They are, slowly. From: Tyler Treat Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:34 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Why aren't they? ___________________________ Mangled by my iPhone. ___________________________ Tyler Treat Corn Belt Technologies, Inc. tyler.tr...@cornbelttech.com ___________________________ On Jan 31, 2015, at 11:27 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: In reality, with the subsidies that exist, rural telcos could bury fiber for telco only. From: Ken Hohhof Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:15 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions Are rural telcos willing to bury fiber and only get Internet revenue, while the cellcos get the voice revenue and OTT content providers get the video revenue? And if 25/3 mobile broadband becomes available, will this keep the telco from getting CAF money for fiber? I forget how that works. From: Chuck McCown Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 11:01 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions I honestly believe the following: The FCC and the powerful lobbies don’t give a rat’s ass about WISPS and they wish they would die. Hell will reach a temperature 100 degrees (K) below absolute zero before WISPS get a piece of the USF and settlement pie. Telcos will continue to get large welfare payments until there is 100% FTTH in all areas but the former RBOC areas. RBOC areas will continue to increasingly become the wild wild west of service providers providing the true competition that the 96 act wanted. WISPS have more challenges when competing with rural ILECS. They need to bury fiber and try to attain peer status with the ILECS. Then maybe a piece of the pie could be shared. From: Mike Hammett Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 9:22 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions I didn't expect Chuck to fix it, but because something is hard doesn't mean you ignore it. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Bill Prince" <part15...@gmail.com> To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:21:19 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions People have been complaining about that for decades. Think we will make a difference here? bp <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> On 1/31/2015 8:14 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Seems more logical to fix the high cost process than to enable it. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chuck McCown" mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:12:38 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions Just the cost of BLM compliance to extend fiber to a few homes in Nevada exceed $20K per home. When you do it the government way, it costs 10 times more than in reasonable. So they compensate with providing a way to serve the debt. From: Mike Hammett Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 8:54 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions Just as WISPs have been, I think RLECs have been painted with a large brush. Many good, fewer (but too many) bad apples. Those stories of $20k+/year in subsidies per line. The reception of subsidies (of any amount) to bring the rural cost of a line less than the urban cost of a line. Windstream and CenturyTel both bringing in enough bonus USF money to have scaled as large as they have in the past decade. Those are all excessive. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chuck McCown" mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 9:45:52 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions I don’t think the USF pool happened prior to NECA. It started with the 1996 act I believe. Before NECA AT&T was in charge of sharing the bounty with the rural telcos. There was a doctrine of USF but the guvmn’t had nothing to do with it. AT&T was in charge. Or rather in CHARGE writ LARGE. You used to have to battle AT&T to get your piece of the pie. Similar if all the ISPs had to go battle with XO if everyone was on usage based billing and you gave all your monies to XO praying they give you back your share. That is the regime that all the rural telcos lived under for most of the history of telcos. Divesture broke that up, formed NECA and established a true USF. This was prior to the internet. This was to allow the mom and pop telcos in the rural areas to get their fair share. They were (and many are) just like all of you guys. Don’t hate on them just because they enjoy the pioneers preference. They bought a cord board and spent their lives running wires to each house. They borrowed from the RUS and were helped a bit with subsidies. Why hate them? They were just like you, just 100 years ago. Just because the WISP world came along later and could do many of the same things cheaper and better, it comes of sounding sour grapes when the telcos get the benefit if a long history of providing good service. They are all currently deploying FTTH and that is clearly where the FCC wants them to be. Moreover they have a legal “duty to carry” which is a common carrier doctrine dating back to the Roman Empire. They have many other duties, burdens and regulatory requirements. You don’t. Just a few short years ago, it would have been illegal to even have been a WISP. Be thankful for what you have. Gheeze already. From: mailto:t...@franklinisp.net Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 8:19 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions No one on this List or the FCC will convince me that the telco needed this to get federal funds to help them with network builds. THEY have PISSED AWAY all USF funds they keep getting. How the hell do you think Century Link bought Embarq! The USF FEE has been around since 1934 and added to in 1996. All for the very purpose to support these idiots. I want everyone who voted for this rule fired and citizenship revoked! Sent from my iPhone On Jan 30, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Glen Waldrop <gwl...@cngwireless.net> wrote: According to 477, if I have a census area that only has 1Mbps customers, then that area is labeled under served, correct? Looks like the FCC just figured a way to hand their buddies grant money or (dons tin foil hat) ultimately take over the Internet infrastructure. ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Prince To: af@afmug.com Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions I don't know if we can answer that question until we see how the rule is worded if and when it actually becomes a rule. bp <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> On 1/30/2015 12:21 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote: 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:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM To: memb...@wispa.org Cc: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions � <!--[if !supportLists]-->1.������ <!--[endif]-->Is the 25Mbps classification immediate? <!--[if !supportLists]-->2.������ <!--[endif]-->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 � <mime-attachment.png> 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. �
