My company is called 'Blue Spring Broadband'.  I will not be changing my
name.  We offer dedicated connections up to 100Mbps, and more on a
case-by-case basis (ie. I would offer 1Gbps near the NOC to anyone willing
to pay for it).  Although we do not offer more than 15x3 to residential
currently, I still believe we can be classified as a broadband service
provider.  I happily give quotes on a 25x25 dedicated unlimited connection
to any residential customers that ask for it ($1K/mo. roughly).  Until some
governing entity tells me different that is my stance.

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote:

>   It’s depressing to think about all the government money that went to
> subsidize 1 Mbps (if that) Hughesnet service under the recovery act.
>
> The contradiction is like setting a standard that every citizen must get
> fresh whole grain organic locally grown low sugar low sodium food, just a
> couple years after handing out pork rinds, moon pies and Jolt cola in the
> school lunch program.
>
>
>  *From:* Bill Prince <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 3:22 PM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
>
>  +1.  They have the added complication that they are way oversubscribed
> compared to almost everything else.
>
> Let's not even mention latency.
>
> If "broadband" included something about latency (like "just" < 200 ms for
> instance), then they would lose big time.
>
>
> bp
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>
>
> On 1/30/2015 1:17 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:
>
> Doubtful. They can't sustain those speeds wide spread any better than we
> can.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* That One Guy <[email protected]>
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 3:12 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
>
> at those sustained speeds, the only tech that could realistically deliver
> to the rural market right now would be satellite wouldnt it
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>>  +1
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Sterling Jacobson
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 12:21 PM
>> *To:* [email protected]
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
>>
>>
>>
>> Even if you don’t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can’t you just put a plan
>> rate for 25Mbps and give it some ridiculous price that no one will ever
>> buy, then claim broadband?
>>
>>
>>
>> I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn’t be broadband, but your company
>> could be branded as selling broadband?
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On
>> Behalf Of *Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM
>> *To:* [email protected]
>> *Cc:* [email protected]
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.       Is the 25Mbps classification immediate?
>>
>> 2.       What are you NOW going to call your previously determined
>> ‘broadband’ service?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Tyson Burris, President*
>> *Internet Communications Inc.*
>> *739 Commerce Dr.*
>> *Franklin, IN 46131*
>>
>> *317-738-0320 <317-738-0320> Daytime #*
>> *317-412-1540 <317-412-1540> Cell/Direct #*
>> *Online: **www.surfici.net* <http://www.surfici.net>
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: ICI]
>>
>> *What can ICI do for you?*
>>
>>
>> *Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones -
>> IP Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.*
>>
>> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the*
>> *addressee shown. It contains information that is*
>> *confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,*
>> *dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by*
>> *unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly*
>> *prohibited.*
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>  All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
> parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
>
>
>

Reply via email to