So will that take more than 2 years? What happens if Jeb beats Hillary and picks the new FCC chairman?
(Rick Perry would probably eliminate the FCC. Oops.) From: Mark Radabaugh Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 7:21 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions It doesn't mean that under 25/3 is unserved at this point. To change it for CAF purposes requires considerably more work, public notification, comment periods, etc. It gives us a good idea of where things are going with the FCC, but in and of itself it doesn't change anything - yet. Mark Radabaugh Amplex 27800 Lemoyne, Ste F Millbury, OH 43447 419-261-5996 On Jan 30, 2015, at 8:06 PM, Jason McKemie <[email protected]> wrote: Doesn't this just mean if you don't offer service of at least 25mbps your area won't count as served? I'm pretty sure you can call your service whatever you damn well please. On Friday, January 30, 2015, Mark Radabaugh <[email protected]> wrote: Keep in mind the cable companies don't get federal subsidies. The cable data operations are unregulated information service exactly like us, and they can easily meet the 25/3. They are opposed because it means the telcos are going to be given federal money to upgrade to 25/3 and become competition. Cable spends it's own money to compete, just like us. They are equally ticked over changing the definition so that their competition, who has not spent their own money, and waited for government handouts is going to be rewarded. Mark Radabaugh Amplex 27800 Lemoyne, Ste F Millbury, OH 43447 419-261-5996 On Jan 30, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Jeremy <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> wrote: I found it interesting that the cable companies were claiming to be against this change. This seems handcrafted by them if you ask me. Every year when they request funding the WISPs in those areas (with the help of WISPA) file claims against them receiving those funds under the basis that 'broadband' is already available in those areas where they are claiming that it is not. This has actually worked fairly well in keeping those entities from receiving those funds. Now, almost none of us meet the 'broadband' qualification and now they can use the government funds to build out on top of us almost uncontested. On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Jeremy <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> wrote: 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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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 Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:22 PM To: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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 To: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> wrote: +1 From: Af [mailto:javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:21 PM To: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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 [javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM To: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]'); Cc: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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 Daytime # 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct # Online: www.surfici.net 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
