It doesn't mean that under 25/3 is unserved at this point. To change it for
CAF purposes requires considerably more work, public notification, comment
periods, etc.
It gives us a good idea of where things are going with the FCC, but in and of
itself it doesn't change anything - yet.
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex
27800 Lemoyne, Ste F
Millbury, OH 43447
419-261-5996
> On Jan 30, 2015, at 8:06 PM, Jason McKemie <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>
> wrote:
>
> Doesn't this just mean if you don't offer service of at least 25mbps your
> area won't count as served? I'm pretty sure you can call your service
> whatever you damn well please.
>
>> On Friday, January 30, 2015, Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net> wrote:
>> Keep in mind the cable companies don't get federal subsidies. The cable
>> data operations are unregulated information service exactly like us, and
>> they can easily meet the 25/3.
>>
>> They are opposed because it means the telcos are going to be given federal
>> money to upgrade to 25/3 and become competition.
>>
>> Cable spends it's own money to compete, just like us. They are equally
>> ticked over changing the definition so that their competition, who has not
>> spent their own money, and waited for government handouts is going to be
>> rewarded.
>>
>>
>> Mark Radabaugh
>> Amplex
>> 27800 Lemoyne, Ste F
>> Millbury, OH 43447
>> 419-261-5996
>>
>>> On Jan 30, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Jeremy <jeremysmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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] 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 Daytime #
>>>>>>> 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct #
>>>>>>> Online: www.surfici.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
