They are not wanting to expand USF. They want to shed recipients. Killing off support to ILECS that are 100% overlapped by an unsubsidized competitor that can provide voice along with 10/1 is the first round. It has already happened.
They are going to be dropping that overlap percentage as times goes on but they will also be raising the speed limit. From: Ken Hohhof Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:53 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com? I don’t see how they fund it all without expanding the USF contribution base to include broadband. It seems like a question of when, not if. Unless Republicans have enough power after the election to actually take a small government, free enterprise, anti crony capitalism stance and tell people to pay for their own broadband or move to the city. Maybe if Trump wins, he’ll get Mexico to pay for it. From: Chuck McCown Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 11:41 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com? Directly from the mouth of one of the key regulators standing 2 feet away and speaking directly to me, I heard they want the telcos to do 100% fiber and then it is game over. They don’t want to consider any option other than fiber. Of course you will never see that in a public statement, but that is how they feel. From: Ken Hohhof Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:36 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com? Virtually all of northern Illinois is already marked as served. But I think the ILECs did this to themselves by lying about their speeds and coverage, I think very little of that area became served due to WISPs. They falsely claimed to have 4/1 DSL service already, so they don’t get a welfare check for those areas, but they don’t want to fix their sucky copper and DSL service without that welfare check. So they need the benchmark for “served” raised to 10/1 or 25/3 so they can get subsidies to upgrade their own service, they probably also want approval for “IP transition” so they can put in fiber and abandon the copper and traditional POTS service. It just amazes me they will pay Verizon $2000 per subscriber for a system they can then claim is worthless and unprofitable and get subsidies to replace it. Seems like you overpaid, or else future subsidies were part of the valuation. From: Chuck McCown Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 11:24 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com? Yeahbut, the welfare check is tied to providing dial tone, but can be taken away by an unsubsidized broadband competitor overlapping the turf. From: Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:14 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com? A duty to serve... phone... not broadband. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com> To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 11:08:56 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com? ILECs have their maps defined by the state regulators, so while their actual broadband coverage in their turf may be lacking the fact they have turf boundaries defined by the state, there is no argument. They have a "duty to serve" as a common carrier. -----Original Message----- From: Josh Reynolds Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:10 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com? What you basically just said is that WISPs can't lie about their coverage areas despite 50% of the maps of the LECs, cablecos, and larger WISPs being total bullshit. Is that correct? On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > If you claim 100% coverage of a census block or tract and that prevents a > telco from getting its welfare check, they will do drive testing of the > whole thing. It has already happened and will happen much more in the > future as the FCC reduces the unsubsidized competitor coverage percentage > that takes away their support. Just sayin, claiming more turf than you > truly serve or can serve in 7-10 days with 10 down and 1 up (soon to > change > to 25 down) can bring grief. There is no upside to claiming more than you > can do on a 477 turf wise or speed wise but there is a big downside. > > From: Cameron Crum > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:10 AM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com? > > I'm not sure even areas as small as census blocks groups allow you to be > surgically accurate. > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: >> >> I would say that y’all better be getting surgically accurate on your 477 >> filings. You do sign them under penalty of perjury and there will be >> telcos >> challenging your coverage data. >> >> From: Dennis Burgess >> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:07 AM >> To: af@afmug.com >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com? >> >> >> We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the >> broadband sub data if your billing system don’t do that anyways. >> >> >> >> The new APIs allow almost limitless integration with other applications. >> I.e. you can do a path profile using our data in about 200ms though the >> API. >> Just a matter of the billing/powercode/visp/whatever programming it up .. >> >> >> >> Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc. >> >> den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net >> >> >> >> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of David >> Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:03 AM >> To: af@afmug.com >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com? >> >> >> >> +1000 >> for this solution.. Unless you invest the time and effort to build a >> custom solution like towercoverage I dont complain about the number of >> customers it has brought to us and >> the countless times it has saved us on truck rolls for invalid service. >> Also, the EUS data alone is very helpful when determining new site >> locations. >> We have 4 new sites going up this year because of that data. >> U-Verse is our only real competitor in a couple of these areas. If I >> could >> only sell TV i would have it in the bag :) >> >> >> >> >> On 02/03/2016 11:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: >> >> It says it when you log in to towercoverage.com >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> On Feb 4, 2016 12:19 AM, "CBB - Jay Fuller" <par...@cyberbroadband.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hmmm.....news to me >> >> >> >> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone >> >> >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "Josh Luthman" <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> >> To: <af@afmug.com> >> Subject: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com? >> Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2016 10:22 PM >> >> >> >> Uh you can dude. Been a while since they enabled that. >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> On Feb 3, 2016 11:07 PM, "Jeremy" <jeremysmi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> This. So much this. Powercode already has the azimuths, downtilt, gps >> coordinates, and everything. That should really be the next step is >> pulling >> this info for integration. I have had an active account for like a year >> and >> have never used it. I just don't have the time to add it all. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:29 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller >> <par...@cyberbroadband.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> suggestion - take our antenna plots directly from pokeycode, i mean >> powercode, and automatically populate all our towers in towercoverage... >> :) >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: Dennis Burgess >> >> To: af@afmug.com >> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 8:51 PM >> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com? >> >> >> >> Thanks for all of the kind comments and suggestions. The pricing is the >> same as since its inception, we have a dedicated staff to answer >> questions >> as well as take phone calls if you need assistance. Feel free to call or >> e-mail. >> >> >> >> >> >> Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc. >> >> den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net >> >> >> >> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm >> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 5:31 PM >> To: af@afmug.com >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com? >> >> >> >> wow, the pricing is a whole lot more realistic than it used to be, still >> expensive if you wanted to plot every antenna, but omni will get you the >> gist of it. hopefully their support is better than a repetitive canned >> response now >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Josh Luthman >> <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> >> wrote: >> >> $25/mo is not much. I strongly recommend signing up for it simply for >> the >> EUS form. If you get ONE customer out of the purchase, you made money. >> Any >> more than that is gravy. >> >> >> >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Tim Reichhart >> <timreichh...@hometowncable.net> wrote: >> >> Who on this list is using towercoverage.com? I want to know how accurate >> it is because I have an account now with them and I am doubt its very >> accurate to give out an good signal from my tower. Because I really hate >> spending 25 dollars per month and its not going to be accurate. >> >> Tim >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> >> >> >> > >
