Oh, I agree with you wholeheartedly. As close to max modulation as you can get.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 9:32:57 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 477 forms I guess my point is that I start from an RF model and prune it. If someone is expecting to see me advertise lower speeds in areas farther from the tower, I just don’t advertise those areas, but will consider them on a case-by-case basis. So if some government know-it-all big-data-guy thinks he can challenge my coverage because it isn’t physically possible to deliver the same speed at 8 miles as at 1 mile, bring it on. If nothing else, the 1 mile guy gets a bare SM, the 3 mile guy gets a CLIP, the 8 mile guy gets a dish. DSL does not have a comparable approach. But even at 8 miles, I want the installer to get 6X or 8X modulation, so the service is reliable, and to avoid 1X/2X customers using too much of the shared AP capacity. I do have customers at 11+ miles, but they are straight down the center of a sector, in areas without much interference, or where we are shooting over a tree line that prevents multipath. In those cases I also usually have a Plan B where we could put a repeater if conditions change and we need to get closer to the customer. I realize other WISPs may operate differently and determine their covered blocks differently. But I choose to be conservative about the coverage data. My deployment data shows customers in tracts that are in blocks where supposedly I don’t have service. If someone wants to challenge my coverage because it doesn’t match their DSL-centric view of the world, they are going to be proved wrong. And if they want to challenge my tracts where I claim to have customers where I don’t advertise service, that’s easily explained as well. It’s known as “underpromise and overdeliver”. Probably a foreign concept to politicians, I don’t know about bureaucrats. From: Mike Hammett Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 8:49 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 477 forms So then change the minimum graphed signal. I have colors for -50 to -80 in 10 dB increments. You can model anything you want. Well, in Radio Mobile. I don't necessarily install customers at -80 (sometimes), but it helps to know what areas could use improved coverage. If you're Frontier, you also only deliver 1/2 megabit. ;-) ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 8:37:56 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 477 forms Just my personal view, I don’t like the approach of running an RF modeling program and getting this convoluted coverage map that shows splotches 25 miles away where I can supposedly offer QPSK based speeds. That’s not how most WISPs operate. We want at least 10 dB margin so we aren’t constantly doing service calls for poor service due to signal fading or interference. And we want links to operate at the max or second modulation, so a handful of subscribers don’t suck all the capacity out of the AP. And if RF models say that max AP->SM speed is X Mbps, we don’t sell X Mbps service because this is shared capacity, we sell some fraction of X. And we want to advertise one set of speeds to our entire coverage area, rather than saying you are 10 miles from the tower so I can only sell you our lowest speed. And we get pretty creative about solving LOS problems within our coverage area, an RF modeling program might say a customer can’t get service, but what if he has a 50 ft TV tower or we relay off his grain bin or he sets a utility pole by the road. So our coverage maps are going to be more like circles or cloverleafs. We consider requests for service outside the stated coverage on a case-by-case basis. If someone is going to question why our speeds aren’t a wedding cake with lower speeds near the edge, it’s because we already eliminated the areas where we can’t offer the top speed. Trying to serve those far out customers with –80 signals that can associate at the lowest modulation, in the end that doesn’t work out so good. Maybe 10 years ago when people didn’t expect consistent, reliable Internet service and were happy if it just worked most of the time. DSL is different, each copper pair is a home run to one customer. If the modem can run at 6 Mbps, that customer can get 6 Mbps, because it isn’t shared. If the modem can only run at 1 Mbps, that customer can only get 1 Mbps. Of course, if you’re Frontier, you lump it all together as “up to 6 Mbps for $19.99”. From: Brian Webster Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 11:57 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 477 forms Remember not to confuse terms, think of the 477 filing as two separate systems now as compared to before. First part is like it has always been, you report where you have customers by census TRACTS. These are much larger areas than census blocks and in rural areas it is not uncommon to have as few as two tracts in a county. This data is protected proprietary and will not be released to the public. Second part is your serviceable area. This gets reported by census BLOCKS. These are much smaller than tracts and can be as small as a city block. You are to report the blocks you can serve all or any portion of (no matter how small the area within the block you can serve). This is where you report the maximum advertised upload and download speeds you can deliver. This replaces the national broadband map. Under the national broadband map wireless carriers reported their service polygons and not by block where wireline carriers reported blocks they served even if it was only a portion of the block. Now technically WISP’s should be predicting their signal levels and ability to achieve various modulation rates that correspond to the maximum speed they advertise/sell/deliver. Then they can tag the blocks individually with the proper speeds. When we first started the national broadband map, DSL carriers were lazy and did not report slower speeds farther away from the DSLAM. That got corrected in subsequent rounds of data collection (at least in Illinois where I was in charge of the data gathering and reporting). I would imagine at some point in the near future WISP’s will be held to a higher standard of reporting by blocks using more accurate deliverable speeds as they start reporting higher deliverable speeds. Right now if a WISP is only reporting slower speeds such as 4 meg everywhere it’s not getting questioned. As things start getting reporting at speeds like 20 meg or more there will be some questioning about being able to do that all the way to the edges of the networks. As funding for grants/loans/USF/CAF come in to play WISP network accuracy in reporting will get challenged so they might be able to gain access to the funds. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com www.Broadband-Mapping.com From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 7:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 477 forms They are getting really picky about census tracts and portions of census tracts that you can actually deliver maximum advertised price to. From: That One Guy /sarcasm Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 4:56 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 477 forms I actually have to file a corrected form from the last filing On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Ken Hohhof < [email protected] > wrote: Quality of data? It asks for “maximum advertised speed”. eyeroll From: [email protected] Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 5:17 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 477 forms Circle of life... From: Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 4:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 477 forms YOU are explaining to the government employee about a federal form? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Aug 10, 2015 6:09 PM, < [email protected] > wrote: I need a paragraph, dumbed down for a politicians staffer, that explains what the 477 is, why we are forced to file it and the quality of the data it collects. Anyone have any choice sentences they want to share? -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
