Same. Thanks, Mike
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Craig Demanty <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Kristian, We appreciate all the work you put into this. Need > permission to the link. > > > > *Craig Demanty* > > *unWired Broadband, Inc.* > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > *On Behalf Of *Kristian Hoffmann > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 31, 2017 12:06 PM > *To:* 'California WISP Discussion' <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [California] Fwd: CASF Staff Draft Proposal Comment Period > > > > Hi, > > I'll try to summarize the meeting, but there are a few action items that > I'd like everyone to seriously consider. > > First, a couple of bullet points to be aware of: > > - There were several parties that suggested (and felt strongly about) only > accepting CASF grant challenges from providers who have already filed Form > 477 data in the past. > - There were similar feelings towards accepting late challenges. > - Current availability is measured at the census block level. There were > suggestions (and some agreement) that this should perhaps be done at the > parcel level (house by house). > - I pointed out the contradiction of counting households served by fixed > wireless as "unserved", but also approving CASF grants to serve "unserved" > areas with fixed wireless. Wouldn't they still be "unserved?" The staff > acknowledged the contradiction, and asked for suggestions to improve the > situation. > > In short, fixed wireless isn't being taken seriously as a viable long-term > option for broadband services. The CPUC staff acknowledges the benefit it > provides now, and even the possibility of being a good option in the > future. However, the other industry players chuckled at the mention of > fixed wireless. > > I think the disconnect with the CPUC comes from lack of cooperation on our > part. They're a data-driven organization. They have to back up their > decisions with facts, studies, reports, etc. If we're not giving them good > data, then we don't exist. That said, I'm not a fan of the latest format > of their data request for fixed wireless (locations of all antennas, radio > make/model, etc.), though I do understand why they've gone that direction. > A lot of WISPs were providing large hand-drawn coverage maps that just > aren't specific enough. > > So where do we go from here? My intention is to come up with some kind of > compromise so that we can get the CPUC the data they need to substantiate > the fixed wireless industry, what it has already done, and what it can do > in the future. Back when the original request for data came from the NTIA, > there weren't a lot of options. Now, there are at least a couple of > reasonably priced commercial options (separate services, and integrated > into billing software) for generating coverage maps and creating a list of > served census blocks that should coincide with the CPUC's underlying > requirements. > > My first thought would be to approach a neutral vendor like > towercoverage.com, and work with them so that they could generate a > dataset that would be acceptable to the CPUC. I have no bias towards > towercoverage.com, just that they already provide this service for filing > the FCC Form 477 data. I would also have to work with the CPUC to come up > with a format that they would be okay with, though I believe the mobile > wireless format is close enough, or could work with minor modifications. > > I created a short survey (linked below) to gauge the interest level, get > feedback, etc. I plan on filling comments regardless of the response > level, but I would much rather the comments be based on the feedback from > other operators, and not just my own. > > https://goo.gl/forms/Zsu06Jake0aEF68H2 > > You're also welcome to send your own informal comments as instructed in > the attached email. However, I think we would benefit from multiple > operators sending a consistent message. If there's a good enough response, > I'll create a template response that we can send individually or signed as > a group. > > Thanks for your time, > > -Kristian > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > *Subject: * > > CASF Staff Draft Proposal Comment Period > > *Date: * > > Sat, 27 May 2017 00:29:53 +0000 > > *From: * > > TD_AR <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > > *To: * > > '[email protected]' <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > STATE OF CALIFORNIA > Edmund G. Brown Jr., > *Governor* > > PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION > > 505 VAN NESS AVENUE > > SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298 > > > > > > May 26, 2017 > > > > To: Parties on the CASF Distribution (Service) List: > > > > > > > > Thank you to those who participated in the CASF workshop yesterday. I > extend the offer to anyone wishing to provide written comments on the staff > proposal to do so by end of day, June 14th, directly to > [email protected] > > > > As I explained during the workshop yesterday, these written comments are > part of a staff informal inquiry. Because this is an informal effort, > there is no requirement to serve written comments to the CASF distribution > / service list. > > > > I intend to present a refined staff proposal to the assigned ALJ and > Commissioner of the existing CASF proceeding OIR 12-10-012. Should the > proceeding be expanded, or the Commission wishes to initiate a separate > proceeding, you will have the opportunity to file formal comments as part > of such proceeding before any rules are changed. > > > > Thanks again for your thoughtful suggestion for improving the CASF program. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Robert Wullenjohn > > Manager, Broadband, Video and Market Branch > > Communications Division, CPUC > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > California mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/california > > -- Mike Lyon [email protected] http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
_______________________________________________ California mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/california
