Maybe they resell something in that other location. If they're using a
system (like Plat) which generates covered blocks based on where your
customers are, then something you resell in another area would show up
in the report.
I'm wondering what the opinion is on partially covered blocks these
days. If you cover a portion of a census block, do you claim it or not?
I think many operators (including some large ones) are claiming
coverage of any census block they touch. I've heard at least one claim
that it's a defensive move to prevent people getting government funding
to overbuild them. Incidentally, it also prevents yourself from getting
government funding to build there so I'm thinking it isn't such a wise
choice.
------ Original Message ------
From: "Mike Hammett" <af...@ics-il.net>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 8/28/2017 9:36:02 AM
Subject: [AFMUG] FCC Form 477
On your Federal Communications Commission Form 477, make sure your
stated coverage is at least somewhat representative of what you
actually cover. In doing some market research, I keep finding ISPs (not
just WISPs) obviously based out of one or two towns in one state, but
have claimed some census blocks in other states. This seems very much
so an error in the filing and not an expansion network.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
