There are laws, and then there are regulations. The FCC code of federal
Regulations are just that, regulations. Not passed by congress.
From: That One Guy /sarcasm
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 7:18 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Here's a question for a can of worms
there is law then there is LAW
would it require somebody contesting a lowly wisp and a win in court to
establish a caselaw specific to the industry?
i dont know how that stuff works at all, criminal law im pretty familiar, but
this stuff is outside my scope for sure
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
Yeah, about then. I posted fragments as well as a link the whole 800 page
document.
From: Josh Reynolds
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 7:11 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Here's a question for a can of worms
I think it became law in June from what I remember.
On Dec 1, 2016 8:01 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
wrote:
when does any of this become a set in stone thing
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net>
wrote:
Thanks... does anyone know what would be the process to 'test' the waters.
say, we would like to install a pole on the ROW....
Suggestion ?
Regards.
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Radabaugh" <m...@amplex.net>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2016 3:07:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Here's a question for a can of worms
> In theory - yes.
>
> But keep in mind ROW is a state, county, city, or {insert political
entity}
> designation and that the FCC’s decision doesn’t actually get you
anything until
> the authority having jurisdiction {AHJ} decides to honor the FCC’s
decision.
> As far as I know there have not been any legal cases to test the issue
yet.
> With the current state of political affairs it’s hard to say if the
FCC’s
> Title II decision is going to stand.
>
> While you are filing that 477, make sure you make all the required
disclosures
> and filings that go with it. You have about another 2 weeks worth of
filling
> out papers before you serve those 4 customers.
>
> Mark
>
>> On Dec 1, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Jay Weekley <par...@cyberbroadband.net>
wrote:
>>
>> Here is a stupid question. What is the official designation of an
ISP? Can I
>> get a cable connection, re-distribute it to 4 people wirelessly, file
form 477
>> and get access to the right of way?
>>
>> Chuck McCown wrote:
>>> Works everywhere. If the CATV has pole access you do too. Same
thing with
>>> streets and other public places.
>>> They may charge you a franchise fee, but it has to be the same as
everyone else.
>>> *From:* Kurt Fankhauser
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 01, 2016 12:26 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Here's a question for a can of worms
>>> Does that even work in the municipal boundaries not just rural? I was
thinking
>>> about deploying fiber in the city here and didn't know if the city
could stop
>>> me if they wanted too.
>>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com>
wrote:
>>>
>>> What Chuck said.
>>>
>>> On Dec 1, 2016 1:22 PM, "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Absolutely. You are a BIAS provider and the FCC explicitly
>>> defined BIAS providers as being eligible for ROW access equal
>>> to a public utility.
>>> *From:* Ben Royer
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 01, 2016 12:20 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Here's a question for a can of worms
>>> Get out your can openers. Does me, the ISP, being classified
>>> as a common carrier, mean I get right of way access?
>>> Thank you,
>>> Ben Royer, Operations Manager
>>> Royell Communications, Inc.
>>> 217-965-3699 <tel:%28217%29%20965-3699> www.royell.net
>>> <http://www.royell.net>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>>> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13518 - Release Date:
12/01/16
>>>
--
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.
--
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.
