They wanted service. They live in the USA. The exchange was getting rebuilt using a RUS loan.
That is the justification. And it does make 11.25% ROI and will until it is fully depreciated. From: Ken Hohhof Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 1:07 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CenturyLink installing these Justify plowing 20 miles of fiber to serve one house any way you want, you’re rationalizing. How sure are you that 20 years from now, that investment will still look “future proof”? Or will it look like 8-track tapes and CB radio and non-flying cars and meat made from animals? I remember when we were supposed to wire every house for ISDN, because in the future, everyone would “need” two 64 kbps bearer channels and a 16 kbps data channel and “integrated services”. The Germans installed a lot of ISDN BRI and mocked us for not following their example. This was 20 years ago, and the futurists all had $1000 ISDN modems in their houses so they could spend half an hour downloading a photo from a bulletin board. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 1:55 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CenturyLink installing these I agree with you on the need. In my mind, nobody "needs" more than 1meg. 10meg generally makes them happy and not have too fuss about how they're using it (for now). They "want" 25-100 meg for all their entertainment. Put another way: I might only "need" 10 amps of electrical capacity as long as I'm careful about how I'm using it, but my 200 amp service makes me a happy and contented consumer for the foreseeable future. Regardless of what anyone "needs", fiber is going to end up the standard delivery mechanism for data because it will meet the need of today and the need of next year and the next 50 years. If you build anything else, then in the long run you'll have people still clamoring for improvement and it will end up being replaced. There's nothing wrong with meeting the immediate need with wireless, and you can absolutely make money doing it, but the long term and permanent answer is going to be fiber. So if you want to stay relevant in the future you'll be looking at how to get into that game whether it's with private funding or government subsidy. This is a WISP, we're a WISPA member, and I want WISP's to succeed.....but facts is facts. -Adam ------ Original Message ------ From: "Mark Radabaugh" <m...@amplex.net> To: af@afmug.com Sent: 2/1/2017 2:11:22 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CenturyLink installing these Chuck, Explain why we would have to bury fiber for that customer when the current standard for ‘served’ for Internet is 10Mbps which is easily done with wireless, and “Advanced Broadband” is 25/3Mb. I still think there is a very valid argument that 10Mbps is more than sufficient for the services that the government should be guaranteeing (phone, telemedicine, education). 25/3 is more about entertainment than anything else and I don’t see where this is a taxpayer obligation. I want Broadway shows in my little town too - but I don’t expect the government to fund them. The major carriers are moving away from landlines as fast as they can and are really looking to replace all last mile with wireless if they can make it work (and they think they can). I don’t think it will be long until getting traditional landline service in the city is no longer an option - why would we still be forcing this in rural areas? The other issue is the cash cow that funded USF for years (intrastate phone revenue) is rapidly diminishing and will finish it's spiral of death soon unless the contribution base is expanded to broadband. Mark Mark Radabaugh WISPA FCC Committee Chair fcc_ch...@wispa.org 419-261-5996 On Feb 1, 2017, at 12:38 PM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: Depends on what you call rural. I have served areas with perhaps 1 house every 5 miles. You are not going to find a wisp willing to build out in areas like that. I plowed 20 miles of fiber for one single house. From: That One Guy /sarcasm Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 10:34 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CenturyLink installing these If WISPA does their job well, small business can more effectively service the rural markets than the telcos, for alot less money On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Jason McKemie <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote: You think? It seems like the Republicans are in the pocket of big telco, so I wouldn't hold my breath. On Wednesday, February 1, 2017, That One Guy /sarcasm <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: i think that bank account may be closed very soon On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net> wrote: Lipstick on a pig. The copper in still rotting in the ground and the only approved Centurylink fix appears to be the upgrade from black to orange trash bags. Except when those are out of stock. Centurylink will be back to the FCC shortly crying about how the need more support money to fix the plant. The only question is if they do it this year or next. Mark Radabaugh WISPA FCC Committee Chair fcc_ch...@wispa.org 419-261-5996 On Feb 1, 2017, at 8:15 AM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote: They couldn't before either, but they didn't give a shit. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Darin Steffl" <darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> To: af@afmug.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 11:49:50 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CenturyLink installing these These should all be fiber fed. Any new DSLAM's with CAF funding are very likely fiber fed. They just can't support the bandwidth requirements with only bonded T1's anymore. On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote: One would suspect a calix e7-2 or e7-20 (2Tbps backplane, 100Gbps link to each line card). I don't think you can even feed those by anything short of at least a gig ethernet circuit. I never really tried on any of the E7-2s I've used in the past though :) On Jan 31, 2017 11:29 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <li...@packetflux.com> wrote: Out of curiosity, do you know how are they feeding these shelves? I know that in at least one case a couple of years ago, Qwest was feeding an entire neighborhood on I think 4 T1's. On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Darin Steffl <darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> wrote: Exactly. Calix VDSL2 Remote DSLAM. These are the result of CAF funding from Govt. to provide minimum 10/1 Mbps speeds to the census blocks they took funding for. If Centurylink had crappy or no DSL in these areas before, expect them to be able to offer somewhat functional to excellent DSL speeds to customers in range of these remote DSLAMs. For really close customers, they may see up to 40/1 Mbps speeds. On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Carl Peterson <cpeter...@portnetworks.com> wrote: As someone already said, its clearly and E3. https://www.calix.com/systems/e-series/e3-e5-dsl.html On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 4:18 PM, George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com> wrote: Regen would be my guess. On 1/31/2017 2:45 PM, Tim Reichhart wrote: it got fiber ran into it for remote dslam to provide customers vdsl2 along that route. Tim -----Original Message----- From: "Carl Peterson" <cpeter...@portnetworks.com> To: af@afmug.com Date: 01/31/17 03:28 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CenturyLink installing these Calix. I'd guess G.Fast Sent from my iPhone On Jan 31, 2017, at 3:07 PM, Josh Corson <j...@bluebitnetworks.com> wrote: Does anyone know what these are? They are popping up on fairly rural areas of our coverage areas and on the state highways. Thanks <mime-attachment.txt> <image1.JPG> -- Carl Peterson PORT NETWORKS 401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553 Baltimore, MD 21202 (410) 637-3707 -- Darin Steffl Minnesota WiFi www.mnwifi.com 507-634-WiFi Like us on Facebook -- Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc. Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602 forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com -- Darin Steffl Minnesota WiFi www.mnwifi.com 507-634-WiFi Like us on Facebook -- 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. -- 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.
