Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
If you park a car under it the car becomes plates of a multi plate capacitor.
That assumes ground return. I grew up around the big DC line that runs from
The Dalles, Oregon to Sylmar, California. Originally it was operated ground
return, 11 ohms total loop resistance. Had big mercury vapor ignitron tubes at
each end to rectify and invert. It was a fun place to visit. Huge federal
building, had tourist areas but nobody was ever there. It was air conditioned
and my car and my home were not. The hydroelectric dams were also good to kill
an afternoon as a teenager on a hot summer day. I had almost total free run of
them.
From: Bill Prince
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 2:27 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
I would think that DC would pose much less of an issue than AC. No stray
expanding/collapsing magnetic fields.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 2/28/2015 1:19 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
I was concerned because the 200 ft towers would potentially go through the
one part of my service area that is currently free of both wind farms and high
voltage transmission lines.
But the current route takes it about a mile north of US Hwy 52 which puts it
at the south end of my coverage, it may cause some problems for me, but not as
bad as some of the originally proposed routes.
http://www.rockislandcleanline.com/site/page/preferred-and-alternative-routes-in-illinois
They don’t seem decided yet on what type of tower they will use, a lattice
tower is more likely to block a microwave path than a monopole:
http://www.rockislandcleanline.com/site/page/transmission-line-structures
From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 2:53 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
They have been doing this for years, so maybe it has changed. *shrugs*
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
From: Bill Prince mailto:part15...@gmail.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 2:41:30 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
When I looked at their web site, a couple different voltages were mentioned.
The first reference was to ~~ 350,000 volts, and the second one was 600,000
volts. You may be right about 1,000,000 volts, as that would really reduce the
current. Would make those thyristors even more impressive.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 2/28/2015 12:37 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I think they're running 1M vDC.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
From: Bill Prince mailto:part15...@gmail.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 2:33:14 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Interesting how we've come full circle on power transmission. Thomas
Edison's original big distribution project failed because it was essentially
a DC transmission project. Back then, they were only able to do DC
transmission a couple of miles. The advantages of AC won out.
Now that we understand the issues better, DC is coming back.
I would really like to see the thyristors that convert between AC and DC
with an operating voltage of 600,000 volts.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 2/28/2015 12:00 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
There is an ugly fight against a 500 mile high voltage DC power line
through Iowa and Illinois and use of eminent domain to acquire the farmland.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Block-RICL-Rock-Island-Clean-Line/133050610203359
From: Chuck McCown
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 1:27 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
It is a tool to be used as a last resort. You make no friends and it
ends up costing you lots of money and goodwill. But it is a very effective
tool in Utah.
From: Trevor Bough
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:03 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
I have no doubt that eminent domain has been abused all over the country
in the manner you described with the developer (that's why I provided the link
about the Missouri port authority losing their eminent domain claim to show
that MO anyhow has attempted to put an end to that and, in effect make it
harder to win any eminent domain case). I also agree that it is much easier to
win the argument that fiber is providing a public use than a land developer. It
is also easier for the landowner to prove that your fiber doesn't have to go
through their property (unless they have a rather large tract of land, in which
case they are just stupid not to take the money and accept the easement in the
first place) to get where you need to go. I am not against eminent domain. It's
a sometimes necessary tool. I'm
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
I would think that DC would pose much less of an issue than AC. No
stray expanding/collapsing magnetic fields.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 2/28/2015 1:19 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
I was concerned because the 200 ft towers would potentially go through
the one part of my service area that is currently free of both wind
farms and high voltage transmission lines.
But the current route takes it about a mile north of US Hwy 52 which
puts it at the south end of my coverage, it may cause some problems
for me, but not as bad as some of the originally proposed routes.
http://www.rockislandcleanline.com/site/page/preferred-and-alternative-routes-in-illinois
They don’t seem decided yet on what type of tower they will use, a
lattice tower is more likely to block a microwave path than a monopole:
http://www.rockislandcleanline.com/site/page/transmission-line-structures
*From:* Mike Hammett mailto:af...@ics-il.net
*Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 2:53 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
They have been doing this for years, so maybe it has changed. *shrugs*
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
https://www.facebook.com/ICSILhttps://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalbhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutionshttps://twitter.com/ICSIL
*From: *Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Saturday, February 28, 2015 2:41:30 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
When I looked at their web site, a couple different voltages were
mentioned. The first reference was to ~~ 350,000 volts, and the
second one was 600,000 volts. You may be right about 1,000,000 volts,
as that would really reduce the current. Would make those thyristors
even more impressive.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 2/28/2015 12:37 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I think they're running 1M vDC.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
https://www.facebook.com/ICSILhttps://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalbhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutionshttps://twitter.com/ICSIL
*From: *Bill Prince mailto:part15...@gmail.com
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Saturday, February 28, 2015 2:33:14 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Interesting how we've come full circle on power transmission.
Thomas Edison's original big distribution project failed because
it was essentially a DC transmission project. Back then, they
were only able to do DC transmission a couple of miles. The
advantages of AC won out.
Now that we understand the issues better, DC is coming back.
I would really like to see the thyristors that convert between AC
and DC with an operating voltage of 600,000 volts.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 2/28/2015 12:00 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
There is an ugly fight against a 500 mile high voltage DC
power line through Iowa and Illinois and use of eminent domain
to acquire the farmland.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Block-RICL-Rock-Island-Clean-Line/133050610203359
*From:* Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
*Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 1:27 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
It is a tool to be used as a last resort. You make no friends
and it ends up costing you lots of money and goodwill. But it
is a very effective tool in Utah.
*From:* Trevor Bough mailto:trevorbo...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:03 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
I have no doubt that eminent domain has been abused all over
the country in the manner you described with the developer
(that's why I provided the link about the Missouri port
authority losing their eminent domain claim to show that MO
anyhow has attempted to put an end to that and, in effect make
it harder to win any eminent domain case). I also agree that
it is much easier to win the argument that fiber is providing
a public use than a land developer. It is also easier for the
landowner to prove that your fiber doesn't have to go through
their property (unless they have a rather large tract of land,
in which case they are just stupid not to take the money and
accept the easement in the first place) to get where you need
to go. I am not against eminent domain. It's a sometimes
necessary tool. I'm against the idea that eminent domain just
makes problem people go away.
On Feb 28, 2015 12:46 PM, Chuck McCown
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
The entire road ROW is not 70' wide, therefore none of the utilities in it (electric, gas, phone, competitive fiber provider) could possibly use that much of it. I will not buy any property rights argument for utilities along the roadway. In town, the lots are barely 70', so it would be impossible for a town to even exist if that were the case. You're probably referring to the long-haul stuff, not the access stuff. My mistake for not being clear about that up front. BTW: My family does have about 140' of electrical ROW and an undetermined amount of gas\petroleum and fiber longhaul ROW through our hundreds of acres. Not really an inconvenience. Gotta worry about the gas\fiber when putting in or repairing drain tile. Just planted alfalfa for hay in the electrical ROW. BTW: They paid for those rights in teh beginning and pay for any and all damages\remediation should their maintenance result in needing any. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:30:16 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link As a property owner, I find that idea completely terrifying. I should absolutely have the right to say what is or is not on my property. Working in the utility industry, I still find that idea completely terrifying. Electric utilities typically require at least 30' of dedicated ROW. Gas and water utilities typically require at least 20' of dedicated ROW. Would you like to be required to give up 70' of your front yard without any say? You still get to mow it and maintain it, but if the utility feels the shrub you planted will interfere with them operating their line, they have the right to come destroy it. I would love to have dedicated easements everywhere, but that is the reason there is dedicated public ROW everywhere. Honestly people would be much better off dedicating 20' to a utility easement when they record the legal description of their property. Virtually all utilities can fit into a single 20' easement, especially if several go aerial, they just don't like to. In my opinion, eminent domain should be a difficult process with a requirement on the condemning authority to prove need and history of good faith negotiations. Just my 2 cents (probably closer to $0.10 now). On Feb 28, 2015 10:48 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote: Tangent... I understand property rights and all, but I'd like to see automatic approval for all ROW requests by qualified entities. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 6:56:45 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Apparently Missourians fight to protect their property rights more vigorously because, here anyway, it is a lengthy and expensive process. Landowners in MO can also be awarded legal fees if the condemning authority drops or loses the case of eminent domain, so it is definitely not a, This guy is being difficult, we'll show him. fix-all. http://watchdog.org/88546/missouri-landowners-win-in-eminent-domain-test-case/ Looks like it wasn't always the case here though. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: blockquote I have done it several times. In my cases it was pretty much the easy button. Just had to wait for the docket. From: Trevor Bough Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:21 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link It's not quite that easy... You have to be authorized by the state to be able to use eminent domain and even then it is a very lengthy process (minimum of six months typically) and it has to be for public use, which a utility can qualify as, but even after going to court for six months or more to prove that this is necessary for the public you are still at the mercy of the quart ruling that you are right and now have the luxury of paying the landowner for the access. It's not some magic automatic Easy Button. On Feb 26, 2015 1:34 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: blockquote If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground line, you can do so under the right of eminent domain. Landowner has no say so. You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and voila, instant ROW. However at that point in time the tables turn somewhat in the favor of the landowner as you have to compensate them for what you have taken. That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very expensive ROW... What you are talking about below is the establishment of a prescriptive ROW through your failure to defend your property. Another word for it is acquiescence or adverse possession. You can certainly lose your right to defend if you sit on your rights. So, yea, if they didn't have an easement or court order, cut down
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
The 5th Amendment just established just compensation for eminent domain. It leaves it to the states to define what public use is. And the landowner still always has the right to argue their point that it is not going to be used for public use. Luckily, I live in a state that puts the onus on the condemning authority to prove the taking is definitely needed for public use. On Feb 28, 2015 12:24 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: The 5th amendment of the US constitution took that from you many years ago. From: Trevor Bough Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 10:30 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link As a property owner, I find that idea completely terrifying. I should absolutely have the right to say what is or is not on my property. Working in the utility industry, I still find that idea completely terrifying. Electric utilities typically require at least 30' of dedicated ROW. Gas and water utilities typically require at least 20' of dedicated ROW. Would you like to be required to give up 70' of your front yard without any say? You still get to mow it and maintain it, but if the utility feels the shrub you planted will interfere with them operating their line, they have the right to come destroy it. I would love to have dedicated easements everywhere, but that is the reason there is dedicated public ROW everywhere. Honestly people would be much better off dedicating 20' to a utility easement when they record the legal description of their property. Virtually all utilities can fit into a single 20' easement, especially if several go aerial, they just don't like to. In my opinion, eminent domain should be a difficult process with a requirement on the condemning authority to prove need and history of good faith negotiations. Just my 2 cents (probably closer to $0.10 now). On Feb 28, 2015 10:48 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote: Tangent... I understand property rights and all, but I'd like to see automatic approval for all ROW requests by qualified entities. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 6:56:45 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Apparently Missourians fight to protect their property rights more vigorously because, here anyway, it is a lengthy and expensive process. Landowners in MO can also be awarded legal fees if the condemning authority drops or loses the case of eminent domain, so it is definitely not a, This guy is being difficult, we'll show him. fix-all. http://watchdog.org/88546/missouri-landowners-win-in-eminent-domain-test-case/ Looks like it wasn't always the case here though. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: I have done it several times. In my cases it was pretty much the easy button. Just had to wait for the docket. From: Trevor Bough Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:21 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link It's not quite that easy... You have to be authorized by the state to be able to use eminent domain and even then it is a very lengthy process (minimum of six months typically) and it has to be for public use, which a utility can qualify as, but even after going to court for six months or more to prove that this is necessary for the public you are still at the mercy of the quart ruling that you are right and now have the luxury of paying the landowner for the access. It's not some magic automatic Easy Button. On Feb 26, 2015 1:34 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground line, you can do so under the right of eminent domain. Landowner has no say so. You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and voila, instant ROW. However at that point in time the tables turn somewhat in the favor of the landowner as you have to compensate them for what you have taken. That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very expensive ROW... What you are talking about below is the establishment of a prescriptive ROW through your failure to defend your property. Another word for it is acquiescence or adverse possession. You can certainly lose your right to defend if you sit on your rights. So, yea, if they didn't have an easement or court order, cut down that pole. -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link What eminent domain actions can a utility take? My knowledge on that topic is all hearsay. I heard of a landowner who saw a company putting a pole in an empty lot that he owned across the street from his house. He watched them set the pole and then after the workers left he went out with a chainsaw and cut it down because they never asked him if they could put the pole there (so the story went). In his point of view
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
There is an ugly fight against a 500 mile high voltage DC power line through Iowa and Illinois and use of eminent domain to acquire the farmland. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Block-RICL-Rock-Island-Clean-Line/133050610203359 From: Chuck McCown Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 1:27 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link It is a tool to be used as a last resort. You make no friends and it ends up costing you lots of money and goodwill. But it is a very effective tool in Utah. From: Trevor Bough Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:03 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link I have no doubt that eminent domain has been abused all over the country in the manner you described with the developer (that's why I provided the link about the Missouri port authority losing their eminent domain claim to show that MO anyhow has attempted to put an end to that and, in effect make it harder to win any eminent domain case). I also agree that it is much easier to win the argument that fiber is providing a public use than a land developer. It is also easier for the landowner to prove that your fiber doesn't have to go through their property (unless they have a rather large tract of land, in which case they are just stupid not to take the money and accept the easement in the first place) to get where you need to go. I am not against eminent domain. It's a sometimes necessary tool. I'm against the idea that eminent domain just makes problem people go away. On Feb 28, 2015 12:46 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: Utilities are treated as quazi public entities before the law and are almost universally allowed all rights accorded to political subdivisions such as eminent domain. It is easy to “prove” that a fiber line is needed for public use. Even our dear President would agree that your fiber brings better, needed, service to those poor folks at the other end of town... That half of the argument is almost impossible to lose. I would guess most states have that as a requirement. the judges I have been before did not even want to step into that argument. Much easier to prove than a land developer taking property for a new development and saying it will help bring jobs and commerce to the community therefore it is needed for public use. And you know that has happened all over the country. From: Trevor Bough Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:37 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link The 5th Amendment just established just compensation for eminent domain. It leaves it to the states to define what public use is. And the landowner still always has the right to argue their point that it is not going to be used for public use. Luckily, I live in a state that puts the onus on the condemning authority to prove the taking is definitely needed for public use. On Feb 28, 2015 12:24 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: The 5th amendment of the US constitution took that from you many years ago. From: Trevor Bough Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 10:30 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link As a property owner, I find that idea completely terrifying. I should absolutely have the right to say what is or is not on my property. Working in the utility industry, I still find that idea completely terrifying. Electric utilities typically require at least 30' of dedicated ROW. Gas and water utilities typically require at least 20' of dedicated ROW. Would you like to be required to give up 70' of your front yard without any say? You still get to mow it and maintain it, but if the utility feels the shrub you planted will interfere with them operating their line, they have the right to come destroy it. I would love to have dedicated easements everywhere, but that is the reason there is dedicated public ROW everywhere. Honestly people would be much better off dedicating 20' to a utility easement when they record the legal description of their property. Virtually all utilities can fit into a single 20' easement, especially if several go aerial, they just don't like to. In my opinion, eminent domain should be a difficult process with a requirement on the condemning authority to prove need and history of good faith negotiations. Just my 2 cents (probably closer to $0.10 now). On Feb 28, 2015 10:48 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote: Tangent... I understand property rights and all, but I'd like to see automatic approval for all ROW requests by qualified entities. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 6:56:45 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Apparently Missourians fight to protect their property rights more vigorously because
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Interesting how we've come full circle on power transmission. Thomas
Edison's original big distribution project failed because it was
essentially a DC transmission project. Back then, they were only able
to do DC transmission a couple of miles. The advantages of AC won out.
Now that we understand the issues better, DC is coming back.
I would really like to see the thyristors that convert between AC and DC
with an operating voltage of 600,000 volts.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 2/28/2015 12:00 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
There is an ugly fight against a 500 mile high voltage DC power line
through Iowa and Illinois and use of eminent domain to acquire the
farmland.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Block-RICL-Rock-Island-Clean-Line/133050610203359
*From:* Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
*Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 1:27 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
It is a tool to be used as a last resort. You make no friends and it
ends up costing you lots of money and goodwill. But it is a very
effective tool in Utah.
*From:* Trevor Bough mailto:trevorbo...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:03 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
I have no doubt that eminent domain has been abused all over the
country in the manner you described with the developer (that's why I
provided the link about the Missouri port authority losing their
eminent domain claim to show that MO anyhow has attempted to put an
end to that and, in effect make it harder to win any eminent domain
case). I also agree that it is much easier to win the argument that
fiber is providing a public use than a land developer. It is also
easier for the landowner to prove that your fiber doesn't have to go
through their property (unless they have a rather large tract of land,
in which case they are just stupid not to take the money and accept
the easement in the first place) to get where you need to go. I am not
against eminent domain. It's a sometimes necessary tool. I'm against
the idea that eminent domain just makes problem people go away.
On Feb 28, 2015 12:46 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com
mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
Utilities are treated as quazi public entities before the law and
are almost universally allowed all rights accorded to political
subdivisions such as eminent domain. It is easy to “prove” that a
fiber line is needed for public use. Even our dear President would
agree that your fiber brings better, needed, service to those poor
folks at the other end of town... That half of the argument is
almost impossible to lose.
I would guess most states have that as a requirement. the judges
I have been before did not even want to step into that argument.
Much easier to prove than a land developer taking property for a
new development and saying it will help bring jobs and commerce to
the community therefore it is needed for public use. And you know
that has happened all over the country.
*From:* Trevor Bough mailto:trevorbo...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:37 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
The 5th Amendment just established just compensation for eminent
domain. It leaves it to the states to define what public use is.
And the landowner still always has the right to argue their point
that it is not going to be used for public use. Luckily, I live in
a state that puts the onus on the condemning authority to prove
the taking is definitely needed for public use.
On Feb 28, 2015 12:24 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com
mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
The 5th amendment of the US constitution took that from you many
years ago.
From: Trevor Bough
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 10:30 AM
To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
As a property owner, I find that idea completely terrifying. I
should absolutely have the right to say what is or is not on my
property. Working in the utility industry, I still find that idea
completely terrifying. Electric utilities typically require at
least 30' of dedicated ROW. Gas and water utilities typically
require at least 20' of dedicated ROW. Would you like to be
required to give up 70' of your front yard without any say? You
still get to mow it and maintain it, but if the utility feels the
shrub you planted will interfere with them operating their line,
they have the right to come destroy it. I would love to have
dedicated easements everywhere, but that is the reason there is
dedicated public ROW everywhere. Honestly people would be much
better off dedicating 20' to a utility easement when they record
the legal description of their property. Virtually all utilities
can fit
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
I was concerned because the 200 ft towers would potentially go through the one
part of my service area that is currently free of both wind farms and high
voltage transmission lines.
But the current route takes it about a mile north of US Hwy 52 which puts it at
the south end of my coverage, it may cause some problems for me, but not as bad
as some of the originally proposed routes.
http://www.rockislandcleanline.com/site/page/preferred-and-alternative-routes-in-illinois
They don’t seem decided yet on what type of tower they will use, a lattice
tower is more likely to block a microwave path than a monopole:
http://www.rockislandcleanline.com/site/page/transmission-line-structures
From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 2:53 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
They have been doing this for years, so maybe it has changed. *shrugs*
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
From: Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 2:41:30 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
When I looked at their web site, a couple different voltages were mentioned.
The first reference was to ~~ 350,000 volts, and the second one was 600,000
volts. You may be right about 1,000,000 volts, as that would really reduce the
current. Would make those thyristors even more impressive.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 2/28/2015 12:37 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I think they're running 1M vDC.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
From: Bill Prince mailto:part15...@gmail.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 2:33:14 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Interesting how we've come full circle on power transmission. Thomas
Edison's original big distribution project failed because it was essentially
a DC transmission project. Back then, they were only able to do DC
transmission a couple of miles. The advantages of AC won out.
Now that we understand the issues better, DC is coming back.
I would really like to see the thyristors that convert between AC and DC with
an operating voltage of 600,000 volts.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 2/28/2015 12:00 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
There is an ugly fight against a 500 mile high voltage DC power line
through Iowa and Illinois and use of eminent domain to acquire the farmland.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Block-RICL-Rock-Island-Clean-Line/133050610203359
From: Chuck McCown
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 1:27 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
It is a tool to be used as a last resort. You make no friends and it ends
up costing you lots of money and goodwill. But it is a very effective tool in
Utah.
From: Trevor Bough
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:03 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
I have no doubt that eminent domain has been abused all over the country in
the manner you described with the developer (that's why I provided the link
about the Missouri port authority losing their eminent domain claim to show
that MO anyhow has attempted to put an end to that and, in effect make it
harder to win any eminent domain case). I also agree that it is much easier to
win the argument that fiber is providing a public use than a land developer. It
is also easier for the landowner to prove that your fiber doesn't have to go
through their property (unless they have a rather large tract of land, in which
case they are just stupid not to take the money and accept the easement in the
first place) to get where you need to go. I am not against eminent domain. It's
a sometimes necessary tool. I'm against the idea that eminent domain just makes
problem people go away.
On Feb 28, 2015 12:46 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
Utilities are treated as quazi public entities before the law and are
almost universally allowed all rights accorded to political subdivisions such
as eminent domain. It is easy to “prove” that a fiber line is needed for
public use. Even our dear President would agree that your fiber brings
better, needed, service to those poor folks at the other end of town... That
half of the argument is almost impossible to lose.
I would guess most states have that as a requirement. the judges I have
been before did not even want to step into that argument.
Much easier to prove than a land developer taking property for a new
development and saying it will help bring jobs and commerce to the community
therefore it is needed for public use. And you know that has happened all
over the country.
From: Trevor Bough
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 11
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
They have been doing this for years, so maybe it has changed. *shrugs*
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 2:41:30 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
When I looked at their web site, a couple different voltages were mentioned.
The first reference was to ~~ 350,000 volts, and the second one was 600,000
volts. You may be right about 1,000,000 volts, as that would really reduce the
current. Would make those thyristors even more impressive.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 2/28/2015 12:37 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I think they're running 1M vDC.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 2:33:14 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Interesting how we've come full circle on power transmission. Thomas Edison's
original big distribution project failed because it was essentially a DC
transmission project. Back then, they were only able to do DC transmission a
couple of miles. The advantages of AC won out.
Now that we understand the issues better, DC is coming back.
I would really like to see the thyristors that convert between AC and DC with
an operating voltage of 600,000 volts.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 2/28/2015 12:00 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
blockquote
There is an ugly fight against a 500 mile high voltage DC power line through
Iowa and Illinois and use of eminent domain to acquire the farmland.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Block-RICL-Rock-Island-Clean-Line/133050610203359
From: Chuck McCown
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 1:27 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
It is a tool to be used as a last resort. You make no friends and it ends up
costing you lots of money and goodwill. But it is a very effective tool in
Utah.
From: Trevor Bough
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:03 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
I have no doubt that eminent domain has been abused all over the country in the
manner you described with the developer (that's why I provided the link about
the Missouri port authority losing their eminent domain claim to show that MO
anyhow has attempted to put an end to that and, in effect make it harder to win
any eminent domain case). I also agree that it is much easier to win the
argument that fiber is providing a public use than a land developer. It is also
easier for the landowner to prove that your fiber doesn't have to go through
their property (unless they have a rather large tract of land, in which case
they are just stupid not to take the money and accept the easement in the first
place) to get where you need to go. I am not against eminent domain. It's a
sometimes necessary tool. I'm against the idea that eminent domain just makes
problem people go away.
On Feb 28, 2015 12:46 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
blockquote
Utilities are treated as quazi public entities before the law and are almost
universally allowed all rights accorded to political subdivisions such as
eminent domain. It is easy to “prove” that a fiber line is needed for public
use. Even our dear President would agree that your fiber brings better, needed,
service to those poor folks at the other end of town... That half of the
argument is almost impossible to lose.
I would guess most states have that as a requirement. the judges I have been
before did not even want to step into that argument.
Much easier to prove than a land developer taking property for a new
development and saying it will help bring jobs and commerce to the community
therefore it is needed for public use. And you know that has happened all over
the country.
From: Trevor Bough
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:37 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
The 5th Amendment just established just compensation for eminent domain. It
leaves it to the states to define what public use is. And the landowner still
always has the right to argue their point that it is not going to be used for
public use. Luckily, I live in a state that puts the onus on the condemning
authority to prove the taking is definitely needed for public use.
On Feb 28, 2015 12:24 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
The 5th amendment of the US constitution took that from you many years ago.
From: Trevor Bough
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 10:30 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
As a property owner, I find that idea completely terrifying. I should
absolutely have the right to say what is or is not on my property. Working in
the utility industry, I still find that idea completely terrifying. Electric
utilities typically require
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Good tutorial on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
And yeah, those are some monster thyristors. Check out this photo with
a man standing under one pole of an HVDC thyristor valve.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 2/28/2015 12:53 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
They have been doing this for years, so maybe it has changed. *shrugs*
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
https://www.facebook.com/ICSILhttps://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalbhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutionshttps://twitter.com/ICSIL
*From: *Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Saturday, February 28, 2015 2:41:30 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
When I looked at their web site, a couple different voltages were
mentioned. The first reference was to ~~ 350,000 volts, and the
second one was 600,000 volts. You may be right about 1,000,000 volts,
as that would really reduce the current. Would make those thyristors
even more impressive.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 2/28/2015 12:37 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I think they're running 1M vDC.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
https://www.facebook.com/ICSILhttps://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalbhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutionshttps://twitter.com/ICSIL
*From: *Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Saturday, February 28, 2015 2:33:14 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Interesting how we've come full circle on power transmission.
Thomas Edison's original big distribution project failed because
it was essentially a DC transmission project. Back then, they
were only able to do DC transmission a couple of miles. The
advantages of AC won out.
Now that we understand the issues better, DC is coming back.
I would really like to see the thyristors that convert between AC
and DC with an operating voltage of 600,000 volts.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 2/28/2015 12:00 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
There is an ugly fight against a 500 mile high voltage DC
power line through Iowa and Illinois and use of eminent domain
to acquire the farmland.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Block-RICL-Rock-Island-Clean-Line/133050610203359
*From:* Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
*Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 1:27 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
It is a tool to be used as a last resort. You make no friends
and it ends up costing you lots of money and goodwill. But it
is a very effective tool in Utah.
*From:* Trevor Bough mailto:trevorbo...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:03 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
I have no doubt that eminent domain has been abused all over
the country in the manner you described with the developer
(that's why I provided the link about the Missouri port
authority losing their eminent domain claim to show that MO
anyhow has attempted to put an end to that and, in effect make
it harder to win any eminent domain case). I also agree that
it is much easier to win the argument that fiber is providing
a public use than a land developer. It is also easier for the
landowner to prove that your fiber doesn't have to go through
their property (unless they have a rather large tract of land,
in which case they are just stupid not to take the money and
accept the easement in the first place) to get where you need
to go. I am not against eminent domain. It's a sometimes
necessary tool. I'm against the idea that eminent domain just
makes problem people go away.
On Feb 28, 2015 12:46 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com
mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
Utilities are treated as quazi public entities before the
law and are almost universally allowed all rights accorded
to political subdivisions such as eminent domain. It is
easy to “prove” that a fiber line is needed for public
use. Even our dear President would agree that your fiber
brings better, needed, service to those poor folks at the
other end of town... That half of the argument is almost
impossible to lose.
I would guess most states have that as a requirement. the
judges I have been before did not even want to step into
that argument.
Much
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
As a property owner, I find that idea completely terrifying. I should absolutely have the right to say what is or is not on my property. Working in the utility industry, I still find that idea completely terrifying. Electric utilities typically require at least 30' of dedicated ROW. Gas and water utilities typically require at least 20' of dedicated ROW. Would you like to be required to give up 70' of your front yard without any say? You still get to mow it and maintain it, but if the utility feels the shrub you planted will interfere with them operating their line, they have the right to come destroy it. I would love to have dedicated easements everywhere, but that is the reason there is dedicated public ROW everywhere. Honestly people would be much better off dedicating 20' to a utility easement when they record the legal description of their property. Virtually all utilities can fit into a single 20' easement, especially if several go aerial, they just don't like to. In my opinion, eminent domain should be a difficult process with a requirement on the condemning authority to prove need and history of good faith negotiations. Just my 2 cents (probably closer to $0.10 now). On Feb 28, 2015 10:48 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote: Tangent... I understand property rights and all, but I'd like to see automatic approval for all ROW requests by qualified entities. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- *From: *Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com *To: *af@afmug.com *Sent: *Friday, February 27, 2015 6:56:45 PM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Apparently Missourians fight to protect their property rights more vigorously because, here anyway, it is a lengthy and expensive process. Landowners in MO can also be awarded legal fees if the condemning authority drops or loses the case of eminent domain, so it is definitely not a, This guy is being difficult, we'll show him. fix-all. http://watchdog.org/88546/missouri-landowners-win-in-eminent-domain-test-case/ Looks like it wasn't always the case here though. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: I have done it several times. In my cases it was pretty much the easy button. Just had to wait for the docket. *From:* Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:21 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link It's not quite that easy... You have to be authorized by the state to be able to use eminent domain and even then it is a very lengthy process (minimum of six months typically) and it has to be for public use, which a utility can qualify as, but even after going to court for six months or more to prove that this is necessary for the public you are still at the mercy of the quart ruling that you are right and now have the luxury of paying the landowner for the access. It's not some magic automatic Easy Button. On Feb 26, 2015 1:34 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground line, you can do so under the right of eminent domain. Landowner has no say so. You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and voila, instant ROW. However at that point in time the tables turn somewhat in the favor of the landowner as you have to compensate them for what you have taken. That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very expensive ROW... What you are talking about below is the establishment of a prescriptive ROW through your failure to defend your property. Another word for it is acquiescence or adverse possession. You can certainly lose your right to defend if you sit on your rights. So, yea, if they didn't have an easement or court order, cut down that pole. -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link What eminent domain actions can a utility take? My knowledge on that topic is all hearsay. I heard of a landowner who saw a company putting a pole in an empty lot that he owned across the street from his house. He watched them set the pole and then after the workers left he went out with a chainsaw and cut it down because they never asked him if they could put the pole there (so the story went). In his point of view, if he let them put the pole there, they have permanent rights to access that spot on his property because of eminent domain. You may even have the right of eminent domain now.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
I have no doubt that eminent domain has been abused all over the country in the manner you described with the developer (that's why I provided the link about the Missouri port authority losing their eminent domain claim to show that MO anyhow has attempted to put an end to that and, in effect make it harder to win any eminent domain case). I also agree that it is much easier to win the argument that fiber is providing a public use than a land developer. It is also easier for the landowner to prove that your fiber doesn't have to go through their property (unless they have a rather large tract of land, in which case they are just stupid not to take the money and accept the easement in the first place) to get where you need to go. I am not against eminent domain. It's a sometimes necessary tool. I'm against the idea that eminent domain just makes problem people go away. On Feb 28, 2015 12:46 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: Utilities are treated as quazi public entities before the law and are almost universally allowed all rights accorded to political subdivisions such as eminent domain. It is easy to “prove” that a fiber line is needed for public use. Even our dear President would agree that your fiber brings better, needed, service to those poor folks at the other end of town... That half of the argument is almost impossible to lose. I would guess most states have that as a requirement. the judges I have been before did not even want to step into that argument. Much easier to prove than a land developer taking property for a new development and saying it will help bring jobs and commerce to the community therefore it is needed for public use. And you know that has happened all over the country. *From:* Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com *Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:37 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link The 5th Amendment just established just compensation for eminent domain. It leaves it to the states to define what public use is. And the landowner still always has the right to argue their point that it is not going to be used for public use. Luckily, I live in a state that puts the onus on the condemning authority to prove the taking is definitely needed for public use. On Feb 28, 2015 12:24 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: The 5th amendment of the US constitution took that from you many years ago. From: Trevor Bough Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 10:30 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link As a property owner, I find that idea completely terrifying. I should absolutely have the right to say what is or is not on my property. Working in the utility industry, I still find that idea completely terrifying. Electric utilities typically require at least 30' of dedicated ROW. Gas and water utilities typically require at least 20' of dedicated ROW. Would you like to be required to give up 70' of your front yard without any say? You still get to mow it and maintain it, but if the utility feels the shrub you planted will interfere with them operating their line, they have the right to come destroy it. I would love to have dedicated easements everywhere, but that is the reason there is dedicated public ROW everywhere. Honestly people would be much better off dedicating 20' to a utility easement when they record the legal description of their property. Virtually all utilities can fit into a single 20' easement, especially if several go aerial, they just don't like to. In my opinion, eminent domain should be a difficult process with a requirement on the condemning authority to prove need and history of good faith negotiations. Just my 2 cents (probably closer to $0.10 now). On Feb 28, 2015 10:48 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote: Tangent... I understand property rights and all, but I'd like to see automatic approval for all ROW requests by qualified entities. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 6:56:45 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Apparently Missourians fight to protect their property rights more vigorously because, here anyway, it is a lengthy and expensive process. Landowners in MO can also be awarded legal fees if the condemning authority drops or loses the case of eminent domain, so it is definitely not a, This guy is being difficult, we'll show him. fix-all. http://watchdog.org/88546/missouri-landowners-win-in-eminent-domain-test-case/ Looks like it wasn't always the case here though. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: I have done it several times. In my cases it was pretty much the easy button. Just had to wait for the docket. From: Trevor Bough Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:21 PM To: af
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
When I looked at their web site, a couple different voltages were
mentioned. The first reference was to ~~ 350,000 volts, and the second
one was 600,000 volts. You may be right about 1,000,000 volts, as that
would really reduce the current. Would make those thyristors even more
impressive.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 2/28/2015 12:37 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I think they're running 1M vDC.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
https://www.facebook.com/ICSILhttps://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalbhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutionshttps://twitter.com/ICSIL
*From: *Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Saturday, February 28, 2015 2:33:14 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Interesting how we've come full circle on power transmission. Thomas
Edison's original big distribution project failed because it was
essentially a DC transmission project. Back then, they were only able
to do DC transmission a couple of miles. The advantages of AC won out.
Now that we understand the issues better, DC is coming back.
I would really like to see the thyristors that convert between AC and
DC with an operating voltage of 600,000 volts.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 2/28/2015 12:00 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
There is an ugly fight against a 500 mile high voltage DC power
line through Iowa and Illinois and use of eminent domain to
acquire the farmland.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Block-RICL-Rock-Island-Clean-Line/133050610203359
*From:* Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
*Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 1:27 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
It is a tool to be used as a last resort. You make no friends and
it ends up costing you lots of money and goodwill. But it is a
very effective tool in Utah.
*From:* Trevor Bough mailto:trevorbo...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:03 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
I have no doubt that eminent domain has been abused all over the
country in the manner you described with the developer (that's why
I provided the link about the Missouri port authority losing their
eminent domain claim to show that MO anyhow has attempted to put
an end to that and, in effect make it harder to win any eminent
domain case). I also agree that it is much easier to win the
argument that fiber is providing a public use than a land
developer. It is also easier for the landowner to prove that your
fiber doesn't have to go through their property (unless they have
a rather large tract of land, in which case they are just stupid
not to take the money and accept the easement in the first place)
to get where you need to go. I am not against eminent domain. It's
a sometimes necessary tool. I'm against the idea that eminent
domain just makes problem people go away.
On Feb 28, 2015 12:46 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com
mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
Utilities are treated as quazi public entities before the law
and are almost universally allowed all rights accorded to
political subdivisions such as eminent domain. It is easy to
“prove” that a fiber line is needed for public use. Even our
dear President would agree that your fiber brings better,
needed, service to those poor folks at the other end of
town... That half of the argument is almost impossible to lose.
I would guess most states have that as a requirement. the
judges I have been before did not even want to step into that
argument.
Much easier to prove than a land developer taking property for
a new development and saying it will help bring jobs and
commerce to the community therefore it is needed for public
use. And you know that has happened all over the country.
*From:* Trevor Bough mailto:trevorbo...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:37 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
The 5th Amendment just established just compensation for
eminent domain. It leaves it to the states to define what
public use is. And the landowner still always has the right
to argue their point that it is not going to be used for
public use. Luckily, I live in a state that puts the onus on
the condemning authority to prove the taking is definitely
needed for public use.
On Feb 28, 2015 12:24 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com
mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
The 5th amendment of the US constitution took that from you
many years ago
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Those guys are funny. They act like that's the first electrical transmission line ever to be built. Dumb asses... - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Ken Hohhof af...@kwisp.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 2:00:13 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link There is an ugly fight against a 500 mile high voltage DC power line through Iowa and Illinois and use of eminent domain to acquire the farmland. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Block-RICL-Rock-Island-Clean-Line/133050610203359 From: Chuck McCown Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 1:27 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link It is a tool to be used as a last resort. You make no friends and it ends up costing you lots of money and goodwill. But it is a very effective tool in Utah. From: Trevor Bough Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:03 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link I have no doubt that eminent domain has been abused all over the country in the manner you described with the developer (that's why I provided the link about the Missouri port authority losing their eminent domain claim to show that MO anyhow has attempted to put an end to that and, in effect make it harder to win any eminent domain case). I also agree that it is much easier to win the argument that fiber is providing a public use than a land developer. It is also easier for the landowner to prove that your fiber doesn't have to go through their property (unless they have a rather large tract of land, in which case they are just stupid not to take the money and accept the easement in the first place) to get where you need to go. I am not against eminent domain. It's a sometimes necessary tool. I'm against the idea that eminent domain just makes problem people go away. On Feb 28, 2015 12:46 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: Utilities are treated as quazi public entities before the law and are almost universally allowed all rights accorded to political subdivisions such as eminent domain. It is easy to “prove” that a fiber line is needed for public use. Even our dear President would agree that your fiber brings better, needed, service to those poor folks at the other end of town... That half of the argument is almost impossible to lose. I would guess most states have that as a requirement. the judges I have been before did not even want to step into that argument. Much easier to prove than a land developer taking property for a new development and saying it will help bring jobs and commerce to the community therefore it is needed for public use. And you know that has happened all over the country. From: Trevor Bough Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:37 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link The 5th Amendment just established just compensation for eminent domain. It leaves it to the states to define what public use is. And the landowner still always has the right to argue their point that it is not going to be used for public use. Luckily, I live in a state that puts the onus on the condemning authority to prove the taking is definitely needed for public use. On Feb 28, 2015 12:24 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: The 5th amendment of the US constitution took that from you many years ago. From: Trevor Bough Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 10:30 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link As a property owner, I find that idea completely terrifying. I should absolutely have the right to say what is or is not on my property. Working in the utility industry, I still find that idea completely terrifying. Electric utilities typically require at least 30' of dedicated ROW. Gas and water utilities typically require at least 20' of dedicated ROW. Would you like to be required to give up 70' of your front yard without any say? You still get to mow it and maintain it, but if the utility feels the shrub you planted will interfere with them operating their line, they have the right to come destroy it. I would love to have dedicated easements everywhere, but that is the reason there is dedicated public ROW everywhere. Honestly people would be much better off dedicating 20' to a utility easement when they record the legal description of their property. Virtually all utilities can fit into a single 20' easement, especially if several go aerial, they just don't like to. In my opinion, eminent domain should be a difficult process with a requirement on the condemning authority to prove need and history of good faith negotiations. Just my 2 cents (probably closer to $0.10 now). On Feb 28, 2015 10:48 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote: Tangent... I understand property rights and all, but I'd like to see automatic approval for all ROW requests by qualified entities
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Yep. I was confirming that was what I meant. I agree with your entire email and that utility easements rarely actually affect the landowner, but you will definitely have a hard time getting a large percentage of the population to understand that if you make ROW requests automatic. Most people, around here anyhow, would see it as a land grab. I personally would have no problem giving various utilities easements (and also have an electric and telephone easement on my property), but I would want to have the final say on who, what, where, and how much on any new ones. I work with getting utility easements at least monthly, so I have seen the whole spectrum of responses, from no problem, to absolutely not, to sure, for $1M. There are a surprising number of people that do not know they have existing easements on their property and do not understand the idea of the public ROW. On Feb 28, 2015 11:54 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote: *nods* As I indicated later in my e-mail. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- *From: *Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com *To: *af@afmug.com *Sent: *Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:51:42 AM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link I was referring to when they get dedicated easements outside of public ROW. On Feb 28, 2015 11:45 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote: The entire road ROW is not 70' wide, therefore none of the utilities in it (electric, gas, phone, competitive fiber provider) could possibly use that much of it. I will not buy any property rights argument for utilities along the roadway. In town, the lots are barely 70', so it would be impossible for a town to even exist if that were the case. You're probably referring to the long-haul stuff, not the access stuff. My mistake for not being clear about that up front. BTW: My family does have about 140' of electrical ROW and an undetermined amount of gas\petroleum and fiber longhaul ROW through our hundreds of acres. Not really an inconvenience. Gotta worry about the gas\fiber when putting in or repairing drain tile. Just planted alfalfa for hay in the electrical ROW. BTW: They paid for those rights in teh beginning and pay for any and all damages\remediation should their maintenance result in needing any. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- *From: *Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com *To: *af@afmug.com *Sent: *Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:30:16 AM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link As a property owner, I find that idea completely terrifying. I should absolutely have the right to say what is or is not on my property. Working in the utility industry, I still find that idea completely terrifying. Electric utilities typically require at least 30' of dedicated ROW. Gas and water utilities typically require at least 20' of dedicated ROW. Would you like to be required to give up 70' of your front yard without any say? You still get to mow it and maintain it, but if the utility feels the shrub you planted will interfere with them operating their line, they have the right to come destroy it. I would love to have dedicated easements everywhere, but that is the reason there is dedicated public ROW everywhere. Honestly people would be much better off dedicating 20' to a utility easement when they record the legal description of their property. Virtually all utilities can fit into a single 20' easement, especially if several go aerial, they just don't like to. In my opinion, eminent domain should be a difficult process with a requirement on the condemning authority to prove need and history of good faith negotiations. Just my 2 cents (probably closer to $0.10 now). On Feb 28, 2015 10:48 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote: Tangent... I understand property rights and all, but I'd like to see automatic approval for all ROW requests by qualified entities. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- *From: *Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com *To: *af@afmug.com *Sent: *Friday, February 27, 2015 6:56:45 PM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Apparently Missourians fight to protect their property rights more vigorously because, here anyway, it is a lengthy and expensive process. Landowners in MO can also be awarded legal fees if the condemning authority drops or loses the case of eminent domain, so it is definitely not a, This guy is being difficult, we'll show him. fix-all. http://watchdog.org/88546/missouri-landowners-win-in-eminent-domain-test-case/ Looks like it wasn't always the case here though. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: I have done it several times. In my cases it was pretty much the easy button. Just had to wait for the docket. *From:* Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com *Sent
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
The 5th amendment of the US constitution took that from you many years ago. From: Trevor Bough Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 10:30 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link As a property owner, I find that idea completely terrifying. I should absolutely have the right to say what is or is not on my property. Working in the utility industry, I still find that idea completely terrifying. Electric utilities typically require at least 30' of dedicated ROW. Gas and water utilities typically require at least 20' of dedicated ROW. Would you like to be required to give up 70' of your front yard without any say? You still get to mow it and maintain it, but if the utility feels the shrub you planted will interfere with them operating their line, they have the right to come destroy it. I would love to have dedicated easements everywhere, but that is the reason there is dedicated public ROW everywhere. Honestly people would be much better off dedicating 20' to a utility easement when they record the legal description of their property. Virtually all utilities can fit into a single 20' easement, especially if several go aerial, they just don't like to. In my opinion, eminent domain should be a difficult process with a requirement on the condemning authority to prove need and history of good faith negotiations. Just my 2 cents (probably closer to $0.10 now). On Feb 28, 2015 10:48 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote: Tangent... I understand property rights and all, but I'd like to see automatic approval for all ROW requests by qualified entities. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 6:56:45 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Apparently Missourians fight to protect their property rights more vigorously because, here anyway, it is a lengthy and expensive process. Landowners in MO can also be awarded legal fees if the condemning authority drops or loses the case of eminent domain, so it is definitely not a, This guy is being difficult, we'll show him. fix-all. http://watchdog.org/88546/missouri-landowners-win-in-eminent-domain-test-case/ Looks like it wasn't always the case here though. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: I have done it several times. In my cases it was pretty much the easy button. Just had to wait for the docket. From: Trevor Bough Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:21 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link It's not quite that easy... You have to be authorized by the state to be able to use eminent domain and even then it is a very lengthy process (minimum of six months typically) and it has to be for public use, which a utility can qualify as, but even after going to court for six months or more to prove that this is necessary for the public you are still at the mercy of the quart ruling that you are right and now have the luxury of paying the landowner for the access. It's not some magic automatic Easy Button. On Feb 26, 2015 1:34 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground line, you can do so under the right of eminent domain. Landowner has no say so. You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and voila, instant ROW. However at that point in time the tables turn somewhat in the favor of the landowner as you have to compensate them for what you have taken. That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very expensive ROW... What you are talking about below is the establishment of a prescriptive ROW through your failure to defend your property. Another word for it is acquiescence or adverse possession. You can certainly lose your right to defend if you sit on your rights. So, yea, if they didn't have an easement or court order, cut down that pole. -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link What eminent domain actions can a utility take? My knowledge on that topic is all hearsay. I heard of a landowner who saw a company putting a pole in an empty lot that he owned across the street from his house. He watched them set the pole and then after the workers left he went out with a chainsaw and cut it down because they never asked him if they could put the pole there (so the story went). In his point of view, if he let them put the pole there, they have permanent rights to access that spot on his property because of eminent domain. You may even have the right of eminent domain now.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
It is a tool to be used as a last resort. You make no friends and it ends up costing you lots of money and goodwill. But it is a very effective tool in Utah. From: Trevor Bough Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:03 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link I have no doubt that eminent domain has been abused all over the country in the manner you described with the developer (that's why I provided the link about the Missouri port authority losing their eminent domain claim to show that MO anyhow has attempted to put an end to that and, in effect make it harder to win any eminent domain case). I also agree that it is much easier to win the argument that fiber is providing a public use than a land developer. It is also easier for the landowner to prove that your fiber doesn't have to go through their property (unless they have a rather large tract of land, in which case they are just stupid not to take the money and accept the easement in the first place) to get where you need to go. I am not against eminent domain. It's a sometimes necessary tool. I'm against the idea that eminent domain just makes problem people go away. On Feb 28, 2015 12:46 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: Utilities are treated as quazi public entities before the law and are almost universally allowed all rights accorded to political subdivisions such as eminent domain. It is easy to “prove” that a fiber line is needed for public use. Even our dear President would agree that your fiber brings better, needed, service to those poor folks at the other end of town... That half of the argument is almost impossible to lose. I would guess most states have that as a requirement. the judges I have been before did not even want to step into that argument. Much easier to prove than a land developer taking property for a new development and saying it will help bring jobs and commerce to the community therefore it is needed for public use. And you know that has happened all over the country. From: Trevor Bough Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:37 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link The 5th Amendment just established just compensation for eminent domain. It leaves it to the states to define what public use is. And the landowner still always has the right to argue their point that it is not going to be used for public use. Luckily, I live in a state that puts the onus on the condemning authority to prove the taking is definitely needed for public use. On Feb 28, 2015 12:24 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: The 5th amendment of the US constitution took that from you many years ago. From: Trevor Bough Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 10:30 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link As a property owner, I find that idea completely terrifying. I should absolutely have the right to say what is or is not on my property. Working in the utility industry, I still find that idea completely terrifying. Electric utilities typically require at least 30' of dedicated ROW. Gas and water utilities typically require at least 20' of dedicated ROW. Would you like to be required to give up 70' of your front yard without any say? You still get to mow it and maintain it, but if the utility feels the shrub you planted will interfere with them operating their line, they have the right to come destroy it. I would love to have dedicated easements everywhere, but that is the reason there is dedicated public ROW everywhere. Honestly people would be much better off dedicating 20' to a utility easement when they record the legal description of their property. Virtually all utilities can fit into a single 20' easement, especially if several go aerial, they just don't like to. In my opinion, eminent domain should be a difficult process with a requirement on the condemning authority to prove need and history of good faith negotiations. Just my 2 cents (probably closer to $0.10 now). On Feb 28, 2015 10:48 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote: Tangent... I understand property rights and all, but I'd like to see automatic approval for all ROW requests by qualified entities. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 6:56:45 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Apparently Missourians fight to protect their property rights more vigorously because, here anyway, it is a lengthy and expensive process. Landowners in MO can also be awarded legal fees if the condemning authority drops or loses the case of eminent domain, so it is definitely not a, This guy is being difficult, we'll show him. fix-all. http://watchdog.org/88546/missouri-landowners-win-in-eminent-domain-test-case/ Looks like
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
*nods* As I indicated later in my e-mail. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:51:42 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link I was referring to when they get dedicated easements outside of public ROW. On Feb 28, 2015 11:45 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote: The entire road ROW is not 70' wide, therefore none of the utilities in it (electric, gas, phone, competitive fiber provider) could possibly use that much of it. I will not buy any property rights argument for utilities along the roadway. In town, the lots are barely 70', so it would be impossible for a town to even exist if that were the case. You're probably referring to the long-haul stuff, not the access stuff. My mistake for not being clear about that up front. BTW: My family does have about 140' of electrical ROW and an undetermined amount of gas\petroleum and fiber longhaul ROW through our hundreds of acres. Not really an inconvenience. Gotta worry about the gas\fiber when putting in or repairing drain tile. Just planted alfalfa for hay in the electrical ROW. BTW: They paid for those rights in teh beginning and pay for any and all damages\remediation should their maintenance result in needing any. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:30:16 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link As a property owner, I find that idea completely terrifying. I should absolutely have the right to say what is or is not on my property. Working in the utility industry, I still find that idea completely terrifying. Electric utilities typically require at least 30' of dedicated ROW. Gas and water utilities typically require at least 20' of dedicated ROW. Would you like to be required to give up 70' of your front yard without any say? You still get to mow it and maintain it, but if the utility feels the shrub you planted will interfere with them operating their line, they have the right to come destroy it. I would love to have dedicated easements everywhere, but that is the reason there is dedicated public ROW everywhere. Honestly people would be much better off dedicating 20' to a utility easement when they record the legal description of their property. Virtually all utilities can fit into a single 20' easement, especially if several go aerial, they just don't like to. In my opinion, eminent domain should be a difficult process with a requirement on the condemning authority to prove need and history of good faith negotiations. Just my 2 cents (probably closer to $0.10 now). On Feb 28, 2015 10:48 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote: blockquote Tangent... I understand property rights and all, but I'd like to see automatic approval for all ROW requests by qualified entities. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 6:56:45 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Apparently Missourians fight to protect their property rights more vigorously because, here anyway, it is a lengthy and expensive process. Landowners in MO can also be awarded legal fees if the condemning authority drops or loses the case of eminent domain, so it is definitely not a, This guy is being difficult, we'll show him. fix-all. http://watchdog.org/88546/missouri-landowners-win-in-eminent-domain-test-case/ Looks like it wasn't always the case here though. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: blockquote I have done it several times. In my cases it was pretty much the easy button. Just had to wait for the docket. From: Trevor Bough Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:21 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link It's not quite that easy... You have to be authorized by the state to be able to use eminent domain and even then it is a very lengthy process (minimum of six months typically) and it has to be for public use, which a utility can qualify as, but even after going to court for six months or more to prove that this is necessary for the public you are still at the mercy of the quart ruling that you are right and now have the luxury of paying the landowner for the access. It's not some magic automatic Easy Button. On Feb 26, 2015 1:34 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: blockquote If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground line, you can do so under the right of eminent domain. Landowner has no say so. You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and voila, instant ROW. However at that point in time the tables turn somewhat in the favor of the landowner as you have to compensate
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
I was referring to when they get dedicated easements outside of public ROW. On Feb 28, 2015 11:45 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote: The entire road ROW is not 70' wide, therefore none of the utilities in it (electric, gas, phone, competitive fiber provider) could possibly use that much of it. I will not buy any property rights argument for utilities along the roadway. In town, the lots are barely 70', so it would be impossible for a town to even exist if that were the case. You're probably referring to the long-haul stuff, not the access stuff. My mistake for not being clear about that up front. BTW: My family does have about 140' of electrical ROW and an undetermined amount of gas\petroleum and fiber longhaul ROW through our hundreds of acres. Not really an inconvenience. Gotta worry about the gas\fiber when putting in or repairing drain tile. Just planted alfalfa for hay in the electrical ROW. BTW: They paid for those rights in teh beginning and pay for any and all damages\remediation should their maintenance result in needing any. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- *From: *Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com *To: *af@afmug.com *Sent: *Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:30:16 AM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link As a property owner, I find that idea completely terrifying. I should absolutely have the right to say what is or is not on my property. Working in the utility industry, I still find that idea completely terrifying. Electric utilities typically require at least 30' of dedicated ROW. Gas and water utilities typically require at least 20' of dedicated ROW. Would you like to be required to give up 70' of your front yard without any say? You still get to mow it and maintain it, but if the utility feels the shrub you planted will interfere with them operating their line, they have the right to come destroy it. I would love to have dedicated easements everywhere, but that is the reason there is dedicated public ROW everywhere. Honestly people would be much better off dedicating 20' to a utility easement when they record the legal description of their property. Virtually all utilities can fit into a single 20' easement, especially if several go aerial, they just don't like to. In my opinion, eminent domain should be a difficult process with a requirement on the condemning authority to prove need and history of good faith negotiations. Just my 2 cents (probably closer to $0.10 now). On Feb 28, 2015 10:48 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote: Tangent... I understand property rights and all, but I'd like to see automatic approval for all ROW requests by qualified entities. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- *From: *Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com *To: *af@afmug.com *Sent: *Friday, February 27, 2015 6:56:45 PM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Apparently Missourians fight to protect their property rights more vigorously because, here anyway, it is a lengthy and expensive process. Landowners in MO can also be awarded legal fees if the condemning authority drops or loses the case of eminent domain, so it is definitely not a, This guy is being difficult, we'll show him. fix-all. http://watchdog.org/88546/missouri-landowners-win-in-eminent-domain-test-case/ Looks like it wasn't always the case here though. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: I have done it several times. In my cases it was pretty much the easy button. Just had to wait for the docket. *From:* Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:21 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link It's not quite that easy... You have to be authorized by the state to be able to use eminent domain and even then it is a very lengthy process (minimum of six months typically) and it has to be for public use, which a utility can qualify as, but even after going to court for six months or more to prove that this is necessary for the public you are still at the mercy of the quart ruling that you are right and now have the luxury of paying the landowner for the access. It's not some magic automatic Easy Button. On Feb 26, 2015 1:34 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground line, you can do so under the right of eminent domain. Landowner has no say so. You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and voila, instant ROW. However at that point in time the tables turn somewhat in the favor of the landowner as you have to compensate them for what you have taken. That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very expensive ROW... What you are talking about below is the establishment of a prescriptive ROW through your failure to defend your property. Another word
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Well said. - Original Message - From: Trevor Bough To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link As a property owner, I find that idea completely terrifying. I should absolutely have the right to say what is or is not on my property. Working in the utility industry, I still find that idea completely terrifying. Electric utilities typically require at least 30' of dedicated ROW. Gas and water utilities typically require at least 20' of dedicated ROW. Would you like to be required to give up 70' of your front yard without any say? You still get to mow it and maintain it, but if the utility feels the shrub you planted will interfere with them operating their line, they have the right to come destroy it. I would love to have dedicated easements everywhere, but that is the reason there is dedicated public ROW everywhere. Honestly people would be much better off dedicating 20' to a utility easement when they record the legal description of their property. Virtually all utilities can fit into a single 20' easement, especially if several go aerial, they just don't like to. In my opinion, eminent domain should be a difficult process with a requirement on the condemning authority to prove need and history of good faith negotiations. Just my 2 cents (probably closer to $0.10 now). On Feb 28, 2015 10:48 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote: Tangent... I understand property rights and all, but I'd like to see automatic approval for all ROW requests by qualified entities. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 6:56:45 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Apparently Missourians fight to protect their property rights more vigorously because, here anyway, it is a lengthy and expensive process. Landowners in MO can also be awarded legal fees if the condemning authority drops or loses the case of eminent domain, so it is definitely not a, This guy is being difficult, we'll show him. fix-all. http://watchdog.org/88546/missouri-landowners-win-in-eminent-domain-test-case/ Looks like it wasn't always the case here though. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: I have done it several times. In my cases it was pretty much the easy button. Just had to wait for the docket. From: Trevor Bough Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:21 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link It's not quite that easy... You have to be authorized by the state to be able to use eminent domain and even then it is a very lengthy process (minimum of six months typically) and it has to be for public use, which a utility can qualify as, but even after going to court for six months or more to prove that this is necessary for the public you are still at the mercy of the quart ruling that you are right and now have the luxury of paying the landowner for the access. It's not some magic automatic Easy Button. On Feb 26, 2015 1:34 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground line, you can do so under the right of eminent domain. Landowner has no say so. You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and voila, instant ROW. However at that point in time the tables turn somewhat in the favor of the landowner as you have to compensate them for what you have taken. That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very expensive ROW... What you are talking about below is the establishment of a prescriptive ROW through your failure to defend your property. Another word for it is acquiescence or adverse possession. You can certainly lose your right to defend if you sit on your rights. So, yea, if they didn't have an easement or court order, cut down that pole. -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link What eminent domain actions can a utility take? My knowledge on that topic is all hearsay. I heard of a landowner who saw a company putting a pole in an empty lot that he owned across the street from his house. He watched them set the pole and then after the workers left he went out with a chainsaw and cut it down because they never asked him if they could put the pole there (so the story went). In his point of view, if he let them put the pole there, they have permanent rights to access that spot on his property because of eminent domain. You may even have the right of eminent domain now.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Peer pressure works really good at getting easements. For years my dad wanted to sealcoat a road... intersection to intersection. One landowner wanted to sell the land to the township. He was in no uncertain terms going to pay for anything. Everyone use just donated the like 1' or whatever it was. He sealcoated up to the bridge at the edge of the aforementioned landowner's land. When asked why he didn't go to the next intersection, he said exactly why. He got the land donated to him in time to finish it up next construction season. ;-) - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:10:19 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Yep. I was confirming that was what I meant. I agree with your entire email and that utility easements rarely actually affect the landowner, but you will definitely have a hard time getting a large percentage of the population to understand that if you make ROW requests automatic. Most people, around here anyhow, would see it as a land grab. I personally would have no problem giving various utilities easements (and also have an electric and telephone easement on my property), but I would want to have the final say on who, what, where, and how much on any new ones. I work with getting utility easements at least monthly, so I have seen the whole spectrum of responses, from no problem, to absolutely not, to sure, for $1M. There are a surprising number of people that do not know they have existing easements on their property and do not understand the idea of the public ROW. On Feb 28, 2015 11:54 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote: *nods* As I indicated later in my e-mail. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:51:42 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link I was referring to when they get dedicated easements outside of public ROW. On Feb 28, 2015 11:45 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote: blockquote The entire road ROW is not 70' wide, therefore none of the utilities in it (electric, gas, phone, competitive fiber provider) could possibly use that much of it. I will not buy any property rights argument for utilities along the roadway. In town, the lots are barely 70', so it would be impossible for a town to even exist if that were the case. You're probably referring to the long-haul stuff, not the access stuff. My mistake for not being clear about that up front. BTW: My family does have about 140' of electrical ROW and an undetermined amount of gas\petroleum and fiber longhaul ROW through our hundreds of acres. Not really an inconvenience. Gotta worry about the gas\fiber when putting in or repairing drain tile. Just planted alfalfa for hay in the electrical ROW. BTW: They paid for those rights in teh beginning and pay for any and all damages\remediation should their maintenance result in needing any. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:30:16 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link As a property owner, I find that idea completely terrifying. I should absolutely have the right to say what is or is not on my property. Working in the utility industry, I still find that idea completely terrifying. Electric utilities typically require at least 30' of dedicated ROW. Gas and water utilities typically require at least 20' of dedicated ROW. Would you like to be required to give up 70' of your front yard without any say? You still get to mow it and maintain it, but if the utility feels the shrub you planted will interfere with them operating their line, they have the right to come destroy it. I would love to have dedicated easements everywhere, but that is the reason there is dedicated public ROW everywhere. Honestly people would be much better off dedicating 20' to a utility easement when they record the legal description of their property. Virtually all utilities can fit into a single 20' easement, especially if several go aerial, they just don't like to. In my opinion, eminent domain should be a difficult process with a requirement on the condemning authority to prove need and history of good faith negotiations. Just my 2 cents (probably closer to $0.10 now). On Feb 28, 2015 10:48 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote: blockquote Tangent... I understand property rights and all, but I'd like to see automatic approval for all ROW requests by qualified entities. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 6:56:45 PM Subject: Re
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Utilities are treated as quazi public entities before the law and are almost universally allowed all rights accorded to political subdivisions such as eminent domain. It is easy to “prove” that a fiber line is needed for public use. Even our dear President would agree that your fiber brings better, needed, service to those poor folks at the other end of town... That half of the argument is almost impossible to lose. I would guess most states have that as a requirement. the judges I have been before did not even want to step into that argument. Much easier to prove than a land developer taking property for a new development and saying it will help bring jobs and commerce to the community therefore it is needed for public use. And you know that has happened all over the country. From: Trevor Bough Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:37 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link The 5th Amendment just established just compensation for eminent domain. It leaves it to the states to define what public use is. And the landowner still always has the right to argue their point that it is not going to be used for public use. Luckily, I live in a state that puts the onus on the condemning authority to prove the taking is definitely needed for public use. On Feb 28, 2015 12:24 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: The 5th amendment of the US constitution took that from you many years ago. From: Trevor Bough Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 10:30 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link As a property owner, I find that idea completely terrifying. I should absolutely have the right to say what is or is not on my property. Working in the utility industry, I still find that idea completely terrifying. Electric utilities typically require at least 30' of dedicated ROW. Gas and water utilities typically require at least 20' of dedicated ROW. Would you like to be required to give up 70' of your front yard without any say? You still get to mow it and maintain it, but if the utility feels the shrub you planted will interfere with them operating their line, they have the right to come destroy it. I would love to have dedicated easements everywhere, but that is the reason there is dedicated public ROW everywhere. Honestly people would be much better off dedicating 20' to a utility easement when they record the legal description of their property. Virtually all utilities can fit into a single 20' easement, especially if several go aerial, they just don't like to. In my opinion, eminent domain should be a difficult process with a requirement on the condemning authority to prove need and history of good faith negotiations. Just my 2 cents (probably closer to $0.10 now). On Feb 28, 2015 10:48 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote: Tangent... I understand property rights and all, but I'd like to see automatic approval for all ROW requests by qualified entities. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 6:56:45 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Apparently Missourians fight to protect their property rights more vigorously because, here anyway, it is a lengthy and expensive process. Landowners in MO can also be awarded legal fees if the condemning authority drops or loses the case of eminent domain, so it is definitely not a, This guy is being difficult, we'll show him. fix-all. http://watchdog.org/88546/missouri-landowners-win-in-eminent-domain-test-case/ Looks like it wasn't always the case here though. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: I have done it several times. In my cases it was pretty much the easy button. Just had to wait for the docket. From: Trevor Bough Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:21 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link It's not quite that easy... You have to be authorized by the state to be able to use eminent domain and even then it is a very lengthy process (minimum of six months typically) and it has to be for public use, which a utility can qualify as, but even after going to court for six months or more to prove that this is necessary for the public you are still at the mercy of the quart ruling that you are right and now have the luxury of paying the landowner for the access. It's not some magic automatic Easy Button. On Feb 26, 2015 1:34 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground line, you can do so under the right of eminent domain. Landowner has no say so. You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and voila, instant ROW. However at that point in time the tables turn somewhat in the favor of the landowner as you have to compensate them
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
I think they're running 1M vDC.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 2:33:14 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Interesting how we've come full circle on power transmission. Thomas Edison's
original big distribution project failed because it was essentially a DC
transmission project. Back then, they were only able to do DC transmission a
couple of miles. The advantages of AC won out.
Now that we understand the issues better, DC is coming back.
I would really like to see the thyristors that convert between AC and DC with
an operating voltage of 600,000 volts.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 2/28/2015 12:00 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
There is an ugly fight against a 500 mile high voltage DC power line through
Iowa and Illinois and use of eminent domain to acquire the farmland.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Block-RICL-Rock-Island-Clean-Line/133050610203359
From: Chuck McCown
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 1:27 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
It is a tool to be used as a last resort. You make no friends and it ends up
costing you lots of money and goodwill. But it is a very effective tool in
Utah.
From: Trevor Bough
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:03 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
I have no doubt that eminent domain has been abused all over the country in the
manner you described with the developer (that's why I provided the link about
the Missouri port authority losing their eminent domain claim to show that MO
anyhow has attempted to put an end to that and, in effect make it harder to win
any eminent domain case). I also agree that it is much easier to win the
argument that fiber is providing a public use than a land developer. It is also
easier for the landowner to prove that your fiber doesn't have to go through
their property (unless they have a rather large tract of land, in which case
they are just stupid not to take the money and accept the easement in the first
place) to get where you need to go. I am not against eminent domain. It's a
sometimes necessary tool. I'm against the idea that eminent domain just makes
problem people go away.
On Feb 28, 2015 12:46 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
blockquote
Utilities are treated as quazi public entities before the law and are almost
universally allowed all rights accorded to political subdivisions such as
eminent domain. It is easy to “prove” that a fiber line is needed for public
use. Even our dear President would agree that your fiber brings better, needed,
service to those poor folks at the other end of town... That half of the
argument is almost impossible to lose.
I would guess most states have that as a requirement. the judges I have been
before did not even want to step into that argument.
Much easier to prove than a land developer taking property for a new
development and saying it will help bring jobs and commerce to the community
therefore it is needed for public use. And you know that has happened all over
the country.
From: Trevor Bough
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:37 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
The 5th Amendment just established just compensation for eminent domain. It
leaves it to the states to define what public use is. And the landowner still
always has the right to argue their point that it is not going to be used for
public use. Luckily, I live in a state that puts the onus on the condemning
authority to prove the taking is definitely needed for public use.
On Feb 28, 2015 12:24 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
The 5th amendment of the US constitution took that from you many years ago.
From: Trevor Bough
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 10:30 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
As a property owner, I find that idea completely terrifying. I should
absolutely have the right to say what is or is not on my property. Working in
the utility industry, I still find that idea completely terrifying. Electric
utilities typically require at least 30' of dedicated ROW. Gas and water
utilities typically require at least 20' of dedicated ROW. Would you like to
be required to give up 70' of your front yard without any say? You still get
to mow it and maintain it, but if the utility feels the shrub you planted
will interfere with them operating their line, they have the right to come
destroy it. I would love to have dedicated easements everywhere, but that is
the reason there is dedicated public ROW everywhere. Honestly people would be
much better off dedicating 20' to a utility easement when they record the
legal description of their property. Virtually all utilities can fit into a
single 20' easement, especially
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
I have done it several times. In my cases it was pretty much the easy button. Just had to wait for the docket. From: Trevor Bough Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:21 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link It's not quite that easy... You have to be authorized by the state to be able to use eminent domain and even then it is a very lengthy process (minimum of six months typically) and it has to be for public use, which a utility can qualify as, but even after going to court for six months or more to prove that this is necessary for the public you are still at the mercy of the quart ruling that you are right and now have the luxury of paying the landowner for the access. It's not some magic automatic Easy Button. On Feb 26, 2015 1:34 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground line, you can do so under the right of eminent domain. Landowner has no say so. You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and voila, instant ROW. However at that point in time the tables turn somewhat in the favor of the landowner as you have to compensate them for what you have taken. That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very expensive ROW... What you are talking about below is the establishment of a prescriptive ROW through your failure to defend your property. Another word for it is acquiescence or adverse possession. You can certainly lose your right to defend if you sit on your rights. So, yea, if they didn't have an easement or court order, cut down that pole. -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link What eminent domain actions can a utility take? My knowledge on that topic is all hearsay. I heard of a landowner who saw a company putting a pole in an empty lot that he owned across the street from his house. He watched them set the pole and then after the workers left he went out with a chainsaw and cut it down because they never asked him if they could put the pole there (so the story went). In his point of view, if he let them put the pole there, they have permanent rights to access that spot on his property because of eminent domain. You may even have the right of eminent domain now.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
I asked that on ISPradio last week when Commissioner Pai was a guest. If I remember correctly (I have slept since then) if you sell internet, you are included. I think you can download the podcast and hear his exact answer. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 5:07 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link So for anybody who heard this live info, was there any indication as to whether we're subject to these rules if we're not actually selling broadband under the new definition? For example, if I sell 20meg, but not 25meg, am I not selling the new broadband and not actually subject to any of this stuff? You can try... -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:52 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link What about a monopole with wireless base stations on it? Could I stick that anywhere unless someone stops me? If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground line, you can do so under the right of eminent domain. Landowner has no say so. You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and voila, instant ROW. However at that point in time the tables turn somewhat in the favor of the landowner as you have to compensate them for what you have taken. That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very expensive ROW... What you are talking about below is the establishment of a prescriptive ROW through your failure to defend your property. Another word for it is acquiescence or adverse possession. You can certainly lose your right to defend if you sit on your rights. So, yea, if they didn't have an easement or court order, cut down that pole. -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link What eminent domain actions can a utility take? My knowledge on that topic is all hearsay. I heard of a landowner who saw a company putting a pole in an empty lot that he owned across the street from his house. He watched them set the pole and then after the workers left he went out with a chainsaw and cut it down because they never asked him if they could put the pole there (so the story went). In his point of view, if he let them put the pole there, they have permanent rights to access that spot on his property because of eminent domain. You may even have the right of eminent domain now.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Apparently Missourians fight to protect their property rights more vigorously because, here anyway, it is a lengthy and expensive process. Landowners in MO can also be awarded legal fees if the condemning authority drops or loses the case of eminent domain, so it is definitely not a, This guy is being difficult, we'll show him. fix-all. http://watchdog.org/88546/missouri-landowners-win-in-eminent-domain-test-case/ Looks like it wasn't always the case here though. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: I have done it several times. In my cases it was pretty much the easy button. Just had to wait for the docket. *From:* Trevor Bough trevorbo...@gmail.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:21 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link It's not quite that easy... You have to be authorized by the state to be able to use eminent domain and even then it is a very lengthy process (minimum of six months typically) and it has to be for public use, which a utility can qualify as, but even after going to court for six months or more to prove that this is necessary for the public you are still at the mercy of the quart ruling that you are right and now have the luxury of paying the landowner for the access. It's not some magic automatic Easy Button. On Feb 26, 2015 1:34 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground line, you can do so under the right of eminent domain. Landowner has no say so. You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and voila, instant ROW. However at that point in time the tables turn somewhat in the favor of the landowner as you have to compensate them for what you have taken. That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very expensive ROW... What you are talking about below is the establishment of a prescriptive ROW through your failure to defend your property. Another word for it is acquiescence or adverse possession. You can certainly lose your right to defend if you sit on your rights. So, yea, if they didn't have an easement or court order, cut down that pole. -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link What eminent domain actions can a utility take? My knowledge on that topic is all hearsay. I heard of a landowner who saw a company putting a pole in an empty lot that he owned across the street from his house. He watched them set the pole and then after the workers left he went out with a chainsaw and cut it down because they never asked him if they could put the pole there (so the story went). In his point of view, if he let them put the pole there, they have permanent rights to access that spot on his property because of eminent domain. You may even have the right of eminent domain now.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Commissioner Pi maybe? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Feb 26, 2015 11:17 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net wrote: Who’s the guy talking right now? He is addressing the concerns of WISPs and small ISP directly. I think he is definitely spot on. *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:47 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Cc:* memb...@wispa.org *Subject:* [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Big show today. Put your votes in and grab your favorite drink. http://www.fcc.gov/live *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.*
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Oreilley...he spoke here yesterday in personor tues Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone - Reply message - From: Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Date: Thu, Feb 26, 2015 11:27 AM This guy seems to be spot on so far as well. - Original Message - From: Jaime Solorza To: Animal Farm Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Installing rocket ..keep it coming Jaime Solorza On Feb 26, 2015 10:17 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net wrote: Who’s the guy talking right now? He is addressing the concerns of WISPs and small ISP directly. I think he is definitely spot on. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications IncSent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:47 AMTo: af@afmug.comCc: members@wispa.orgSubject: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Big show today. Put your votes in and grab your favorite drink. http://www.fcc.gov/live 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.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
We need to figure out a way for everyone to protest it rather than bend over. Just another regulation to shut down the little guys. We're not big enough to pad their wallets and they don't want us to be big enough to become a thorn in their side. Either greed and the buddy system or just another socialist push. - Original Message - From: Sterling Jacobson To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link None of us need that parity, do we? I get along just fine without it. And it comes with so many strings and fees that it will bomb many ISPs IMO. I just heard that it does NOT exclude smaller size ISPs. Everyone get ready to file more paperwork, pay more taxes on gross profits, and adding more network protocols and tools to let the government in on our networks. All bad. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:37 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link But, there is an opportunity for all of you to claim parity with the ILEC world if they do this. From: Glen Waldrop Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:34 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link I caught the end of Pai. As O'Reilly said, they're skipping a bunch of stuff. Coverage isn't even 100% yet and they're already screwing it up with red tape. - Original Message - From: Sterling Jacobson To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Holy hell, that speech and position of Ajit Pai is my definite opinion. He’s my new hero. Michael O’Rielly is also starting off strong against this Title II crap. The strongest point I get from this is that the new law isn’t fully disclosed but being passed regardless and pushes special interest. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:28 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link This guy seems to be spot on so far as well. - Original Message - From: Jaime Solorza To: Animal Farm Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Installing rocket ..keep it coming Jaime Solorza On Feb 26, 2015 10:17 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net wrote: Who’s the guy talking right now? He is addressing the concerns of WISPs and small ISP directly. I think he is definitely spot on. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:47 AM To: af@afmug.com Cc: memb...@wispa.org Subject: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Big show today. Put your votes in and grab your favorite drink. http://www.fcc.gov/live 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.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
You know what chairman? Just exempt everyone from this regulation except the top 10 including Comcast. “Problem” solved. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:51 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link The interweb apparently has not been trucking along this far without a referree on the field. On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.netmailto:gwl...@cngwireless.net wrote: We need to figure out a way for everyone to protest it rather than bend over. Just another regulation to shut down the little guys. We're not big enough to pad their wallets and they don't want us to be big enough to become a thorn in their side. Either greed and the buddy system or just another socialist push. - Original Message - From: Sterling Jacobsonmailto:sterl...@avative.net To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link None of us need that parity, do we? I get along just fine without it. And it comes with so many strings and fees that it will bomb many ISPs IMO. I just heard that it does NOT exclude smaller size ISPs. Everyone get ready to file more paperwork, pay more taxes on gross profits, and adding more network protocols and tools to let the government in on our networks. All bad. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.commailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:37 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link But, there is an opportunity for all of you to claim parity with the ILEC world if they do this. From: Glen Waldropmailto:gwl...@cngwireless.net Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:34 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link I caught the end of Pai. As O'Reilly said, they're skipping a bunch of stuff. Coverage isn't even 100% yet and they're already screwing it up with red tape. - Original Message - From: Sterling Jacobsonmailto:sterl...@avative.net To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Holy hell, that speech and position of Ajit Pai is my definite opinion. He’s my new hero. Michael O’Rielly is also starting off strong against this Title II crap. The strongest point I get from this is that the new law isn’t fully disclosed but being passed regardless and pushes special interest. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:28 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link This guy seems to be spot on so far as well. - Original Message - From: Jaime Solorzamailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com To: Animal Farmmailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Installing rocket ..keep it coming Jaime Solorza On Feb 26, 2015 10:17 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.netmailto:sterl...@avative.net wrote: Who’s the guy talking right now? He is addressing the concerns of WISPs and small ISP directly. I think he is definitely spot on. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.commailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:47 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Cc: memb...@wispa.orgmailto:memb...@wispa.org Subject: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Big show today. Put your votes in and grab your favorite drink. http://www.fcc.gov/live Tyson Burris, President Internet Communications Inc. 739 Commerce Dr. Franklin, IN 46131 317-738-0320tel:317-738-0320 Daytime # 317-412-1540tel:317-412-1540 Cell/Direct # Online: www.surfici.nethttp://www.surfici.net [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. -- 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.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
I caught the end of Pai. As O'Reilly said, they're skipping a bunch of stuff. Coverage isn't even 100% yet and they're already screwing it up with red tape. - Original Message - From: Sterling Jacobson To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Holy hell, that speech and position of Ajit Pai is my definite opinion. He’s my new hero. Michael O’Rielly is also starting off strong against this Title II crap. The strongest point I get from this is that the new law isn’t fully disclosed but being passed regardless and pushes special interest. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:28 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link This guy seems to be spot on so far as well. - Original Message - From: Jaime Solorza To: Animal Farm Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Installing rocket ..keep it coming Jaime Solorza On Feb 26, 2015 10:17 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net wrote: Who’s the guy talking right now? He is addressing the concerns of WISPs and small ISP directly. I think he is definitely spot on. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:47 AM To: af@afmug.com Cc: memb...@wispa.org Subject: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Big show today. Put your votes in and grab your favorite drink. http://www.fcc.gov/live 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.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
But, there is an opportunity for all of you to claim parity with the ILEC world if they do this. From: Glen Waldrop Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:34 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link I caught the end of Pai. As O'Reilly said, they're skipping a bunch of stuff. Coverage isn't even 100% yet and they're already screwing it up with red tape. - Original Message - From: Sterling Jacobson To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Holy hell, that speech and position of Ajit Pai is my definite opinion. He’s my new hero. Michael O’Rielly is also starting off strong against this Title II crap. The strongest point I get from this is that the new law isn’t fully disclosed but being passed regardless and pushes special interest. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:28 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link This guy seems to be spot on so far as well. - Original Message - From: Jaime Solorza To: Animal Farm Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Installing rocket ..keep it coming Jaime Solorza On Feb 26, 2015 10:17 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net wrote: Who’s the guy talking right now? He is addressing the concerns of WISPs and small ISP directly. I think he is definitely spot on. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:47 AM To: af@afmug.com Cc: memb...@wispa.org Subject: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Big show today. Put your votes in and grab your favorite drink. http://www.fcc.gov/live 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.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
will they be providing free stitches for the rectal tears? On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net wrote: You know what chairman? Just exempt everyone from this regulation except the top 10 including Comcast. “Problem” solved. *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:51 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link The interweb apparently has not been trucking along this far without a referree on the field. On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net wrote: We need to figure out a way for everyone to protest it rather than bend over. Just another regulation to shut down the little guys. We're not big enough to pad their wallets and they don't want us to be big enough to become a thorn in their side. Either greed and the buddy system or just another socialist push. - Original Message - *From:* Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net *To:* af@afmug.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:41 AM *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link None of us need that parity, do we? I get along just fine without it. And it comes with so many strings and fees that it will bomb many ISPs IMO. I just heard that it does NOT exclude smaller size ISPs. Everyone get ready to file more paperwork, pay more taxes on gross profits, and adding more network protocols and tools to let the government in on our networks. All bad. *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Chuck McCown *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:37 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link But, there is an opportunity for all of you to claim parity with the ILEC world if they do this. *From:* Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:34 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link I caught the end of Pai. As O'Reilly said, they're skipping a bunch of stuff. Coverage isn't even 100% yet and they're already screwing it up with red tape. - Original Message - *From:* Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net *To:* af@afmug.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:31 AM *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Holy hell, that speech and position of Ajit Pai is my definite opinion. He’s my new hero. Michael O’Rielly is also starting off strong against this Title II crap. The strongest point I get from this is that the new law isn’t fully disclosed but being passed regardless and pushes special interest. *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Glen Waldrop *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:28 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link This guy seems to be spot on so far as well. - Original Message - *From:* Jaime Solorza losguyswirel...@gmail.com *To:* Animal Farm af@afmug.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:24 AM *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Installing rocket ..keep it coming Jaime Solorza On Feb 26, 2015 10:17 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net wrote: Who’s the guy talking right now? He is addressing the concerns of WISPs and small ISP directly. I think he is definitely spot on. *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:47 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Cc:* memb...@wispa.org *Subject:* [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Big show today. Put your votes in and grab your favorite drink. http://www.fcc.gov/live *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.* -- 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.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
No, I didn’t get in soon enough. That would be very interesting. But probably wouldn’t save Utopia. The problem with Utopia isn’t so much the providers on it, but the providers access to the underlying network and the ability to upgrade it. Giving the munis the ability to directly sell connectivity doesn’t help anything. The funds to build out and connect more people still need to come from somewhere. I guess that means more bonds on the promise that the muni can somehow run the network better than a private ISP. That didn’t work for iProvo. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:06 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Did you hear the first presentation about removing the bar against municipalities from operating ISPs? If that is adopted UTOPIA will become an ISP, not just a pseudo shell carrier for ISPs.(This is a Utah thing). But in areas where your local municipality is barred from competing, the landscape may change... From: Chuck McCownmailto:ch...@wbmfg.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:36 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link But, there is an opportunity for all of you to claim parity with the ILEC world if they do this. From: Glen Waldropmailto:gwl...@cngwireless.net Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:34 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link I caught the end of Pai. As O'Reilly said, they're skipping a bunch of stuff. Coverage isn't even 100% yet and they're already screwing it up with red tape. - Original Message - From: Sterling Jacobsonmailto:sterl...@avative.net To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Holy hell, that speech and position of Ajit Pai is my definite opinion. He’s my new hero. Michael O’Rielly is also starting off strong against this Title II crap. The strongest point I get from this is that the new law isn’t fully disclosed but being passed regardless and pushes special interest. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:28 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link This guy seems to be spot on so far as well. - Original Message - From: Jaime Solorzamailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com To: Animal Farmmailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Installing rocket ..keep it coming Jaime Solorza On Feb 26, 2015 10:17 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.netmailto:sterl...@avative.net wrote: Who’s the guy talking right now? He is addressing the concerns of WISPs and small ISP directly. I think he is definitely spot on. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.commailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:47 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Cc: memb...@wispa.orgmailto:memb...@wispa.org Subject: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Big show today. Put your votes in and grab your favorite drink. http://www.fcc.gov/live Tyson Burris, President Internet Communications Inc. 739 Commerce Dr. Franklin, IN 46131 317-738-0320tel:317-738-0320 Daytime # 317-412-1540tel:317-412-1540 Cell/Direct # Online: www.surfici.nethttp://www.surfici.net [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.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
This guy seems to be spot on so far as well. - Original Message - From: Jaime Solorza To: Animal Farm Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Installing rocket ..keep it coming Jaime Solorza On Feb 26, 2015 10:17 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net wrote: Who’s the guy talking right now? He is addressing the concerns of WISPs and small ISP directly. I think he is definitely spot on. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:47 AM To: af@afmug.com Cc: memb...@wispa.org Subject: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Big show today. Put your votes in and grab your favorite drink. http://www.fcc.gov/live 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.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
That was over before it started. No changes tomorrow…. 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. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 1:01 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link will they be providing free stitches for the rectal tears? On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net mailto:sterl...@avative.net wrote: You know what chairman? Just exempt everyone from this regulation except the top 10 including Comcast. “Problem” solved. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of That One Guy Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:51 AM To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link The interweb apparently has not been trucking along this far without a referree on the field. On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net mailto:gwl...@cngwireless.net wrote: We need to figure out a way for everyone to protest it rather than bend over. Just another regulation to shut down the little guys. We're not big enough to pad their wallets and they don't want us to be big enough to become a thorn in their side. Either greed and the buddy system or just another socialist push. - Original Message - From: Sterling Jacobson mailto:sterl...@avative.net To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link None of us need that parity, do we? I get along just fine without it. And it comes with so many strings and fees that it will bomb many ISPs IMO. I just heard that it does NOT exclude smaller size ISPs. Everyone get ready to file more paperwork, pay more taxes on gross profits, and adding more network protocols and tools to let the government in on our networks. All bad. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:37 AM To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link But, there is an opportunity for all of you to claim parity with the ILEC world if they do this. From: Glen Waldrop mailto:gwl...@cngwireless.net Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:34 AM To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link I caught the end of Pai. As O'Reilly said, they're skipping a bunch of stuff. Coverage isn't even 100% yet and they're already screwing it up with red tape. - Original Message - From: Sterling Jacobson mailto:sterl...@avative.net To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Holy hell, that speech and position of Ajit Pai is my definite opinion. He’s my new hero. Michael O’Rielly is also starting off strong against this Title II crap. The strongest point I get from this is that the new law isn’t fully disclosed but being passed regardless and pushes special interest. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:28 AM To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link This guy seems to be spot on so far as well. - Original Message - From: Jaime Solorza mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com To: Animal Farm mailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Installing rocket ..keep it coming Jaime Solorza On Feb 26, 2015 10:17 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net mailto:sterl...@avative.net wrote: Who’s the guy talking right now? He is addressing the concerns of WISPs and small ISP directly. I think he is definitely spot on. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:47 AM To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Cc: memb...@wispa.org mailto:memb...@wispa.org Subject: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Big show today. Put your votes in and grab your favorite drink. http://www.fcc.gov/live Tyson Burris, President Internet Communications Inc. 739 Commerce Dr. Franklin, IN 46131 317-738-0320 tel:317-738-0320 Daytime # 317-412-1540 tel:317
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Yep, that's who it is. On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Commissioner Pi maybe? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Feb 26, 2015 11:17 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net wrote: Who’s the guy talking right now? He is addressing the concerns of WISPs and small ISP directly. I think he is definitely spot on. *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:47 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Cc:* memb...@wispa.org *Subject:* [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Big show today. Put your votes in and grab your favorite drink. http://www.fcc.gov/live *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.*
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Who's the guy talking right now? He is addressing the concerns of WISPs and small ISP directly. I think he is definitely spot on. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:47 AM To: af@afmug.com Cc: memb...@wispa.org Subject: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Big show today. Put your votes in and grab your favorite drink. http://www.fcc.gov/live 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 [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.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Installing rocket ..keep it coming Jaime Solorza On Feb 26, 2015 10:17 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net wrote: Who’s the guy talking right now? He is addressing the concerns of WISPs and small ISP directly. I think he is definitely spot on. *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:47 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Cc:* memb...@wispa.org *Subject:* [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Big show today. Put your votes in and grab your favorite drink. http://www.fcc.gov/live *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.*
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Holy hell, that speech and position of Ajit Pai is my definite opinion. He’s my new hero. Michael O’Rielly is also starting off strong against this Title II crap. The strongest point I get from this is that the new law isn’t fully disclosed but being passed regardless and pushes special interest. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:28 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link This guy seems to be spot on so far as well. - Original Message - From: Jaime Solorzamailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com To: Animal Farmmailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Installing rocket ..keep it coming Jaime Solorza On Feb 26, 2015 10:17 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.netmailto:sterl...@avative.net wrote: Who’s the guy talking right now? He is addressing the concerns of WISPs and small ISP directly. I think he is definitely spot on. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.commailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:47 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Cc: memb...@wispa.orgmailto:memb...@wispa.org Subject: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Big show today. Put your votes in and grab your favorite drink. http://www.fcc.gov/live Tyson Burris, President Internet Communications Inc. 739 Commerce Dr. Franklin, IN 46131 317-738-0320tel:317-738-0320 Daytime # 317-412-1540tel:317-412-1540 Cell/Direct # Online: www.surfici.nethttp://www.surfici.net [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.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Is this the minority dissent of a decision already made that we are listening to? From: Glen Waldrop Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:34 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link I caught the end of Pai. As O'Reilly said, they're skipping a bunch of stuff. Coverage isn't even 100% yet and they're already screwing it up with red tape. - Original Message - From: Sterling Jacobson To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Holy hell, that speech and position of Ajit Pai is my definite opinion. He’s my new hero. Michael O’Rielly is also starting off strong against this Title II crap. The strongest point I get from this is that the new law isn’t fully disclosed but being passed regardless and pushes special interest. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:28 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link This guy seems to be spot on so far as well. - Original Message - From: Jaime Solorza To: Animal Farm Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Installing rocket ..keep it coming Jaime Solorza On Feb 26, 2015 10:17 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net wrote: Who’s the guy talking right now? He is addressing the concerns of WISPs and small ISP directly. I think he is definitely spot on. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:47 AM To: af@afmug.com Cc: memb...@wispa.org Subject: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Big show today. Put your votes in and grab your favorite drink. http://www.fcc.gov/live 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.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
None of us need that parity, do we? I get along just fine without it. And it comes with so many strings and fees that it will bomb many ISPs IMO. I just heard that it does NOT exclude smaller size ISPs. Everyone get ready to file more paperwork, pay more taxes on gross profits, and adding more network protocols and tools to let the government in on our networks. All bad. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:37 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link But, there is an opportunity for all of you to claim parity with the ILEC world if they do this. From: Glen Waldropmailto:gwl...@cngwireless.net Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:34 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link I caught the end of Pai. As O'Reilly said, they're skipping a bunch of stuff. Coverage isn't even 100% yet and they're already screwing it up with red tape. - Original Message - From: Sterling Jacobsonmailto:sterl...@avative.net To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Holy hell, that speech and position of Ajit Pai is my definite opinion. He’s my new hero. Michael O’Rielly is also starting off strong against this Title II crap. The strongest point I get from this is that the new law isn’t fully disclosed but being passed regardless and pushes special interest. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:28 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link This guy seems to be spot on so far as well. - Original Message - From: Jaime Solorzamailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com To: Animal Farmmailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Installing rocket ..keep it coming Jaime Solorza On Feb 26, 2015 10:17 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.netmailto:sterl...@avative.net wrote: Who’s the guy talking right now? He is addressing the concerns of WISPs and small ISP directly. I think he is definitely spot on. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.commailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:47 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Cc: memb...@wispa.orgmailto:memb...@wispa.org Subject: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Big show today. Put your votes in and grab your favorite drink. http://www.fcc.gov/live Tyson Burris, President Internet Communications Inc. 739 Commerce Dr. Franklin, IN 46131 317-738-0320tel:317-738-0320 Daytime # 317-412-1540tel:317-412-1540 Cell/Direct # Online: www.surfici.nethttp://www.surfici.net [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.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
This guy is saying one thing and actually doing another. I truly don't like politicians. - Original Message - From: That One Guy To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:51 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link The interweb apparently has not been trucking along this far without a referree on the field. On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net wrote: We need to figure out a way for everyone to protest it rather than bend over. Just another regulation to shut down the little guys. We're not big enough to pad their wallets and they don't want us to be big enough to become a thorn in their side. Either greed and the buddy system or just another socialist push. - Original Message - From: Sterling Jacobson To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link None of us need that parity, do we? I get along just fine without it. And it comes with so many strings and fees that it will bomb many ISPs IMO. I just heard that it does NOT exclude smaller size ISPs. Everyone get ready to file more paperwork, pay more taxes on gross profits, and adding more network protocols and tools to let the government in on our networks. All bad. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:37 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link But, there is an opportunity for all of you to claim parity with the ILEC world if they do this. From: Glen Waldrop Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:34 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link I caught the end of Pai. As O'Reilly said, they're skipping a bunch of stuff. Coverage isn't even 100% yet and they're already screwing it up with red tape. - Original Message - From: Sterling Jacobson To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Holy hell, that speech and position of Ajit Pai is my definite opinion. He’s my new hero. Michael O’Rielly is also starting off strong against this Title II crap. The strongest point I get from this is that the new law isn’t fully disclosed but being passed regardless and pushes special interest. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:28 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link This guy seems to be spot on so far as well. - Original Message - From: Jaime Solorza To: Animal Farm Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Installing rocket ..keep it coming Jaime Solorza On Feb 26, 2015 10:17 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net wrote: Who’s the guy talking right now? He is addressing the concerns of WISPs and small ISP directly. I think he is definitely spot on. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:47 AM To: af@afmug.com Cc: memb...@wispa.org Subject: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Big show today. Put your votes in and grab your favorite drink. http://www.fcc.gov/live 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. -- 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.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
It was. Oreilley speaking now Both have been to wispa events Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone - Reply message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Date: Thu, Feb 26, 2015 11:20 AM Commissioner Pi maybe? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Feb 26, 2015 11:17 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net wrote: Who’s the guy talking right now? He is addressing the concerns of WISPs and small ISP directly. I think he is definitely spot on. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:47 AM To: af@afmug.com Cc: memb...@wispa.org Subject: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Big show today. Put your votes in and grab your favorite drink. http://www.fcc.gov/live 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.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
The interweb apparently has not been trucking along this far without a referree on the field. On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net wrote: We need to figure out a way for everyone to protest it rather than bend over. Just another regulation to shut down the little guys. We're not big enough to pad their wallets and they don't want us to be big enough to become a thorn in their side. Either greed and the buddy system or just another socialist push. - Original Message - *From:* Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net *To:* af@afmug.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:41 AM *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link None of us need that parity, do we? I get along just fine without it. And it comes with so many strings and fees that it will bomb many ISPs IMO. I just heard that it does NOT exclude smaller size ISPs. Everyone get ready to file more paperwork, pay more taxes on gross profits, and adding more network protocols and tools to let the government in on our networks. All bad. *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Chuck McCown *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:37 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link But, there is an opportunity for all of you to claim parity with the ILEC world if they do this. *From:* Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:34 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link I caught the end of Pai. As O'Reilly said, they're skipping a bunch of stuff. Coverage isn't even 100% yet and they're already screwing it up with red tape. - Original Message - *From:* Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net *To:* af@afmug.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:31 AM *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Holy hell, that speech and position of Ajit Pai is my definite opinion. He’s my new hero. Michael O’Rielly is also starting off strong against this Title II crap. The strongest point I get from this is that the new law isn’t fully disclosed but being passed regardless and pushes special interest. *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Glen Waldrop *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:28 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link This guy seems to be spot on so far as well. - Original Message - *From:* Jaime Solorza losguyswirel...@gmail.com *To:* Animal Farm af@afmug.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:24 AM *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Installing rocket ..keep it coming Jaime Solorza On Feb 26, 2015 10:17 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net wrote: Who’s the guy talking right now? He is addressing the concerns of WISPs and small ISP directly. I think he is definitely spot on. *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:47 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Cc:* memb...@wispa.org *Subject:* [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Big show today. Put your votes in and grab your favorite drink. http://www.fcc.gov/live *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.* -- 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.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
You can try... -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:52 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link What about a monopole with wireless base stations on it? Could I stick that anywhere unless someone stops me? If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground line, you can do so under the right of eminent domain. Landowner has no say so. You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and voila, instant ROW. However at that point in time the tables turn somewhat in the favor of the landowner as you have to compensate them for what you have taken. That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very expensive ROW... What you are talking about below is the establishment of a prescriptive ROW through your failure to defend your property. Another word for it is acquiescence or adverse possession. You can certainly lose your right to defend if you sit on your rights. So, yea, if they didn't have an easement or court order, cut down that pole. -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link What eminent domain actions can a utility take? My knowledge on that topic is all hearsay. I heard of a landowner who saw a company putting a pole in an empty lot that he owned across the street from his house. He watched them set the pole and then after the workers left he went out with a chainsaw and cut it down because they never asked him if they could put the pole there (so the story went). In his point of view, if he let them put the pole there, they have permanent rights to access that spot on his property because of eminent domain. You may even have the right of eminent domain now.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
LOL :) -- Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com On 02/26/2015 09:01 AM, That One Guy wrote: will they be providing free stitches for the rectal tears? On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net mailto:sterl...@avative.net wrote: You know what chairman? Just exempt everyone from this regulation except the top 10 including Comcast. “Problem” solved. *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:51 AM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link The interweb apparently has not been trucking along this far without a referree on the field. On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net mailto:gwl...@cngwireless.net wrote: We need to figure out a way for everyone to protest it rather than bend over. Just another regulation to shut down the little guys. We're not big enough to pad their wallets and they don't want us to be big enough to become a thorn in their side. Either greed and the buddy system or just another socialist push. - Original Message - *From:*Sterling Jacobson mailto:sterl...@avative.net *To:*af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:*Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:41 AM *Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link None of us need that parity, do we? I get along just fine without it. And it comes with so many strings and fees that it will bomb many ISPs IMO. I just heard that it does NOT exclude smaller size ISPs. Everyone get ready to file more paperwork, pay more taxes on gross profits, and adding more network protocols and tools to let the government in on our networks. All bad. *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Chuck McCown *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:37 AM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link But, there is an opportunity for all of you to claim parity with the ILEC world if they do this. *From:*Glen Waldrop mailto:gwl...@cngwireless.net *Sent:*Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:34 AM *To:*af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link I caught the end of Pai. As O'Reilly said, they're skipping a bunch of stuff. Coverage isn't even 100% yet and they're already screwing it up with red tape. - Original Message - *From:*Sterling Jacobson mailto:sterl...@avative.net *To:*af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:*Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:31 AM *Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Holy hell, that speech and position of Ajit Pai is my definite opinion. He’s my new hero. Michael O’Rielly is also starting off strong against this Title II crap. The strongest point I get from this is that the new law isn’t fully disclosed but being passed regardless and pushes special interest. *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Glen Waldrop *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:28 AM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link This guy seems to be spot on so far as well. - Original Message - *From:*Jaime Solorza mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com *To:*Animal Farm mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:*Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:24 AM *Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Installing rocket ..keep it coming Jaime Solorza On Feb 26, 2015 10:17 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net mailto:sterl...@avative.net wrote: Who’s the guy talking right now? He is addressing the concerns of WISPs and small ISP directly. I think he is definitely spot on. *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:47 AM *To:* af
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
What about a monopole with wireless base stations on it? Could I stick that anywhere unless someone stops me? If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground line, you can do so under the right of eminent domain. Landowner has no say so. You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and voila, instant ROW. However at that point in time the tables turn somewhat in the favor of the landowner as you have to compensate them for what you have taken. That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very expensive ROW... What you are talking about below is the establishment of a prescriptive ROW through your failure to defend your property. Another word for it is acquiescence or adverse possession. You can certainly lose your right to defend if you sit on your rights. So, yea, if they didn't have an easement or court order, cut down that pole. -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link What eminent domain actions can a utility take? My knowledge on that topic is all hearsay. I heard of a landowner who saw a company putting a pole in an empty lot that he owned across the street from his house. He watched them set the pole and then after the workers left he went out with a chainsaw and cut it down because they never asked him if they could put the pole there (so the story went). In his point of view, if he let them put the pole there, they have permanent rights to access that spot on his property because of eminent domain. You may even have the right of eminent domain now.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Naw, you gotta bug them for the support check. From: That One Guy Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:16 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link so does this mean now if a cripples yourporn or redtube buffers we can expect a call from the fcc? On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: “enables the FCC to support the internet as a separate service” That my friends should be subsidy music playing for you. From: Chuck McCown Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:56 AM To: Chuck McCown Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Y’all are now “Utilities” so ROW acquisition should not be as much of an issue. You may even have the right of eminent domain now. And remote areas are now supposed to get service for folks with disabilities, surly there is a pot of gold hiding under a sagebrush somewhere to enable that to happen. From: Chuck McCown Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:36 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link But, there is an opportunity for all of you to claim parity with the ILEC world if they do this. From: Glen Waldrop Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:34 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link I caught the end of Pai. As O'Reilly said, they're skipping a bunch of stuff. Coverage isn't even 100% yet and they're already screwing it up with red tape. - Original Message - From: Sterling Jacobson To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Holy hell, that speech and position of Ajit Pai is my definite opinion. He’s my new hero. Michael O’Rielly is also starting off strong against this Title II crap. The strongest point I get from this is that the new law isn’t fully disclosed but being passed regardless and pushes special interest. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:28 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link This guy seems to be spot on so far as well. - Original Message - From: Jaime Solorza To: Animal Farm Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Installing rocket ..keep it coming Jaime Solorza On Feb 26, 2015 10:17 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net wrote: Who’s the guy talking right now? He is addressing the concerns of WISPs and small ISP directly. I think he is definitely spot on. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:47 AM To: af@afmug.com Cc: memb...@wispa.org Subject: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Big show today. Put your votes in and grab your favorite drink. http://www.fcc.gov/live 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. -- 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.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground line, you can do so under the right of eminent domain. Landowner has no say so. You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and voila, instant ROW. However at that point in time the tables turn somewhat in the favor of the landowner as you have to compensate them for what you have taken. That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very expensive ROW... What you are talking about below is the establishment of a prescriptive ROW through your failure to defend your property. Another word for it is acquiescence or adverse possession. You can certainly lose your right to defend if you sit on your rights. So, yea, if they didn't have an easement or court order, cut down that pole. -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link What eminent domain actions can a utility take? My knowledge on that topic is all hearsay. I heard of a landowner who saw a company putting a pole in an empty lot that he owned across the street from his house. He watched them set the pole and then after the workers left he went out with a chainsaw and cut it down because they never asked him if they could put the pole there (so the story went). In his point of view, if he let them put the pole there, they have permanent rights to access that spot on his property because of eminent domain. You may even have the right of eminent domain now.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
so does this mean now if a cripples yourporn or redtube buffers we can expect a call from the fcc? On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: “enables the FCC to support the internet as a separate service” That my friends should be subsidy music playing for you. *From:* Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:56 AM *To:* Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Y’all are now “Utilities” so ROW acquisition should not be as much of an issue. You may even have the right of eminent domain now. And remote areas are now supposed to get service for folks with disabilities, surly there is a pot of gold hiding under a sagebrush somewhere to enable that to happen. *From:* Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:36 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link But, there is an opportunity for all of you to claim parity with the ILEC world if they do this. *From:* Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:34 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link I caught the end of Pai. As O'Reilly said, they're skipping a bunch of stuff. Coverage isn't even 100% yet and they're already screwing it up with red tape. - Original Message - *From:* Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net *To:* af@afmug.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:31 AM *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Holy hell, that speech and position of Ajit Pai is my definite opinion. He’s my new hero. Michael O’Rielly is also starting off strong against this Title II crap. The strongest point I get from this is that the new law isn’t fully disclosed but being passed regardless and pushes special interest. *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Glen Waldrop *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:28 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link This guy seems to be spot on so far as well. - Original Message - *From:* Jaime Solorza losguyswirel...@gmail.com *To:* Animal Farm af@afmug.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:24 AM *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Installing rocket ..keep it coming Jaime Solorza On Feb 26, 2015 10:17 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net wrote: Who’s the guy talking right now? He is addressing the concerns of WISPs and small ISP directly. I think he is definitely spot on. *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:47 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Cc:* memb...@wispa.org *Subject:* [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Big show today. Put your votes in and grab your favorite drink. http://www.fcc.gov/live *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.* -- 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.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Well said. - Original Message - From: That One Guy To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:01 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link will they be providing free stitches for the rectal tears? On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net wrote: You know what chairman? Just exempt everyone from this regulation except the top 10 including Comcast. “Problem” solved. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:51 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link The interweb apparently has not been trucking along this far without a referree on the field. On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net wrote: We need to figure out a way for everyone to protest it rather than bend over. Just another regulation to shut down the little guys. We're not big enough to pad their wallets and they don't want us to be big enough to become a thorn in their side. Either greed and the buddy system or just another socialist push. - Original Message - From: Sterling Jacobson To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link None of us need that parity, do we? I get along just fine without it. And it comes with so many strings and fees that it will bomb many ISPs IMO. I just heard that it does NOT exclude smaller size ISPs. Everyone get ready to file more paperwork, pay more taxes on gross profits, and adding more network protocols and tools to let the government in on our networks. All bad. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:37 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link But, there is an opportunity for all of you to claim parity with the ILEC world if they do this. From: Glen Waldrop Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:34 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link I caught the end of Pai. As O'Reilly said, they're skipping a bunch of stuff. Coverage isn't even 100% yet and they're already screwing it up with red tape. - Original Message - From: Sterling Jacobson To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Holy hell, that speech and position of Ajit Pai is my definite opinion. He’s my new hero. Michael O’Rielly is also starting off strong against this Title II crap. The strongest point I get from this is that the new law isn’t fully disclosed but being passed regardless and pushes special interest. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:28 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link This guy seems to be spot on so far as well. - Original Message - From: Jaime Solorza To: Animal Farm Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Installing rocket ..keep it coming Jaime Solorza On Feb 26, 2015 10:17 AM, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net wrote: Who’s the guy talking right now? He is addressing the concerns of WISPs and small ISP directly. I think he is definitely spot on. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:47 AM To: af@afmug.com Cc: memb...@wispa.org Subject: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Big show today. Put your votes in and grab your favorite drink. http://www.fcc.gov/live 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
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
What eminent domain actions can a utility take? My knowledge on that topic is all hearsay. I heard of a landowner who saw a company putting a pole in an empty lot that he owned across the street from his house. He watched them set the pole and then after the workers left he went out with a chainsaw and cut it down because they never asked him if they could put the pole there (so the story went). In his point of view, if he let them put the pole there, they have permanent rights to access that spot on his property because of eminent domain. You may even have the right of eminent domain now.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Maybe I should wait until ATT tries :) You can try... -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:52 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link What about a monopole with wireless base stations on it? Could I stick that anywhere unless someone stops me? If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground line, you can do so under the right of eminent domain. Landowner has no say so. You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and voila, instant ROW. However at that point in time the tables turn somewhat in the favor of the landowner as you have to compensate them for what you have taken. That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very expensive ROW... What you are talking about below is the establishment of a prescriptive ROW through your failure to defend your property. Another word for it is acquiescence or adverse possession. You can certainly lose your right to defend if you sit on your rights. So, yea, if they didn't have an easement or court order, cut down that pole. -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link What eminent domain actions can a utility take? My knowledge on that topic is all hearsay. I heard of a landowner who saw a company putting a pole in an empty lot that he owned across the street from his house. He watched them set the pole and then after the workers left he went out with a chainsaw and cut it down because they never asked him if they could put the pole there (so the story went). In his point of view, if he let them put the pole there, they have permanent rights to access that spot on his property because of eminent domain. You may even have the right of eminent domain now.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
So whatcha sellin' Bunky? Hillbilly broadband? We don't pay no
stinkin' ULS fees!
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 2/26/2015 2:06 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
So for anybody who heard this live info, was there any indication as
to whether we're subject to these rules if we're not actually selling
broadband under the new definition?
For example, if I sell 20meg, but not 25meg, am I not selling the new
broadband and not actually subject to any of this stuff?
You can try...
-Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday,
February 26, 2015 12:52 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC
Live Link
What about a monopole with wireless base stations on it? Could I
stick that anywhere unless someone stops me?
If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground
line, you can do so under the right of eminent domain. Landowner
has no say so. You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and
voila, instant ROW. However at that point in time the tables turn
somewhat in the favor of the landowner as you have to compensate
them for what you have taken.
That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very
expensive ROW...
What you are talking about below is the establishment of a
prescriptive ROW through your failure to defend your property.
Another word for it is acquiescence or adverse possession. You can
certainly lose your right to defend if you sit on your rights. So,
yea, if they didn't have an easement or court order, cut down that
pole.
-Original Message- From: Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
What eminent domain actions can a utility take? My knowledge on that
topic is all hearsay.
I heard of a landowner who saw a company putting a pole in an empty lot
that he owned across the street from his house. He watched them set
the
pole and then after the workers left he went out with a chainsaw and
cut
it down because they never asked him if they could put the pole there
(so the story went). In his point of view, if he let them put the pole
there, they have permanent rights to access that spot on his property
because of eminent domain.
You may even have the right of eminent domain now.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
Pirate broadband
-Original Message-
From: Glen Waldrop
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 3:19 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
We provide a service, not broadband.
The fee is all labor. The Internet access is a side effect of being
connected to our massive wireless LAN party.
- Original Message -
From: Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
So whatcha sellin' Bunky? Hillbilly broadband? We don't pay no stinkin'
ULS fees!
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 2/26/2015 2:06 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
So for anybody who heard this live info, was there any indication as to
whether we're subject to these rules if we're not actually selling
broadband under the new definition?
For example, if I sell 20meg, but not 25meg, am I not selling the new
broadband and not actually subject to any of this stuff?
You can try...
-Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, February
26, 2015 12:52 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
What about a monopole with wireless base stations on it? Could I stick
that anywhere unless someone stops me?
If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground line,
you can do so under the right of eminent domain. Landowner has no say
so. You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and voila, instant
ROW. However at that point in time the tables turn somewhat in the
favor of the landowner as you have to compensate them for what you have
taken.
That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very expensive
ROW...
What you are talking about below is the establishment of a prescriptive
ROW through your failure to defend your property. Another word for it
is acquiescence or adverse possession. You can certainly lose your
right to defend if you sit on your rights. So, yea, if they didn't
have an easement or court order, cut down that pole.
-Original Message- From: Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
What eminent domain actions can a utility take? My knowledge on that
topic is all hearsay.
I heard of a landowner who saw a company putting a pole in an empty lot
that he owned across the street from his house. He watched them set
the
pole and then after the workers left he went out with a chainsaw and
cut
it down because they never asked him if they could put the pole there
(so the story went). In his point of view, if he let them put the pole
there, they have permanent rights to access that spot on his property
because of eminent domain.
You may even have the right of eminent domain now.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
So for anybody who heard this live info, was there any indication as to whether we're subject to these rules if we're not actually selling broadband under the new definition? For example, if I sell 20meg, but not 25meg, am I not selling the new broadband and not actually subject to any of this stuff? You can try... -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:52 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link What about a monopole with wireless base stations on it? Could I stick that anywhere unless someone stops me? If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground line, you can do so under the right of eminent domain. Landowner has no say so. You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and voila, instant ROW. However at that point in time the tables turn somewhat in the favor of the landowner as you have to compensate them for what you have taken. That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very expensive ROW... What you are talking about below is the establishment of a prescriptive ROW through your failure to defend your property. Another word for it is acquiescence or adverse possession. You can certainly lose your right to defend if you sit on your rights. So, yea, if they didn't have an easement or court order, cut down that pole. -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link What eminent domain actions can a utility take? My knowledge on that topic is all hearsay. I heard of a landowner who saw a company putting a pole in an empty lot that he owned across the street from his house. He watched them set the pole and then after the workers left he went out with a chainsaw and cut it down because they never asked him if they could put the pole there (so the story went). In his point of view, if he let them put the pole there, they have permanent rights to access that spot on his property because of eminent domain. You may even have the right of eminent domain now.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
We provide a service, not broadband.
The fee is all labor. The Internet access is a side effect of being
connected to our massive wireless LAN party.
- Original Message -
From: Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
So whatcha sellin' Bunky? Hillbilly broadband? We don't pay no stinkin'
ULS fees!
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 2/26/2015 2:06 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
So for anybody who heard this live info, was there any indication as to
whether we're subject to these rules if we're not actually selling
broadband under the new definition?
For example, if I sell 20meg, but not 25meg, am I not selling the new
broadband and not actually subject to any of this stuff?
You can try...
-Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, February
26, 2015 12:52 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
What about a monopole with wireless base stations on it? Could I stick
that anywhere unless someone stops me?
If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground line,
you can do so under the right of eminent domain. Landowner has no say
so. You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and voila, instant
ROW. However at that point in time the tables turn somewhat in the
favor of the landowner as you have to compensate them for what you have
taken.
That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very expensive
ROW...
What you are talking about below is the establishment of a prescriptive
ROW through your failure to defend your property. Another word for it
is acquiescence or adverse possession. You can certainly lose your
right to defend if you sit on your rights. So, yea, if they didn't
have an easement or court order, cut down that pole.
-Original Message- From: Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
What eminent domain actions can a utility take? My knowledge on that
topic is all hearsay.
I heard of a landowner who saw a company putting a pole in an empty lot
that he owned across the street from his house. He watched them set
the
pole and then after the workers left he went out with a chainsaw and
cut
it down because they never asked him if they could put the pole there
(so the story went). In his point of view, if he let them put the pole
there, they have permanent rights to access that spot on his property
because of eminent domain.
You may even have the right of eminent domain now.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
It's not quite that easy... You have to be authorized by the state to be able to use eminent domain and even then it is a very lengthy process (minimum of six months typically) and it has to be for public use, which a utility can qualify as, but even after going to court for six months or more to prove that this is necessary for the public you are still at the mercy of the quart ruling that you are right and now have the luxury of paying the landowner for the access. It's not some magic automatic Easy Button. On Feb 26, 2015 1:34 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground line, you can do so under the right of eminent domain. Landowner has no say so. You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and voila, instant ROW. However at that point in time the tables turn somewhat in the favor of the landowner as you have to compensate them for what you have taken. That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very expensive ROW... What you are talking about below is the establishment of a prescriptive ROW through your failure to defend your property. Another word for it is acquiescence or adverse possession. You can certainly lose your right to defend if you sit on your rights. So, yea, if they didn't have an easement or court order, cut down that pole. -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link What eminent domain actions can a utility take? My knowledge on that topic is all hearsay. I heard of a landowner who saw a company putting a pole in an empty lot that he owned across the street from his house. He watched them set the pole and then after the workers left he went out with a chainsaw and cut it down because they never asked him if they could put the pole there (so the story went). In his point of view, if he let them put the pole there, they have permanent rights to access that spot on his property because of eminent domain. You may even have the right of eminent domain now.
Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
so much for keeping Big Brother from tapping your connection now its
legal :)
Next there will be a federal public announcement with every you-tube
video oh and
the advertisements start with no way to Skip..
We have to wait 2yrs before we can vote again.. soo much for voting on
anything in FCC
On 2/26/2015 4:25 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
Pirate broadband
-Original Message- From: Glen Waldrop
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 3:19 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
We provide a service, not broadband.
The fee is all labor. The Internet access is a side effect of being
connected to our massive wireless LAN party.
- Original Message - From: Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
So whatcha sellin' Bunky? Hillbilly broadband? We don't pay no
stinkin' ULS fees!
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 2/26/2015 2:06 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
So for anybody who heard this live info, was there any indication as
to whether we're subject to these rules if we're not actually
selling broadband under the new definition?
For example, if I sell 20meg, but not 25meg, am I not selling the
new broadband and not actually subject to any of this stuff?
You can try...
-Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday,
February 26, 2015 12:52 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG]
FCC Live Link
What about a monopole with wireless base stations on it? Could I
stick that anywhere unless someone stops me?
If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground
line, you can do so under the right of eminent domain. Landowner
has no say so. You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and
voila, instant ROW. However at that point in time the tables turn
somewhat in the favor of the landowner as you have to compensate
them for what you have taken.
That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very
expensive ROW...
What you are talking about below is the establishment of a
prescriptive ROW through your failure to defend your property.
Another word for it is acquiescence or adverse possession. You can
certainly lose your right to defend if you sit on your rights.
So, yea, if they didn't have an easement or court order, cut down
that pole.
-Original Message- From: Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
What eminent domain actions can a utility take? My knowledge on
that
topic is all hearsay.
I heard of a landowner who saw a company putting a pole in an
empty lot
that he owned across the street from his house. He watched them
set the
pole and then after the workers left he went out with a chainsaw
and cut
it down because they never asked him if they could put the pole there
(so the story went). In his point of view, if he let them put the
pole
there, they have permanent rights to access that spot on his property
because of eminent domain.
You may even have the right of eminent domain now.
--
