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
>>
>>
>>
>
