Trying to find a pony in this pile of manure, I guess we could look at this as
saying they’re not going to give the telcos CAF money for 10/1 and watch them
take 5 years and just deploy some ADSL2+ remote DSLAMs on existing copper, we
want the money spent on fiber so it will still be useful in 20 years.
And the results might be that the welfare queens of the telco business like
CenturyLink decide not to take the money if they have to put in actual FTTH.
But why 25/3 and not 25/25, or 100/50 like in the Broadband plan? When I hear
25/3, it sounds like you put a Netflix guy and a UVerse guy in a room and asked
them to suggest a number. If there was a Google Fiber guy in the room, he
would roll his eyes.
Assuming most CAF funded projects will take 3-5 years from now, most of us will
probably have 25/3 capability by then anyway if you extrapolate current trends
(although the most popular plan will probably still be whatever costs between
$35 and $50). If they are going to give the telco CAF money to overbuild us,
and especially if we have to pay into the fund, I guess I’d like to see the
money spent on a future proof network, not just subsidize the telcos to deploy
some remote DSLAMS.
So one argument could be the benchmark isn’t high enough. After all, the 2010
National Broadband Plan set goals of 100 million homes having access to
100M/50M by the end of the decade, and all anchor institutions having access to
1 gigabit.
Unfortunately, whether the goal is set at 25/3 or 100/50, it doesn’t help the
people who still don’t have access to (or can’t afford) 4/1. As CAF money is
used to build 25/3 for the people with 4K televisions, will there be low cost
plans for the people who really just want 4/1 at an affordable price?
From: Jeremy
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 11:15 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Two FCC related questions
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
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
