dirty little…
Jeff Gavlinski:
What do you mean by new territory?
Joe Coldebella:
Well, just in terms of just doing things for the first time. I think, that for whatever reason, you think that a highway only needs two lanes. Then, 15 years down the line, it needs four lanes. So maybe it’s shortsighted thinking, I don’t know.
Pete Pizzutillo:
But I think that’s what Jeff’s pointing out. As people have been through this, we should be learned enough to look and learn from the lessons of our past and also be able to look with a broader perspective. I think you’re 100% right, and I don’t think the government is intentionally not doing that. I think the enemy is that “good is good enough’. And I think they’re thinking, “Let’s get the money; let’s get flowing. People will get connected. We’re educating a ton of people.” Because you think about this problem, there’s been a lot of awareness over the last four years, pre-covid versus now. You’ve been in this industry way too long, but there are billions of other people who haven’t been.
So there’s a net benefit from it. And I think that motion, the government, and it’s like turning a fricking train. They got to just keep moving. Whereas we’re trying to figure out, well, we should be way more agile. I just don’t know if the machine moves like that.
Jeff Gavlinski:
But I think, again, we’re our own worst enemies in some ways. If for no other reason, then we don’t plan for the future very well. And if you look at the broadband definition, it’s a good example of that. If we’re being honest, they should have said a symmetrical gig, full stop, not a 100 by 20. That’s already, on average, most of the cable companies are already providing that, for example. They are already doing that on average, nationally. So it does nothing to future-proof the planning you’re doing going forward. And listen, how many programs have we had since 2009? We’ve had a lot of programs, so there’s been a lot of trial and error if you want to call it that. And I think, for now, we should really understand how to do this well.
Joe Coldebella:
Well, I also think that the dirty little secret is that everyone says, “Oh, this is generational money.” When in fact, sometimes I ask folks in terms of how much you think it’s really going to take. And I always am super high in terms of I think it’s going to be a trillion dollars before it’s done. So I think we’re only halfway there, which is unfortunate. But I think it’s inevitable that we’re going to spend that much.
Pete Pizzutillo:
I just don’t think done is possible. Look at all the other utilities. We keep saying broadband is a utility. Water, they continue to figure out you can’t use lead. PVC creates cancer. So you’re trying to figure out different ways — there’s just not enough water getting to the right places. The same with electricity and solar, what generates the power around that stuff? So I think it’s really interesting. I hope there’s somebody who’s looking. Fifty years from now, what does that look like? How do you generate that stuff? But I missed the quantum guy’s speech. I don’t know if that was heading down that road. There was the quantum computing guy that was…
Joe Coldebella:
Oh, from EPB?
Pete Pizzutillo:
Yeah.
Joe Coldebella:
Okay. Yeah, I missed it as well.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Yeah, I did as well.
Joe Coldebella:
I spoke a little bit with Gary yesterday about it. It’s amazing what they’re doing in Knoxville.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Chattanooga?
Joe Coldebella:
Chattanooga, excuse me.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Yep.
Joe Coldebella:
Yeah.
Jeff Gavlinski:
But I haven’t said that. I think one of the things we have to be careful of is how we ensure that Chattanooga is not a one-off.
Joe Coldebella:
Sure.
Jeff Gavlinski:
How can we replicate some or all of what they’re doing in other cities? Now, I think the magic sauce there in Chattanooga has really been diverse collaboration. And that’s really tough, I think, to replicate. But if you look at what they’ve been able to accomplish, it’s pretty amazing.
Pete Pizzutillo:
And they’ve been the poster child for many years…
Jeff Gavlinski:
Yeah.
Pete Pizzutillo:
It’s not just now. So there’s a lot of people chasing those certain pockets of people that have figured that stuff out. And I guess the question is, why didn’t we go figure out how they got there at a federal level? Who’s really winning the race? Go learn how to do that and replicate that. You know what I mean?
Jeff Gavlinski:
Well, that’s always going to be a problem in this country; isn’t it?
Joe Coldebella:
Well, then it becomes a political thing though; right?
Jeff Gavlinski:
Right.
Joe Coldebella:
Where it’s like, “Oh, well, that’s what they do. Well, we don’t want to do what they want to do.”
Pete Pizzutillo:
It’s more of a financial thing, I think. Anyway, listen, we’re going to get into deeper issues in politics here.
Joe Coldebella:
So if we could double back a little bit in terms of being on technology. Because there is sort of a tug-of-war in terms of technology. I think fiber is obviously the go-to, but then you’ve got the LEOs and the wireless folks. Should we think of fiber and fiber only, and then only use those use cases where it’s necessary? Or is there no other alternative where you use alternate technologies?
Jeff Gavlinski:
Now you’re asking me to really stir the pot now because we’re at Fiber Connect.
Pete Pizzutillo:
We’re at Fiber…
Joe Coldebella:
Well, I know.
Pete Pizzutillo:
Gary’s walking in here right now.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Yeah. Someone’s going to drop out of the ceiling and tackle me here.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Well, my take on this is that all technologies delivering broadband are relevant until they’re not. So if we’re talking about wireless, wireless is relevant until it’s not. Now, are we going to be able to build fiber in all high-cost areas? Absolutely not, I don’t think. Not unless we follow the electricity routes. If we’re not going to do that, then I think it’s a really big ask for fiber to be done. Let’s talk about farms for a second. So one of the biggest issues in rural America is home offset.
So sometimes a home is 50 feet from the road, and sometimes it’s 500 yards down a hilly, tree-covered driveway. How do you get infrastructure from the road to the home? Is it cost-effective if you have to bury fiber down that driveway where the house is 500 yards away from the road? So I do think that we should not neglect wireless technologies. We shouldn’t. We should build fiber as far out as we can, where it’s feasible. And if we must extend wirelessly, well, that should be considered.
Joe Coldebella:
And don’t forget, innovation works on all sides. People were very critical of cable, and cable continues to innovate and figure out how to get more out of that copper. So won’t wireless figure out how to get more across the wireless air?
Jeff Gavlinski:
Yeah, all you must do is look at a millimeter wave. Now, there are some detractors, but I think that, as you’re alluding to, they’re going to make technological improvements. And you don’t necessarily, today, need line of sight in order to be served.
Pete Pizzutillo:
Right.
Jeff Gavlinski:
So yes, I would agree with that.
Pete Pizzutillo:
That would be an interesting exercise to figure out. What if fiber becomes obsolete? How does the world operate on that?
Jeff Gavlinski:
What do you mean by that?
Pete Pizzutillo:
Maybe fiber becomes the antiquated technology to deliver.
Jeff Gavlinski:
I don’t see how that’s possible.
Pete Pizzutillo:
Exactly. But it could be possible.
Joe Coldebella:
All right. I’m going to stir the pot a little bit as well because we’re focusing on the rural areas in terms of bringing the best technology for the area. My big concern is that you go into the big cities, and you read that in the cities of New York City or Chicago, for them to bring in fiber to some low-income areas, it’s really hard because just the cost per mile is staggering. So is that a place where the concentration is on wireless technology? I don’t know, I would love to get your thoughts.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Do you mean in rural parts or in urban parts?
Joe Coldebella:
No, urban parts. In terms of low-income parts of the city.
Pete Pizzutillo:
You mean like MDUs?
Joe Coldebella:
Not necessarily MDUs, but I’m just saying in terms of low-income areas.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Yeah, well, for the most part, I think those areas have amazing infrastructure already going around through their communities. But because of economics, they’re not being served. That has nothing to do with the technology.
Joe Coldebella:
Okay.
Jeff Gavlinski:
That’s a willingness to make sure that those people are connected. If you really look at the economics of a connected home, the folks who aren’t connected are not going to be able to compete in a global economy. If you wanted to apply for a job today, how does that happen? For the most part, it’s all digital. But you can’t apply if you’re not connected. And I think healthcare, in some ways, is going to go largely digital as well. So do you not provide healthcare or telehealth services to low-income families? We can’t do that.
Joe Coldebella:
Right. Or does it become where it’s almost like a doctor’s office, but it’s a digital doctor’s office?
Jeff Gavlinski:
Yeah.
Pete Pizzutillo:
Right.
Joe Coldebella:
Yeah.
Pete Pizzutillo:
So next year we come back here to Fiber Connect 2024. Money’s been flowing from the BEAD. Things are moving. Is the world different?
Jeff Gavlinski:
Nope. I don’t think so. I don’t remember the dates for next year, I think they’re July.
Pete Pizzutillo:
July, yeah.
Jeff Gavlinski:
July. I don’t think a lot will have happened in terms of money flowing out there so that we start to see some progress being made. I think, as Joe may have said earlier, it’s a slow roll.
Pete Pizzutillo:
So Covid hit when? March 2020?
Joe Coldebella:
Yep.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Yep.
Pete Pizzutillo:
We’re sitting here in August 2024, and we’re still bumping along.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Yep. All good things take time.
Joe Coldebella:
Yeah.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Right.
Joe Coldebella:
It’s like you said earlier though, in terms of moving a ship, you can’t just turn it around on a dime, it’s got to take some time.
Pete Pizzutillo:
I know, I know. But, again, coming back to consumer expectations and taxpayer expectations, how many community engagement things have all these people been to? And where all this money’s coming, hope is coming, blah, blah, blah, all this education. And it’s still, “No, it’s almost there.”
Jeff Gavlinski:
But I think if you’ve been in this industry for any amount of time, this is just the status quo. This is how these programs work. So it’s about setting the right expectations.
Pete Pizzutillo:
Right.
Joe Coldebella:
That’s a great point. Before we end it though, obviously, in the next few months, I think you guys are going to both be on the road. Where are you guys traveling to, just out of curiosity?
Jeff Gavlinski:
I’m not traveling anywhere. I’m traveling home, and then in October, I’m going to France.
Joe Coldebella:
France, okay.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Yeah, for a month.
Joe Coldebella:
What are you going to do there in France?
Jeff Gavlinski:
Why are you laughing at me, Pete? Oh, I’ve been planning this trip for two years. I’m going to the Rugby World Cup.
Joe Coldebella:
Oh, are you? That’s going to be awesome.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Yeah. So my son lives over there as well.
Pete Pizzutillo:
He’s being modest, he’s participating in the World Cup.
Joe Coldebella:
And any predictions, so that way we can hold it to you?
Jeff Gavlinski:
Well, because it’s in France, the team that I’m rooting for is France.
Joe Coldebella:
All right.
Pete Pizzutillo:
All right. Vive la France.
Joe Coldebella:
And then, Pete, are you going to be on the road?
Pete Pizzutillo:
I am. I’m headed to Connected Britain in the middle of September. So we’ll be recording live from there.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Are you going to be at Network X?
Pete Pizzutillo:
No.
Jeff Gavlinski:
See, that’s going on at the same time I’m in France. It’s in Versailles, so I’m going to go to that as well.
Pete Pizzutillo:
Oh, you are?
Jeff Gavlinski:
Yeah.
Pete Pizzutillo:
Yeah.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Yeah.
Pete Pizzutillo:
And then, Connected Germany. And then I’m maybe down to Africon.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Look at you.
Pete Pizzutillo:
Yeah.
Joe Coldebella:
And I’ll be in my basement in Connecticut.
Pete Pizzutillo:
That’s not true, Joe.
Joe Coldebella:
Hey, Jeff, thank you so much. We always appreciate getting your insight. We love having you on the show. Thanks so very, very much.
Jeff Gavlinski:
It’s my pleasure. I hope I get out of here safely.
Pete Pizzutillo:
Yeah, Gary will be having some escorts here.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Right.
Pete Pizzutillo:
But thanks for joining, man, it was good to see you.
Jeff Gavlinski:
No, thank you. I appreciate it.
Pete Pizzutillo:
Have fun in France.
Jeff Gavlinski:
Thank you.
Joe Coldebella:
All right, that’s going to wrap up this episode of the Broadband Bunch. Until next time, we’ll see you guys later.
