Mike,
I hope you are doing what the rest of us are doing and responding to
this in a way they can hear you.
Did you get the email from WISPA?
On 1/30/2015 10:29 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
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
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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]
<mailto:[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 <tel:317-738-0320> Daytime #*
*317-412-1540 <tel:317-412-1540>
Cell/Direct #*
*Online: **www.surfici.net*
<http://www.surfici.net>
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
--
