Re: [AFMUG] Telrad Webinar

[Trevor Bough]

Yeah the longer webinar is what I'm asking about here. Does Patrick have
any info on this?
On Mar 31, 2015 8:58 AM, "CBB - Jay Fuller" 
wrote:

>
> Probably so, telrad did about a two hour webinar a few weeks ago
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Zack Deveaux 
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 31, 2015 4:47 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Telrad Webinar
>
> The ISPRadio interview is available via podcast.  Were you referring to a
> different webinar?
>
>
>
>
>
>  --
> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 00:12:35 +
> From: trevorbo...@gmail.com
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: [AFMUG] Telrad Webinar
>
> Did the PR folks ever allow the release of the recorded Telrad webinar
> from about a month ago? Wasn't able to watch it live and would like to be
> able to see it
>
>

[AFMUG] Telrad Webinar

[Trevor Bough]

Did the PR folks ever allow the release of the recorded Telrad webinar from
about a month ago? Wasn't able to watch it live and would like to be able
to see it

Re: [AFMUG] Telrad LTE Webinar -- The Full Monty for the AFMUG

[Trevor Bough]

I will vote for it being recorded and posted. Can't attend but would love
the info
On Mar 4, 2015 11:36 AM, "Patrick Leary"  wrote:

>  I can and should
>
>
>
> *Patrick Leary*
>
> *M* 727.501.3735
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Steve D
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 04, 2015 11:52 AM
> *To:* af
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Telrad LTE Webinar -- The Full Monty for the AFMUG
>
>
>
> Will it be recorded?
>
>
>
> -Steve D
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Jaime Solorza 
> wrote:
>
> Damn.  I will be on tower if radio is bad or on drive back to El Paso on
> Thursday afternoon .  Next time
>
> Jaime Solorza
>
> On Mar 3, 2015 7:25 PM, "Patrick Leary"  wrote:
>
> When: Thursday, March 05, 2015 2:00 PM-3:30 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time
> (US & Canada).
>
> Where: via link below AND call in number
>
>
>
> Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time
> adjustments.
>
>
>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
>
>
> ...If you dareHell, if I dare.  I have room for 100. No holds barred,
> but I warn you I'm an armed veteran and expert marksman.
>
>
>
> Given time we'll even run through the LTE interference thing.
>
>
>
> 1.  Please join my meeting.
>
> https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/471332645
>
>
>
> 2.  Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended.
> Or, call in using your telephone.
>
>
>
> Dial +1 (408) 650-3123
>
> Access Code: 471-332-645
>
> Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting
>
>
>
> Meeting ID: 471-332-645
>
>
>
> GoToMeeting®
>
> Online Meetings Made Easy®
>
>
>
> Not at your computer? Click the link to join this meeting from your
> iPhone®, iPad®, Android® or Windows Phone® device via the GoToMeeting app.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
> viruses.
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
> viruses.
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
> viruses.
>
> 
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link

[Trevor Bough]

I have no doubt that eminent domain has been abused all over the country in
the manner you described with the developer (that's why I provided the link
about the Missouri port authority losing their eminent domain claim to show
that MO anyhow has attempted to put an end to that and, in effect make it
harder to win any eminent domain case). I also agree that it is much easier
to win the argument that fiber is providing a public use than a land
developer. It is also easier for the landowner to prove that your fiber
doesn't have to go through their property (unless they have a rather large
tract of land, in which case they are just stupid not to take the money and
accept the easement in the first place) to get where you need to go. I am
not against eminent domain. It's a sometimes necessary tool. I'm against
the idea that eminent domain just makes problem people go away.
On Feb 28, 2015 12:46 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

>   Utilities are treated as quazi public entities before the law and are
> almost universally allowed all rights accorded to political subdivisions
> such as eminent domain.  It is easy to “prove” that a fiber line is needed
> for public use.   Even our dear President would agree that your fiber
> brings better, needed, service to those poor folks at the other end of
> town... That half of the argument is almost impossible to lose.
>
> I would guess most states have that as a requirement.  the judges I have
> been before did not even want to step into that argument.
>
> Much easier to prove than a land developer taking property for a new
> development and saying it will help bring jobs and commerce to the
> community therefore it is needed for public use.   And you know  that has
> happened all over the country.
>
>  *From:* Trevor Bough 
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:37 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
>
>
> The 5th Amendment just established just compensation for eminent domain.
> It leaves it to the states to define what "public use" is. And the
> landowner still always has the right to argue their point that it is not
> going to be used for public use. Luckily, I live in a state that puts the
> onus on the condemning authority to prove the taking is definitely needed
> for public use.
>
> On Feb 28, 2015 12:24 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:
> >
> > The 5th amendment of the US constitution took that from you many years
> ago.
> >
> > From: Trevor Bough
> > Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 10:30 AM
> > To: af@afmug.com
> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
> >
> >
> > As a property owner, I find that idea completely terrifying. I should
> absolutely have the right to say what is or is not on my property. Working
> in the utility industry, I still find that idea completely terrifying.
> Electric utilities typically require at least 30' of dedicated ROW. Gas and
> water utilities typically require at least 20' of dedicated ROW. Would you
> like to be required to give up 70' of your front yard without any say? You
> still get to mow it and maintain it, but if the utility feels the shrub you
> planted will interfere with them operating their line, they have the right
> to come destroy it. I would love to have dedicated easements everywhere,
> but that is the reason there is dedicated public ROW everywhere. Honestly
> people would be much better off dedicating 20' to a utility easement when
> they record the legal description of their property. Virtually all
> utilities can fit into a single 20' easement, especially if several go
> aerial, they just don't like to. In my opinion, eminent domain should be a
> difficult process with a requirement on the condemning authority to prove
> need and history of good faith negotiations. Just my 2 cents (probably
> closer to $0.10 now).
> >
> > On Feb 28, 2015 10:48 AM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:
> >>
> >> Tangent...
> >>
> >>
> >> I understand property rights and all, but I'd like to see automatic
> approval for all ROW requests by qualified entities.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -
> >> Mike Hammett
> >> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> >> http://www.ics-il.com
> >>
> >> 
> >> From: "Trevor Bough" 
> >> To: af@afmug.com
> >> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 6:56:45 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
> >>
> >> Apparently Missourians fight to protect their property rights more
> vigorously because, here anyway, it is a lengthy and expensive process.
> Landowners in MO can also 

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link

[Trevor Bough]

The 5th Amendment just established just compensation for eminent domain. It
leaves it to the states to define what "public use" is. And the landowner
still always has the right to argue their point that it is not going to be
used for public use. Luckily, I live in a state that puts the onus on the
condemning authority to prove the taking is definitely needed for public
use.

On Feb 28, 2015 12:24 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:
>
> The 5th amendment of the US constitution took that from you many years
ago.
>
> From: Trevor Bough
> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 10:30 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
>
>
> As a property owner, I find that idea completely terrifying. I should
absolutely have the right to say what is or is not on my property. Working
in the utility industry, I still find that idea completely terrifying.
Electric utilities typically require at least 30' of dedicated ROW. Gas and
water utilities typically require at least 20' of dedicated ROW. Would you
like to be required to give up 70' of your front yard without any say? You
still get to mow it and maintain it, but if the utility feels the shrub you
planted will interfere with them operating their line, they have the right
to come destroy it. I would love to have dedicated easements everywhere,
but that is the reason there is dedicated public ROW everywhere. Honestly
people would be much better off dedicating 20' to a utility easement when
they record the legal description of their property. Virtually all
utilities can fit into a single 20' easement, especially if several go
aerial, they just don't like to. In my opinion, eminent domain should be a
difficult process with a requirement on the condemning authority to prove
need and history of good faith negotiations. Just my 2 cents (probably
closer to $0.10 now).
>
> On Feb 28, 2015 10:48 AM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:
>>
>> Tangent...
>>
>>
>> I understand property rights and all, but I'd like to see automatic
approval for all ROW requests by qualified entities.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>> 
>> From: "Trevor Bough" 
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 6:56:45 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
>>
>> Apparently Missourians fight to protect their property rights more
vigorously because, here anyway, it is a lengthy and expensive process.
Landowners in MO can also be awarded legal fees if the condemning authority
drops or loses the case of eminent domain, so it is definitely not a, "This
guy is being difficult, we'll show him." fix-all.
http://watchdog.org/88546/missouri-landowners-win-in-eminent-domain-test-case/
Looks like it wasn't always the case here though.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>>
>>> I have done it several times.  In my cases it was pretty much the easy
button.   Just had to wait for the docket.
>>>
>>> From: Trevor Bough
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:21 PM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not quite that easy... You have to be authorized by the state to
be able to use eminent domain and even then it is a very lengthy process
(minimum of six months typically) and it has to be for "public use", which
a utility can qualify as, but even after going to court for six months or
more to prove that this is necessary for the public you are still at the
mercy of the quart ruling that you are right and now have the luxury of
paying the landowner for the access. It's not some magic automatic "Easy
Button".
>>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2015 1:34 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground line,
you can do so under the right of eminent domain.  Landowner has no say so.
You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and voila, instant ROW.
However at that point in time the tables turn somewhat in the favor of the
landowner as you have to compensate them for what you have taken.
>>>>
>>>> That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very
expensive ROW...
>>>>
>>>> What you are talking about below is the establishment of a
prescriptive ROW through your failure to defend your property.  Another
word for it is acquiescence or adverse possession.  You can certainly lose
your right to defend if you sit on your rights.  So, yea, if they didn't
have an easement or court order, cut down that pole.
>>>>
>>>> ---

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link

[Trevor Bough]

Yep. I was confirming that was what I meant. I agree with your entire email
and that utility easements rarely actually affect the landowner, but you
will definitely have a hard time getting a large percentage of the
population to understand that if you make ROW requests automatic. Most
people, around here anyhow, would see it as a land grab. I personally would
have no problem giving various utilities easements (and also have an
electric and telephone easement on my property), but I would want to have
the final say on who, what, where, and how much on any new ones. I work
with getting utility easements at least monthly, so I have seen the whole
spectrum of responses, from no problem, to absolutely not, to sure, for
$1M. There are a surprising number of people that do not know they have
existing easements on their property and do not understand the idea of the
public ROW.
On Feb 28, 2015 11:54 AM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> *nods* As I indicated later in my e-mail.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> ------
> *From: *"Trevor Bough" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:51:42 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
>
> I was referring to when they get dedicated easements outside of public
> ROW.
> On Feb 28, 2015 11:45 AM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:
>
>> The entire road ROW is not 70' wide, therefore none of the utilities in
>> it (electric, gas, phone, "competitive" fiber provider) could possibly use
>> that much of it. I will not buy any "property rights" argument for
>> utilities along the roadway. In town, the lots are barely 70', so it would
>> be impossible for a town to even exist if that were the case.
>>
>> You're probably referring to the long-haul stuff, not the access stuff.
>> My mistake for not being clear about that up front. BTW: My family does
>> have about 140' of electrical ROW and an undetermined amount of
>> gas\petroleum and fiber longhaul ROW through our hundreds of acres. Not
>> really an inconvenience. Gotta worry about the gas\fiber when putting in or
>> repairing drain tile. Just planted alfalfa for hay in the electrical ROW.
>> BTW: They paid for those rights in teh beginning and pay for any and all
>> damages\remediation should their maintenance result in needing any.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>> --
>> *From: *"Trevor Bough" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:30:16 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
>>
>> As a property owner, I find that idea completely terrifying. I should
>> absolutely have the right to say what is or is not on my property. Working
>> in the utility industry, I still find that idea completely terrifying.
>> Electric utilities typically require at least 30' of dedicated ROW. Gas and
>> water utilities typically require at least 20' of dedicated ROW. Would you
>> like to be required to give up 70' of your front yard without any say? You
>> still get to mow it and maintain it, but if the utility feels the shrub you
>> planted will interfere with them operating their line, they have the right
>> to come destroy it. I would love to have dedicated easements everywhere,
>> but that is the reason there is dedicated public ROW everywhere. Honestly
>> people would be much better off dedicating 20' to a utility easement when
>> they record the legal description of their property. Virtually all
>> utilities can fit into a single 20' easement, especially if several go
>> aerial, they just don't like to. In my opinion, eminent domain should be a
>> difficult process with a requirement on the condemning authority to prove
>> need and history of good faith negotiations. Just my 2 cents (probably
>> closer to $0.10 now).
>> On Feb 28, 2015 10:48 AM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:
>>
>>> Tangent...
>>>
>>>
>>> I understand property rights and all, but I'd like to see automatic
>>> approval for all ROW requests by qualified entities.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Trevor Bough" 
>>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>>> *Sent: *Friday, February 27, 2015 6:56:45 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
>>>
&g

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link

[Trevor Bough]

I was referring to when they get dedicated easements outside of public ROW.
On Feb 28, 2015 11:45 AM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> The entire road ROW is not 70' wide, therefore none of the utilities in it
> (electric, gas, phone, "competitive" fiber provider) could possibly use
> that much of it. I will not buy any "property rights" argument for
> utilities along the roadway. In town, the lots are barely 70', so it would
> be impossible for a town to even exist if that were the case.
>
> You're probably referring to the long-haul stuff, not the access stuff. My
> mistake for not being clear about that up front. BTW: My family does have
> about 140' of electrical ROW and an undetermined amount of gas\petroleum
> and fiber longhaul ROW through our hundreds of acres. Not really an
> inconvenience. Gotta worry about the gas\fiber when putting in or repairing
> drain tile. Just planted alfalfa for hay in the electrical ROW. BTW: They
> paid for those rights in teh beginning and pay for any and all
> damages\remediation should their maintenance result in needing any.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> --
> *From: *"Trevor Bough" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:30:16 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
>
> As a property owner, I find that idea completely terrifying. I should
> absolutely have the right to say what is or is not on my property. Working
> in the utility industry, I still find that idea completely terrifying.
> Electric utilities typically require at least 30' of dedicated ROW. Gas and
> water utilities typically require at least 20' of dedicated ROW. Would you
> like to be required to give up 70' of your front yard without any say? You
> still get to mow it and maintain it, but if the utility feels the shrub you
> planted will interfere with them operating their line, they have the right
> to come destroy it. I would love to have dedicated easements everywhere,
> but that is the reason there is dedicated public ROW everywhere. Honestly
> people would be much better off dedicating 20' to a utility easement when
> they record the legal description of their property. Virtually all
> utilities can fit into a single 20' easement, especially if several go
> aerial, they just don't like to. In my opinion, eminent domain should be a
> difficult process with a requirement on the condemning authority to prove
> need and history of good faith negotiations. Just my 2 cents (probably
> closer to $0.10 now).
> On Feb 28, 2015 10:48 AM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:
>
>> Tangent...
>>
>>
>> I understand property rights and all, but I'd like to see automatic
>> approval for all ROW requests by qualified entities.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>> --
>> *From: *"Trevor Bough" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Friday, February 27, 2015 6:56:45 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
>>
>> Apparently Missourians fight to protect their property rights more
>> vigorously because, here anyway, it is a lengthy and expensive process.
>> Landowners in MO can also be awarded legal fees if the condemning authority
>> drops or loses the case of eminent domain, so it is definitely not a, "This
>> guy is being difficult, we'll show him." fix-all.
>> http://watchdog.org/88546/missouri-landowners-win-in-eminent-domain-test-case/
>> Looks like it wasn't always the case here though.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>>>   I have done it several times.  In my cases it was pretty much the
>>> easy button.   Just had to wait for the docket.
>>>
>>>  *From:* Trevor Bough 
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:21 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not quite that easy... You have to be authorized by the state to be
>>> able to use eminent domain and even then it is a very lengthy process
>>> (minimum of six months typically) and it has to be for "public use", which
>>> a utility can qualify as, but even after going to court for six months or
>>> more to prove that this is necessary for the public you are still at the
>>> mercy of the quart ruling that you are right and now have the luxury of
>>> paying the landowner for the access. It's not some 

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link

[Trevor Bough]

As a property owner, I find that idea completely terrifying. I should
absolutely have the right to say what is or is not on my property. Working
in the utility industry, I still find that idea completely terrifying.
Electric utilities typically require at least 30' of dedicated ROW. Gas and
water utilities typically require at least 20' of dedicated ROW. Would you
like to be required to give up 70' of your front yard without any say? You
still get to mow it and maintain it, but if the utility feels the shrub you
planted will interfere with them operating their line, they have the right
to come destroy it. I would love to have dedicated easements everywhere,
but that is the reason there is dedicated public ROW everywhere. Honestly
people would be much better off dedicating 20' to a utility easement when
they record the legal description of their property. Virtually all
utilities can fit into a single 20' easement, especially if several go
aerial, they just don't like to. In my opinion, eminent domain should be a
difficult process with a requirement on the condemning authority to prove
need and history of good faith negotiations. Just my 2 cents (probably
closer to $0.10 now).
On Feb 28, 2015 10:48 AM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> Tangent...
>
>
> I understand property rights and all, but I'd like to see automatic
> approval for all ROW requests by qualified entities.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> --
> *From: *"Trevor Bough" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, February 27, 2015 6:56:45 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
>
> Apparently Missourians fight to protect their property rights more
> vigorously because, here anyway, it is a lengthy and expensive process.
> Landowners in MO can also be awarded legal fees if the condemning authority
> drops or loses the case of eminent domain, so it is definitely not a, "This
> guy is being difficult, we'll show him." fix-all.
> http://watchdog.org/88546/missouri-landowners-win-in-eminent-domain-test-case/
> Looks like it wasn't always the case here though.
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>>   I have done it several times.  In my cases it was pretty much the easy
>> button.   Just had to wait for the docket.
>>
>>  *From:* Trevor Bough 
>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:21 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
>>
>>
>> It's not quite that easy... You have to be authorized by the state to be
>> able to use eminent domain and even then it is a very lengthy process
>> (minimum of six months typically) and it has to be for "public use", which
>> a utility can qualify as, but even after going to court for six months or
>> more to prove that this is necessary for the public you are still at the
>> mercy of the quart ruling that you are right and now have the luxury of
>> paying the landowner for the access. It's not some magic automatic "Easy
>> Button".
>> On Feb 26, 2015 1:34 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:
>>
>>> If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground line,
>>> you can do so under the right of eminent domain.  Landowner has no say so.
>>> You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and voila, instant ROW.
>>> However at that point in time the tables turn somewhat in the favor of the
>>> landowner as you have to compensate them for what you have taken.
>>>
>>> That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very expensive
>>> ROW...
>>>
>>> What you are talking about below is the establishment of a prescriptive
>>> ROW through your failure to defend your property.  Another word for it is
>>> acquiescence or adverse possession.  You can certainly lose your right to
>>> defend if you sit on your rights.  So, yea, if they didn't have an easement
>>> or court order, cut down that pole.
>>>
>>> -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
>>>
>>> What eminent domain actions can a utility take?  My "knowledge" on that
>>> topic is all hearsay.
>>>
>>> I heard of a landowner who saw a company putting a pole in an empty lot
>>> that he owned across the street from his house.  He watched them set the
>>> pole and then after the workers left he went out with a chainsaw and cut
>>> it down because they never asked him if they could put the pole there
>>> (so the story went).  In his point of view, if he let them put the pole
>>> there, they have permanent rights to access that spot on his property
>>> because of eminent domain.
>>>
>>> You may even have the right of eminent domain now.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link

[Trevor Bough]

Apparently Missourians fight to protect their property rights more
vigorously because, here anyway, it is a lengthy and expensive process.
Landowners in MO can also be awarded legal fees if the condemning authority
drops or loses the case of eminent domain, so it is definitely not a, "This
guy is being difficult, we'll show him." fix-all.
http://watchdog.org/88546/missouri-landowners-win-in-eminent-domain-test-case/
Looks like it wasn't always the case here though.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

>   I have done it several times.  In my cases it was pretty much the easy
> button.   Just had to wait for the docket.
>
>  *From:* Trevor Bough 
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:21 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
>
>
> It's not quite that easy... You have to be authorized by the state to be
> able to use eminent domain and even then it is a very lengthy process
> (minimum of six months typically) and it has to be for "public use", which
> a utility can qualify as, but even after going to court for six months or
> more to prove that this is necessary for the public you are still at the
> mercy of the quart ruling that you are right and now have the luxury of
> paying the landowner for the access. It's not some magic automatic "Easy
> Button".
> On Feb 26, 2015 1:34 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:
>
>> If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground line,
>> you can do so under the right of eminent domain.  Landowner has no say so.
>> You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and voila, instant ROW.
>> However at that point in time the tables turn somewhat in the favor of the
>> landowner as you have to compensate them for what you have taken.
>>
>> That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very expensive
>> ROW...
>>
>> What you are talking about below is the establishment of a prescriptive
>> ROW through your failure to defend your property.  Another word for it is
>> acquiescence or adverse possession.  You can certainly lose your right to
>> defend if you sit on your rights.  So, yea, if they didn't have an easement
>> or court order, cut down that pole.
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett
>> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
>>
>> What eminent domain actions can a utility take?  My "knowledge" on that
>> topic is all hearsay.
>>
>> I heard of a landowner who saw a company putting a pole in an empty lot
>> that he owned across the street from his house.  He watched them set the
>> pole and then after the workers left he went out with a chainsaw and cut
>> it down because they never asked him if they could put the pole there
>> (so the story went).  In his point of view, if he let them put the pole
>> there, they have permanent rights to access that spot on his property
>> because of eminent domain.
>>
>> You may even have the right of eminent domain now.
>>>
>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link

[Trevor Bough]

It's not quite that easy... You have to be authorized by the state to be
able to use eminent domain and even then it is a very lengthy process
(minimum of six months typically) and it has to be for "public use", which
a utility can qualify as, but even after going to court for six months or
more to prove that this is necessary for the public you are still at the
mercy of the quart ruling that you are right and now have the luxury of
paying the landowner for the access. It's not some magic automatic "Easy
Button".
On Feb 26, 2015 1:34 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

> If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground line, you
> can do so under the right of eminent domain.  Landowner has no say so.  You
> go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and voila, instant ROW.  However at
> that point in time the tables turn somewhat in the favor of the landowner
> as you have to compensate them for what you have taken.
>
> That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very expensive
> ROW...
>
> What you are talking about below is the establishment of a prescriptive
> ROW through your failure to defend your property.  Another word for it is
> acquiescence or adverse possession.  You can certainly lose your right to
> defend if you sit on your rights.  So, yea, if they didn't have an easement
> or court order, cut down that pole.
>
> -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
>
> What eminent domain actions can a utility take?  My "knowledge" on that
> topic is all hearsay.
>
> I heard of a landowner who saw a company putting a pole in an empty lot
> that he owned across the street from his house.  He watched them set the
> pole and then after the workers left he went out with a chainsaw and cut
> it down because they never asked him if they could put the pole there
> (so the story went).  In his point of view, if he let them put the pole
> there, they have permanent rights to access that spot on his property
> because of eminent domain.
>
>  You may even have the right of eminent domain now.
>>
>
>

[AFMUG] Fiber Buildout Forum

[Trevor Bough]

Hey guys, I really enjoyed the fiber build out forum and have come up with
a few questions since lunch yesterday:

1. Would you be able to make those power points available to the list?
2. What all equipment do you actually have at the house? Are you running
the fiber up to the house and then making it the customers responsibility
from there? Or are you running some interior Ethernet cable for people?
3. Could I get a rough list of what is actually going in the neighborhood
peds?
4. Are you still able to use Powercode (or whatever you are using for your
wireless customers) for your billing/monitoring/rates? Or did you have to
get a secondary system to handle the fiber customers?
5. How are you keeping track of where your underground facilities are for
years down the road? Are you using GPS coordinates at endpoints and service
connections, measurements off of cross streets, or just planning to be able
to use a locator to find it?

Re: [AFMUG] Laying your own fiber?

[Trevor Bough]

Currently in the natural gas distribution industry here. Most cities of any
size at all will require a franchise agreement to use their ROW. There just
isn't enough space for everyone and their brother to lay whatever they want
wherever they want. Most of the time this requires a new city ordinance
spelling out how big a percentage of your sales in that city you will pay
the city. State ROW is a little easier, typically, in that as long as you
fill out their ROW permit to their satisfaction (sometimes requires
engineer drawings, and approximate locations) you can lay in their ROW,
but, here at least, you only get the last 6' of the ROW for  all utilities.
Pretty cramped every time. County ROW is usually easiest as they usually
don't have too many requirements and will probably just want it cleaned up
back to normal when you are done.
On Jan 19, 2015 1:10 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

>   Assuming you are going underground, simply apply for an excavation
> permit.
>
> If they ask, tell them you are a long haul fiber company similar to Level3
> and AT&T.
> You do not need to be a CLEC.  Local ROW jurisdictions don’t even know
> what that is.
> You may need a franchise agreement.  That depends on the city or county.
> But that is straightforward.
>
> If on poles, much more paperwork and regulation.
>
>  *From:* Zephyr Broadband 
> *Sent:* Monday, January 19, 2015 10:56 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Laying your own fiber?
>
>  So we've started looking at trenching our own fiber but we've run into a
> couple roadblocks and I thought I'd reach out to the list and see if others
> have run into similar issues. Obviously this is location and jurisdiction
> dependent, but we can't seem to get anyone from City Hall to return our
> calls or offer any hints as to where to look.
>
> How did you get permission to use utility right of ways and easements? Did
> you file for CLEC certification? Did you look at a CATV franchise agreement
> with your city? Did you approach each landowner and negotiate your own
> easement?
>
> Also, do any of you offer triple play services? We haven't had a lot of
> luck looking into distribution agreements for TV services either.
>
> Any info or resources would be appreciated!
>

Re: [AFMUG] New WISP

[Trevor Bough]

You guys have offered so much great advice. I really, truly appreciate it.
I just booked my plane tickets and registered for Animal Farm! Hope to see
you guys there! Can't wait to learn more and get this thing rolling! Thanks
again!

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Trevor Bough  wrote:

> Hi guys, long time listener, first time caller. I'm looking at starting a
> new rural WISP and was wondering if you guys could share some of the things
> you wish you had known when you started out. Things to absolutely stay away
> from, things that you didn't think of first, but made your life 10x easier,
> etc. Any info would be greatly appreciated!
>

Re: [AFMUG] New WISP

[Trevor Bough]

Thank you guys so much for all of the info. I'm so glad that I stumbled
upon this community. You guys are great!

Re: [AFMUG] New WISP

[Trevor Bough]

Thank you very much for the specifics! I figured a grant would come with a
ton of paperwork, but not to that extent.
On Jan 6, 2015 8:31 PM, "Mark - Myakka Technologies" 
wrote:

> Trevor,
>
> We received a grant about 4-5 years ago.  Almost done with the
> project.  I would not even think about how hard it would have been
> juggling the grant stuff with a new startup unless I had a bunch of
> startup investment money.
>
> Usually the grants are for build out only, operational stuff is not
> included.  For example, we pay at least $25k a year for auditors and
> accountants because of the grant.  Not to mention we hired a
> bookkeeper just to keep track of government paperwork dealing with the
> grant.  Neither of those are fundable expenses.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  Markmailto:m...@mailmt.com
>
> Myakka Technologies, Inc.
> www.MyakkaTech.com
>
> Proud Sponsor of the Myakka City Relay For Life
> http://www.RelayForLife.org/MyakkaCityFL
>
> Please Donate at
> http://main.acsevents.org/site/TR/RelayForLife/RFLFY12FL?team_id=1030009&pg=team&fr_id=37555
> --
>
> Tuesday, January 6, 2015, 9:23:29 PM, you wrote:
>
> TB> Ha ha what are the big problems with them? I know there have
> TB> to be problems due to the fact you are dealing with the government.
>
> TB> On Jan 6, 2015 8:18 PM, "Craig House"
> TB>  wrote:
> TB> Run away dont walk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> TB> From: "Trevor Bough" 
> TB> To: af@afmug.com
> TB> Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 8:17:48 PM
> TB> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New WISP
>
>
> TB> You guys are great! Thank you for all of the great advice! I
> TB> truly appreciate it. Does anyone have any experience with
> TB> government grants?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
> protection is active.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] New WISP

[Trevor Bough]

Ha ha what are the big problems with them? I know there have to be problems
due to the fact you are dealing with the government.
On Jan 6, 2015 8:18 PM, "Craig House"  wrote:

> Run away dont walk
>
>
> ------
> *From: *"Trevor Bough" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Tuesday, January 6, 2015 8:17:48 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] New WISP
>
> You guys are great! Thank you for all of the great advice! I truly
> appreciate it. Does anyone have any experience with government grants?
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] New WISP

[Trevor Bough]

You guys are great! Thank you for all of the great advice! I truly
appreciate it. Does anyone have any experience with government grants?

[AFMUG] New WISP

[Trevor Bough]

Hi guys, long time listener, first time caller. I'm looking at starting a
new rural WISP and was wondering if you guys could share some of the things
you wish you had known when you started out. Things to absolutely stay away
from, things that you didn't think of first, but made your life 10x easier,
etc. Any info would be greatly appreciated!