I did not realize that. I thought that both the cable and telcos were
subsidized. That makes sense why they would be opposing it then.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 6:01 PM, 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 <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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
