Jack Shit?  Is he another Comcast customer?
http://elliott.org/blog/hello-dummy-comcast-calls-customers-shocking-names/


From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 10:29 PM
To: [email protected] 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions

According to Corran, it doesn't mean jack shit yet. There's no regulation or 
funding tied to it.




-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Jason McKemie" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 7:06:38 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions

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 <[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 <[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 <[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: [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: [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]] 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 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





Reply via email to