Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!
Correct me if I am wrong here Rick, it will be fruitless to do the map unless you are able to maintain customer speeds of 4megs down and 1 meg up. If you service your customer at speeds lower than that then it does not matter, the FCC will fund the Telcos... ~Doug ---Original Message--- From: Rick Harnish Date: 11/29/2012 2:53:28 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc! Are you on the Louisiana Broadband Map? http://www.bakerbb.com/labroadbandmapping/ My contact in Louisiana is: Mr. Craig Johnson Louisiana State University E313 Howe-Russell Geoscience Complex Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 cjohn...@lsu.edu I do however see Michael Baker Group is the contractor. I suggest calling them to find out who from their group is working on Louisiana. Michael Baker Corporation 100 Airside Dr Moon Township, PA 15108-2783 (800) 553-1153 Where there is a Wisp, there is a way! Respectfully, Rick Harnish Executive Director WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 Option 2 WISPA Office Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org adm...@wispa.org (Trina and Rick) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Cliff Leboeuf Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 4:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc! Rick, I thought that we did this task, but please tell me how I can confirm. - Cliff On 11/28/12 4:45 PM, Rick Harnish rharn...@wispa.org wrote: Fred, I assure you the WISPA FCC Committee is indeed on this. You make great points and we appreciate your review. You are definitely correct, that WISPs NEED to get on the National Broadband Map NOW! Those that don't will be suffering from subsidized competition. Anyone who does not know who to contact, drop me a line. I have contacts now for all states. Maybe, I can get that list up on the WISPA website under WISP Resources. There is one now, but it is not complete. I now have 4-5 names per state I believe. The guys at towercoverage.com are making it easy and inexpensive to make your maps and get them uploaded to the National/State Maps as well. Where there is a Wisp, there is a way! Respectfully, Rick Harnish Executive Director WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 Option 2 WISPA Office Skype: rick.harnish. gt;rharn...@wispa.org gt;adm...@wispa.org (Trina and Rick) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 5:17 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc! The FCC's home page ( transition.fcc.gov ) has an item about Connect America Fund, posted with no description. This turns out to be a further NPRM about Phase I funding. As you may recall, CAF Phase I was the short-term (2012) step that offered $775 per line to price-cap ILECs (the Bells and other big ones) to bring broadband to unserved areas that they otherwise wouldn't. It was budgeted for $300M but only about $115M was claimed, mostly by Frontier. The Bells didn't take much. CenturyLink however whined that the definition of served should be changed to specifically exclude areas WISPs, so they could get subsidy money to overbuild existing WISPs. The FCC turned that one down, though CenturyLink did take money for some other areas. The new Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC -12 - 138A1.pdf asks what to do about the remaining Phase I money. While they could of course just not spend it, lowering the USF tax (now around 17%!), that's not one of the two options they are proposing to select from. One option is to simply add this funding to Phase II, which begins in 2013. Phase II allows for competition in the awarding of funds; there will be a reverse auction, and the bidder who asks for the least subsidy money gets it. Most of the FNPRM, however, is devoted to the other option, essentially a second round of Phase I. They propose changing Phase I rules to encourage the ILECs to take more money. There are a lot of questions about details, but the basic ideas are along these lines: 1) Redefine unserved to be anywhere that doesn't have 4/1 service, vs. 768k/200k in the first round. This would be based on the National Broadband Map, using 3M/768k as a surrogate for 4/1. (The agencies apparently hadn't agreed on speed tiers.) So an area served by a WISP at 2M/500k, or by Canopy 100s, would be deemed unserved, since it's not 4/1. 2) Allow challenges to the national map. So if an ILEC thinks an area is unserved even if a WISP claims it's served, they can argue the matter to the FCC. This
Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!
At 11/30/2012 10:17 AM, Rick Harnish wrote: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary==_NextPart_000_031F_01CDCEE3.F0FCA680 Content-Language: en-us I don't think it is fruitless at all. I'm sure there are a lot of companies (DSL, Satellite, Mobile and some cable) that are on the map but cannot guarantee sustained speeds of 4 by 1. Actually, the 4 by 1 criteria is what is being suggested in the rewrite. It has not been adopted yet. Satellite and mobile coverage are not considered served for the purposes of finding a USF unsubsidized competitor; WISPs and wireline services are. But Rick's last sentence is important: This is a proposal, not yet a rule. It is open for Comment. They are trying to find a way to give away more USF money, and disqualifying more unsubsidized competitors (WISPs) is one option on the table. Comments that take exception to that approach could help influence them. The FNPRM proposes selecting between two alternative approaches. One is to raise the unsubsidized bar to 4/1. The other is to end Phase I and put the remaining money into Phase II, which comes later. Certainly the latter approach is better for WISPs in the short term. If the extended Phase I approach is used, you could comment that raising it from 768/200 to 4/1 is excessive, and perhaps say a 1.5/384 standard is more appropriate. Even Canopy 100 can probably claim that (if it's not loaded), though YMMV. So being on the map doesn't hurt and may help. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Doug Clark Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:01 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc! Correct me if I am wrong here Rick, it will be fruitless to do the map unless you are able to maintain customer speeds of 4megs down and 1 meg up. If you service your customer at speeds lower than that then it does not matter, the FCC will fund the Telcos... -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!
Excellent point. ---Original Message--- From: Fred Goldstein Date: 11/30/2012 9:10:00 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc! At 11/30/2012 10:17 AM, Rick Harnish wrote: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary==_NextPart_000_031F_01CDCEE3.F0FCA680 Content-Language: en-us I dont think it is fruitless at all. Im sure there are a lot of companies (DSL, Satellite, Mobile and some cable) that are on the map but cannot guarantee sustained speeds of 4 by 1. Actually, the 4 by 1 criteria is what is being suggested in the rewrite. It has not been adopted yet. Satellite and mobile coverage are not considered served for the purposes of finding a USF unsubsidized competitor; WISPs and wireline services are. But Rick's last sentence is important: This is a proposal, not yet a rule. It is open for Comment. They are trying to find a way to give away more USF money, and disqualifying more unsubsidized competitors (WISPs) is one option on the table. Comments that take exception to that approach could help influence them. The FNPRM proposes selecting between two alternative approaches. One is to raise the unsubsidized bar to 4/1. The other is to end Phase I and put the remaining money into Phase II, which comes later. Certainly the latter approach is better for WISPs in the short term. If the extended Phase I approach is used, you could comment that raising it from 768/200 to 4/1 is excessive, and perhaps say a 1.5/384 standard is more appropriate. Even Canopy 100 can probably claim that (if it's not loaded), though YMMV. So being on the map doesn't hurt and may help. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [ mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Doug Clark Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:01 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc! Correct me if I am wrong here Rick, it will be fruitless to do the map unless you are able to maintain customer speeds of 4megs down and 1 meg up. If you service your customer at speeds lower than that then it does not matter, the FCC will fund the Telcos... -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!
If you aren't on the map, you don't exist to the Feds...not a good situation to be in, in this regulatory climate. Jeff Sent from my iPhone On Nov 30, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 11/30/2012 10:17 AM, Rick Harnish wrote: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary==_NextPart_000_031F_01CDCEE3.F0FCA680 Content-Language: en-us I don’t think it is fruitless at all. I’m sure there are a lot of companies (DSL, Satellite, Mobile and some cable) that are on the map but cannot guarantee sustained speeds of 4 by 1. Actually, the 4 by 1 criteria is what is being suggested in the rewrite. It has not been adopted yet. Satellite and mobile coverage are not considered served for the purposes of finding a USF unsubsidized competitor; WISPs and wireline services are. But Rick's last sentence is important: This is a proposal, not yet a rule. It is open for Comment. They are trying to find a way to give away more USF money, and disqualifying more unsubsidized competitors (WISPs) is one option on the table. Comments that take exception to that approach could help influence them. The FNPRM proposes selecting between two alternative approaches. One is to raise the unsubsidized bar to 4/1. The other is to end Phase I and put the remaining money into Phase II, which comes later. Certainly the latter approach is better for WISPs in the short term. If the extended Phase I approach is used, you could comment that raising it from 768/200 to 4/1 is excessive, and perhaps say a 1.5/384 standard is more appropriate. Even Canopy 100 can probably claim that (if it's not loaded), though YMMV. So being on the map doesn't hurt and may help. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [ mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Doug Clark Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:01 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc! Correct me if I am wrong here Rick, it will be fruitless to do the map unless you are able to maintain customer speeds of 4megs down and 1 meg up. If you service your customer at speeds lower than that then it does not matter, the FCC will fund the Telcos... -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!
approach is used, you could comment that raising it from 768/200 to 4/1 is excessive, and perhaps say a 1.5/384 standard is more appropriate. Even Canopy 100 can probably claim that (if it's not loaded), though YMMV. Are you saying no one is providing service past 1.5/384 with Canopy 100? ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!
I assumed he meant that Canopy 900mHz can not provide speeds above that. ---Original Message--- From: Matt Date: 11/30/2012 9:46:04 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc! approach is used, you could comment that raising it from 768/200 to 4/1 is excessive, and perhaps say a 1.5/384 standard is more appropriate. Even Canopy 100 can probably claim that (if it's not loaded), though YMMV. Are you saying no one is providing service past 1.5/384 with Canopy 100? ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!
At 11/30/2012 11:45 AM, Matt wrote: approach is used, you could comment that raising it from 768/200 to 4/1 is excessive, and perhaps say a 1.5/384 standard is more appropriate. Even Canopy 100 can probably claim that (if it's not loaded), though YMMV. Are you saying no one is providing service past 1.5/384 with Canopy 100? I'm referring to the 900 MHz version with a 4 Mbps one-way burst rate. That won't pass the 4/1 test. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!
approach is used, you could comment that raising it from 768/200 to 4/1 is excessive, and perhaps say a 1.5/384 standard is more appropriate. Even Canopy 100 can probably claim that (if it's not loaded), though YMMV. Are you saying no one is providing service past 1.5/384 with Canopy 100? I'm referring to the 900 MHz version with a 4 Mbps one-way burst rate. That won't pass the 4/1 test. Ok, makes sense. Wireless utility meter readers trashed most of 900 spectrum for us. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!
The rule as it stands now is 3 meg down and 768 up. The 4 meg down and 1 meg up was something put in the National Broadband Plan by the white house team. Problem with that is the National Broadband Map (of which was already spec'd out when they wrote that plan) uses download speed tier breakouts of 3 and 6 meg and 768 and 1.5 meg. There will be no way to actually compute the 4 meg 1 meg rule unless they change the national broadband map AND they get all carriers to revise their reporting. The rule is not really 4 meg and 1 meg either, it's an aggregate to 5 meg, you could be doing 3 meg down and 2 up and meet the standard. Remember that is currently just your advertised maximum download and upload speed. Not all of your customers have to subscribe to that. A WISP even using 900 MHz could limit those plans to say only 1 to 5% of the customers on an AP and technically still be within the rules. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com www.Broadband-Mapping.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 11:59 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc! At 11/30/2012 11:45 AM, Matt wrote: approach is used, you could comment that raising it from 768/200 to 4/1 is excessive, and perhaps say a 1.5/384 standard is more appropriate. Even Canopy 100 can probably claim that (if it's not loaded), though YMMV. Are you saying no one is providing service past 1.5/384 with Canopy 100? I'm referring to the 900 MHz version with a 4 Mbps one-way burst rate. That won't pass the 4/1 test. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!
A WISP could also offer these speeds and raise the price for this plan to account for the total number of regular speed clients they might lose due to capacity issues with the higher speed plan. Nowhere do the rules state that you have to offer those speeds at any given price. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com www.Broadband-Mapping.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 3:27 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc! The rule as it stands now is 3 meg down and 768 up. The 4 meg down and 1 meg up was something put in the National Broadband Plan by the white house team. Problem with that is the National Broadband Map (of which was already spec'd out when they wrote that plan) uses download speed tier breakouts of 3 and 6 meg and 768 and 1.5 meg. There will be no way to actually compute the 4 meg 1 meg rule unless they change the national broadband map AND they get all carriers to revise their reporting. The rule is not really 4 meg and 1 meg either, it's an aggregate to 5 meg, you could be doing 3 meg down and 2 up and meet the standard. Remember that is currently just your advertised maximum download and upload speed. Not all of your customers have to subscribe to that. A WISP even using 900 MHz could limit those plans to say only 1 to 5% of the customers on an AP and technically still be within the rules. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com www.Broadband-Mapping.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 11:59 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc! At 11/30/2012 11:45 AM, Matt wrote: approach is used, you could comment that raising it from 768/200 to 4/1 is excessive, and perhaps say a 1.5/384 standard is more appropriate. Even Canopy 100 can probably claim that (if it's not loaded), though YMMV. Are you saying no one is providing service past 1.5/384 with Canopy 100? I'm referring to the 900 MHz version with a 4 Mbps one-way burst rate. That won't pass the 4/1 test. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!
At 11/30/2012 03:26 PM, Brian Webster wrote: The rule as it stands now is 3 meg down and 768 up. The 4 meg down and 1 meg up was something put in the National Broadband Plan by the white house team. Problem with that is the National Broadband Map (of which was already spec'd out when they wrote that plan) uses download speed tier breakouts of 3 and 6 meg and 768 and 1.5 meg. There will be no way to actually compute the 4 meg 1 meg rule unless they change the national broadband map AND they get all carriers to revise their reporting. The rule is not really 4 meg and 1 meg either, it's an aggregate to 5 meg, you could be doing 3 meg down and 2 up and meet the standard. Remember that is currently just your advertised maximum download and upload speed. Not all of your customers have to subscribe to that. A WISP even using 900 MHz could limit those plans to say only 1 to 5% of the customers on an AP and technically still be within the rules. Yes, the FCC and the mapping folks are out of sync. So the FCC proposal says that 4/1 would officially be the new speed *but* really it's just being on the map at 3/.768, since that's the closest map speed. They call the map a lower speed surrogate for 4/1. If you think that's a disconnect, just try to get the FCC's Wireline [prevention of] Competition Bureau to play nice with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Even Abe Lincoln would have trouble getting that team of rivals to work together. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless