Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
No one on this List or the FCC will convince me that the telco needed this to
get federal funds to help them with network builds. THEY have PISSED AWAY all
USF funds they keep getting. How the hell do you think Century Link bought
Embarq!
The USF FEE has been around since 1934 and added to in 1996. All for the very
purpose to support these idiots.
I want everyone who voted for this rule fired and citizenship revoked!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 31, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Rex-List Account xorex63l...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey I know Jack Schitt. Nice fella.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNqLSch84aQ
Not sure if he is a Comcast customer though. J
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 11:12 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Jack Shit? Is he another Comcast customer?
http://elliott.org/blog/hello-dummy-comcast-calls-customers-shocking-names/
From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 10:29 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
According to Corran, it doesn't mean jack shit yet. There's no regulation or
funding tied to it.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
From: Jason McKemie j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 7:06:38 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Doesn't this just mean if you don't offer service of at least 25mbps your
area won't count as served? I'm pretty sure you can call your service
whatever you damn well please.
On Friday, January 30, 2015, Mark Radabaugh m...@amplex.net wrote:
Keep in mind the cable companies don't get federal subsidies. The cable data
operations are unregulated information service exactly like us, and they can
easily meet the 25/3.
They are opposed because it means the telcos are going to be given federal
money to upgrade to 25/3 and become competition.
Cable spends it's own money to compete, just like us. They are equally
ticked over changing the definition so that their competition, who has not
spent their own money, and waited for government handouts is going to be
rewarded.
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex
27800 Lemoyne, Ste F
Millbury, OH 43447
419-261-5996
On Jan 30, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote:
I found it interesting that the cable companies were claiming to be against
this change. This seems handcrafted by them if you ask me. Every year when
they request funding the WISPs in those areas (with the help of WISPA) file
claims against them receiving those funds under the basis that 'broadband' is
already available in those areas where they are claiming that it is not.
This has actually worked fairly well in keeping those entities from receiving
those funds. Now, almost none of us meet the 'broadband' qualification and
now they can use the government funds to build out on top of us almost
uncontested.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote:
My company is called 'Blue Spring Broadband'. I will not be changing my
name. We offer dedicated connections up to 100Mbps, and more on a
case-by-case basis (ie. I would offer 1Gbps near the NOC to anyone willing to
pay for it). Although we do not offer more than 15x3 to residential
currently, I still believe we can be classified as a broadband service
provider. I happily give quotes on a 25x25 dedicated unlimited connection to
any residential customers that ask for it ($1K/mo. roughly). Until some
governing entity tells me different that is my stance.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Ken Hohhof af...@kwisp.com wrote:
It’s depressing to think about all the government money that went to
subsidize 1 Mbps (if that) Hughesnet service under the recovery act.
The contradiction is like setting a standard that every citizen must get
fresh whole grain organic locally grown low sugar low sodium food, just a
couple years after handing out pork rinds, moon pies and Jolt cola in the
school lunch program.
From: Bill Prince
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:22 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
+1. They have the added complication that they are way oversubscribed
compared to almost everything else.
Let's not even mention latency.
If broadband included something about latency (like just 200 ms for
instance), then they would lose big time.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/30/2015 1:17 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:
Doubtful. They can't sustain those speeds wide spread any better than we can.
- Original Message -
From: That One Guy
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
at those sustained speeds, the only tech that could realistically deliver to
the rural market right now
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I don’t think the USF pool happened prior to NECA. It started with the 1996
act I believe. Before NECA ATT was in charge of sharing the bounty with the
rural telcos. There was a doctrine of USF but the guvmn’t had nothing to do
with it. ATT was in charge. Or rather in CHARGE writ LARGE.
You used to have to battle ATT to get your piece of the pie. Similar if all
the ISPs had to go battle with XO if everyone was on usage based billing and
you gave all your monies to XO praying they give you back your share. That is
the regime that all the rural telcos lived under for most of the history of
telcos.
Divesture broke that up, formed NECA and established a true USF. This was
prior to the internet. This was to allow the mom and pop telcos in the rural
areas to get their fair share. They were (and many are) just like all of you
guys. Don’t hate on them just because they enjoy the pioneers preference.
They bought a cord board and spent their lives running wires to each house.
They borrowed from the RUS and were helped a bit with subsidies. Why hate
them? They were just like you, just 100 years ago.
Just because the WISP world came along later and could do many of the same
things cheaper and better, it comes of sounding sour grapes when the telcos
get the benefit if a long history of providing good service. They are all
currently deploying FTTH and that is clearly where the FCC wants them to be.
Moreover they have a legal “duty to carry” which is a common carrier doctrine
dating back to the Roman Empire. They have many other duties, burdens and
regulatory requirements. You don’t.
Just a few short years ago, it would have been illegal to even have been a
WISP. Be thankful for what you have. Gheeze already.
From: mailto:t...@franklinisp.net
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 8:19 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
No one on this List or the FCC will convince me that the telco needed this to
get federal funds to help them with network builds. THEY have PISSED AWAY all
USF funds they keep getting. How the hell do you think Century Link bought
Embarq!
The USF FEE has been around since 1934 and added to in 1996. All for the very
purpose to support these idiots.
I want everyone who voted for this rule fired and citizenship revoked!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 30, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net wrote:
According to 477, if I have a census area that only has 1Mbps customers, then
that area is labeled under served, correct?
Looks like the FCC just figured a way to hand their buddies grant money or
(dons tin foil hat) ultimately take over the Internet infrastructure.
- Original Message -
From: Bill Prince
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I don't know if we can answer that question until we see how the rule is
worded if and when it actually becomes a rule.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/30/2015 12:21 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
Even if you don�t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can�t you just put a
plan rate for 25Mbps and give it some ridiculous price that no one will ever
buy, then claim broadband?
�
I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn�t be broadband, but your
company could be branded as selling broadband?
�
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @
Internet Communications Inc
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org
Cc: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
�
!--[if !supportLists]--1.������ !--[endif]--Is the 25Mbps
classification immediate?
!--[if !supportLists]--2.������ !--[endif]--What are you
NOW going to call your previously determined �broadband� service?
�
�
Tyson Burris, President
Internet Communications Inc.
739 Commerce Dr.
Franklin, IN 46131
�
317-738-0320 Daytime #
317-412-1540 Cell/Direct #
Online: www.surfici.net
�
mime-attachment.png
What can ICI do for you?
Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP
Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.
�
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the
addressee shown. It contains information that is
confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,
dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by
unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly
prohibited.
�
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
No one on this List or the FCC will convince me that the telco needed this to
get federal funds to help them with network builds. THEY have PISSED AWAY all
USF funds they keep getting. How the hell do you think Century Link bought
Embarq!
The USF FEE has been around since 1934 and added to in 1996. All for the very
purpose to support these idiots.
I want everyone who voted for this rule fired and citizenship revoked!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 30, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net wrote:
According to 477, if I have a census area that only has 1Mbps customers, then
that area is labeled under served, correct?
Looks like the FCC just figured a way to hand their buddies grant money or
(dons tin foil hat) ultimately take over the Internet infrastructure.
- Original Message -
From: Bill Prince
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I don't know if we can answer that question until we see how the rule is
worded if and when it actually becomes a rule.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/30/2015 12:21 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
Even if you don�t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can�t you just put a plan
rate for 25Mbps and give it some ridiculous price that no one will ever buy,
then claim broadband?
�
I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn�t be broadband, but your company
could be branded as selling broadband?
�
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet
Communications Inc
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org
Cc: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
�
!--[if !supportLists]--1.������ !--[endif]--Is the 25Mbps
classification immediate?
!--[if !supportLists]--2.������ !--[endif]--What are you NOW
going to call your previously determined �broadband� service?
�
�
Tyson Burris, President
Internet Communications Inc.
739 Commerce Dr.
Franklin, IN 46131
�
317-738-0320 Daytime #
317-412-1540 Cell/Direct #
Online: www.surfici.net
�
mime-attachment.png
What can ICI do for you?
Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP
Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.
�
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the
addressee shown. It contains information that is
confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,
dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by
unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly
prohibited.
�
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Seems more logical to fix the high cost process than to enable it.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:12:38 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Just the cost of BLM compliance to extend fiber to a few homes in Nevada exceed
$20K per home. When you do it the government way, it costs 10 times more than
in reasonable. So they compensate with providing a way to serve the debt.
From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 8:54 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Just as WISPs have been, I think RLECs have been painted with a large brush.
Many good, fewer (but too many) bad apples. Those stories of $20k+/year in
subsidies per line. The reception of subsidies (of any amount) to bring the
rural cost of a line less than the urban cost of a line. Windstream and
CenturyTel both bringing in enough bonus USF money to have scaled as large as
they have in the past decade. Those are all excessive.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 9:45:52 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I don’t think the USF pool happened prior to NECA. It started with the 1996 act
I believe. Before NECA ATT was in charge of sharing the bounty with the rural
telcos. There was a doctrine of USF but the guvmn’t had nothing to do with it.
ATT was in charge. Or rather in CHARGE writ LARGE.
You used to have to battle ATT to get your piece of the pie. Similar if all
the ISPs had to go battle with XO if everyone was on usage based billing and
you gave all your monies to XO praying they give you back your share. That is
the regime that all the rural telcos lived under for most of the history of
telcos.
Divesture broke that up, formed NECA and established a true USF. This was prior
to the internet. This was to allow the mom and pop telcos in the rural areas to
get their fair share. They were (and many are) just like all of you guys. Don’t
hate on them just because they enjoy the pioneers preference. They bought a
cord board and spent their lives running wires to each house. They borrowed
from the RUS and were helped a bit with subsidies. Why hate them? They were
just like you, just 100 years ago.
Just because the WISP world came along later and could do many of the same
things cheaper and better, it comes of sounding sour grapes when the telcos get
the benefit if a long history of providing good service. They are all currently
deploying FTTH and that is clearly where the FCC wants them to be.
Moreover they have a legal “duty to carry” which is a common carrier doctrine
dating back to the Roman Empire. They have many other duties, burdens and
regulatory requirements. You don’t.
Just a few short years ago, it would have been illegal to even have been a
WISP. Be thankful for what you have. Gheeze already.
From: mailto:t...@franklinisp.net
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 8:19 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
No one on this List or the FCC will convince me that the telco needed this to
get federal funds to help them with network builds. THEY have PISSED AWAY all
USF funds they keep getting. How the hell do you think Century Link bought
Embarq!
The USF FEE has been around since 1934 and added to in 1996. All for the very
purpose to support these idiots.
I want everyone who voted for this rule fired and citizenship revoked!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 30, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net wrote:
According to 477, if I have a census area that only has 1Mbps customers, then
that area is labeled under served, correct?
Looks like the FCC just figured a way to hand their buddies grant money or
(dons tin foil hat) ultimately take over the Internet infrastructure.
blockquote
- Original Message -
From: Bill Prince
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I don't know if we can answer that question until we see how the rule is worded
if and when it actually becomes a rule.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com On 1/30/2015 12:21 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
blockquote
Even if you don�t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can�t you just put a plan rate
for 25Mbps and give it some ridiculous price that no one will ever buy, then
claim broadband?
�
I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn�t be broadband, but your company
could be branded as selling broadband?
�
From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet
Communications Inc
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org
Cc: af@afmug.com
Subject
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Just the cost of BLM compliance to extend fiber to a few homes in Nevada exceed
$20K per home. When you do it the government way, it costs 10 times more than
in reasonable. So they compensate with providing a way to serve the debt.
From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 8:54 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Just as WISPs have been, I think RLECs have been painted with a large brush.
Many good, fewer (but too many) bad apples. Those stories of $20k+/year in
subsidies per line. The reception of subsidies (of any amount) to bring the
rural cost of a line less than the urban cost of a line. Windstream and
CenturyTel both bringing in enough bonus USF money to have scaled as large as
they have in the past decade. Those are all excessive.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
From: Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 9:45:52 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I don’t think the USF pool happened prior to NECA. It started with the 1996
act I believe. Before NECA ATT was in charge of sharing the bounty with the
rural telcos. There was a doctrine of USF but the guvmn’t had nothing to do
with it. ATT was in charge. Or rather in CHARGE writ LARGE.
You used to have to battle ATT to get your piece of the pie. Similar if all
the ISPs had to go battle with XO if everyone was on usage based billing and
you gave all your monies to XO praying they give you back your share. That is
the regime that all the rural telcos lived under for most of the history of
telcos.
Divesture broke that up, formed NECA and established a true USF. This was
prior to the internet. This was to allow the mom and pop telcos in the rural
areas to get their fair share. They were (and many are) just like all of you
guys. Don’t hate on them just because they enjoy the pioneers preference.
They bought a cord board and spent their lives running wires to each house.
They borrowed from the RUS and were helped a bit with subsidies. Why hate
them? They were just like you, just 100 years ago.
Just because the WISP world came along later and could do many of the same
things cheaper and better, it comes of sounding sour grapes when the telcos
get the benefit if a long history of providing good service. They are all
currently deploying FTTH and that is clearly where the FCC wants them to be.
Moreover they have a legal “duty to carry” which is a common carrier doctrine
dating back to the Roman Empire. They have many other duties, burdens and
regulatory requirements. You don’t.
Just a few short years ago, it would have been illegal to even have been a
WISP. Be thankful for what you have. Gheeze already.
From: mailto:t...@franklinisp.net
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 8:19 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
No one on this List or the FCC will convince me that the telco needed this to
get federal funds to help them with network builds. THEY have PISSED AWAY all
USF funds they keep getting. How the hell do you think Century Link bought
Embarq!
The USF FEE has been around since 1934 and added to in 1996. All for the very
purpose to support these idiots.
I want everyone who voted for this rule fired and citizenship revoked!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 30, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net wrote:
According to 477, if I have a census area that only has 1Mbps customers, then
that area is labeled under served, correct?
Looks like the FCC just figured a way to hand their buddies grant money or
(dons tin foil hat) ultimately take over the Internet infrastructure.
- Original Message -
From: Bill Prince
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I don't know if we can answer that question until we see how the rule is
worded if and when it actually becomes a rule.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/30/2015 12:21 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
Even if you don�t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can�t you just put a
plan rate for 25Mbps and give it some ridiculous price that no one will ever
buy, then claim broadband?
�
I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn�t be broadband, but your
company could be branded as selling broadband?
�
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @
Internet Communications Inc
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org
Cc: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
�
!--[if !supportLists]--1.������ !--[endif]--Is the 25Mbps
classification immediate?
!--[if !supportLists]--2.������ !--[endif]--What are you
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
People have been complaining about that for decades.
Think we will make a difference here?
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/31/2015 8:14 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Seems more logical to fix the high cost process than to enable it.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
https://www.facebook.com/ICSILhttps://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalbhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutionshttps://twitter.com/ICSIL
*From: *Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:12:38 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Just the cost of BLM compliance to extend fiber to a few homes in
Nevada exceed $20K per home. When you do it the government way, it
costs 10 times more than in reasonable. So they compensate with
providing a way to serve the debt.
*From:* Mike Hammett mailto:af...@ics-il.net
*Sent:* Saturday, January 31, 2015 8:54 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Just as WISPs have been, I think RLECs have been painted with a large
brush. Many good, fewer (but too many) bad apples. Those stories of
$20k+/year in subsidies per line. The reception of subsidies (of any
amount) to bring the rural cost of a line less than the urban cost of
a line. Windstream and CenturyTel both bringing in enough bonus USF
money to have scaled as large as they have in the past decade. Those
are all excessive.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
https://www.facebook.com/ICSILhttps://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalbhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutionshttps://twitter.com/ICSIL
*From: *Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Saturday, January 31, 2015 9:45:52 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I don’t think the USF pool happened prior to NECA. It started with
the 1996 act I believe. Before NECA ATT was in charge of sharing
the bounty with the rural telcos. There was a doctrine of USF but the
guvmn’t had nothing to do with it. ATT was in charge. Or rather in
CHARGE writ LARGE.
You used to have to battle ATT to get your piece of the pie. Similar
if all the ISPs had to go battle with XO if everyone was on usage
based billing and you gave all your monies to XO praying they give you
back your share. That is the regime that all the rural telcos lived
under for most of the history of telcos.
Divesture broke that up, formed NECA and established a true USF. This
was prior to the internet. This was to allow the mom and pop telcos
in the rural areas to get their fair share. They were (and many are)
just like all of you guys. Don’t hate on them just because they
enjoy the pioneers preference. They bought a cord board and spent
their lives running wires to each house. They borrowed from the RUS
and were helped a bit with subsidies. Why hate them? They were just
like you, just 100 years ago.
Just because the WISP world came along later and could do many of the
same things cheaper and better, it comes of sounding sour grapes when
the telcos get the benefit if a long history of providing good
service. They are all currently deploying FTTH and that is clearly
where the FCC wants them to be.
Moreover they have a legal “duty to carry” which is a common carrier
doctrine dating back to the Roman Empire. They have many other
duties, burdens and regulatory requirements. You don’t.
Just a few short years ago, it would have been illegal to even have
been a WISP. Be thankful for what you have. Gheeze already.
*From:* mailto:t...@franklinisp.net
*Sent:* Saturday, January 31, 2015 8:19 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
No one on this List or the FCC will convince me that the telco needed
this to get federal funds to help them with network builds. THEY have
PISSED AWAY all USF funds they keep getting. How the hell do you think
Century Link bought Embarq!
The USF FEE has been around since 1934 and added to in 1996. All for
the very purpose to support these idiots.
I want everyone who voted for this rule fired and citizenship revoked!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 30, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net
mailto:gwl...@cngwireless.net wrote:
According to 477, if I have a census area that only has 1Mbps
customers, then that area is labeled under served, correct?
Looks like the FCC just figured a way to hand their buddies grant
money or (dons tin foil hat) ultimately take over the Internet
infrastructure.
- Original Message -
*From:* Bill Prince mailto:part15...@gmail.com
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I didn't expect Chuck to fix it, but because something is hard doesn't mean you
ignore it.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:21:19 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
People have been complaining about that for decades.
Think we will make a difference here?
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com On 1/31/2015 8:14 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Seems more logical to fix the high cost process than to enable it.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:12:38 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Just the cost of BLM compliance to extend fiber to a few homes in Nevada exceed
$20K per home. When you do it the government way, it costs 10 times more than
in reasonable. So they compensate with providing a way to serve the debt.
From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 8:54 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Just as WISPs have been, I think RLECs have been painted with a large brush.
Many good, fewer (but too many) bad apples. Those stories of $20k+/year in
subsidies per line. The reception of subsidies (of any amount) to bring the
rural cost of a line less than the urban cost of a line. Windstream and
CenturyTel both bringing in enough bonus USF money to have scaled as large as
they have in the past decade. Those are all excessive.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 9:45:52 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I don’t think the USF pool happened prior to NECA. It started with the 1996 act
I believe. Before NECA ATT was in charge of sharing the bounty with the rural
telcos. There was a doctrine of USF but the guvmn’t had nothing to do with it.
ATT was in charge. Or rather in CHARGE writ LARGE.
You used to have to battle ATT to get your piece of the pie. Similar if all
the ISPs had to go battle with XO if everyone was on usage based billing and
you gave all your monies to XO praying they give you back your share. That is
the regime that all the rural telcos lived under for most of the history of
telcos.
Divesture broke that up, formed NECA and established a true USF. This was prior
to the internet. This was to allow the mom and pop telcos in the rural areas to
get their fair share. They were (and many are) just like all of you guys. Don’t
hate on them just because they enjoy the pioneers preference. They bought a
cord board and spent their lives running wires to each house. They borrowed
from the RUS and were helped a bit with subsidies. Why hate them? They were
just like you, just 100 years ago.
Just because the WISP world came along later and could do many of the same
things cheaper and better, it comes of sounding sour grapes when the telcos get
the benefit if a long history of providing good service. They are all currently
deploying FTTH and that is clearly where the FCC wants them to be.
Moreover they have a legal “duty to carry” which is a common carrier doctrine
dating back to the Roman Empire. They have many other duties, burdens and
regulatory requirements. You don’t.
Just a few short years ago, it would have been illegal to even have been a
WISP. Be thankful for what you have. Gheeze already.
From: mailto:t...@franklinisp.net
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 8:19 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
No one on this List or the FCC will convince me that the telco needed this to
get federal funds to help them with network builds. THEY have PISSED AWAY all
USF funds they keep getting. How the hell do you think Century Link bought
Embarq!
The USF FEE has been around since 1934 and added to in 1996. All for the very
purpose to support these idiots.
I want everyone who voted for this rule fired and citizenship revoked!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 30, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net wrote:
blockquote
According to 477, if I have a census area that only has 1Mbps customers, then
that area is labeled under served, correct?
Looks like the FCC just figured a way to hand their buddies grant money or
(dons tin foil hat) ultimately take over the Internet infrastructure.
blockquote
- Original Message -
From: Bill Prince
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I don't know if we can answer that question until we see how the rule is worded
if and when it actually becomes a rule.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com On 1/30/2015 12
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Hey I know Jack Schitt. Nice fella.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNqLSch84aQ
Not sure if he is a Comcast customer though. J
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 11:12 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Jack Shit? Is he another Comcast customer?
http://elliott.org/blog/hello-dummy-comcast-calls-customers-shocking-names/
From: Mike Hammett mailto:af...@ics-il.net
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 10:29 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
According to Corran, it doesn't mean jack shit yet. There's no regulation or
funding tied to it.
-
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
_
From: Jason McKemie j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 7:06:38 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Doesn't this just mean if you don't offer service of at least 25mbps your area
won't count as served? I'm pretty sure you can call your service whatever you
damn well please.
On Friday, January 30, 2015, Mark Radabaugh m...@amplex.net wrote:
Keep in mind the cable companies don't get federal subsidies. The cable data
operations are unregulated information service exactly like us, and they can
easily meet the 25/3.
They are opposed because it means the telcos are going to be given federal
money to upgrade to 25/3 and become competition.
Cable spends it's own money to compete, just like us. They are equally ticked
over changing the definition so that their competition, who has not spent their
own money, and waited for government handouts is going to be rewarded.
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex
27800 Lemoyne, Ste F
Millbury, OH 43447
419-261-5996
On Jan 30, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote:
I found it interesting that the cable companies were claiming to be against
this change. This seems handcrafted by them if you ask me. Every year when
they request funding the WISPs in those areas (with the help of WISPA) file
claims against them receiving those funds under the basis that 'broadband' is
already available in those areas where they are claiming that it is not. This
has actually worked fairly well in keeping those entities from receiving those
funds. Now, almost none of us meet the 'broadband' qualification and now they
can use the government funds to build out on top of us almost uncontested.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote:
My company is called 'Blue Spring Broadband'. I will not be changing my name.
We offer dedicated connections up to 100Mbps, and more on a case-by-case basis
(ie. I would offer 1Gbps near the NOC to anyone willing to pay for it).
Although we do not offer more than 15x3 to residential currently, I still
believe we can be classified as a broadband service provider. I happily give
quotes on a 25x25 dedicated unlimited connection to any residential customers
that ask for it ($1K/mo. roughly). Until some governing entity tells me
different that is my stance.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Ken Hohhof af...@kwisp.com wrote:
It’s depressing to think about all the government money that went to subsidize
1 Mbps (if that) Hughesnet service under the recovery act.
The contradiction is like setting a standard that every citizen must get fresh
whole grain organic locally grown low sugar low sodium food, just a couple
years after handing out pork rinds, moon pies and Jolt cola in the school lunch
program.
From: Bill Prince
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:22 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
+1. They have the added complication that they are way oversubscribed compared
to almost everything else.
Let's not even mention latency.
If broadband included something about latency (like just 200 ms for
instance), then they would lose big time.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/30/2015 1:17 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:
Doubtful. They can't sustain those speeds wide spread any better than we can.
- Original Message -
From: That One Guy
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
at those sustained speeds, the only tech that could realistically deliver to
the rural market right now would be satellite wouldnt it
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband li...@smarterbroadband.com
wrote:
+1
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Even if you don’t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can’t you
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Just as WISPs have been, I think RLECs have been painted with a large brush.
Many good, fewer (but too many) bad apples. Those stories of $20k+/year in
subsidies per line. The reception of subsidies (of any amount) to bring the
rural cost of a line less than the urban cost of a line. Windstream and
CenturyTel both bringing in enough bonus USF money to have scaled as large as
they have in the past decade. Those are all excessive.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 9:45:52 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I don’t think the USF pool happened prior to NECA. It started with the 1996 act
I believe. Before NECA ATT was in charge of sharing the bounty with the rural
telcos. There was a doctrine of USF but the guvmn’t had nothing to do with it.
ATT was in charge. Or rather in CHARGE writ LARGE.
You used to have to battle ATT to get your piece of the pie. Similar if all
the ISPs had to go battle with XO if everyone was on usage based billing and
you gave all your monies to XO praying they give you back your share. That is
the regime that all the rural telcos lived under for most of the history of
telcos.
Divesture broke that up, formed NECA and established a true USF. This was prior
to the internet. This was to allow the mom and pop telcos in the rural areas to
get their fair share. They were (and many are) just like all of you guys. Don’t
hate on them just because they enjoy the pioneers preference. They bought a
cord board and spent their lives running wires to each house. They borrowed
from the RUS and were helped a bit with subsidies. Why hate them? They were
just like you, just 100 years ago.
Just because the WISP world came along later and could do many of the same
things cheaper and better, it comes of sounding sour grapes when the telcos get
the benefit if a long history of providing good service. They are all currently
deploying FTTH and that is clearly where the FCC wants them to be.
Moreover they have a legal “duty to carry” which is a common carrier doctrine
dating back to the Roman Empire. They have many other duties, burdens and
regulatory requirements. You don’t.
Just a few short years ago, it would have been illegal to even have been a
WISP. Be thankful for what you have. Gheeze already.
From: mailto:t...@franklinisp.net
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 8:19 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
No one on this List or the FCC will convince me that the telco needed this to
get federal funds to help them with network builds. THEY have PISSED AWAY all
USF funds they keep getting. How the hell do you think Century Link bought
Embarq!
The USF FEE has been around since 1934 and added to in 1996. All for the very
purpose to support these idiots.
I want everyone who voted for this rule fired and citizenship revoked!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 30, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net wrote:
According to 477, if I have a census area that only has 1Mbps customers, then
that area is labeled under served, correct?
Looks like the FCC just figured a way to hand their buddies grant money or
(dons tin foil hat) ultimately take over the Internet infrastructure.
blockquote
- Original Message -
From: Bill Prince
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I don't know if we can answer that question until we see how the rule is worded
if and when it actually becomes a rule.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com On 1/30/2015 12:21 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
blockquote
Even if you don�t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can�t you just put a plan rate
for 25Mbps and give it some ridiculous price that no one will ever buy, then
claim broadband?
�
I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn�t be broadband, but your company
could be branded as selling broadband?
�
From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet
Communications Inc
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org
Cc: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
�
!--[if !supportLists]-- 1. ������ !--[endif]--Is the 25Mbps
classification immediate?
!--[if !supportLists]-- 2. ������ !--[endif]--What are you NOW
going to call your previously determined �broadband� service?
�
�
Tyson Burris, President
Internet Communications Inc.
739 Commerce Dr.
Franklin, IN 46131
�
317-738-0320 Daytime #
317-412-1540 Cell/Direct #
Online: www.surfici.net
�
mime-attachment.png
What can ICI do for you?
Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP
Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.
�
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Trying to find a pony in this pile of manure, I guess we could look at this as saying they’re not going to give the telcos CAF money for 10/1 and watch them take 5 years and just deploy some ADSL2+ remote DSLAMs on existing copper, we want the money spent on fiber so it will still be useful in 20 years. And the results might be that the welfare queens of the telco business like CenturyLink decide not to take the money if they have to put in actual FTTH. But why 25/3 and not 25/25, or 100/50 like in the Broadband plan? When I hear 25/3, it sounds like you put a Netflix guy and a UVerse guy in a room and asked them to suggest a number. If there was a Google Fiber guy in the room, he would roll his eyes. Assuming most CAF funded projects will take 3-5 years from now, most of us will probably have 25/3 capability by then anyway if you extrapolate current trends (although the most popular plan will probably still be whatever costs between $35 and $50). If they are going to give the telco CAF money to overbuild us, and especially if we have to pay into the fund, I guess I’d like to see the money spent on a future proof network, not just subsidize the telcos to deploy some remote DSLAMS. So one argument could be the benchmark isn’t high enough. After all, the 2010 National Broadband Plan set goals of 100 million homes having access to 100M/50M by the end of the decade, and all anchor institutions having access to 1 gigabit. Unfortunately, whether the goal is set at 25/3 or 100/50, it doesn’t help the people who still don’t have access to (or can’t afford) 4/1. As CAF money is used to build 25/3 for the people with 4K televisions, will there be low cost plans for the people who really just want 4/1 at an affordable price? From: Jeremy Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 11:15 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions I did not realize that. I thought that both the cable and telcos were subsidized. That makes sense why they would be opposing it then. On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Mark Radabaugh m...@amplex.net wrote: Keep in mind the cable companies don't get federal subsidies. The cable data operations are unregulated information service exactly like us, and they can easily meet the 25/3. They are opposed because it means the telcos are going to be given federal money to upgrade to 25/3 and become competition. Cable spends it's own money to compete, just like us. They are equally ticked over changing the definition so that their competition, who has not spent their own money, and waited for government handouts is going to be rewarded. Mark Radabaugh Amplex 27800 Lemoyne, Ste F Millbury, OH 43447 419-261-5996 On Jan 30, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote: I found it interesting that the cable companies were claiming to be against this change. This seems handcrafted by them if you ask me. Every year when they request funding the WISPs in those areas (with the help of WISPA) file claims against them receiving those funds under the basis that 'broadband' is already available in those areas where they are claiming that it is not. This has actually worked fairly well in keeping those entities from receiving those funds. Now, almost none of us meet the 'broadband' qualification and now they can use the government funds to build out on top of us almost uncontested. On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote: My company is called 'Blue Spring Broadband'. I will not be changing my name. We offer dedicated connections up to 100Mbps, and more on a case-by-case basis (ie. I would offer 1Gbps near the NOC to anyone willing to pay for it). Although we do not offer more than 15x3 to residential currently, I still believe we can be classified as a broadband service provider. I happily give quotes on a 25x25 dedicated unlimited connection to any residential customers that ask for it ($1K/mo. roughly). Until some governing entity tells me different that is my stance. On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Ken Hohhof af...@kwisp.com wrote: It’s depressing to think about all the government money that went to subsidize 1 Mbps (if that) Hughesnet service under the recovery act. The contradiction is like setting a standard that every citizen must get fresh whole grain organic locally grown low sugar low sodium food, just a couple years after handing out pork rinds, moon pies and Jolt cola in the school lunch program. From: Bill Prince Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:22 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions +1. They have the added complication that they are way oversubscribed compared to almost everything else. Let's not even mention latency. If broadband included something about latency (like just 200 ms for instance), then they would lose
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
My career in the telecom industry spanned mostly the 80’s and 90’s, the period
that included equal access, divestiture, and the 1996 Telecom Act that launched
all the CLECs. What I saw was a transition from the maternalistic attitude of
Ma Bell (Mom as benevolent dictator) to a bunker mentality following 1996. It
really seemed like the RBOCs saw themselves under attack and pretty much said
OK you bastards, if that’s how you want it, the gloves are off, we are looking
out for ourselves now. (more like Mom from Futurama) Of course I’m not
talking about the rural telcos, which is a different story, as Chuck notes.
From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 9:54 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Just as WISPs have been, I think RLECs have been painted with a large brush.
Many good, fewer (but too many) bad apples. Those stories of $20k+/year in
subsidies per line. The reception of subsidies (of any amount) to bring the
rural cost of a line less than the urban cost of a line. Windstream and
CenturyTel both bringing in enough bonus USF money to have scaled as large as
they have in the past decade. Those are all excessive.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
From: Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 9:45:52 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I don’t think the USF pool happened prior to NECA. It started with the 1996
act I believe. Before NECA ATT was in charge of sharing the bounty with the
rural telcos. There was a doctrine of USF but the guvmn’t had nothing to do
with it. ATT was in charge. Or rather in CHARGE writ LARGE.
You used to have to battle ATT to get your piece of the pie. Similar if all
the ISPs had to go battle with XO if everyone was on usage based billing and
you gave all your monies to XO praying they give you back your share. That is
the regime that all the rural telcos lived under for most of the history of
telcos.
Divesture broke that up, formed NECA and established a true USF. This was
prior to the internet. This was to allow the mom and pop telcos in the rural
areas to get their fair share. They were (and many are) just like all of you
guys. Don’t hate on them just because they enjoy the pioneers preference.
They bought a cord board and spent their lives running wires to each house.
They borrowed from the RUS and were helped a bit with subsidies. Why hate
them? They were just like you, just 100 years ago.
Just because the WISP world came along later and could do many of the same
things cheaper and better, it comes of sounding sour grapes when the telcos
get the benefit if a long history of providing good service. They are all
currently deploying FTTH and that is clearly where the FCC wants them to be.
Moreover they have a legal “duty to carry” which is a common carrier doctrine
dating back to the Roman Empire. They have many other duties, burdens and
regulatory requirements. You don’t.
Just a few short years ago, it would have been illegal to even have been a
WISP. Be thankful for what you have. Gheeze already.
From: mailto:t...@franklinisp.net
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 8:19 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
No one on this List or the FCC will convince me that the telco needed this to
get federal funds to help them with network builds. THEY have PISSED AWAY all
USF funds they keep getting. How the hell do you think Century Link bought
Embarq!
The USF FEE has been around since 1934 and added to in 1996. All for the very
purpose to support these idiots.
I want everyone who voted for this rule fired and citizenship revoked!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 30, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net wrote:
According to 477, if I have a census area that only has 1Mbps customers, then
that area is labeled under served, correct?
Looks like the FCC just figured a way to hand their buddies grant money or
(dons tin foil hat) ultimately take over the Internet infrastructure.
- Original Message -
From: Bill Prince
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I don't know if we can answer that question until we see how the rule is
worded if and when it actually becomes a rule.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/30/2015 12:21 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
Even if you don�t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can�t you just put a
plan rate for 25Mbps and give it some ridiculous price that no one will ever
buy, then claim broadband?
�
I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn�t be broadband, but your
company could be branded as selling broadband?
�
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Are rural telcos willing to bury fiber and only get Internet revenue, while the
cellcos get the voice revenue and OTT content providers get the video revenue?
And if 25/3 mobile broadband becomes available, will this keep the telco from
getting CAF money for fiber? I forget how that works.
From: Chuck McCown
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 11:01 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I honestly believe the following:
The FCC and the powerful lobbies don’t give a rat’s ass about WISPS and they
wish they would die.
Hell will reach a temperature 100 degrees (K) below absolute zero before WISPS
get a piece of the USF and settlement pie.
Telcos will continue to get large welfare payments until there is 100% FTTH in
all areas but the former RBOC areas.
RBOC areas will continue to increasingly become the wild wild west of service
providers providing the true competition that the 96 act wanted.
WISPS have more challenges when competing with rural ILECS. They need to bury
fiber and try to attain peer status with the ILECS. Then maybe a piece of the
pie could be shared.
From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 9:22 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I didn't expect Chuck to fix it, but because something is hard doesn't mean you
ignore it.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
From: Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:21:19 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
People have been complaining about that for decades.
Think we will make a difference here?
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/31/2015 8:14 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Seems more logical to fix the high cost process than to enable it.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
From: Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:12:38 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Just the cost of BLM compliance to extend fiber to a few homes in Nevada
exceed $20K per home. When you do it the government way, it costs 10 times
more than in reasonable. So they compensate with providing a way to serve the
debt.
From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 8:54 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Just as WISPs have been, I think RLECs have been painted with a large brush.
Many good, fewer (but too many) bad apples. Those stories of $20k+/year in
subsidies per line. The reception of subsidies (of any amount) to bring the
rural cost of a line less than the urban cost of a line. Windstream and
CenturyTel both bringing in enough bonus USF money to have scaled as large as
they have in the past decade. Those are all excessive.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
From: Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 9:45:52 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I don’t think the USF pool happened prior to NECA. It started with the 1996
act I believe. Before NECA ATT was in charge of sharing the bounty with the
rural telcos. There was a doctrine of USF but the guvmn’t had nothing to do
with it. ATT was in charge. Or rather in CHARGE writ LARGE.
You used to have to battle ATT to get your piece of the pie. Similar if all
the ISPs had to go battle with XO if everyone was on usage based billing and
you gave all your monies to XO praying they give you back your share. That is
the regime that all the rural telcos lived under for most of the history of
telcos.
Divesture broke that up, formed NECA and established a true USF. This was
prior to the internet. This was to allow the mom and pop telcos in the rural
areas to get their fair share. They were (and many are) just like all of you
guys. Don’t hate on them just because they enjoy the pioneers preference.
They bought a cord board and spent their lives running wires to each house.
They borrowed from the RUS and were helped a bit with subsidies. Why hate
them? They were just like you, just 100 years ago.
Just because the WISP world came along later and could do many of the same
things cheaper and better, it comes of sounding sour grapes when the telcos
get the benefit if a long history of providing good service. They are all
currently deploying FTTH and that is clearly where the FCC wants them to be.
Moreover they have a legal “duty to carry” which is a common carrier doctrine
dating back to the Roman Empire. They have many other duties
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
In reality, with the subsidies that exist, rural telcos could bury fiber for
telco only.
From: Ken Hohhof
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:15 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Are rural telcos willing to bury fiber and only get Internet revenue, while the
cellcos get the voice revenue and OTT content providers get the video revenue?
And if 25/3 mobile broadband becomes available, will this keep the telco from
getting CAF money for fiber? I forget how that works.
From: Chuck McCown
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 11:01 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I honestly believe the following:
The FCC and the powerful lobbies don’t give a rat’s ass about WISPS and they
wish they would die.
Hell will reach a temperature 100 degrees (K) below absolute zero before WISPS
get a piece of the USF and settlement pie.
Telcos will continue to get large welfare payments until there is 100% FTTH in
all areas but the former RBOC areas.
RBOC areas will continue to increasingly become the wild wild west of service
providers providing the true competition that the 96 act wanted.
WISPS have more challenges when competing with rural ILECS. They need to bury
fiber and try to attain peer status with the ILECS. Then maybe a piece of the
pie could be shared.
From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 9:22 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I didn't expect Chuck to fix it, but because something is hard doesn't mean you
ignore it.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
From: Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:21:19 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
People have been complaining about that for decades.
Think we will make a difference here?
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/31/2015 8:14 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Seems more logical to fix the high cost process than to enable it.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
From: Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:12:38 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Just the cost of BLM compliance to extend fiber to a few homes in Nevada
exceed $20K per home. When you do it the government way, it costs 10 times
more than in reasonable. So they compensate with providing a way to serve the
debt.
From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 8:54 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Just as WISPs have been, I think RLECs have been painted with a large brush.
Many good, fewer (but too many) bad apples. Those stories of $20k+/year in
subsidies per line. The reception of subsidies (of any amount) to bring the
rural cost of a line less than the urban cost of a line. Windstream and
CenturyTel both bringing in enough bonus USF money to have scaled as large as
they have in the past decade. Those are all excessive.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
From: Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 9:45:52 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I don’t think the USF pool happened prior to NECA. It started with the 1996
act I believe. Before NECA ATT was in charge of sharing the bounty with the
rural telcos. There was a doctrine of USF but the guvmn’t had nothing to do
with it. ATT was in charge. Or rather in CHARGE writ LARGE.
You used to have to battle ATT to get your piece of the pie. Similar if all
the ISPs had to go battle with XO if everyone was on usage based billing and
you gave all your monies to XO praying they give you back your share. That is
the regime that all the rural telcos lived under for most of the history of
telcos.
Divesture broke that up, formed NECA and established a true USF. This was
prior to the internet. This was to allow the mom and pop telcos in the rural
areas to get their fair share. They were (and many are) just like all of you
guys. Don’t hate on them just because they enjoy the pioneers preference.
They bought a cord board and spent their lives running wires to each house.
They borrowed from the RUS and were helped a bit with subsidies. Why hate
them? They were just like you, just 100 years ago.
Just because the WISP world came along later and could do many of the same
things cheaper and better, it comes of sounding sour grapes when the telcos
get the benefit if a long history of providing good service. They are all
currently
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I honestly believe the following:
The FCC and the powerful lobbies don’t give a rat’s ass about WISPS and they
wish they would die.
Hell will reach a temperature 100 degrees (K) below absolute zero before WISPS
get a piece of the USF and settlement pie.
Telcos will continue to get large welfare payments until there is 100% FTTH in
all areas but the former RBOC areas.
RBOC areas will continue to increasingly become the wild wild west of service
providers providing the true competition that the 96 act wanted.
WISPS have more challenges when competing with rural ILECS. They need to bury
fiber and try to attain peer status with the ILECS. Then maybe a piece of the
pie could be shared.
From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 9:22 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I didn't expect Chuck to fix it, but because something is hard doesn't mean you
ignore it.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
From: Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:21:19 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
People have been complaining about that for decades.
Think we will make a difference here?
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/31/2015 8:14 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Seems more logical to fix the high cost process than to enable it.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
From: Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:12:38 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Just the cost of BLM compliance to extend fiber to a few homes in Nevada
exceed $20K per home. When you do it the government way, it costs 10 times
more than in reasonable. So they compensate with providing a way to serve the
debt.
From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 8:54 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Just as WISPs have been, I think RLECs have been painted with a large brush.
Many good, fewer (but too many) bad apples. Those stories of $20k+/year in
subsidies per line. The reception of subsidies (of any amount) to bring the
rural cost of a line less than the urban cost of a line. Windstream and
CenturyTel both bringing in enough bonus USF money to have scaled as large as
they have in the past decade. Those are all excessive.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
From: Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 9:45:52 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I don’t think the USF pool happened prior to NECA. It started with the 1996
act I believe. Before NECA ATT was in charge of sharing the bounty with the
rural telcos. There was a doctrine of USF but the guvmn’t had nothing to do
with it. ATT was in charge. Or rather in CHARGE writ LARGE.
You used to have to battle ATT to get your piece of the pie. Similar if all
the ISPs had to go battle with XO if everyone was on usage based billing and
you gave all your monies to XO praying they give you back your share. That is
the regime that all the rural telcos lived under for most of the history of
telcos.
Divesture broke that up, formed NECA and established a true USF. This was
prior to the internet. This was to allow the mom and pop telcos in the rural
areas to get their fair share. They were (and many are) just like all of you
guys. Don’t hate on them just because they enjoy the pioneers preference.
They bought a cord board and spent their lives running wires to each house.
They borrowed from the RUS and were helped a bit with subsidies. Why hate
them? They were just like you, just 100 years ago.
Just because the WISP world came along later and could do many of the same
things cheaper and better, it comes of sounding sour grapes when the telcos
get the benefit if a long history of providing good service. They are all
currently deploying FTTH and that is clearly where the FCC wants them to be.
Moreover they have a legal “duty to carry” which is a common carrier doctrine
dating back to the Roman Empire. They have many other duties, burdens and
regulatory requirements. You don’t.
Just a few short years ago, it would have been illegal to even have been a
WISP. Be thankful for what you have. Gheeze already.
From: mailto:t...@franklinisp.net
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 8:19 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
No one on this List or the FCC will convince me that the telco needed this to
get federal
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Why aren't they?
___
Mangled by my iPhone.
___
Tyler Treat
Corn Belt Technologies, Inc.
tyler.tr...@cornbelttech.commailto:tyler.tr...@cornbelttech.com
___
On Jan 31, 2015, at 11:27 AM, Chuck McCown
ch...@wbmfg.commailto:ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
In reality, with the subsidies that exist, rural telcos could bury fiber for
telco only.
From: Ken Hohhofmailto:af...@kwisp.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:15 AM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Are rural telcos willing to bury fiber and only get Internet revenue, while the
cellcos get the voice revenue and OTT content providers get the video revenue?
And if 25/3 mobile broadband becomes available, will this keep the telco from
getting CAF money for fiber? I forget how that works.
From: Chuck McCownmailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 11:01 AM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I honestly believe the following:
The FCC and the powerful lobbies don’t give a rat’s ass about WISPS and they
wish they would die.
Hell will reach a temperature 100 degrees (K) below absolute zero before WISPS
get a piece of the USF and settlement pie.
Telcos will continue to get large welfare payments until there is 100% FTTH in
all areas but the former RBOC areas.
RBOC areas will continue to increasingly become the wild wild west of service
providers providing the true competition that the 96 act wanted.
WISPS have more challenges when competing with rural ILECS. They need to bury
fiber and try to attain peer status with the ILECS. Then maybe a piece of the
pie could be shared.
From: Mike Hammettmailto:af...@ics-il.net
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 9:22 AM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I didn't expect Chuck to fix it, but because something is hard doesn't mean you
ignore it.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]https://twitter.com/ICSIL
From: Bill Prince part15...@gmail.commailto:part15...@gmail.com
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:21:19 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
People have been complaining about that for decades.
Think we will make a difference here?
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/31/2015 8:14 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Seems more logical to fix the high cost process than to enable it.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]https://twitter.com/ICSIL
From: Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:12:38 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Just the cost of BLM compliance to extend fiber to a few homes in Nevada exceed
$20K per home. When you do it the government way, it costs 10 times more than
in reasonable. So they compensate with providing a way to serve the debt.
From: Mike Hammettmailto:af...@ics-il.net
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 8:54 AM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Just as WISPs have been, I think RLECs have been painted with a large brush.
Many good, fewer (but too many) bad apples. Those stories of $20k+/year in
subsidies per line. The reception of subsidies (of any amount) to bring the
rural cost of a line less than the urban cost of a line. Windstream and
CenturyTel both bringing in enough bonus USF money to have scaled as large as
they have in the past decade. Those are all excessive.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]https://twitter.com/ICSIL
From: Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 9:45:52 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
They are, slowly.
From: Tyler Treat
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:34 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Why aren't they?
___
Mangled by my iPhone.
___
Tyler Treat
Corn Belt Technologies, Inc.
tyler.tr...@cornbelttech.com
___
On Jan 31, 2015, at 11:27 AM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
In reality, with the subsidies that exist, rural telcos could bury fiber for
telco only.
From: Ken Hohhof
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:15 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Are rural telcos willing to bury fiber and only get Internet revenue, while
the cellcos get the voice revenue and OTT content providers get the video
revenue?
And if 25/3 mobile broadband becomes available, will this keep the telco from
getting CAF money for fiber? I forget how that works.
From: Chuck McCown
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 11:01 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I honestly believe the following:
The FCC and the powerful lobbies don’t give a rat’s ass about WISPS and they
wish they would die.
Hell will reach a temperature 100 degrees (K) below absolute zero before
WISPS get a piece of the USF and settlement pie.
Telcos will continue to get large welfare payments until there is 100% FTTH
in all areas but the former RBOC areas.
RBOC areas will continue to increasingly become the wild wild west of service
providers providing the true competition that the 96 act wanted.
WISPS have more challenges when competing with rural ILECS. They need to
bury fiber and try to attain peer status with the ILECS. Then maybe a piece of
the pie could be shared.
From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 9:22 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I didn't expect Chuck to fix it, but because something is hard doesn't mean
you ignore it.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
From: Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:21:19 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
People have been complaining about that for decades.
Think we will make a difference here?
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/31/2015 8:14 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Seems more logical to fix the high cost process than to enable it.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
From: Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:12:38 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Just the cost of BLM compliance to extend fiber to a few homes in Nevada
exceed $20K per home. When you do it the government way, it costs 10 times
more than in reasonable. So they compensate with providing a way to serve the
debt.
From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 8:54 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Just as WISPs have been, I think RLECs have been painted with a large
brush. Many good, fewer (but too many) bad apples. Those stories of $20k+/year
in subsidies per line. The reception of subsidies (of any amount) to bring the
rural cost of a line less than the urban cost of a line. Windstream and
CenturyTel both bringing in enough bonus USF money to have scaled as large as
they have in the past decade. Those are all excessive.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
From: Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 9:45:52 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I don’t think the USF pool happened prior to NECA. It started with the
1996 act I believe. Before NECA ATT was in charge of sharing the bounty with
the rural telcos. There was a doctrine of USF but the guvmn’t had nothing to
do with it. ATT was in charge. Or rather in CHARGE writ LARGE.
You used to have to battle ATT to get your piece of the pie. Similar if
all the ISPs had to go battle with XO if everyone was on usage based billing
and you gave all your monies to XO praying they give you back your share.
That is the regime that all the rural telcos lived under for most of the
history of telcos.
Divesture broke that up, formed NECA and established a true USF. This was
prior to the internet. This was to allow the mom and pop telcos in the rural
areas to get their fair share. They were (and many are) just like all of you
guys
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I still love Gallagher’s joke on opposites. If the opposite of pro is con then the opposite of progress is ……. wait for it….. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 5:22 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions You didn't just use the word logical in reference to anything involving our government, did you? - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett mailto:af...@ics-il.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:14 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions Seems more logical to fix the high cost process than to enable it. - 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 _ From: Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:12:38 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions Just the cost of BLM compliance to extend fiber to a few homes in Nevada exceed $20K per home. When you do it the government way, it costs 10 times more than in reasonable. So they compensate with providing a way to serve the debt. From: Mike Hammett mailto:af...@ics-il.net Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 8:54 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions Just as WISPs have been, I think RLECs have been painted with a large brush. Many good, fewer (but too many) bad apples. Those stories of $20k+/year in subsidies per line. The reception of subsidies (of any amount) to bring the rural cost of a line less than the urban cost of a line. Windstream and CenturyTel both bringing in enough bonus USF money to have scaled as large as they have in the past decade. Those are all excessive. - 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 _ From: Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 9:45:52 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions I don’t think the USF pool happened prior to NECA. It started with the 1996 act I believe. Before NECA ATT was in charge of sharing the bounty with the rural telcos. There was a doctrine of USF but the guvmn’t had nothing to do with it. ATT was in charge. Or rather in CHARGE writ LARGE. You used to have to battle ATT to get your piece of the pie. Similar if all the ISPs had to go battle with XO if everyone was on usage based billing and you gave all your monies to XO praying they give you back your share. That is the regime that all the rural telcos lived under for most of the history of telcos. Divesture broke that up, formed NECA and established a true USF. This was prior to the internet. This was to allow the mom and pop telcos in the rural areas to get their fair share. They were (and many are) just like all of you guys. Don’t hate on them just because they enjoy the pioneers preference. They bought a cord board and spent their lives running wires to each house. They borrowed from the RUS and were helped a bit with subsidies. Why hate them? They were just like you, just 100 years ago. Just because the WISP world came along later and could do many of the same things cheaper and better, it comes of sounding sour grapes when the telcos get the benefit if a long history of providing good service. They are all currently deploying FTTH and that is clearly where the FCC wants them to be. Moreover they have a legal “duty to carry” which is a common carrier doctrine dating back to the Roman Empire. They have many other duties, burdens and regulatory requirements. You don’t. Just a few short years ago, it would have been illegal to even have been a WISP. Be thankful for what you have. Gheeze already. From: mailto:t...@franklinisp.net Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 8:19 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions No one on this List or the FCC will convince me that the telco needed this to get federal funds to help them with network builds. THEY have PISSED AWAY all USF funds they keep getting. How the hell do you think Century Link bought Embarq! The USF FEE has been around since 1934 and added to in 1996. All for the very purpose to support these idiots. I want everyone who voted for this rule fired and citizenship revoked! Sent from my iPhone On Jan 30, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net wrote: According to 477, if I have a census area that only has 1Mbps customers, then that area is labeled under served, correct? Looks like the FCC
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
You didn't just use the word logical in reference to anything involving our
government, did you?
- Original Message -
From: Mike Hammett
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Seems more logical to fix the high cost process than to enable it.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
From: Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:12:38 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Just the cost of BLM compliance to extend fiber to a few homes in Nevada
exceed $20K per home. When you do it the government way, it costs 10 times
more than in reasonable. So they compensate with providing a way to serve the
debt.
From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 8:54 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Just as WISPs have been, I think RLECs have been painted with a large brush.
Many good, fewer (but too many) bad apples. Those stories of $20k+/year in
subsidies per line. The reception of subsidies (of any amount) to bring the
rural cost of a line less than the urban cost of a line. Windstream and
CenturyTel both bringing in enough bonus USF money to have scaled as large as
they have in the past decade. Those are all excessive.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
From: Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 9:45:52 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I don’t think the USF pool happened prior to NECA. It started with the 1996
act I believe. Before NECA ATT was in charge of sharing the bounty with the
rural telcos. There was a doctrine of USF but the guvmn’t had nothing to do
with it. ATT was in charge. Or rather in CHARGE writ LARGE.
You used to have to battle ATT to get your piece of the pie. Similar if all
the ISPs had to go battle with XO if everyone was on usage based billing and
you gave all your monies to XO praying they give you back your share. That is
the regime that all the rural telcos lived under for most of the history of
telcos.
Divesture broke that up, formed NECA and established a true USF. This was
prior to the internet. This was to allow the mom and pop telcos in the rural
areas to get their fair share. They were (and many are) just like all of you
guys. Don’t hate on them just because they enjoy the pioneers preference.
They bought a cord board and spent their lives running wires to each house.
They borrowed from the RUS and were helped a bit with subsidies. Why hate
them? They were just like you, just 100 years ago.
Just because the WISP world came along later and could do many of the same
things cheaper and better, it comes of sounding sour grapes when the telcos
get the benefit if a long history of providing good service. They are all
currently deploying FTTH and that is clearly where the FCC wants them to be.
Moreover they have a legal “duty to carry” which is a common carrier doctrine
dating back to the Roman Empire. They have many other duties, burdens and
regulatory requirements. You don’t.
Just a few short years ago, it would have been illegal to even have been a
WISP. Be thankful for what you have. Gheeze already.
From: mailto:t...@franklinisp.net
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 8:19 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
No one on this List or the FCC will convince me that the telco needed this to
get federal funds to help them with network builds. THEY have PISSED AWAY all
USF funds they keep getting. How the hell do you think Century Link bought
Embarq!
The USF FEE has been around since 1934 and added to in 1996. All for the
very purpose to support these idiots.
I want everyone who voted for this rule fired and citizenship revoked!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 30, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net wrote:
According to 477, if I have a census area that only has 1Mbps customers,
then that area is labeled under served, correct?
Looks like the FCC just figured a way to hand their buddies grant money or
(dons tin foil hat) ultimately take over the Internet infrastructure.
- Original Message -
From: Bill Prince
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I don't know if we can answer that question until we see how the rule is
worded if and when it actually becomes a rule.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/30/2015 12:21 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
Even if you don�t
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I found it interesting that the cable companies were claiming to be against
this change. This seems handcrafted by them if you ask me. Every year
when they request funding the WISPs in those areas (with the help of WISPA)
file claims against them receiving those funds under the basis that
'broadband' is already available in those areas where they are claiming
that it is not. This has actually worked fairly well in keeping those
entities from receiving those funds. Now, almost none of us meet the
'broadband' qualification and now they can use the government funds to
build out on top of us almost uncontested.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote:
My company is called 'Blue Spring Broadband'. I will not be changing my
name. We offer dedicated connections up to 100Mbps, and more on a
case-by-case basis (ie. I would offer 1Gbps near the NOC to anyone willing
to pay for it). Although we do not offer more than 15x3 to residential
currently, I still believe we can be classified as a broadband service
provider. I happily give quotes on a 25x25 dedicated unlimited connection
to any residential customers that ask for it ($1K/mo. roughly). Until some
governing entity tells me different that is my stance.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Ken Hohhof af...@kwisp.com wrote:
It’s depressing to think about all the government money that went to
subsidize 1 Mbps (if that) Hughesnet service under the recovery act.
The contradiction is like setting a standard that every citizen must get
fresh whole grain organic locally grown low sugar low sodium food, just a
couple years after handing out pork rinds, moon pies and Jolt cola in the
school lunch program.
*From:* Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 3:22 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
+1. They have the added complication that they are way oversubscribed
compared to almost everything else.
Let's not even mention latency.
If broadband included something about latency (like just 200 ms for
instance), then they would lose big time.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/30/2015 1:17 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:
Doubtful. They can't sustain those speeds wide spread any better than we
can.
- Original Message -
*From:* That One Guy thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 3:12 PM
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
at those sustained speeds, the only tech that could realistically deliver
to the rural market right now would be satellite wouldnt it
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband
li...@smarterbroadband.com wrote:
+1
*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Sterling
Jacobson
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 12:21 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Even if you don’t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can’t you just put a plan
rate for 25Mbps and give it some ridiculous price that no one will ever
buy, then claim broadband?
I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn’t be broadband, but your
company could be branded as selling broadband?
*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com af-boun...@afmug.com] *On
Behalf Of *Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM
*To:* memb...@wispa.org
*Cc:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
1. Is the 25Mbps classification immediate?
2. What are you NOW going to call your previously determined
‘broadband’ service?
*Tyson Burris, President*
*Internet Communications Inc.*
*739 Commerce Dr.*
*Franklin, IN 46131*
*317-738-0320 317-738-0320 Daytime #*
*317-412-1540 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct #*
*Online: **www.surfici.net* http://www.surfici.net
[image: ICI]
*What can ICI do for you?*
*Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones -
IP Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.*
*CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the*
*addressee shown. It contains information that is*
*confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,*
*dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by*
*unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly*
*prohibited.*
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that
the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
My company is called 'Blue Spring Broadband'. I will not be changing my
name. We offer dedicated connections up to 100Mbps, and more on a
case-by-case basis (ie. I would offer 1Gbps near the NOC to anyone willing
to pay for it). Although we do not offer more than 15x3 to residential
currently, I still believe we can be classified as a broadband service
provider. I happily give quotes on a 25x25 dedicated unlimited connection
to any residential customers that ask for it ($1K/mo. roughly). Until some
governing entity tells me different that is my stance.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Ken Hohhof af...@kwisp.com wrote:
It’s depressing to think about all the government money that went to
subsidize 1 Mbps (if that) Hughesnet service under the recovery act.
The contradiction is like setting a standard that every citizen must get
fresh whole grain organic locally grown low sugar low sodium food, just a
couple years after handing out pork rinds, moon pies and Jolt cola in the
school lunch program.
*From:* Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 3:22 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
+1. They have the added complication that they are way oversubscribed
compared to almost everything else.
Let's not even mention latency.
If broadband included something about latency (like just 200 ms for
instance), then they would lose big time.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/30/2015 1:17 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:
Doubtful. They can't sustain those speeds wide spread any better than we
can.
- Original Message -
*From:* That One Guy thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 3:12 PM
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
at those sustained speeds, the only tech that could realistically deliver
to the rural market right now would be satellite wouldnt it
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband
li...@smarterbroadband.com wrote:
+1
*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Sterling Jacobson
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 12:21 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Even if you don’t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can’t you just put a plan
rate for 25Mbps and give it some ridiculous price that no one will ever
buy, then claim broadband?
I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn’t be broadband, but your company
could be branded as selling broadband?
*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com af-boun...@afmug.com] *On
Behalf Of *Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM
*To:* memb...@wispa.org
*Cc:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
1. Is the 25Mbps classification immediate?
2. What are you NOW going to call your previously determined
‘broadband’ service?
*Tyson Burris, President*
*Internet Communications Inc.*
*739 Commerce Dr.*
*Franklin, IN 46131*
*317-738-0320 317-738-0320 Daytime #*
*317-412-1540 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct #*
*Online: **www.surfici.net* http://www.surfici.net
[image: ICI]
*What can ICI do for you?*
*Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones -
IP Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.*
*CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the*
*addressee shown. It contains information that is*
*confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,*
*dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by*
*unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly*
*prohibited.*
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
at those sustained speeds, the only tech that could realistically deliver to the rural market right now would be satellite wouldnt it On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband li...@smarterbroadband.com wrote: +1 *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Sterling Jacobson *Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 12:21 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions Even if you don’t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can’t you just put a plan rate for 25Mbps and give it some ridiculous price that no one will ever buy, then claim broadband? I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn’t be broadband, but your company could be branded as selling broadband? *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc *Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM *To:* memb...@wispa.org *Cc:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions 1. Is the 25Mbps classification immediate? 2. What are you NOW going to call your previously determined ‘broadband’ service? *Tyson Burris, President* *Internet Communications Inc.* *739 Commerce Dr.* *Franklin, IN 46131* *317-738-0320 317-738-0320 Daytime #* *317-412-1540 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct #* *Online: **www.surfici.net* http://www.surfici.net [image: ICI] *What can ICI do for you?* *Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.* *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the* *addressee shown. It contains information that is* *confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,* *dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by* *unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly* *prohibited.* -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
+1. They have the added complication that they are way oversubscribed
compared to almost everything else.
Let's not even mention latency.
If broadband included something about latency (like just 200 ms
for instance), then they would lose big time.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/30/2015 1:17 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:
Doubtful. They can't sustain those speeds wide spread any better than
we can.
- Original Message -
*From:* That One Guy mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 3:12 PM
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
at those sustained speeds, the only tech that could realistically
deliver to the rural market right now would be satellite wouldnt it
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband
li...@smarterbroadband.com mailto:li...@smarterbroadband.com
wrote:
+1
*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Sterling Jacobson
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 12:21 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Even if you don’t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can’t you just
put a plan rate for 25Mbps and give it some ridiculous price
that no one will ever buy, then claim broadband?
I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn’t be broadband, but
your company could be branded as selling broadband?
*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Tyson
Burris @ Internet Communications Inc
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM
*To:* memb...@wispa.org mailto:memb...@wispa.org
*Cc:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
1.Is the 25Mbps classification immediate?
2.What are you NOW going to call your previously determined
‘broadband’ service?
*Tyson Burris, President**
**Internet Communications Inc.**
**739 Commerce Dr.**
**Franklin, IN 46131**
***
*317-738-0320 tel:317-738-0320 Daytime #*
*317-412-1540 tel:317-412-1540 Cell/Direct #*
*Online: **www.surfici.net* http://www.surfici.net
ICI
*What can ICI do for you?*
*Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh
Wifi/Hotzones - IP Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.*
**
*CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the*
*addressee shown. It contains information that is*
*confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,*
*dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by*
*unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly*
*prohibited.*
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember
that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you.
Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a
reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance
manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Doubtful. They can't sustain those speeds wide spread any better than we can. - Original Message - From: That One Guy To: af@afmug.com Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:12 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions at those sustained speeds, the only tech that could realistically deliver to the rural market right now would be satellite wouldnt it On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband li...@smarterbroadband.com wrote: +1 From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:21 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions Even if you don’t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can’t you just put a plan rate for 25Mbps and give it some ridiculous price that no one will ever buy, then claim broadband? I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn’t be broadband, but your company could be branded as selling broadband? From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM To: memb...@wispa.org Cc: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions 1. Is the 25Mbps classification immediate? 2. What are you NOW going to call your previously determined ‘broadband’ service? Tyson Burris, President Internet Communications Inc. 739 Commerce Dr. Franklin, IN 46131 317-738-0320 Daytime # 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct # Online: www.surfici.net What can ICI do for you? Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly prohibited. -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
+1 From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:21 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions Even if you don't deliver 25Mbps as defined, can't you just put a plan rate for 25Mbps and give it some ridiculous price that no one will ever buy, then claim broadband? I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn't be broadband, but your company could be branded as selling broadband? From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM To: memb...@wispa.org Cc: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions 1. Is the 25Mbps classification immediate? 2. What are you NOW going to call your previously determined 'broadband' service? Tyson Burris, President Internet Communications Inc. 739 Commerce Dr. Franklin, IN 46131 317-738-0320 Daytime # 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct # Online: www.surfici.net ICI What can ICI do for you? Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly prohibited.
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Don't y'all suppose that the Commission did this so that small wisps could
not get access to USF since we can't meet the 25mbs benchmark. And since
they are fixin' to require us to become common carriers that rule will make
us pay into the USF without being allowed to withdraw money from it because
we can't easily provide broadband. That's what the commission did to us
paging carriers a few years back. I suspect this is to benefit the ATTs
and the COXs throughout the country, all the while bending us little guys
over the barnyard fence.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com wrote:
+1. They have the added complication that they are way oversubscribed
compared to almost everything else.
Let's not even mention latency.
If broadband included something about latency (like just 200 ms for
instance), then they would lose big time.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/30/2015 1:17 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:
Doubtful. They can't sustain those speeds wide spread any better than we
can.
- Original Message -
*From:* That One Guy thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 3:12 PM
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
at those sustained speeds, the only tech that could realistically
deliver to the rural market right now would be satellite wouldnt it
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband
li...@smarterbroadband.com wrote:
+1
*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Sterling Jacobson
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 12:21 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Even if you don’t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can’t you just put a plan
rate for 25Mbps and give it some ridiculous price that no one will ever
buy, then claim broadband?
I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn’t be broadband, but your company
could be branded as selling broadband?
*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com af-boun...@afmug.com] *On
Behalf Of *Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM
*To:* memb...@wispa.org
*Cc:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
1. Is the 25Mbps classification immediate?
2. What are you NOW going to call your previously determined
‘broadband’ service?
*Tyson Burris, President*
*Internet Communications Inc.*
*739 Commerce Dr.*
*Franklin, IN 46131*
*317-738-0320 317-738-0320 Daytime #*
*317-412-1540 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct #*
*Online: **www.surfici.net* http://www.surfici.net
[image: ICI]
*What can ICI do for you?*
*Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones -
IP Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.*
*CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the*
*addressee shown. It contains information that is*
*confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,*
*dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by*
*unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly*
*prohibited.*
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
--
Philip J. Rankin
Wireless Telecommunications Services
PO Box 24
Pittsburg, KS 66762
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I don't think any of the satellite companies claim that high of speeds now, do they? Exede is 15mbps on their business plans and 12mbps for residential... I'm not sure what Hughes is doing now. On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net wrote: Doubtful. They can't sustain those speeds wide spread any better than we can. - Original Message - *From:* That One Guy thatoneguyst...@gmail.com *To:* af@afmug.com *Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 3:12 PM *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions at those sustained speeds, the only tech that could realistically deliver to the rural market right now would be satellite wouldnt it On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband li...@smarterbroadband.com wrote: +1 *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Sterling Jacobson *Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 12:21 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions Even if you don’t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can’t you just put a plan rate for 25Mbps and give it some ridiculous price that no one will ever buy, then claim broadband? I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn’t be broadband, but your company could be branded as selling broadband? *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc *Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM *To:* memb...@wispa.org *Cc:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions 1. Is the 25Mbps classification immediate? 2. What are you NOW going to call your previously determined ‘broadband’ service? *Tyson Burris, President* *Internet Communications Inc.* *739 Commerce Dr.* *Franklin, IN 46131* *317-738-0320 317-738-0320 Daytime #* *317-412-1540 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct #* *Online: **www.surfici.net* http://www.surfici.net [image: ICI] *What can ICI do for you?* *Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.* *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the* *addressee shown. It contains information that is* *confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,* *dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by* *unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly* *prohibited.* -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
It’s depressing to think about all the government money that went to subsidize
1 Mbps (if that) Hughesnet service under the recovery act.
The contradiction is like setting a standard that every citizen must get fresh
whole grain organic locally grown low sugar low sodium food, just a couple
years after handing out pork rinds, moon pies and Jolt cola in the school lunch
program.
From: Bill Prince
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:22 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
+1. They have the added complication that they are way oversubscribed compared
to almost everything else.
Let's not even mention latency.
If broadband included something about latency (like just 200 ms for
instance), then they would lose big time.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/30/2015 1:17 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:
Doubtful. They can't sustain those speeds wide spread any better than we can.
- Original Message -
From: That One Guy
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
at those sustained speeds, the only tech that could realistically deliver
to the rural market right now would be satellite wouldnt it
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband
li...@smarterbroadband.com wrote:
+1
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Even if you don’t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can’t you just put a plan
rate for 25Mbps and give it some ridiculous price that no one will ever buy,
then claim broadband?
I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn’t be broadband, but your company
could be branded as selling broadband?
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @
Internet Communications Inc
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org
Cc: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
1. Is the 25Mbps classification immediate?
2. What are you NOW going to call your previously determined
‘broadband’ service?
Tyson Burris, President
Internet Communications Inc.
739 Commerce Dr.
Franklin, IN 46131
317-738-0320 Daytime #
317-412-1540 Cell/Direct #
Online: www.surfici.net
What can ICI do for you?
Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP
Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the
addressee shown. It contains information that is
confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,
dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by
unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly
prohibited.
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't
get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a
hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
According to 477, if I have a census area that only has 1Mbps customers, then
that area is labeled under served, correct?
Looks like the FCC just figured a way to hand their buddies grant money or
(dons tin foil hat) ultimately take over the Internet infrastructure.
- Original Message -
From: Bill Prince
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I don't know if we can answer that question until we see how the rule is
worded if and when it actually becomes a rule.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/30/2015 12:21 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
Even if you don�t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can�t you just put a plan
rate for 25Mbps and give it some ridiculous price that no one will ever buy,
then claim broadband?
�
I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn�t be broadband, but your company
could be branded as selling broadband?
�
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet
Communications Inc
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org
Cc: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
�
!--[if !supportLists]--1.������ !--[endif]--Is the 25Mbps
classification immediate?
!--[if !supportLists]--2.������ !--[endif]--What are you
NOW going to call your previously determined �broadband� service?
�
�
Tyson Burris, President
Internet Communications Inc.
739 Commerce Dr.
Franklin, IN 46131
�
317-738-0320 Daytime #
317-412-1540 Cell/Direct #
Online: www.surfici.net
�
What can ICI do for you?
Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP
Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.
�
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the
addressee shown. It contains information that is
confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,
dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by
unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly
prohibited.
�
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Doesn't this just mean if you don't offer service of at least 25mbps your
area won't count as served? I'm pretty sure you can call your service
whatever you damn well please.
On Friday, January 30, 2015, Mark Radabaugh m...@amplex.net wrote:
Keep in mind the cable companies don't get federal subsidies. The cable
data operations are unregulated information service exactly like us, and
they can easily meet the 25/3.
They are opposed because it means the telcos are going to be given federal
money to upgrade to 25/3 and become competition.
Cable spends it's own money to compete, just like us. They are equally
ticked over changing the definition so that their competition, who has not
spent their own money, and waited for government handouts is going to be
rewarded.
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex
27800 Lemoyne, Ste F
Millbury, OH 43447
419-261-5996
On Jan 30, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jeremysmi...@gmail.com'); wrote:
I found it interesting that the cable companies were claiming to be
against this change. This seems handcrafted by them if you ask me. Every
year when they request funding the WISPs in those areas (with the help of
WISPA) file claims against them receiving those funds under the basis that
'broadband' is already available in those areas where they are claiming
that it is not. This has actually worked fairly well in keeping those
entities from receiving those funds. Now, almost none of us meet the
'broadband' qualification and now they can use the government funds to
build out on top of us almost uncontested.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jeremysmi...@gmail.com'); wrote:
My company is called 'Blue Spring Broadband'. I will not be changing my
name. We offer dedicated connections up to 100Mbps, and more on a
case-by-case basis (ie. I would offer 1Gbps near the NOC to anyone willing
to pay for it). Although we do not offer more than 15x3 to residential
currently, I still believe we can be classified as a broadband service
provider. I happily give quotes on a 25x25 dedicated unlimited connection
to any residential customers that ask for it ($1K/mo. roughly). Until some
governing entity tells me different that is my stance.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Ken Hohhof af...@kwisp.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af...@kwisp.com'); wrote:
It’s depressing to think about all the government money that went to
subsidize 1 Mbps (if that) Hughesnet service under the recovery act.
The contradiction is like setting a standard that every citizen must get
fresh whole grain organic locally grown low sugar low sodium food, just a
couple years after handing out pork rinds, moon pies and Jolt cola in the
school lunch program.
*From:* Bill Prince
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','part15...@gmail.com');
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 3:22 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
+1. They have the added complication that they are way oversubscribed
compared to almost everything else.
Let's not even mention latency.
If broadband included something about latency (like just 200 ms
for instance), then they would lose big time.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/30/2015 1:17 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:
Doubtful. They can't sustain those speeds wide spread any better than we
can.
- Original Message -
*From:* That One Guy
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thatoneguyst...@gmail.com');
*To:* af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 3:12 PM
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
at those sustained speeds, the only tech that could realistically
deliver to the rural market right now would be satellite wouldnt it
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband
li...@smarterbroadband.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','li...@smarterbroadband.com'); wrote:
+1
*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');] *On Behalf Of
*Sterling
Jacobson
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 12:21 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Even if you don’t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can’t you just put a plan
rate for 25Mbps and give it some ridiculous price that no one will ever
buy, then claim broadband?
I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn’t be broadband, but your
company could be branded as selling broadband?
*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');] *On Behalf Of
*Tyson
Burris @ Internet Communications Inc
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM
*To:* memb...@wispa.org
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','memb...@wispa.org');
*Cc:* af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');
*Subject:* [AFMUG
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
It doesn't mean that under 25/3 is unserved at this point. To change it for
CAF purposes requires considerably more work, public notification, comment
periods, etc.
It gives us a good idea of where things are going with the FCC, but in and of
itself it doesn't change anything - yet.
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex
27800 Lemoyne, Ste F
Millbury, OH 43447
419-261-5996
On Jan 30, 2015, at 8:06 PM, Jason McKemie j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com
wrote:
Doesn't this just mean if you don't offer service of at least 25mbps your
area won't count as served? I'm pretty sure you can call your service
whatever you damn well please.
On Friday, January 30, 2015, Mark Radabaugh m...@amplex.net wrote:
Keep in mind the cable companies don't get federal subsidies. The cable
data operations are unregulated information service exactly like us, and
they can easily meet the 25/3.
They are opposed because it means the telcos are going to be given federal
money to upgrade to 25/3 and become competition.
Cable spends it's own money to compete, just like us. They are equally
ticked over changing the definition so that their competition, who has not
spent their own money, and waited for government handouts is going to be
rewarded.
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex
27800 Lemoyne, Ste F
Millbury, OH 43447
419-261-5996
On Jan 30, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote:
I found it interesting that the cable companies were claiming to be against
this change. This seems handcrafted by them if you ask me. Every year
when they request funding the WISPs in those areas (with the help of WISPA)
file claims against them receiving those funds under the basis that
'broadband' is already available in those areas where they are claiming
that it is not. This has actually worked fairly well in keeping those
entities from receiving those funds. Now, almost none of us meet the
'broadband' qualification and now they can use the government funds to
build out on top of us almost uncontested.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote:
My company is called 'Blue Spring Broadband'. I will not be changing my
name. We offer dedicated connections up to 100Mbps, and more on a
case-by-case basis (ie. I would offer 1Gbps near the NOC to anyone willing
to pay for it). Although we do not offer more than 15x3 to residential
currently, I still believe we can be classified as a broadband service
provider. I happily give quotes on a 25x25 dedicated unlimited connection
to any residential customers that ask for it ($1K/mo. roughly). Until
some governing entity tells me different that is my stance.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Ken Hohhof af...@kwisp.com wrote:
It’s depressing to think about all the government money that went to
subsidize 1 Mbps (if that) Hughesnet service under the recovery act.
The contradiction is like setting a standard that every citizen must get
fresh whole grain organic locally grown low sugar low sodium food, just a
couple years after handing out pork rinds, moon pies and Jolt cola in the
school lunch program.
From: Bill Prince
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:22 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
+1. They have the added complication that they are way oversubscribed
compared to almost everything else.
Let's not even mention latency.
If broadband included something about latency (like just 200 ms for
instance), then they would lose big time.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/30/2015 1:17 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:
Doubtful. They can't sustain those speeds wide spread any better than we
can.
- Original Message -
From: That One Guy
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
at those sustained speeds, the only tech that could realistically
deliver to the rural market right now would be satellite wouldnt it
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband
li...@smarterbroadband.com wrote:
+1
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Even if you don’t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can’t you just put a plan
rate for 25Mbps and give it some ridiculous price that no one will ever
buy, then claim broadband?
I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn’t be broadband, but your
company could be branded as selling broadband?
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @
Internet Communications Inc
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org
Cc: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
1. Is the 25Mbps classification immediate?
2. What are you NOW going to call your previously determined
‘broadband’ service
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
On 1/30/15 11:39, Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc wrote: 1.Is the 25Mbps classification immediate? 2.What are you NOW going to call your previously determined �broadband� service? Internet access High speed internet Turbo speed internets Faster than the other guy's internet PornPipe Ultra 3000 ~Seth
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
According to Corran, it doesn't mean jack shit yet. There's no regulation or
funding tied to it.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Jason McKemie j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 7:06:38 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Doesn't this just mean if you don't offer service of at least 25mbps your area
won't count as served? I'm pretty sure you can call your service whatever you
damn well please.
On Friday, January 30, 2015, Mark Radabaugh m...@amplex.net wrote:
Keep in mind the cable companies don't get federal subsidies. The cable data
operations are unregulated information service exactly like us, and they can
easily meet the 25/3.
They are opposed because it means the telcos are going to be given federal
money to upgrade to 25/3 and become competition.
Cable spends it's own money to compete, just like us. They are equally ticked
over changing the definition so that their competition, who has not spent their
own money, and waited for government handouts is going to be rewarded.
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex
27800 Lemoyne, Ste F
Millbury, OH 43447
419-261-5996
On Jan 30, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote:
blockquote
I found it interesting that the cable companies were claiming to be against
this change. This seems handcrafted by them if you ask me. Every year when they
request funding the WISPs in those areas (with the help of WISPA) file claims
against them receiving those funds under the basis that 'broadband' is already
available in those areas where they are claiming that it is not. This has
actually worked fairly well in keeping those entities from receiving those
funds. Now, almost none of us meet the 'broadband' qualification and now they
can use the government funds to build out on top of us almost uncontested.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote:
blockquote
My company is called 'Blue Spring Broadband'. I will not be changing my name.
We offer dedicated connections up to 100Mbps, and more on a case-by-case basis
(ie. I would offer 1Gbps near the NOC to anyone willing to pay for it).
Although we do not offer more than 15x3 to residential currently, I still
believe we can be classified as a broadband service provider. I happily give
quotes on a 25x25 dedicated unlimited connection to any residential customers
that ask for it ($1K/mo. roughly). Until some governing entity tells me
different that is my stance.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Ken Hohhof af...@kwisp.com wrote:
blockquote
It’s depressing to think about all the government money that went to subsidize
1 Mbps (if that) Hughesnet service under the recovery act.
The contradiction is like setting a standard that every citizen must get fresh
whole grain organic locally grown low sugar low sodium food, just a couple
years after handing out pork rinds, moon pies and Jolt cola in the school lunch
program.
From: Bill Prince
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:22 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
+1. They have the added complication that they are way oversubscribed compared
to almost everything else.
Let's not even mention latency.
If broadband included something about latency (like just 200 ms for
instance), then they would lose big time.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com On 1/30/2015 1:17 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:
blockquote
Doubtful. They can't sustain those speeds wide spread any better than we can.
blockquote
- Original Message -
From: That One Guy
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
at those sustained speeds, the only tech that could realistically deliver to
the rural market right now would be satellite wouldnt it
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband li...@smarterbroadband.com
wrote:
blockquote
+1
From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Even if you don’t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can’t you just put a plan rate for
25Mbps and give it some ridiculous price that no one will ever buy, then claim
broadband?
I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn’t be broadband, but your company could
be branded as selling broadband?
From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet
Communications Inc
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org
Cc: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
1. Is the 25Mbps classification immediate?
2. What are you NOW going to call your previously determined ‘broadband’
service?
Tyson Burris, President
Internet Communications Inc.
739 Commerce Dr.
Franklin, IN 46131
317
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
I did not realize that. I thought that both the cable and telcos were
subsidized. That makes sense why they would be opposing it then.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Mark Radabaugh m...@amplex.net wrote:
Keep in mind the cable companies don't get federal subsidies. The cable
data operations are unregulated information service exactly like us, and
they can easily meet the 25/3.
They are opposed because it means the telcos are going to be given federal
money to upgrade to 25/3 and become competition.
Cable spends it's own money to compete, just like us. They are equally
ticked over changing the definition so that their competition, who has not
spent their own money, and waited for government handouts is going to be
rewarded.
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex
27800 Lemoyne, Ste F
Millbury, OH 43447
419-261-5996
On Jan 30, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote:
I found it interesting that the cable companies were claiming to be
against this change. This seems handcrafted by them if you ask me. Every
year when they request funding the WISPs in those areas (with the help of
WISPA) file claims against them receiving those funds under the basis that
'broadband' is already available in those areas where they are claiming
that it is not. This has actually worked fairly well in keeping those
entities from receiving those funds. Now, almost none of us meet the
'broadband' qualification and now they can use the government funds to
build out on top of us almost uncontested.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote:
My company is called 'Blue Spring Broadband'. I will not be changing my
name. We offer dedicated connections up to 100Mbps, and more on a
case-by-case basis (ie. I would offer 1Gbps near the NOC to anyone willing
to pay for it). Although we do not offer more than 15x3 to residential
currently, I still believe we can be classified as a broadband service
provider. I happily give quotes on a 25x25 dedicated unlimited connection
to any residential customers that ask for it ($1K/mo. roughly). Until some
governing entity tells me different that is my stance.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Ken Hohhof af...@kwisp.com wrote:
It’s depressing to think about all the government money that went to
subsidize 1 Mbps (if that) Hughesnet service under the recovery act.
The contradiction is like setting a standard that every citizen must get
fresh whole grain organic locally grown low sugar low sodium food, just a
couple years after handing out pork rinds, moon pies and Jolt cola in the
school lunch program.
*From:* Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 3:22 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
+1. They have the added complication that they are way oversubscribed
compared to almost everything else.
Let's not even mention latency.
If broadband included something about latency (like just 200 ms
for instance), then they would lose big time.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/30/2015 1:17 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:
Doubtful. They can't sustain those speeds wide spread any better than we
can.
- Original Message -
*From:* That One Guy thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 3:12 PM
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
at those sustained speeds, the only tech that could realistically
deliver to the rural market right now would be satellite wouldnt it
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband
li...@smarterbroadband.com wrote:
+1
*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Sterling
Jacobson
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 12:21 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Even if you don’t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can’t you just put a plan
rate for 25Mbps and give it some ridiculous price that no one will ever
buy, then claim broadband?
I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn’t be broadband, but your
company could be branded as selling broadband?
*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com af-boun...@afmug.com] *On
Behalf Of *Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM
*To:* memb...@wispa.org
*Cc:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
1. Is the 25Mbps classification immediate?
2. What are you NOW going to call your previously determined
‘broadband’ service?
*Tyson Burris, President*
*Internet Communications Inc.*
*739 Commerce Dr.*
*Franklin, IN 46131*
*317-738-0320 317-738-0320 Daytime #*
*317-412-1540 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct #*
*Online: **www.surfici.net* http://www.surfici.net
[image: ICI]
*What can ICI do for you?*
*Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones -
IP Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.*
*CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Mike,
I hope you are doing what the rest of us are doing and responding to
this in a way they can hear you.
Did you get the email from WISPA?
On 1/30/2015 10:29 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
According to Corran, it doesn't mean jack shit yet. There's no
regulation or funding tied to it.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
https://www.facebook.com/ICSILhttps://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalbhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutionshttps://twitter.com/ICSIL
*From: *Jason McKemie j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Friday, January 30, 2015 7:06:38 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Doesn't this just mean if you don't offer service of at least 25mbps
your area won't count as served? I'm pretty sure you can call your
service whatever you damn well please.
On Friday, January 30, 2015, Mark Radabaugh m...@amplex.net
mailto:m...@amplex.net wrote:
Keep in mind the cable companies don't get federal subsidies. The
cable data operations are unregulated information service exactly
like us, and they can easily meet the 25/3.
They are opposed because it means the telcos are going to be given
federal money to upgrade to 25/3 and become competition.
Cable spends it's own money to compete, just like us. They are
equally ticked over changing the definition so that their
competition, who has not spent their own money, and waited for
government handouts is going to be rewarded.
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex
27800 Lemoyne, Ste F
Millbury, OH 43447
419-261-5996
On Jan 30, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote:
I found it interesting that the cable companies were claiming
to be against this change. This seems handcrafted by them if
you ask me. Every year when they request funding the WISPs in
those areas (with the help of WISPA) file claims against them
receiving those funds under the basis that 'broadband' is
already available in those areas where they are claiming that
it is not. This has actually worked fairly well in keeping
those entities from receiving those funds. Now, almost none
of us meet the 'broadband' qualification and now they can use
the government funds to build out on top of us almost uncontested.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Jeremy
jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote:
My company is called 'Blue Spring Broadband'. I will not
be changing my name. We offer dedicated connections up to
100Mbps, and more on a case-by-case basis (ie. I would
offer 1Gbps near the NOC to anyone willing to pay for
it). Although we do not offer more than 15x3 to
residential currently, I still believe we can be
classified as a broadband service provider. I happily
give quotes on a 25x25 dedicated unlimited connection to
any residential customers that ask for it ($1K/mo.
roughly). Until some governing entity tells me different
that is my stance.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Ken Hohhof
af...@kwisp.com wrote:
It’s depressing to think about all the government
money that went to subsidize 1 Mbps (if that)
Hughesnet service under the recovery act.
The contradiction is like setting a standard that
every citizen must get fresh whole grain organic
locally grown low sugar low sodium food, just a couple
years after handing out pork rinds, moon pies and Jolt
cola in the school lunch program.
*From:* Bill Prince
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 3:22 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
+1. They have the added complication that they are
way oversubscribed compared to almost everything else.
Let's not even mention latency.
If broadband included something about latency (like
just 200 ms for instance), then they would lose
big time.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/30/2015 1:17 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:
Doubtful. They can't sustain those speeds wide
spread any better than we can.
- Original Message -
*From:* That One Guy
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 3:12 PM
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
at those sustained speeds
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
So will that take more than 2 years?
What happens if Jeb beats Hillary and picks the new FCC chairman?
(Rick Perry would probably eliminate the FCC. Oops.)
From: Mark Radabaugh
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 7:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
It doesn't mean that under 25/3 is unserved at this point. To change it for
CAF purposes requires considerably more work, public notification, comment
periods, etc.
It gives us a good idea of where things are going with the FCC, but in and of
itself it doesn't change anything - yet.
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex
27800 Lemoyne, Ste F
Millbury, OH 43447
419-261-5996
On Jan 30, 2015, at 8:06 PM, Jason McKemie j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com
wrote:
Doesn't this just mean if you don't offer service of at least 25mbps your
area won't count as served? I'm pretty sure you can call your service whatever
you damn well please.
On Friday, January 30, 2015, Mark Radabaugh m...@amplex.net wrote:
Keep in mind the cable companies don't get federal subsidies. The cable
data operations are unregulated information service exactly like us, and they
can easily meet the 25/3.
They are opposed because it means the telcos are going to be given federal
money to upgrade to 25/3 and become competition.
Cable spends it's own money to compete, just like us. They are equally
ticked over changing the definition so that their competition, who has not
spent their own money, and waited for government handouts is going to be
rewarded.
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex
27800 Lemoyne, Ste F
Millbury, OH 43447
419-261-5996
On Jan 30, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Jeremy
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jeremysmi...@gmail.com'); wrote:
I found it interesting that the cable companies were claiming to be
against this change. This seems handcrafted by them if you ask me. Every year
when they request funding the WISPs in those areas (with the help of WISPA)
file claims against them receiving those funds under the basis that 'broadband'
is already available in those areas where they are claiming that it is not.
This has actually worked fairly well in keeping those entities from receiving
those funds. Now, almost none of us meet the 'broadband' qualification and now
they can use the government funds to build out on top of us almost uncontested.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Jeremy
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jeremysmi...@gmail.com'); wrote:
My company is called 'Blue Spring Broadband'. I will not be changing
my name. We offer dedicated connections up to 100Mbps, and more on a
case-by-case basis (ie. I would offer 1Gbps near the NOC to anyone willing to
pay for it). Although we do not offer more than 15x3 to residential currently,
I still believe we can be classified as a broadband service provider. I
happily give quotes on a 25x25 dedicated unlimited connection to any
residential customers that ask for it ($1K/mo. roughly). Until some governing
entity tells me different that is my stance.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Ken Hohhof
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af...@kwisp.com'); wrote:
It’s depressing to think about all the government money that went to
subsidize 1 Mbps (if that) Hughesnet service under the recovery act.
The contradiction is like setting a standard that every citizen must
get fresh whole grain organic locally grown low sugar low sodium food, just a
couple years after handing out pork rinds, moon pies and Jolt cola in the
school lunch program.
From: Bill Prince
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:22 PM
To: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
+1. They have the added complication that they are way
oversubscribed compared to almost everything else.
Let's not even mention latency.
If broadband included something about latency (like just 200 ms
for instance), then they would lose big time.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/30/2015 1:17 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:
Doubtful. They can't sustain those speeds wide spread any better
than we can.
- Original Message -
From: That One Guy
To: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
at those sustained speeds, the only tech that could realistically
deliver to the rural market right now would be satellite wouldnt it
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','li...@smarterbroadband.com'); wrote:
+1
From: Af
[mailto:javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');] On Behalf Of
Sterling Jacobson
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:21 PM
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
+1000
So please respond to the call to action from WISPA
On 1/30/2015 4:28 PM, Philip Rankin wrote:
Don't y'all suppose that the Commission did this so that small wisps
could not get access to USF since we can't meet the 25mbs benchmark.
And since they are fixin' to require us to become common carriers that
rule will make us pay into the USF without being allowed to withdraw
money from it because we can't easily provide broadband. That's what
the commission did to us paging carriers a few years back. I suspect
this is to benefit the ATTs and the COXs throughout the country, all
the while bending us little guys over the barnyard fence.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com
mailto:part15...@gmail.com wrote:
+1. They have the added complication that they are way
oversubscribed compared to almost everything else.
Let's not even mention latency.
If broadband included something about latency (like just 200
ms for instance), then they would lose big time.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/30/2015 1:17 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:
Doubtful. They can't sustain those speeds wide spread any better
than we can.
- Original Message -
*From:* That One Guy mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 3:12 PM
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
at those sustained speeds, the only tech that could
realistically deliver to the rural market right now would be
satellite wouldnt it
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband
li...@smarterbroadband.com
mailto:li...@smarterbroadband.com wrote:
+1
*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Sterling
Jacobson
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 12:21 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Even if you don’t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can’t you
just put a plan rate for 25Mbps and give it some
ridiculous price that no one will ever buy, then claim
broadband?
I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn’t be broadband,
but your company could be branded as selling broadband?
*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of
*Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc
*Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM
*To:* memb...@wispa.org mailto:memb...@wispa.org
*Cc:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
1.Is the 25Mbps classification immediate?
2.What are you NOW going to call your previously
determined ‘broadband’ service?
*Tyson Burris, President**
**Internet Communications Inc.**
**739 Commerce Dr.**
**Franklin, IN 46131**
***
*317-738-0320 tel:317-738-0320 Daytime #*
*317-412-1540 tel:317-412-1540 Cell/Direct #*
*Online: **www.surfici.net* http://www.surfici.net
ICI
*What can ICI do for you?*
*Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh
Wifi/Hotzones - IP Security - Fiber - Tower -
Infrastructure.*
**
*CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the*
*addressee shown. It contains information that is*
*confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,*
*dissemination or use of this transmission or its
contents by*
*unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly*
*prohibited.*
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must
remember that the parts you are reassembling were
disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them
together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
--
Philip J. Rankin
Wireless Telecommunications Services
PO Box 24
Pittsburg, KS 66762
--
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Rural how? If there's not trees\hills, 5 gig will do it fine. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: That One Guy thatoneguyst...@gmail.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:12:32 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions at those sustained speeds, the only tech that could realistically deliver to the rural market right now would be satellite wouldnt it On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband li...@smarterbroadband.com wrote: +1 From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:21 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions Even if you don’t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can’t you just put a plan rate for 25Mbps and give it some ridiculous price that no one will ever buy, then claim broadband? I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn’t be broadband, but your company could be branded as selling broadband? From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM To: memb...@wispa.org Cc: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions 1. Is the 25Mbps classification immediate? 2. What are you NOW going to call your previously determined ‘broadband’ service? Tyson Burris, President Internet Communications Inc. 739 Commerce Dr. Franklin, IN 46131 317-738-0320 Daytime # 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct # Online: www.surfici.net ICI What can ICI do for you? Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly prohibited. -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Jack Shit? Is he another Comcast customer?
http://elliott.org/blog/hello-dummy-comcast-calls-customers-shocking-names/
From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 10:29 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
According to Corran, it doesn't mean jack shit yet. There's no regulation or
funding tied to it.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
From: Jason McKemie j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 7:06:38 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Doesn't this just mean if you don't offer service of at least 25mbps your area
won't count as served? I'm pretty sure you can call your service whatever you
damn well please.
On Friday, January 30, 2015, Mark Radabaugh m...@amplex.net wrote:
Keep in mind the cable companies don't get federal subsidies. The cable data
operations are unregulated information service exactly like us, and they can
easily meet the 25/3.
They are opposed because it means the telcos are going to be given federal
money to upgrade to 25/3 and become competition.
Cable spends it's own money to compete, just like us. They are equally
ticked over changing the definition so that their competition, who has not
spent their own money, and waited for government handouts is going to be
rewarded.
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex
27800 Lemoyne, Ste F
Millbury, OH 43447
419-261-5996
On Jan 30, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote:
I found it interesting that the cable companies were claiming to be against
this change. This seems handcrafted by them if you ask me. Every year when
they request funding the WISPs in those areas (with the help of WISPA) file
claims against them receiving those funds under the basis that 'broadband' is
already available in those areas where they are claiming that it is not. This
has actually worked fairly well in keeping those entities from receiving those
funds. Now, almost none of us meet the 'broadband' qualification and now they
can use the government funds to build out on top of us almost uncontested.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote:
My company is called 'Blue Spring Broadband'. I will not be changing my
name. We offer dedicated connections up to 100Mbps, and more on a case-by-case
basis (ie. I would offer 1Gbps near the NOC to anyone willing to pay for it).
Although we do not offer more than 15x3 to residential currently, I still
believe we can be classified as a broadband service provider. I happily give
quotes on a 25x25 dedicated unlimited connection to any residential customers
that ask for it ($1K/mo. roughly). Until some governing entity tells me
different that is my stance.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Ken Hohhof af...@kwisp.com wrote:
It’s depressing to think about all the government money that went to
subsidize 1 Mbps (if that) Hughesnet service under the recovery act.
The contradiction is like setting a standard that every citizen must
get fresh whole grain organic locally grown low sugar low sodium food, just a
couple years after handing out pork rinds, moon pies and Jolt cola in the
school lunch program.
From: Bill Prince
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:22 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
+1. They have the added complication that they are way oversubscribed
compared to almost everything else.
Let's not even mention latency.
If broadband included something about latency (like just 200 ms
for instance), then they would lose big time.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/30/2015 1:17 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:
Doubtful. They can't sustain those speeds wide spread any better than
we can.
- Original Message -
From: That One Guy
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
at those sustained speeds, the only tech that could realistically
deliver to the rural market right now would be satellite wouldnt it
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband
li...@smarterbroadband.com wrote:
+1
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sterling
Jacobson
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Even if you don’t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can’t you just put a
plan rate for 25Mbps and give it some ridiculous price that no one will ever
buy, then claim broadband?
I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn’t be broadband, but your
company could
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Don't try to search Google Images for a quick and easy way to a copy of the
invoice. You'll get exactly what you searched for.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Ken Hohhof af...@kwisp.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 11:11:35 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Jack Shit? Is he another Comcast customer?
http://elliott.org/blog/hello-dummy-comcast-calls-customers-shocking-names/
From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 10:29 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
According to Corran, it doesn't mean jack shit yet. There's no regulation or
funding tied to it.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Jason McKemie j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 7:06:38 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Doesn't this just mean if you don't offer service of at least 25mbps your area
won't count as served? I'm pretty sure you can call your service whatever you
damn well please.
On Friday, January 30, 2015, Mark Radabaugh m...@amplex.net wrote:
Keep in mind the cable companies don't get federal subsidies. The cable data
operations are unregulated information service exactly like us, and they can
easily meet the 25/3.
They are opposed because it means the telcos are going to be given federal
money to upgrade to 25/3 and become competition.
Cable spends it's own money to compete, just like us. They are equally ticked
over changing the definition so that their competition, who has not spent their
own money, and waited for government handouts is going to be rewarded.
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex
27800 Lemoyne, Ste F
Millbury, OH 43447
419-261-5996
On Jan 30, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote:
blockquote
I found it interesting that the cable companies were claiming to be against
this change. This seems handcrafted by them if you ask me. Every year when they
request funding the WISPs in those areas (with the help of WISPA) file claims
against them receiving those funds under the basis that 'broadband' is already
available in those areas where they are claiming that it is not. This has
actually worked fairly well in keeping those entities from receiving those
funds. Now, almost none of us meet the 'broadband' qualification and now they
can use the government funds to build out on top of us almost uncontested.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote:
blockquote
My company is called 'Blue Spring Broadband'. I will not be changing my name.
We offer dedicated connections up to 100Mbps, and more on a case-by-case basis
(ie. I would offer 1Gbps near the NOC to anyone willing to pay for it).
Although we do not offer more than 15x3 to residential currently, I still
believe we can be classified as a broadband service provider. I happily give
quotes on a 25x25 dedicated unlimited connection to any residential customers
that ask for it ($1K/mo. roughly). Until some governing entity tells me
different that is my stance.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Ken Hohhof af...@kwisp.com wrote:
blockquote
It’s depressing to think about all the government money that went to subsidize
1 Mbps (if that) Hughesnet service under the recovery act.
The contradiction is like setting a standard that every citizen must get fresh
whole grain organic locally grown low sugar low sodium food, just a couple
years after handing out pork rinds, moon pies and Jolt cola in the school lunch
program.
From: Bill Prince
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:22 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
+1. They have the added complication that they are way oversubscribed compared
to almost everything else.
Let's not even mention latency.
If broadband included something about latency (like just 200 ms for
instance), then they would lose big time.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com On 1/30/2015 1:17 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:
blockquote
Doubtful. They can't sustain those speeds wide spread any better than we can.
blockquote
- Original Message -
From: That One Guy
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
at those sustained speeds, the only tech that could realistically deliver to
the rural market right now would be satellite wouldnt it
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband li...@smarterbroadband.com
wrote:
blockquote
+1
From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Even if you don’t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can’t you just put a plan rate for
25Mbps and give
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
*nods* I'm behind on e-mail today, but I do see a ton of them in my Inbox
waiting for me.
I rarely miss a WISPA ad or announcement. As I use a different e-mail address
for each list I'm on everywhere, I get about 30 e-mails from WISPA each time
something happens. ;-)
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: David Milholen dmilho...@wletc.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 11:21:42 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Mike,
I hope you are doing what the rest of us are doing and responding to this in a
way they can hear you.
Did you get the email from WISPA?
On 1/30/2015 10:29 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
According to Corran, it doesn't mean jack shit yet. There's no regulation or
funding tied to it.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Jason McKemie j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 7:06:38 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Doesn't this just mean if you don't offer service of at least 25mbps your area
won't count as served? I'm pretty sure you can call your service whatever you
damn well please.
On Friday, January 30, 2015, Mark Radabaugh m...@amplex.net wrote:
blockquote
Keep in mind the cable companies don't get federal subsidies. The cable data
operations are unregulated information service exactly like us, and they can
easily meet the 25/3.
They are opposed because it means the telcos are going to be given federal
money to upgrade to 25/3 and become competition.
Cable spends it's own money to compete, just like us. They are equally ticked
over changing the definition so that their competition, who has not spent their
own money, and waited for government handouts is going to be rewarded.
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex
27800 Lemoyne, Ste F
Millbury, OH 43447
419-261-5996
On Jan 30, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote:
blockquote
I found it interesting that the cable companies were claiming to be against
this change. This seems handcrafted by them if you ask me. Every year when they
request funding the WISPs in those areas (with the help of WISPA) file claims
against them receiving those funds under the basis that 'broadband' is already
available in those areas where they are claiming that it is not. This has
actually worked fairly well in keeping those entities from receiving those
funds. Now, almost none of us meet the 'broadband' qualification and now they
can use the government funds to build out on top of us almost uncontested.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote:
blockquote
My company is called 'Blue Spring Broadband'. I will not be changing my name.
We offer dedicated connections up to 100Mbps, and more on a case-by-case basis
(ie. I would offer 1Gbps near the NOC to anyone willing to pay for it).
Although we do not offer more than 15x3 to residential currently, I still
believe we can be classified as a broadband service provider. I happily give
quotes on a 25x25 dedicated unlimited connection to any residential customers
that ask for it ($1K/mo. roughly). Until some governing entity tells me
different that is my stance.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Ken Hohhof af...@kwisp.com wrote:
blockquote
It’s depressing to think about all the government money that went to subsidize
1 Mbps (if that) Hughesnet service under the recovery act.
The contradiction is like setting a standard that every citizen must get fresh
whole grain organic locally grown low sugar low sodium food, just a couple
years after handing out pork rinds, moon pies and Jolt cola in the school lunch
program.
From: Bill Prince
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:22 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
+1. They have the added complication that they are way oversubscribed compared
to almost everything else.
Let's not even mention latency.
If broadband included something about latency (like just 200 ms for
instance), then they would lose big time.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com On 1/30/2015 1:17 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:
blockquote
Doubtful. They can't sustain those speeds wide spread any better than we can.
blockquote
- Original Message -
From: That One Guy
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
at those sustained speeds, the only tech that could realistically deliver to
the rural market right now would be satellite wouldnt it
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband li...@smarterbroadband.com
wrote:
blockquote
+1
From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Keep in mind the cable companies don't get federal subsidies. The cable data
operations are unregulated information service exactly like us, and they can
easily meet the 25/3.
They are opposed because it means the telcos are going to be given federal
money to upgrade to 25/3 and become competition.
Cable spends it's own money to compete, just like us. They are equally ticked
over changing the definition so that their competition, who has not spent their
own money, and waited for government handouts is going to be rewarded.
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex
27800 Lemoyne, Ste F
Millbury, OH 43447
419-261-5996
On Jan 30, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote:
I found it interesting that the cable companies were claiming to be against
this change. This seems handcrafted by them if you ask me. Every year when
they request funding the WISPs in those areas (with the help of WISPA) file
claims against them receiving those funds under the basis that 'broadband' is
already available in those areas where they are claiming that it is not.
This has actually worked fairly well in keeping those entities from receiving
those funds. Now, almost none of us meet the 'broadband' qualification and
now they can use the government funds to build out on top of us almost
uncontested.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote:
My company is called 'Blue Spring Broadband'. I will not be changing my
name. We offer dedicated connections up to 100Mbps, and more on a
case-by-case basis (ie. I would offer 1Gbps near the NOC to anyone willing
to pay for it). Although we do not offer more than 15x3 to residential
currently, I still believe we can be classified as a broadband service
provider. I happily give quotes on a 25x25 dedicated unlimited connection
to any residential customers that ask for it ($1K/mo. roughly). Until some
governing entity tells me different that is my stance.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Ken Hohhof af...@kwisp.com wrote:
It’s depressing to think about all the government money that went to
subsidize 1 Mbps (if that) Hughesnet service under the recovery act.
The contradiction is like setting a standard that every citizen must get
fresh whole grain organic locally grown low sugar low sodium food, just a
couple years after handing out pork rinds, moon pies and Jolt cola in the
school lunch program.
From: Bill Prince
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:22 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
+1. They have the added complication that they are way oversubscribed
compared to almost everything else.
Let's not even mention latency.
If broadband included something about latency (like just 200 ms for
instance), then they would lose big time.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 1/30/2015 1:17 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:
Doubtful. They can't sustain those speeds wide spread any better than we
can.
- Original Message -
From: That One Guy
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
at those sustained speeds, the only tech that could realistically deliver
to the rural market right now would be satellite wouldnt it
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:46 PM, SmarterBroadband
li...@smarterbroadband.com wrote:
+1
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
Even if you don’t deliver 25Mbps as defined, can’t you just put a plan
rate for 25Mbps and give it some ridiculous price that no one will ever
buy, then claim broadband?
I mean the other lower plan rates wouldn’t be broadband, but your company
could be branded as selling broadband?
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @
Internet Communications Inc
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:40 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org
Cc: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
1. Is the 25Mbps classification immediate?
2. What are you NOW going to call your previously determined
‘broadband’ service?
Tyson Burris, President
Internet Communications Inc.
739 Commerce Dr.
Franklin, IN 46131
317-738-0320 Daytime #
317-412-1540 Cell/Direct #
Online: www.surfici.net
What can ICI do for you?
Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP
Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the
addressee shown. It contains information that is
confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,
dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by
unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly
prohibited.
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must
