Some billing systems produce all the files you need, with no need for third party services.
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Jesse DuPont <[email protected] > wrote: > Mike is talking about "deployment data" (represented as covered census > blocks) wouldn't come from billing system. This wouldn't come from a > billing system, it would come from something like a towercoverage.com 477 > export. Blocks are generally very small. > > Plat would export subscriber data, which would be by tract, by plan. > Tracts are generally much larger than blocks, especially in rural areas. > > That being said, there shouldn't ever be any subscriber data where that > tract doesn't have several blocks represented as covered by your deployment > data, at least not anything grossly far away. It's certainly possible that > there are customers where your deployment data doesn't represent (maybe you > did a point to point link to a large ranch of some kind, have 4-5 services > out there, but never added that ranch AP to your coverage - you'll have > customers in that tract, but no deployment data showing you cover it). > > One ISP I work with uses Plat and in some cases, the ISP only has the > customer's billing address in Plat, which is out of state. When we export > for 477, they show subscribers out of state in areas the deployment data > doesn't support. We manually clean these up; we sort the 477 export by > FIPS, find the out of area ones, "move" them to other populous FIPS > locations and submit it. It's not perfect and generally less than 1%, but > it does make it cleaner. If a "service address" had been entered in Plat > with the correct local address, it would have geocoded it correctly, > ignoring the billing address. > > *Jesse DuPont* > > Network Architect > email: [email protected] > Celerity Networks LLC > > Celerity Broadband LLC > Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc > > Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband > On 8/28/17 8:27 AM, Adam Moffett wrote: > > Maybe they resell something in that other location. If they're using a > system (like Plat) which generates covered blocks based on where your > customers are, then something you resell in another area would show up in > the report. > > I'm wondering what the opinion is on partially covered blocks these days. > If you cover a portion of a census block, do you claim it or not? I think > many operators (including some large ones) are claiming coverage of any > census block they touch. I've heard at least one claim that it's a > defensive move to prevent people getting government funding to overbuild > them. Incidentally, it also prevents *yourself *from getting government > funding to build there so I'm thinking it isn't such a wise choice. > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Mike Hammett" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: 8/28/2017 9:36:02 AM > Subject: [AFMUG] FCC Form 477 > > On your Federal Communications Commission Form 477, make sure your stated > coverage is at least somewhat representative of what you actually cover. In > doing some market research, I keep finding ISPs (not just WISPs) obviously > based out of one or two towns in one state, but have claimed some census > blocks in other states. This seems very much so an error in the filing and > not an expansion network. > > > > ----- > 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> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > > >
