--- [ Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote ] ----------------------------------- True, the 477 did differentiate business\residential. The NBM did not.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cameron Crum" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 8:44:58 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Re: [WISPA Members] Mapping for FCC477 files Jeremy, not 1 Gb, but certainly 300 Mb. The old system had speed ranges, but the new system is based on actual offered speeds, so comcast won't be able to report 1Gb anymore either. If you can provide that, you meet the criteria. They want your maximum offered packages in those blocks. If that is for business customers, then you should put that in. On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Jeremy < [email protected] > wrote: Yeah, I am aware of how they get listed as a gig. However, I have never seen one residential customer in this valley with 105Mbps. Also, they list coverage in areas that have no coverage. I called the Utah Broadband Initiative and she basically told me that wire line carriers are held to a different standard, as it would be too difficult for them to map their exact service area. It should be EASIER for them to map their exact service area. They have lines in the ground right to the homes that they cover. They don't have to account for LOS or elevation data. I offer dedicated connections up to 300Mbps (although I've yet to sell one), does that mean that I should submit that I have 1Gbps coverage everywhere? On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Mike Hammett < [email protected] > wrote: <blockquote> If you're over 100 megabit (which their 105 is), they qualify under the 1 gigabit category. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: "Jeremy" < [email protected] > To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2014 11:00:40 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Re: [WISPA Members] Mapping for FCC477 files This is a two way street though. In my area Comcast claims 1Gbps in almost the entire state on the broadband map. They don't even have service in my neighborhood, yet it is shown at 1Gbps, along with the mountain peak to the West of me. I am asked to terrain map my data and under report while they just claim 1Gbps on the entire state. Where is their industry reputation?? Oh yeah, they basically own the FCC. On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Jaime Fink < [email protected] > wrote: <blockquote> So I met with the head of Broadband Mapping and SBI at the NTIA last month, her big concern was improving quality of reporting versus past WISP data they felt had been overzealous in coverage and plan data in previous SBI maps (used in CAF processes). That SBI data is where new Block detail Deployment Report requirements came from in the new Form 477. I certainly wouldn’t classify utilizing subscriber data to create deployment reports as “under reporting”. There are no clear requirement levels about what degree of potential coverage you provide when it comes to fixed wireless networks, it’s been a big gray area of approach between wired and wireless technologies, and there’s no penalties for reporting this way whatsoever. But "over reporting" on the flip side, can have industry reputation consequences. While view sheds predict coverage area well, they do not necessarily predict accurate service capability and capacity of subscribers an Access Point can handle. Maybe there are advantages to establishing wide coverage areas (from big guys trying to gain funding in your area),and also possible advantages to stating only the reality of current subscribers in the report if you could get CAF funding for under-covered areas we may want to gain funding for. I’d advise caution on simple radius based view sheds with this in mind. For calculated view shed coverage data, you certainly will get more blocks shown for sure, with better accuracy, which I would encourage if cost effective to do and convert the blocks. But again they may not be accurate predictors of the radios service capability and subscriber capacity, and they're also not a required level of detail for those just trying to get their reports in. I definitely agree and encourage keeping it honest to the best of and ISPs ability to get a good coverage quality Deployment Report done, it’s a learning process for everyone this year! Cheers! Jaime Fink • Mimosa • Chief Product Officer 300 Orchard City Dr Ste 100 • Campbell • CA 95008 • www.mimosa.co This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. On Sep 9, 2014, at 3:26 PM, Cameron Crum < [email protected] > wrote: <blockquote> If you are only reporting by current subscriber data, I would say you are under reporting. We started out going this route for our billing customers and then I did a comparison to the estimated tower coverage radius and there was a very large difference in the number of blocks served even for our smallest customers. I would suggest that people look at doing this either by radius or by coverage plots (if you can get them in vector format) for the best results. Obviously, you want to show as many blocks in your area as possible while still being as honest as possible if the fcc will be using this data to fund your overbuild. On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Jaime Fink < [email protected] > wrote: <blockquote> Since a number of people are chiming in here, I figured I’d provide some info on our free tool we’re launching as part of our Cloud Services. Mimosa will be providing a free FCC Form 477 mapping lookup service. Based on your subscriber data exports, it will gather FIPS census Tract and Block information and generate the Subscriber and Deployment reports for download. Be on the lookout for detailed info and links to the free tool in the AM. Cheers! Jaime Fink • Mimosa • Chief Product Officer 300 Orchard City Dr Ste 100 • Campbell • CA 95008 • www.mimosa.co This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. On Sep 9, 2014, at 7:24 AM, Larry Smith < [email protected] > wrote: <blockquote> Ok, assuming Chuck is really busy is anyone else providing a mapping service for the FCC477 reporting? -- Larry Smith [email protected] _______________________________________________ Members mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/members _______________________________________________ Members mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/members </blockquote> _______________________________________________ Members mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/members </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote>
