Tom, As always you ask great questions. I'd love to see the answer! On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Tom DeReggi <wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net> wrote: > I thought I'd add.... > > Why should we assume that the State's objectives will always be to get > accurate coverage maps? > Sure States with higher percentage of unserved areas would benefit from > accurately showing userved areas. > But what about the other more served states? Wouldn't they benefit by > showing that their own states are more unserved than the realy are? > Showing that a WISP covers an unserved area just means that that state might > not qualify for Federal money to get fiber to those locations. > Can we ever really rely on any mapping project to represent the WISP's > interests, when the goal of the MApping is to develop a basis for possible > future federal assistance to build fiber networks? > Isn't most state's real mission to determine where there is and isn't fiber, > to encourage the expansion of Fiber? > What motive does the State appointed mappers have to cooperate and > accommodate WISP's request for mapping? > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matt Larsen - Lists" <li...@manageisp.com> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 1:51 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] connected nation mapping data > > >>I was on a conference call with the State of Nebraska broadband mapping >> contractors and the Public Service Commission this morning and came away >> with a bad feeling. >> >> Based on the Form477 data, and the PSC's broadband provider registration >> information, there are 283 broadband providers in the state of >> Nebraska. But they only have complete information for about 25, and >> signed NDAs from only 160. I offered to them that they would have >> better luck getting data if they weren't asking for so much >> information. The data template that they ask for includes: >> >> 1) All subscriber addresses, and the type of broadband deployed at that >> location >> 2) GPS coordinates for all of our tower locations, the types of >> antennas provided and the frequencies in use at that location >> 3) Key "anchor institutions" that are receiving service from our system >> >> I have had a couple of phone calls and several emails back and forth >> with the mapping subcontractors, and they (and the PSC) are still >> adamant about the data collection requirements. I thought that we had >> negotiated to the point that they would accept a shape file and a >> summary of the number of subscribers per census block, but the phone >> call this morning confirmed that incomplete data submissions (ones that >> do not include the tower verification information and subscriber >> information in the format that they requested) will not be included in >> the summary data, or the state broadband availability map that will be >> released to the public. >> >> The contractors and the attorney for the PSC gave the indication that >> the NTIA is mandating this level of data collection, and that their NDA >> should be enough protection to ensure the safety of our proprietary >> information. My position, and the position of the majority of WISP >> operators that I have visited with, is that I am not going to turn over >> the information that they are asking for. Full disclosure of all my >> tower sites and the addresses of my customers is an onerous request and >> fundamentally unnecessary to determine where broadband coverage exists >> within the state. I would prefer to run the risk of being overbuilt by >> a government funded program in the future than to turn over information >> to entities (NTIA in particular) that could be legally obligated to turn >> over that information through a FOIA request. >> >> I don't know whether it is too late to push back at the NTIA to reduce >> the data that they are requesting. I can sympathise to a certain >> degree with the PSC and the contractors, as they are just trying to >> collect the data that NTIA has mandated them to collect. But they are >> simply asking for too much information. In the end, it will be another >> inaccurate representation of broadband coverage and that information >> will be used to develop policy and programs that will make the >> competitive environment for WISPs and other independent ISPs even more >> difficult to succeed in. That sucks. >> >> Matt Larsen >> vistabeam.com >> >> >> >> On 4/12/2010 10:29 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: >>> BTOP Mapping grants given to States are Federal initiatives. The states >>> have to answer and report to the Feds on their progress. >>> >>> Basically they will report to the Feds, who they contacted, and who >>> provided >>> info and who didn't. The State mappers have little authority to do >>> anything >>> about whether you give them information or not. >>> But the Feds potentially could. Remember it is FCC policy/law to provide >>> Form 477 data, down to Census track. >>> >>> It may come down to a legal issue on whether the FCC has authority to >>> demand >>> confidential information or not from provate companies. When a WISP does >>> not provide info, whether the Feds or States make a stink about it, may >>> depend on the impact of the data that would be missing, and their real >>> legal >>> opinion which I'm sure they would not truly disclose outside of court. >>> >>> In MD, we were just contacted, and the mapping initiative is really a >>> racket >>> for free money. MD had already started a very substanial mapping effort >>> at >>> the State Level. But that is considered different. So with teh BTOP >>> mapping >>> grant they got, they cant or choose not to use the pre-existing MApping >>> platform, and basically are starting a seperate project to comply to the >>> federal initatives. Basically DOUBLE spending, to get the FREE money. Or >>> maybe I should say different applicants would be beneficiaries of the >>> mapping funds. The mapping group in our state was given to a legit group >>> that was formed by the state and gained many members of wireline and >>> fiber >>> carriers. >>> >>> They reached out to me with intent to try to amicably work with us, but >>> they >>> were surprised by some of the comments that I made prior. For example, >>> they >>> brought up the benefit of lead generation if I filed. I stated... "If >>> they >>> were going to post my coverage and contact info for the world to see, I >>> wouldn't file because I dont want everyone from all over the place >>> calling >>> me for service, because it would clog our sales lines with unqualified or >>> less dersirable leads, and that we make sales by precisely targeting our >>> prospects, and the areas and clients that are most profitable for us to >>> serve get targeted, since we have limited funding? I mentioned we had >>> coverage to serve several million subscribers, but we only had funding to >>> install 20 per month. They wanted subscriber level detail, I told them >>> I >>> might give them Block level detail. But the funny part was that the same >>> group just applied for a BTOP grant in round2 to provide fiber to most of >>> the state. So I told them I'd give them my mapping data as soon as they >>> gave >>> me theirs. I told them the round1 applciation, proposed to overbuild our >>> entire coverage, and I'm sure the round2 one would also. I told them >>> there >>> was a huge conflict of interest with me providinh them my coverage data >>> without them providing me theirs. I'd likely have to protest their >>> governor >>> led Round2 BTOP application, and to provide my coverage data prior to the >>> announcement of success or failure of an award, would be a huge comflict >>> of >>> interest, considering I plan to protest the BTOP application. I asked >>> them, If I disclosed my coverage, would they be willing to carve that >>> coverage out of their application... They bypassed that question. >>> >>> They said the Governor's office will be provided a list of providers that >>> complied and didn't. I asked, if they'd join my lobby effort to fight the >>> Governor's office to stop charging property tax on broadband investment? >>> They bypassed that question. >>> >>> Actually.... There were three big Round1 apps in Maryland. One was State >>> led, and got turned down for many reasons, mostly because it was focusing >>> on >>> overbuilding served areas. ($100 million in Fiber). The second was >>> Maryland >>> Broadband Cooperative that legitimately was focussing on rural unserved >>> parts of the state. Neither got an award for good reasons. In Round2, >>> the >>> Governor changed the plan, and actually incorporated the MVC as a >>> subcomponent of teh State's grant, so that it would add credability to >>> the >>> application. Basically it was a political move that indirectly said.... >>> we >>> now have one unified application, and to get the rural parts served (MBC) >>> you got to also look the otherway when we through in some served areas >>> that >>> that state wants. They are absolutely crazy if they think I 'll provide >>> my >>> data before the BTOP Round2 protests and awards are finished. >>> >>> However, after that time period, we are very likely to provide full >>> Census >>> Block coverage information to MBC. We want to be looked at as a ISP that >>> shares a possisitive vision for growth of broadband in the state, but we >>> will not give them everything they want in the form they want. We will >>> withhold things, such as we will NOT give any subscriber data, location >>> or >>> count. We will simply disclose "coverage". >>> >>> Our position is to convey the facts that we can cover vast territory with >>> in >>> palce infrastructure, and Funding is the primary limitation to expansion. >>> But it will never help us to disclose the volume of our subscriber count, >>> for the public to see. >>> And we'll make them take us to court before we'll provide it. >>> >>> I'd like to give an example, of D&B and Getting Leases. One thing we >>> learned >>> is that Giving D&B info hurts you if you give them info that proves you >>> dont >>> meet the qualification of lenders. For example, If a lendor wants to see >>> that you have over 10 employees, you would not want to tell D&B to list >>> that >>> you have only 5. Its better to not tell D&B anything, and leave the >>> value >>> at ZERO, so there is no proof that you dont qualify. And as well, by >>> providing no information, one would not have to lie to try to prove >>> compliance. The same thing applies to other fields, such as annual >>> revenue. >>> Less is more, unless the data is possitive info. My point here is that >>> what >>> you dont tell people, they dont know, and what they dont know they cant >>> hold >>> against you. You only disclose the info that helps you. >>> >>> The same principle applies to marketing one's company. If a provider is >>> a 2 >>> man company, would a fortunte 100 company select that provider as their >>> provider? Probably not. But the Fortune 100 company does not know that >>> the >>> provider is a 2 person company, if no body tells them, and the provider's >>> reputation is good. The day a provider has a few 100,000 subs, it will >>> help to disclose subs. But not when its a few 1000. >>> >>> WISPs need to continue to promote it's COVERAGE!!! We are STRONG when it >>> comes to Coverage, But I jsut dont get promoting subscribers, because we >>> are >>> NOT strong in subscriber count proporationally to our competitors. >>> But I highly recommend that WISPs continue to show our coverage, at a >>> broader range, what ever range a WISP feels is not a risk to disclose. >>> >>> >>> Tom DeReggi >>> RapidDSL& Wireless, Inc >>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Scott Reed"<scottr...@onlyinternet.net> >>> To: "WISPA General List"<wireless@wispa.org> >>> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 10:38 AM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] connected nation mapping data >>> >>> >>> >>>> There as been some comment on this on the list. >>>> They just contacted us as well. >>>> My plan is to tell them to look at our website to get the coverage >>>> area. The rest is company confidential information. >>>> I do remember some folks in IL refusing to give them anything. >>>> I have not seen anything that says we have to give them data. They make >>>> it sound like it is a requirement, but I don't think that is the case. >>>> >>>> Kurt Fankhauser wrote: >>>> >>>>> Does anyone here have any experience with Connected Nation / Connect >>>>> Ohio >>>>> on >>>>> them wanting data from you for their mapping purposes? They are >>>>> requesting I >>>>> sign a non-disclosure agreement and then hand them over a list of all >>>>> my >>>>> towers, coordinates, frequency's, antenna, cable loss, equipment >>>>> manufacturer, service plan speeds. Seems like they want a lot of >>>>> personal >>>>> information. I am just wondering besides mapping purposes what the >>>>> secondary >>>>> uses of this collected data will be used for. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Feel free to email me off-list as well. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Kurt Fankhauser >>>>> WAVELINC >>>>> P.O. Box 126 >>>>> Bucyrus, OH 44820 >>>>> 419-562-6405 >>>>> www.wavelinc.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>>> >>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>>> >>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Scott Reed >>>> Sr. Systems Engineer >>>> GAB Midwest >>>> 1-800-363-1544 x2241 >>>> 1-260-827-2241 >>>> Cell: 260-273-7239 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>> >>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>> >>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
