Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

2012-11-30 Thread Doug Clark
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!

2012-11-30 Thread Fred Goldstein

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!

2012-11-30 Thread Doug Clark
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 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


Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

2012-11-30 Thread Jeff Broadwick - Lists
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!

2012-11-30 Thread Matt
 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!

2012-11-30 Thread Doug Clark
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!

2012-11-30 Thread Fred Goldstein
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!

2012-11-30 Thread Matt
  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!

2012-11-30 Thread Brian Webster
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!

2012-11-30 Thread Brian Webster
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!

2012-11-30 Thread Fred Goldstein
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