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 [email protected] 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. [email protected] [email protected] (Trina and Rick) > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 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 Baaaackkkk! > > 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" <[email protected]> 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. > >[email protected] > >[email protected] (Trina and Rick) > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > >> On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein > >> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 5:17 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk! > >> > >> 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 works both ways, so I suppose an ISP could claim that the > >>map omitted them by mistake. But it points out that a WISP SHOULD > >>MAKE SURE ITS COVERAGE AREAS ARE ON THE MAP! (Just a little shouting > >>in case anyone didn't hear it.) > >> > >> They are supposed to come out with a list of unserved areas (census > >> blocks0 next month. > >> > >> There are some other interesting details. Phase I awards are $775 > >>per new customer. That number may be adjusted in this second round. > >>Also, in > >areas > >> served by (rural, subsidized) Rate of Return Carriers, the subsidy > >>number > >comes > >> from the FCC's High Cost Proxy Model. In Phase 2, these areas get > >subsidized > >> according to a more elaborate cost model now being debated. > >> > >> There is also the possibility that the Phase I recipient may have to > >>build > >a > >> certain amount of "second mile" (basically, exchange feeder > >> fiber) as well as "last mile" distribution. But there's no clear > >obligation to make > >> this available at wholesale, which would be nice. > >> They also ask about how to handle builds that have to go through > >> served > >areas > >> in order to reach unserved ones. So even if you're on the map, you > >>could > >get > >> overbuilt by the ILEC. > >> > >> Note that a Phase I awardee must apply to serve specific unserved > >> areas > >and > >> applies to serve a certain number of unserved subscribers, > >> *but* they do not actually have to use it where they said they would. > >>The > >> applications are merely suggestions of where they might > >> find their unserved customers. They can actually spend it > >> elsewhere, so long as they get at least one customer added per $775. > >> > >> An open question is that several awardees said that their proposed > >>service areas are confidential. The FCC has not decided if this is > >>acceptable, so > >it's an > >> open question now. I'd think that a WISP should be allowed to know > >>if the > >ILEC > >> plans to build subsidized service to an area they're thinking of > >>building > >to, so > >> this should be public information, not confidential. So tell the FCC! > >> > >> I am hoping the FCC Committee and others interested will take note of > >this. It > >> probably won't reach the Federal Register for a while, and then the > >>30 day Comment period begins. > >> > >> -- > >> Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com > >> ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ > >> +1 617 795 2701 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wireless mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Wireless mailing list > >[email protected] > >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
