Permission please.
On May 31, 2017, Kristian Hoffmann <[email protected]> wrote: >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]> >To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]> > > > >NOATemplate Sample > >STATE OF CALIFORNIAEdmund 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 14^th , directly to >[email protected] <mailto:[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
_______________________________________________ California mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/california
