Re: [WISPA] FCC tower lighting question

[Mark Radabaugh]

Short addition…

Steve Coran has this (theoretically pending) NPRM on his watch list. 

I asked Ari and the Legislative group to see what is happening in Congress with 
CCA’s efforts.   If they are making any traction WISPA can pile on if the CCA’s 
plan works for us.

Mark

Mark Radabaugh
WISPA FCC Committee Chair
fcc_ch...@wispa.org
419-261-5996

> On May 5, 2017, at 10:52 AM, Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net> wrote:
> 
> This was something Congress enacted last year and it required the FAA to 
> issue the rule by 7/15/2017.   The FAA has not yet issued the NPRM or, as 
> best WISPA can tell, done anything in regard to the issue.   The FAA appears 
> to be ignoring it.
> 
> I asked what happens when a Federal Agency ignores a congressional directive 
> - and the answer appears to be “Nothing”.   If Congress gets mad enough they 
> haul the offending commissioners in for congressional hearings and complain a 
> lot.  
> 
> The FCC can’t issue the regulation without going through the rule making 
> process, and they have not started the process.   I don’t believe it’s 
> possible for the FAA to meet the statutory timetables required to issue the 
> regulation by 7/15.
> 
> This regulation was aimed at the thin metrology towers the wind energy 
> industry likes to pop up temporarily anywhere and everywhere with little 
> notice.   If the FAA follows the spirit of the law it should not generally 
> effect us - but we don’t know what they are going to do since they have not 
> started yet.
>  
> Mark Radabaugh
> WISPA FCC Committee Chair
> fcc_ch...@wispa.org <mailto:fcc_ch...@wispa.org>
> 419-261-5996
> 
>> On May 5, 2017, at 12:05 AM, David Williamson 
>> <dwilliam...@customcomputersva.com 
>> <mailto:dwilliam...@customcomputersva.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Can someone comment on whether this new ruling is going to pass or not:
>>  
>> New FAA Marking Requirements May Impact Rural Towers Under 200 Feet 
>>  
>> A recently passed law, the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 
>> (Act), will affect certain towers that are between fifty (50) and two 
>> hundred (200) feet in height by requiring that many of these towers in rural 
>> areas be marked and lit. The law, passed to protect agricultural aviators 
>> (crop dusters), will make rural towers previously not subject to Federal 
>> Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements more visible with painted 
>> markings and other visibility attachments.  The Act also requires these 
>> towers to be documented in an FAA database.  The FAA must issue regulations 
>> by July 15, 2017. As compliance with these rules may prove costly to 
>> wireless carriers, particularly where they are unnecessary, we are working 
>> with the Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) to create an exemption for 
>> communication towers.  Your feedback on specific towers in your service 
>> areas is requested.
>>  
>> Summary of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act
>>  
>> The term "covered tower" is defined in Section 2110(d) of the Act as a 
>> structure that: is self-standing or supported by guy wires; is 10 feet or 
>> less in diameter; is between 50 - 200 feet AGL; has accessory facilities on 
>> which equipment is mounted; and is located outside an incorporated city or 
>> town, or on undeveloped or agricultural land. The term does not include a 
>> structure that is:  adjacent to a house, barn, electric utility station, or 
>> other building; within the curtilage of a farmstead; a utility transmission 
>> pole; a wind turbine with a rotor blade radius over 6 feet; or a street 
>> lighted maintained by a Federal, State, local or tribal entity.
>>  
>> The Act requires that all covered towers constructed on or after the date on 
>> which the regulations take effect must be marked in a manner consistent with 
>> guidance under the FAA Advisory Circular issued on December 4, 2015 (AC 
>> 70/7460-1L) or other guidance as determined by the Administrator. Existing 
>> covered towers, constructed before the regulations take effect, will have an 
>> additional year to comply with the new regulations. 
>>  
>> AC 70/7460-IL recommends that towers under 200 feet be painted with 
>> alternate bands of aviation orange and white paint. The band width should be 
>> equivalent to 1/7 of the tower height and the paint must be reapplied if it 
>> begins to fade. The Advisory Circular also recommends that high-visibility 
>> sleeves and aviation orange spherical market balls be installed on any outer 
>> guy wires. 
>>  
>> The new law also creates an FAA database of all

Re: [WISPA] FCC tower lighting question

[Cookler, Kevin]

The FAA has not yet proposed any new rules.  The law discussed below was passed 
in 2016 and requires the FAA to issue regulations by this summer (within one 
year of the Act), but the FAA has not yet initiated a rulemaking.  FCC 
Commissioner O'Reilly has called for changes to the law.  As discussed, it 
appears that others such as CCA are continuing to work with Congress to revise 
the law.  My understanding is that other trade associations are also pushing 
for changes to the law.  It remains to be seen whether Congress will adopt any 
further changes.

The FAA, through its anticipated rulemaking proceeding, may decide to limit the 
scope of any new tower marking requirements or it could greatly expand the 
universe of towers that have to be marked.  Therefore, it will be important to 
monitor this proceeding and be prepared to file comments.


Kevin M. Cookler
Lerman Senter PLLC<http://www.lermansenter.com/> | 2001 L Street NW, Suite 400 
| Washington, DC 20036
202-416-6749 (d) | kcook...@lermansenter.com<mailto:kcook...@lermansenter.com>

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of David Williamson
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 12:05 AM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] FCC tower lighting question

Can someone comment on whether this new ruling is going to pass or not:

New FAA Marking Requirements May Impact Rural Towers Under 200 Feet

A recently passed law, the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 
(Act), will affect certain towers that are between fifty (50) and two hundred 
(200) feet in height by requiring that many of these towers in rural areas be 
marked and lit. The law, passed to protect agricultural aviators (crop 
dusters), will make rural towers previously not subject to Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) requirements more visible with painted markings and other 
visibility attachments.  The Act also requires these towers to be documented in 
an FAA database.  The FAA must issue regulations by July 15, 2017. As 
compliance with these rules may prove costly to wireless carriers, particularly 
where they are unnecessary, we are working with the Competitive Carriers 
Association (CCA) to create an exemption for communication towers.  Your 
feedback on specific towers in your service areas is requested.

Summary of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act

The term "covered tower" is defined in Section 2110(d) of the Act as a 
structure that: is self-standing or supported by guy wires; is 10 feet or less 
in diameter; is between 50 - 200 feet AGL; has accessory facilities on which 
equipment is mounted; and is located outside an incorporated city or town, or 
on undeveloped or agricultural land. The term does not include a structure that 
is:  adjacent to a house, barn, electric utility station, or other building; 
within the curtilage of a farmstead; a utility transmission pole; a wind 
turbine with a rotor blade radius over 6 feet; or a street lighted maintained 
by a Federal, State, local or tribal entity.

The Act requires that all covered towers constructed on or after the date on 
which the regulations take effect must be marked in a manner consistent with 
guidance under the FAA Advisory Circular issued on December 4, 2015 (AC 
70/7460-1L) or other guidance as determined by the Administrator. Existing 
covered towers, constructed before the regulations take effect, will have an 
additional year to comply with the new regulations.

AC 70/7460-IL recommends that towers under 200 feet be painted with alternate 
bands of aviation orange and white paint. The band width should be equivalent 
to 1/7 of the tower height and the paint must be reapplied if it begins to 
fade. The Advisory Circular also recommends that high-visibility sleeves and 
aviation orange spherical market balls be installed on any outer guy wires.

The new law also creates an FAA database of all towers covered under this 
provision. The database will contain location and height information of each 
Covered Tower. The FAA administrator will ensure that any proprietary 
information in the database is protected from disclosure in accordance with the 
law.

Exemption Proposal and Input Request

As mentioned above, we are working with CCA to create an exemption or carve out 
for communication towers. Based on meetings with Senate Commerce Committee 
staff, CCA is working to include in the exemption any tower possessing clear, 
visual cues such as bases, attachments, antennas, or any equipment critical to 
service. Other suggestions for exemption include temporary towers or CoWs, 
towers that comply with local zoning ordinances and/or National Historic 
Preservation Act, towers with an antenna array over five feet (5') in diameter, 
guy wired towers, and towers with antennas that have reflective material. With 
regard to the FAA database, an alternative proposal is to make a database of 
communication towers available to aviators for reference

Re: [WISPA] FCC tower lighting question

[Mike Hammett]

WISPA reported on this a while back. It was in response to some airplane 
crashes on towers that weren't required to be lit. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "David Williamson" <dwilliam...@customcomputersva.com> 
To: wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 11:05:07 PM 
Subject: [WISPA] FCC tower lighting question 



Can someone comment on whether this new ruling is going to pass or not: 

New FAA Marking Requirements May Impact Rural Towers Under 200 Feet 

A recently passed law, the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 
(Act), will affect certain towers that are between fifty (50) and two hundred 
(200) feet in height by requiring that many of these towers in rural areas be 
marked and lit. The law, passed to protect agricultural aviators (crop 
dusters), will make rural towers previously not subject to Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) requirements more visible with painted markings and other 
visibility attachments. The Act also requires these towers to be documented in 
an FAA database. The FAA must issue regulations by July 15, 2017. As compliance 
with these rules may prove costly to wireless carriers, particularly where they 
are unnecessary, we are working with the Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) 
to create an exemption for communication towers. Your feedback on specific 
towers in your service areas is requested. 

Summary of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act 

The term "covered tower" is defined in Section 2110(d) of the Act as a 
structure that: is self-standing or supported by guy wires; is 10 feet or less 
in diameter; is between 50 - 200 feet AGL; has accessory facilities on which 
equipment is mounted; and is located outside an incorporated city or town, or 
on undeveloped or agricultural land. The term does not include a structure that 
is: adjacent to a house, barn, electric utility station, or other building; 
within the curtilage of a farmstead; a utility transmission pole; a wind 
turbine with a rotor blade radius over 6 feet; or a street lighted maintained 
by a Federal, State, local or tribal entity. 

The Act requires that all covered towers constructed on or after the date on 
which the regulations take effect must be marked in a manner consistent with 
guidance under the FAA Advisory Circular issued on December 4, 2015 (AC 
70/7460-1L) or other guidance as determined by the Administrator. Existing 
covered towers, constructed before the regulations take effect, will have an 
additional year to comply with the new regulations. 

AC 70/7460-IL recommends that towers under 200 feet be painted with alternate 
bands of aviation orange and white paint. The band width should be equivalent 
to 1/7 of the tower height and the paint must be reapplied if it begins to 
fade. The Advisory Circular also recommends that high-visibility sleeves and 
aviation orange spherical market balls be installed on any outer guy wires. 

The new law also creates an FAA database of all towers covered under this 
provision. The database will contain location and height information of each 
Covered Tower. The FAA administrator will ensure that any proprietary 
information in the database is protected from disclosure in accordance with the 
law. 

Exemption Proposal and Input Request 

As mentioned above, we are working with CCA to create an exemption or carve out 
for communication towers. Based on meetings with Senate Commerce Committee 
staff, CCA is working to include in the exemption any tower possessing clear, 
visual cues such as bases, attachments, antennas, or any equipment critical to 
service. Other suggestions for exemption include temporary towers or CoWs, 
towers that comply with local zoning ordinances and/or National Historic 
Preservation Act, towers with an antenna array over five feet (5') in diameter, 
guy wired towers, and towers with antennas that have reflective material. With 
regard to the FAA database, an alternative proposal is to make a database of 
communication towers available to aviators for reference and not require those 
tower owners to mark their towers. 


Regards, 

Description: Description: Description: Description: signature-large
David Williamson 
Owner 
Custom Computers 
Winchester Wireless 
2979 Valley Avenue 
Winchester, VA 22601-2631 

www.customcomputersva.com 
www.winchesterwireless.com 
da...@customcomputersva.com 
540-722-9688 ext. 223 Office 
877-765-3700 Fax 
Description: Description: Description: WW-CC-Logo



___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC tower lighting question

[Mark Radabaugh]

This was something Congress enacted last year and it required the FAA to issue 
the rule by 7/15/2017.   The FAA has not yet issued the NPRM or, as best WISPA 
can tell, done anything in regard to the issue.   The FAA appears to be 
ignoring it.

I asked what happens when a Federal Agency ignores a congressional directive - 
and the answer appears to be “Nothing”.   If Congress gets mad enough they haul 
the offending commissioners in for congressional hearings and complain a lot.  

The FCC can’t issue the regulation without going through the rule making 
process, and they have not started the process.   I don’t believe it’s possible 
for the FAA to meet the statutory timetables required to issue the regulation 
by 7/15.

This regulation was aimed at the thin metrology towers the wind energy industry 
likes to pop up temporarily anywhere and everywhere with little notice.   If 
the FAA follows the spirit of the law it should not generally effect us - but 
we don’t know what they are going to do since they have not started yet.
 
Mark Radabaugh
WISPA FCC Committee Chair
fcc_ch...@wispa.org
419-261-5996

> On May 5, 2017, at 12:05 AM, David Williamson 
> <dwilliam...@customcomputersva.com> wrote:
> 
> Can someone comment on whether this new ruling is going to pass or not:
>  
> New FAA Marking Requirements May Impact Rural Towers Under 200 Feet 
>  
> A recently passed law, the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 
> (Act), will affect certain towers that are between fifty (50) and two hundred 
> (200) feet in height by requiring that many of these towers in rural areas be 
> marked and lit. The law, passed to protect agricultural aviators (crop 
> dusters), will make rural towers previously not subject to Federal Aviation 
> Administration (FAA) requirements more visible with painted markings and 
> other visibility attachments.  The Act also requires these towers to be 
> documented in an FAA database.  The FAA must issue regulations by July 15, 
> 2017. As compliance with these rules may prove costly to wireless carriers, 
> particularly where they are unnecessary, we are working with the Competitive 
> Carriers Association (CCA) to create an exemption for communication towers.  
> Your feedback on specific towers in your service areas is requested.
>  
> Summary of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act
>  
> The term "covered tower" is defined in Section 2110(d) of the Act as a 
> structure that: is self-standing or supported by guy wires; is 10 feet or 
> less in diameter; is between 50 - 200 feet AGL; has accessory facilities on 
> which equipment is mounted; and is located outside an incorporated city or 
> town, or on undeveloped or agricultural land. The term does not include a 
> structure that is:  adjacent to a house, barn, electric utility station, or 
> other building; within the curtilage of a farmstead; a utility transmission 
> pole; a wind turbine with a rotor blade radius over 6 feet; or a street 
> lighted maintained by a Federal, State, local or tribal entity.
>  
> The Act requires that all covered towers constructed on or after the date on 
> which the regulations take effect must be marked in a manner consistent with 
> guidance under the FAA Advisory Circular issued on December 4, 2015 (AC 
> 70/7460-1L) or other guidance as determined by the Administrator. Existing 
> covered towers, constructed before the regulations take effect, will have an 
> additional year to comply with the new regulations. 
>  
> AC 70/7460-IL recommends that towers under 200 feet be painted with alternate 
> bands of aviation orange and white paint. The band width should be equivalent 
> to 1/7 of the tower height and the paint must be reapplied if it begins to 
> fade. The Advisory Circular also recommends that high-visibility sleeves and 
> aviation orange spherical market balls be installed on any outer guy wires. 
>  
> The new law also creates an FAA database of all towers covered under this 
> provision. The database will contain location and height information of each 
> Covered Tower. The FAA administrator will ensure that any proprietary 
> information in the database is protected from disclosure in accordance with 
> the law. 
>  
> Exemption Proposal and Input Request
>  
> As mentioned above, we are working with CCA to create an exemption or carve 
> out for communication towers. Based on meetings with Senate Commerce 
> Committee staff, CCA is working to include in the exemption any tower 
> possessing clear, visual cues such as bases, attachments, antennas, or any 
> equipment critical to service. Other suggestions for exemption include 
> temporary towers or CoWs, towers that comply with local zoning ordinances 
> and/or National Historic Preservation Act, towers with an a

Re: [WISPA] FCC tower lighting question

[Joe Lenig]

GEEZE... can a guy get a break?  

 

Joe Lenig

VABB

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of David Williamson
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 12:05 AM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] FCC tower lighting question

 

Can someone comment on whether this new ruling is going to pass or not:

 

New FAA Marking Requirements May Impact Rural Towers Under 200 Feet 

 

A recently passed law, the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016
(Act), will affect certain towers that are between fifty (50) and two
hundred (200) feet in height by requiring that many of these towers in rural
areas be marked and lit. The law, passed to protect agricultural aviators
(crop dusters), will make rural towers previously not subject to Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements more visible with painted
markings and other visibility attachments.  The Act also requires these
towers to be documented in an FAA database.  The FAA must issue regulations
by July 15, 2017. As compliance with these rules may prove costly to
wireless carriers, particularly where they are unnecessary, we are working
with the Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) to create an exemption for
communication towers.  Your feedback on specific towers in your service
areas is requested.

 

Summary of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act

 

The term "covered tower" is defined in Section 2110(d) of the Act as a
structure that: is self-standing or supported by guy wires; is 10 feet or
less in diameter; is between 50 - 200 feet AGL; has accessory facilities on
which equipment is mounted; and is located outside an incorporated city or
town, or on undeveloped or agricultural land. The term does not include a
structure that is:  adjacent to a house, barn, electric utility station, or
other building; within the curtilage of a farmstead; a utility transmission
pole; a wind turbine with a rotor blade radius over 6 feet; or a street
lighted maintained by a Federal, State, local or tribal entity.

 

The Act requires that all covered towers constructed on or after the date on
which the regulations take effect must be marked in a manner consistent with
guidance under the FAA Advisory Circular issued on December 4, 2015 (AC
70/7460-1L) or other guidance as determined by the Administrator. Existing
covered towers, constructed before the regulations take effect, will have an
additional year to comply with the new regulations. 

 

AC 70/7460-IL recommends that towers under 200 feet be painted with
alternate bands of aviation orange and white paint. The band width should be
equivalent to 1/7 of the tower height and the paint must be reapplied if it
begins to fade. The Advisory Circular also recommends that high-visibility
sleeves and aviation orange spherical market balls be installed on any outer
guy wires. 

 

The new law also creates an FAA database of all towers covered under this
provision. The database will contain location and height information of each
Covered Tower. The FAA administrator will ensure that any proprietary
information in the database is protected from disclosure in accordance with
the law. 

 

Exemption Proposal and Input Request

 

As mentioned above, we are working with CCA to create an exemption or carve
out for communication towers. Based on meetings with Senate Commerce
Committee staff, CCA is working to include in the exemption any tower
possessing clear, visual cues such as bases, attachments, antennas, or any
equipment critical to service. Other suggestions for exemption include
temporary towers or CoWs, towers that comply with local zoning ordinances
and/or National Historic Preservation Act, towers with an antenna array over
five feet (5') in diameter, guy wired towers, and towers with antennas that
have reflective material. With regard to the FAA database, an alternative
proposal is to make a database of communication towers available to aviators
for reference and not require those tower owners to mark their towers.  

 

 

Regards,

 



David Williamson

Owner

Custom Computers

Winchester Wireless

2979 Valley Avenue

Winchester, VA 22601-2631

 

www.customcomputersva.com <http://www.customcomputersva.com/> 

www.winchesterwireless.com <http://www.winchesterwireless.com/>  

da...@customcomputersva.com <mailto:da...@customcomputersva.com> 

540-722-9688 ext. 223 Office

877-765-3700 Fax



 

 

 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] FCC tower lighting question

[David Williamson]

Can someone comment on whether this new ruling is going to pass or not:

 

New FAA Marking Requirements May Impact Rural Towers Under 200 Feet 

 

A recently passed law, the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of
2016 (Act), will affect certain towers that are between fifty (50) and
two hundred (200) feet in height by requiring that many of these towers
in rural areas be marked and lit. The law, passed to protect
agricultural aviators (crop dusters), will make rural towers previously
not subject to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements more
visible with painted markings and other visibility attachments.  The Act
also requires these towers to be documented in an FAA database.  The FAA
must issue regulations by July 15, 2017. As compliance with these rules
may prove costly to wireless carriers, particularly where they are
unnecessary, we are working with the Competitive Carriers Association
(CCA) to create an exemption for communication towers.  Your feedback on
specific towers in your service areas is requested.

 

Summary of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act

 

The term "covered tower" is defined in Section 2110(d) of the Act as a
structure that: is self-standing or supported by guy wires; is 10 feet
or less in diameter; is between 50 - 200 feet AGL; has accessory
facilities on which equipment is mounted; and is located outside an
incorporated city or town, or on undeveloped or agricultural land. The
term does not include a structure that is:  adjacent to a house, barn,
electric utility station, or other building; within the curtilage of a
farmstead; a utility transmission pole; a wind turbine with a rotor
blade radius over 6 feet; or a street lighted maintained by a Federal,
State, local or tribal entity.

 

The Act requires that all covered towers constructed on or after the
date on which the regulations take effect must be marked in a manner
consistent with guidance under the FAA Advisory Circular issued on
December 4, 2015 (AC 70/7460-1L) or other guidance as determined by the
Administrator. Existing covered towers, constructed before the
regulations take effect, will have an additional year to comply with the
new regulations. 

 

AC 70/7460-IL recommends that towers under 200 feet be painted with
alternate bands of aviation orange and white paint. The band width
should be equivalent to 1/7 of the tower height and the paint must be
reapplied if it begins to fade. The Advisory Circular also recommends
that high-visibility sleeves and aviation orange spherical market balls
be installed on any outer guy wires. 

 

The new law also creates an FAA database of all towers covered under
this provision. The database will contain location and height
information of each Covered Tower. The FAA administrator will ensure
that any proprietary information in the database is protected from
disclosure in accordance with the law. 

 

Exemption Proposal and Input Request

 

As mentioned above, we are working with CCA to create an exemption or
carve out for communication towers. Based on meetings with Senate
Commerce Committee staff, CCA is working to include in the exemption any
tower possessing clear, visual cues such as bases, attachments,
antennas, or any equipment critical to service. Other suggestions for
exemption include temporary towers or CoWs, towers that comply with
local zoning ordinances and/or National Historic Preservation Act,
towers with an antenna array over five feet (5') in diameter, guy wired
towers, and towers with antennas that have reflective material. With
regard to the FAA database, an alternative proposal is to make a
database of communication towers available to aviators for reference and
not require those tower owners to mark their towers.  

 

 

Regards,

 

 

David Williamson

Owner

Custom Computers

Winchester Wireless

2979 Valley Avenue

Winchester, VA 22601-2631

 

www.customcomputersva.com  

www.winchesterwireless.com   

da...@customcomputersva.com  

540-722-9688 ext. 223 Office

877-765-3700 Fax

 

 

 

 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC 477 reminder

[Josh Luthman]

Coverage I would

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Feb 17, 2017 5:39 PM, "William C Bardwell"  wrote:

> Do you have to file 477 if not currently operating with customers? I'm
> building network but only using personally.
>
> On Feb 17, 2017 1:48 PM, "Jim Patient"  wrote:
>
>> 11 days, 11 hours,  11 minutes, and 11 seconds from now your 477
>> submission is due.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: JimPatientSignatureV2]
>>
>> *jpati...@linktechs.net *
>>
>> www.LinkTechs.net  *| *www.TowerCoverage.com
>> 
>>
>> [image: usa_flag] *Phone:* 314-735-0270 <(314)%20735-0270>  *FAX*:
>> 636-660-1534 <(636)%20660-1534>
>>
>> *[image: canada_flag]Phone:* 647-725-7011 <(647)%20725-7011>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC 477 reminder

[Jeff Evans]

IANAL but I would, because it will get you set up in the system and 
start to put you on the map where you are offering services. My .02



On 2/17/2017 5:39 PM, William C Bardwell wrote:
Do you have to file 477 if not currently operating with customers? I'm 
building network but only using personally.


On Feb 17, 2017 1:48 PM, "Jim Patient" > wrote:


11 days, 11 hours,  11 minutes, and 11 seconds from now your 477
submission is due.

JimPatientSignatureV2

_jpati...@linktechs.net _

www.LinkTechs.net *|
*www.TowerCoverage.com 

usa_flag *Phone:* 314-735-0270  *FAX*:
636-660-1534 

*canada_flagPhone:*647-725-7011 


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


--
Jeff Evans, Managing Member
PennWisp, LLC
www.pennwisp.com

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC 477 reminder

[William C Bardwell]

Do you have to file 477 if not currently operating with customers? I'm
building network but only using personally.

On Feb 17, 2017 1:48 PM, "Jim Patient"  wrote:

> 11 days, 11 hours,  11 minutes, and 11 seconds from now your 477
> submission is due.
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: JimPatientSignatureV2]
>
> *jpati...@linktechs.net *
>
> www.LinkTechs.net  *| *www.TowerCoverage.com
> 
>
> [image: usa_flag] *Phone:* 314-735-0270 <(314)%20735-0270>  *FAX*:
> 636-660-1534 <(636)%20660-1534>
>
> *[image: canada_flag]Phone:* 647-725-7011 <(647)%20725-7011>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC 477 reminder

[Josh Luthman]

You sent that email 11 milliseconds early =/


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Jim Patient  wrote:

> 11 days, 11 hours,  11 minutes, and 11 seconds from now your 477
> submission is due.
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: JimPatientSignatureV2]
>
> *jpati...@linktechs.net *
>
> www.LinkTechs.net  *| *www.TowerCoverage.com
> 
>
> [image: usa_flag] *Phone:* 314-735-0270 <(314)%20735-0270>  *FAX*:
> 636-660-1534 <(636)%20660-1534>
>
> *[image: canada_flag]Phone:* 647-725-7011 <(647)%20725-7011>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] FCC 477 reminder

[Jim Patient]

11 days, 11 hours,  11 minutes, and 11 seconds from now your 477 submission is 
due.


[JimPatientSignatureV2]
jpati...@linktechs.net
www.LinkTechs.net | 
www.TowerCoverage.com
[usa_flag] Phone: 314-735-0270  FAX: 636-660-1534
[canada_flag]Phone: 647-725-7011

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC NOI for Cellular 24GHz (and a note about 5GHz...)

[Mike Hammett]

I suspect that would only be used in small cells. It would be useless at the 
macro level, even with various smart antenna techniques. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com 
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org, a...@afmug.com 
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 5:50:44 PM 
Subject: [WISPA] FCC NOI for Cellular 24GHz (and a note about 5GHz...) 

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/10/19/34/gigabit-cellular-networks-could-happen-with-24ghz-spectrum
 


-- 

Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer 
SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com 
___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] FCC NOI for Cellular 24GHz (and a note about 5GHz...)

[Josh Reynolds]

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/10/19/34/gigabit-cellular-networks-could-happen-with-24ghz-spectrum

--

Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] FCC PET LAb goodies in July

[Gino Villarini]

Is it Xmas in July? Lots of FCC approval  goodies coming out…



Gino A. Villarini
President
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
www.aeronetpr.com
@aeronetpr


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC PET LAb goodies in July

[Brian Wilson]

Did you mean to include a URL with this message?


On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote:

   Is it Xmas in July? Lots of FCC approval  goodies coming out…



  Gino A. Villarini
 President
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 www.aeronetpr.com
 @aeronetpr



 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless




-- 
Brian Wilson
Santa Rosa, California
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] FCC Broadband experiments phase 2 funding question

[Gino Villarini]

So I have been reading on this topic lately

On the financial side the FCC is going to fund for 10 years on monthly 
installments what?

All the locations on a high cost census track that you deployed or the ones 
that actually subscribe?

Sent from my Motorola Startac... 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC Broadband experiments phase 2 funding question

[Josh Reynolds]

Deployed to.

The whole thing sounds like a freaking play to the cable cos (imagine that).

 From my understanding, if you were a very large provider and wanted to 
maintain market-share and not let a competitor build out in your area 
with federal funding, you could submit a bid for the competitor's 
proposed market (and a bit more) for freaking $1 for the entire project. 
You *would* have to have the whole project bankrolled by your company, 
and done in something like 18 months I believe... but you would 
theoretically win the bid (which conveniently, amounts bidded and 
received are never announced).

The bid submission system is 100% automated, from the way they described it.

Josh Reynolds, CIO
SPITwSPOTS
www.spitwspots.com

On 07/31/2014 03:10 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:
 So I have been reading on this topic lately

 On the financial side the FCC is going to fund for 10 years on monthly 
 installments what?

 All the locations on a high cost census track that you deployed or the ones 
 that actually subscribe?

 Sent from my Motorola Startac...

 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC Broadband experiments phase 2 funding question

[Gino Villarini]

Why would you bid $1 , if you wanted to lock the area. You would have build out 
already?

Sent from my Motorola Startac... 


 On Jul 31, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com wrote:
 
 Deployed to.
 
 The whole thing sounds like a freaking play to the cable cos (imagine that).
 
 From my understanding, if you were a very large provider and wanted to 
 maintain market-share and not let a competitor build out in your area 
 with federal funding, you could submit a bid for the competitor's 
 proposed market (and a bit more) for freaking $1 for the entire project. 
 You *would* have to have the whole project bankrolled by your company, 
 and done in something like 18 months I believe... but you would 
 theoretically win the bid (which conveniently, amounts bidded and 
 received are never announced).
 
 The bid submission system is 100% automated, from the way they described it.
 
 Josh Reynolds, CIO
 SPITwSPOTS
 www.spitwspots.com
 
 On 07/31/2014 03:10 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:
 So I have been reading on this topic lately
 
 On the financial side the FCC is going to fund for 10 years on monthly 
 installments what?
 
 All the locations on a high cost census track that you deployed or the ones 
 that actually subscribe?
 
 Sent from my Motorola Startac...
 
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC Broadband experiments phase 2 funding question

[Josh Reynolds]

It depends. I know of large ISPs with heafty cash reserves set aside for 
various projects, and it wouldn't be outside of their realm of 
morality to pull a stunt like that.

Josh Reynolds, CIO
SPITwSPOTS
www.spitwspots.com

On 07/31/2014 03:44 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:
 Why would you bid $1 , if you wanted to lock the area. You would have build 
 out already?

 Sent from my Motorola Startac...


 On Jul 31, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com wrote:

 Deployed to.

 The whole thing sounds like a freaking play to the cable cos (imagine that).

  From my understanding, if you were a very large provider and wanted to
 maintain market-share and not let a competitor build out in your area
 with federal funding, you could submit a bid for the competitor's
 proposed market (and a bit more) for freaking $1 for the entire project.
 You *would* have to have the whole project bankrolled by your company,
 and done in something like 18 months I believe... but you would
 theoretically win the bid (which conveniently, amounts bidded and
 received are never announced).

 The bid submission system is 100% automated, from the way they described it.

 Josh Reynolds, CIO
 SPITwSPOTS
 www.spitwspots.com

 On 07/31/2014 03:10 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:
 So I have been reading on this topic lately

 On the financial side the FCC is going to fund for 10 years on monthly 
 installments what?

 All the locations on a high cost census track that you deployed or the ones 
 that actually subscribe?

 Sent from my Motorola Startac...

 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC Broadband experiments phase 2 funding question

[Chris Ruschmann]

I can think of one company off the top of my head that would pull a stunt
like that here in Alaska.


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Josh Reynolds
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:50 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Broadband experiments phase 2 funding question

It depends. I know of large ISPs with heafty cash reserves set aside for
various projects, and it wouldn't be outside of their realm of morality
to pull a stunt like that.

Josh Reynolds, CIO
SPITwSPOTS
www.spitwspots.com

On 07/31/2014 03:44 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:
 Why would you bid $1 , if you wanted to lock the area. You would have
build out already?

 Sent from my Motorola Startac...


 On Jul 31, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com
wrote:

 Deployed to.

 The whole thing sounds like a freaking play to the cable cos (imagine
that).

  From my understanding, if you were a very large provider and wanted
 to maintain market-share and not let a competitor build out in your
 area with federal funding, you could submit a bid for the
 competitor's proposed market (and a bit more) for freaking $1 for the
entire project.
 You *would* have to have the whole project bankrolled by your
 company, and done in something like 18 months I believe... but you
 would theoretically win the bid (which conveniently, amounts bidded
 and received are never announced).

 The bid submission system is 100% automated, from the way they
described it.

 Josh Reynolds, CIO
 SPITwSPOTS
 www.spitwspots.com

 On 07/31/2014 03:10 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:
 So I have been reading on this topic lately

 On the financial side the FCC is going to fund for 10 years on monthly
installments what?

 All the locations on a high cost census track that you deployed or the
ones that actually subscribe?

 Sent from my Motorola Startac...

 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC Broadband experiments phase 2 funding question

[Josh Reynolds]

:)

Josh Reynolds, CIO
SPITwSPOTS
www.spitwspots.com

On 07/31/2014 03:54 PM, Chris Ruschmann wrote:
 I can think of one company off the top of my head that would pull a stunt
 like that here in Alaska.


 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Josh Reynolds
 Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:50 PM
 To: wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Broadband experiments phase 2 funding question

 It depends. I know of large ISPs with heafty cash reserves set aside for
 various projects, and it wouldn't be outside of their realm of morality
 to pull a stunt like that.

 Josh Reynolds, CIO
 SPITwSPOTS
 www.spitwspots.com

 On 07/31/2014 03:44 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:
 Why would you bid $1 , if you wanted to lock the area. You would have
 build out already?
 Sent from my Motorola Startac...


 On Jul 31, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com
 wrote:
 Deployed to.

 The whole thing sounds like a freaking play to the cable cos (imagine
 that).
   From my understanding, if you were a very large provider and wanted
 to maintain market-share and not let a competitor build out in your
 area with federal funding, you could submit a bid for the
 competitor's proposed market (and a bit more) for freaking $1 for the
 entire project.
 You *would* have to have the whole project bankrolled by your
 company, and done in something like 18 months I believe... but you
 would theoretically win the bid (which conveniently, amounts bidded
 and received are never announced).

 The bid submission system is 100% automated, from the way they
 described it.
 Josh Reynolds, CIO
 SPITwSPOTS
 www.spitwspots.com

 On 07/31/2014 03:10 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:
 So I have been reading on this topic lately

 On the financial side the FCC is going to fund for 10 years on monthly
 installments what?
 All the locations on a high cost census track that you deployed or the
 ones that actually subscribe?
 Sent from my Motorola Startac...

 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] FCC proposes... Citizens Broadband Radio Service.

[Network IPdog]

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/fcc-proposes-sharing-1
50mhz-of-federal-spectrum-with-wireless-broadband/

The FCC today released a proposal to make 150MHz of mostly federally held
spectrum in the 3.5GHz band available 

to share between the government, priority access licensees, and other
general authorized access users.

 

This move would boost spectrum for small cells deployed by cellular carriers
and fixed wireless broadband services.

 

The FCC is calling the spectrum-sharing plan the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service.

 

 

 

Ruff, Ruff...!

 

Network IPdog

 

Ephesians 4:32Cheers!!!

 

A password is like a... toothbrush  ;^) 

Choose a good one, change it regularly and don't share it.

 

 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] FCC to propose new Net Neutrality Rules

[Hass, Douglas A.]

In case you missed it:

http://on.wsj.com/1jC9dVR

The Federal Communications Commission plans to propose new open Internet rules 
on Thursday that would allow content companies to pay Internet service 
providers for special access to consumers, according to a person familiar with 
the proposal.

The proposed rules would prevent the service providers from blocking or 
discriminating against specific websites, but would allow broadband providers 
to give some traffic preferential treatment, so long as such arrangements are 
available on commercially reasonable terms for all interested content 
companies. Whether the terms are commercially reasonable would be decided by 
the FCC on a case-by-case basis.


Douglas A. Hass
Associate
312.786.6502
d...@franczek.com

Franczek Radelet P.C.
Celebrating 20 Years | 1994-2014http://www.franczek.com/20thAnniversary/

300 South Wacker Drive
Suite 3400
Chicago, IL 60606
312.986.0300 - Main
312.986.9192 - Fax
www.franczek.comhttp://www.franczek.com/

Franczek Radelet is committed to sustainability - please consider the 
environment before printing this email

Circular 230 Disclosure: Under requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue 
Service, we inform you that, unless specifically stated otherwise, any federal 
tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not 
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) 
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing 
or recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter herein.

For more information about Franczek Radelet P.C., please visit franczek.com. 
The information contained in this e-mail message or any attachment may be 
confidential and/or privileged, and is intended only for the use of the named 
recipient. If you are not the named recipient of this message, you are hereby 
notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message or 
any attachment thereto, is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this 
message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC to propose new Net Neutrality Rules

[Mike Hammett]

Probably if they're charging the going rate for paid peering or if they're 
being raked over the coals. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



- Original Message -

From: Douglas A. Hass d...@franczek.com 
To: a...@afmug.com, WISPA General List (wireless@wispa.org) 
wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 3:07:39 PM 
Subject: [WISPA] FCC to propose new Net Neutrality Rules 




In case you missed it: 

http://on.wsj.com/1jC9dVR 
The Federal Communications Commission plans to propose new open Internet rules 
on Thursday that would allow content companies to pay Internet service 
providers for special access to consumers, according to a person familiar with 
the proposal. 
The proposed rules would prevent the service providers from blocking or 
discriminating against specific websites, but would allow broadband providers 
to give some traffic preferential treatment, so long as such arrangements are 
available on commercially reasonable terms for all interested content 
companies. Whether the terms are commercially reasonable would be decided by 
the FCC on a case-by-case basis. 

Douglas A. Hass 
Associate 
312.786.6502 
d...@franczek.com 

Franczek Radelet P.C. 
Celebrating 20 Years | 1994-2014 

300 South Wacker Drive 
Suite 3400 
Chicago, IL 60606 
312.986.0300 - Main 
312.986.9192 - Fax 
www.franczek.com 

Franczek Radelet is committed to sustainability - please consider the 
environment before printing this email 

Circular 230 Disclosure: Under requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue 
Service, we inform you that, unless specifically stated otherwise, any federal 
tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not 
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) 
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing 
or recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter herein. 
For more information about Franczek Radelet P.C., please visit franczek.com. 
The information contained in this e-mail message or any attachment may be 
confidential and/or privileged, and is intended only for the use of the named 
recipient. If you are not the named recipient of this message, you are hereby 
notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message or 
any attachment thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. 




































































___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] FCC revises 60 Ghz rules for more power

[Gino Villarini]

http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/story/fcc-changes-rules-57-64-ghz-ban
d-enhance-wireless-backhaul/2013-08-09?utm_source=Twitter
http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/story/fcc-changes-rules-57-64-ghz-ba
nd-enhance-wireless-backhaul/2013-08-09?utm_source=Twitterutm_medium=Editor
utm_campaign=SocialMedia utm_medium=Editorutm_campaign=SocialMedia

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] FCC revises 60 Ghz rules for more power

[Gino Villarini]

http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/story/fcc-changes-rules-57-64-ghz-band-enhance-wireless-backhaul/2013-08-09?utm_source=Twitterutm_medium=Editorutm_campaign=SocialMedia
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC revises 60 Ghz rules for more power

[Mike Hammett]

*nods* I read the article, but it was short on details and I was short on time 
to actually look up what they did. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com 
To: a...@afmug.com 
Cc: WISPA General List (wireless@wispa.org) wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 9:05:04 AM 
Subject: [WISPA] FCC revises 60 Ghz rules for more power 



http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/story/fcc-changes-rules-57-64-ghz-band-enhance-wireless-backhaul/2013-08-09?utm_source=Twitterutm_medium=Editorutm_campaign=SocialMedia
 
___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC revises 60 Ghz rules for more power

[Gino Villarini]

More tx power in relations to the beamwidth of the antenna…..

Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.commailto:g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
787.273.4143
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 10:04 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC revises 60 Ghz rules for more power

*nods* I read the article, but it was short on details and I was short on time 
to actually look up what they did.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.commailto:g...@aeronetpr.com
To: a...@afmug.commailto:a...@afmug.com
Cc: WISPA General List (wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org) 
wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 9:05:04 AM
Subject: [WISPA] FCC revises 60 Ghz rules for more power
http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/story/fcc-changes-rules-57-64-ghz-band-enhance-wireless-backhaul/2013-08-09?utm_source=Twitterutm_medium=Editorutm_campaign=SocialMedia

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.orgmailto:Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC revises 60 Ghz rules for more power

[Mike Hammett]

Well right, but that doesn't really say much. I finally just went to the RO: 

In this Report and Order, we modify our rules to allow operation at higher 
power levels 
by 60 GHz unlicensed devices that use an antenna exceeding a specific gain and 
operate outdoors. 
Specifically, for 60 GHz devices located outdoors, we increase the average 
equivalent isotropically 
radiated power (EIRP) limit from 40 dBm to 82 dBm minus 2 dB for every dB that 
the antenna gain is 
below 51 dBi, and peak EIRP emission limit from 43 dBm to 85 dBm minus 2 dB for 
every dB that the 
antenna gain is below 51 dBi. Also, the amended rules will specify the emission 
limits for all 60 GHz 
devices in terms of equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP). These rule 
changes will provide 
needed flexibility to improve performance and provide cost savings for 
unlicensed devices to support 
broadband service in the 60 GHz band. These revisions also have the potential 
to foster the development 
of products with longer operating distances than are achievable under the 
current rules and to promote use 
of the 60 GHz band as a vehicle for broadband transmission links. This will 
encourage the development 
of very high speed wireless links for use in locations where highways, parking 
lots, or other obstructions 
may prevent the extension of fiber or wireline connections, to connect multiple 
buildings in a campus 
environment, or to provide backhaul connections for new 4G wireless services. 

Looking at Bridgewave's specs, a 2' is 46 dBi. So are we looking at 4' dishes 
to be over 51 dBi? If EIRP is going from 40 to 82 and the antenna is 6 of that, 
are we looking at 36 dB more out of the transmitter? That's a world of more 
power, unless I'm misunderstanding? If you thought aligning an airFiber was 
difficult... ;-) 



Most importantly, why are we just now hearing about this once the proceeding is 
over? It seems like there have been a few things happening at the FCC lately 
that we're not aware of until after it is over. Why is that? Is there some FCC 
listserv or RSS feed we should be watching? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com 
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 9:14:48 AM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC revises 60 Ghz rules for more power 



More tx power in relations to the beamwidth of the antenna….. 


Gino A. Villarini 
g...@aeronetpr.com 
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 
787.273.4143 


From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 10:04 AM 
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC revises 60 Ghz rules for more power 


*nods* I read the article, but it was short on details and I was short on time 
to actually look up what they did. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -


From: Gino Villarini  g...@aeronetpr.com  
To: a...@afmug.com 
Cc: WISPA General List ( wireless@wispa.org )  wireless@wispa.org  
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 9:05:04 AM 
Subject: [WISPA] FCC revises 60 Ghz rules for more power 
http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/story/fcc-changes-rules-57-64-ghz-band-enhance-wireless-backhaul/2013-08-09?utm_source=Twitterutm_medium=Editorutm_campaign=SocialMedia
 

___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 

___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC Chairman Genachowski to step down

[Tom DeReggi]

I personally believe Genachowski was out of tune with the reality of the 
Broadband Industry, and Im not disappointed he's stepping down.
But... the risk is always in the unknowns of who comes next. Its like being a 
small winner at a game show, and then being asked, do you want to take the 
minimal money or instead take whats inside the Question Mark mystery box?   

What I will say is... when ever someone new comes incharge, there is always 
more advocacy work to do than the day before.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Sean Heskett 
  To: a...@afmug.com ; us...@wug.cc ; WISPAGeneral List 
  Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 6:49 PM
  Subject: [WISPA] FCC Chairman Genachowski to step down


  Just FYI...not sure if this is good, bad or ugly???


  
http://news.yahoo.com/fcc-chairman-genachowski-step-down-141103205--finance.html



--


  ___
  Wireless mailing list
  Wireless@wispa.org
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] FCC Chairman Genachowski to step down

[Sean Heskett]

Just FYI...not sure if this is good, bad or ugly???

http://news.yahoo.com/fcc-chairman-genachowski-step-down-141103205--finance.html
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] FCC 3.5 Ghz Workshop Live

[Gino Villarini]

Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.commailto:g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
787.273.4143
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC 3.5 Ghz Workshop Live

[Gino Villarini]

http://www.fcc.gov/live

Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.commailto:g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
787.273.4143
From: a...@afmug.com [mailto:a...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:19 AM
To: a...@afmug.com; WISPA General List
Subject: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 Ghz Workshop Live



Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.commailto:g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
787.273.4143
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

[Doug Clark]

Correct me if I am wrong here Rick,  it will be fruitless to do the map
unless you are able to maintain customer speeds of 4megs down and 1 meg up. 
If you service your customer at speeds lower
than that then it does not matter, the FCC will fund the Telcos... 
 
 
 
 
~Doug
---Original Message---
 
From: Rick Harnish
Date: 11/29/2012 2:53:28 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc!
 
Are you on the Louisiana Broadband Map?
http://www.bakerbb.com/labroadbandmapping/
 
My contact in Louisiana is:
Mr. Craig Johnson
Louisiana State University
E313 Howe-Russell Geoscience Complex
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
cjohn...@lsu.edu
 
I do however see Michael Baker Group is the contractor. I suggest calling
them to find out who from their group is working on Louisiana.
 
Michael Baker Corporation
100 Airside Dr
Moon Township, PA 15108-2783
(800) 553-1153
 
Where there is a Wisp, there is a way!
 
Respectfully,
 
Rick Harnish
Executive Director
WISPA
260-307-4000 cell
866-317-2851 Option 2 WISPA Office
Skype: rick.harnish.
rharn...@wispa.org
adm...@wispa.org (Trina and Rick)
 
 
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Cliff Leboeuf
 Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 4:01 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc!

 Rick, I thought that we did this task, but please tell me how I can
confirm. - Cliff





 On 11/28/12 4:45 PM, Rick Harnish rharn...@wispa.org wrote:

 Fred,
 
 I assure you the WISPA FCC Committee is indeed on this.  You make great
 points and we appreciate your review. You are definitely correct, that
 WISPs NEED to get on the National Broadband Map NOW!  Those that don't
 will be suffering from subsidized competition.  Anyone who does not
 know who to contact, drop me a line.  I have contacts now for all
 states.  Maybe, I can get that list up on the WISPA website under WISP
 Resources.  There is one now, but it is not complete.  I now have 4-5
 names per state I believe.
 
 The guys at towercoverage.com are making it easy and inexpensive to
 make your maps and get them uploaded to the National/State Maps as well.
 
 Where there is a Wisp, there is a way!
 
 Respectfully,
 
 Rick Harnish
 Executive Director
 WISPA
 260-307-4000 cell
 866-317-2851 Option 2 WISPA Office
 Skype: rick.harnish.
 gt;rharn...@wispa.org
 gt;adm...@wispa.org (Trina and Rick)
 
 
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
  On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
  Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 5:17 PM
  To: wireless@wispa.org
  Subject: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc!
 
  The FCC's home page ( transition.fcc.gov ) has an item about Connect
 America
  Fund, posted with no description.  This turns out to be a further
  NPRM
 about
  Phase I funding.
 
  As you may recall, CAF Phase I was the short-term (2012) step that
 offered
  $775 per line to price-cap ILECs (the Bells and other big
  ones) to bring broadband to unserved areas that they otherwise
 wouldn't. It
  was budgeted for $300M but only about $115M was claimed, mostly by
  Frontier.  The Bells didn't take much.  CenturyLink however whined
  that
 the
  definition of served should be changed to specifically exclude
  areas
 WISPs, so
  they could get subsidy money to overbuild existing WISPs.  The FCC
 turned
 that
  one down, though CenturyLink did take money for some other areas.
 
  The new Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
 
 http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC
 -12
 -
  138A1.pdf
  asks what to do about the remaining Phase I money.  While they could
  of course just not spend it, lowering the USF tax (now around 17%!),
  that's
 not one
  of the two options they are proposing to select from.  One option is
  to
 simply
  add this funding to Phase II, which begins in 2013.  Phase II allows
 for  competition in the awarding of funds; there will be a reverse
 auction, and
 the
  bidder who asks for the least subsidy money gets it.
 
  Most of the FNPRM, however, is devoted to the other option,
 essentially a  second round of Phase I.  They propose changing Phase I
 rules to encourage
 the
  ILECs to take more money.  There are a lot of questions about
 details, but
 the
  basic ideas are along these lines:
 
  1)  Redefine unserved to be anywhere that doesn't have 4/1 service,
 vs.
  768k/200k in the first round.  This would be based on the National
 Broadband
  Map, using 3M/768k as a surrogate for 4/1.  (The agencies apparently
 hadn't
  agreed on speed tiers.)  So an area served by a WISP at 2M/500k, or
  by
 Canopy
  100s, would be deemed unserved, since it's not 4/1.
 
  2)  Allow challenges to the national map.  So if an ILEC thinks an
 area is  unserved even if a WISP claims it's served, they can argue
 the matter to
 the
  FCC

Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

[Fred Goldstein]

At 11/30/2012 10:17 AM, Rick Harnish wrote:

Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary==_NextPart_000_031F_01CDCEE3.F0FCA680
Content-Language: en-us

I don't think it is fruitless at all.  I'm sure there are a lot of 
companies (DSL, Satellite, Mobile and some cable) that are on the 
map but cannot guarantee sustained speeds of 4 by 1.  Actually, the 
4 by 1 criteria is what is being suggested in the rewrite.  It has 
not been adopted yet.


Satellite and mobile coverage are not considered served for the 
purposes of finding a USF unsubsidized competitor; WISPs and 
wireline services are.


But Rick's last sentence is important:  This is a proposal, not yet a 
rule.  It is open for Comment.  They are trying to find a way to give 
away more USF money, and disqualifying more unsubsidized competitors 
(WISPs) is one option on the table.  Comments that take exception to 
that approach could help influence them.


The FNPRM proposes selecting between two alternative approaches.  One 
is to raise the unsubsidized bar to 4/1.  The other is to end Phase I 
and put the remaining money into Phase II, which comes 
later.  Certainly the latter approach is better for WISPs in the 
short term.  If the extended Phase I approach is used, you could 
comment that raising it from 768/200 to 4/1 is excessive, and perhaps 
say a 1.5/384 standard is more appropriate.  Even Canopy 100 can 
probably claim that (if it's not loaded), though YMMV.


So being on the map doesn't hurt and may help.

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
On Behalf Of Doug Clark

Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:01 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc!



Correct me if I am wrong here Rick,  it will be fruitless to do the 
map unless you are able to maintain customer speeds of 4megs down 
and 1 meg up.  If you service your customer at speeds lower


than that then it does not matter, the FCC will fund the Telcos...



 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701 ___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

[Doug Clark]

Excellent point. 
 
 
 
 
---Original Message---
 
From: Fred Goldstein
Date: 11/30/2012 9:10:00 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc!
 
At 11/30/2012 10:17 AM, Rick Harnish wrote:

Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary==_NextPart_000_031F_01CDCEE3.F0FCA680
Content-Language: en-us

I don’t think it is fruitless at all.  I’m sure there are a lot of companies
(DSL, Satellite, Mobile and some cable) that are on the map but cannot
guarantee sustained speeds of 4 by 1.  Actually, the 4 by 1 criteria is what
is being suggested in the rewrite.  It has not been adopted yet.  


Satellite and mobile coverage are not considered served for the purposes
of finding a USF unsubsidized competitor; WISPs and wireline services are.

But Rick's last sentence is important:  This is a proposal, not yet a rule. 
It is open for Comment.  They are trying to find a way to give away more USF
money, and disqualifying more unsubsidized competitors (WISPs) is one option
on the table.  Comments that take exception to that approach could help
influence them. 

The FNPRM proposes selecting between two alternative approaches.  One is to
raise the unsubsidized bar to 4/1.  The other is to end Phase I and put the
remaining money into Phase II, which comes later.  Certainly the latter
approach is better for WISPs in the short term.  If the extended Phase I
approach is used, you could comment that raising it from 768/200 to 4/1 is
excessive, and perhaps say a 1.5/384 standard is more appropriate.  Even
Canopy 100 can probably claim that (if it's not loaded), though YMMV.

So being on the map doesn't hurt and may help.


From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [ mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Doug Clark
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:01 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc!

 

Correct me if I am wrong here Rick,  it will be fruitless to do the map
unless you are able to maintain customer speeds of 4megs down and 1 meg up. 
If you service your customer at speeds lower

than that then it does not matter, the FCC will fund the Telcos... 


 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com   
 ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/ 
 +1 617 795 2701
 ___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

[Jeff Broadwick - Lists]

If you aren't on the map, you don't exist to the Feds...not a good situation to 
be in, in this regulatory climate.

Jeff

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 30, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote:

 At 11/30/2012 10:17 AM, Rick Harnish wrote:
 Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
  boundary==_NextPart_000_031F_01CDCEE3.F0FCA680
 Content-Language: en-us
 
 I don’t think it is fruitless at all.  I’m sure there are a lot of companies 
 (DSL, Satellite, Mobile and some cable) that are on the map but cannot 
 guarantee sustained speeds of 4 by 1.  Actually, the 4 by 1 criteria is what 
 is being suggested in the rewrite.  It has not been adopted yet.  
 
 Satellite and mobile coverage are not considered served for the purposes of 
 finding a USF unsubsidized competitor; WISPs and wireline services are.
 
 But Rick's last sentence is important:  This is a proposal, not yet a rule.  
 It is open for Comment.  They are trying to find a way to give away more USF 
 money, and disqualifying more unsubsidized competitors (WISPs) is one option 
 on the table.  Comments that take exception to that approach could help 
 influence them. 
 
 The FNPRM proposes selecting between two alternative approaches.  One is to 
 raise the unsubsidized bar to 4/1.  The other is to end Phase I and put the 
 remaining money into Phase II, which comes later.  Certainly the latter 
 approach is better for WISPs in the short term.  If the extended Phase I 
 approach is used, you could comment that raising it from 768/200 to 4/1 is 
 excessive, and perhaps say a 1.5/384 standard is more appropriate.  Even 
 Canopy 100 can probably claim that (if it's not loaded), though YMMV.
 
 So being on the map doesn't hurt and may help.
 
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [ mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
 Behalf Of Doug Clark
 Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:01 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc!
 
  
 
 Correct me if I am wrong here Rick,  it will be fruitless to do the map 
 unless you are able to maintain customer speeds of 4megs down and 1 meg up.  
 If you service your customer at speeds lower
 
 than that then it does not matter, the FCC will fund the Telcos...
  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com   
  ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/ 
  +1 617 795 2701
 
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

[Matt]

 approach is used, you could comment that raising it from 768/200 to 4/1 is
 excessive, and perhaps say a 1.5/384 standard is more appropriate.  Even
 Canopy 100 can probably claim that (if it's not loaded), though YMMV.

Are you saying no one is providing service past 1.5/384 with Canopy 100?
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

[Doug Clark]

I assumed he meant that Canopy 900mHz can not provide speeds above that.   
 
 
 
 
---Original Message---
 
From: Matt
Date: 11/30/2012 9:46:04 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc!
 
 approach is used, you could comment that raising it from 768/200 to 4/1 is
 excessive, and perhaps say a 1.5/384 standard is more appropriate.  Even
 Canopy 100 can probably claim that (if it's not loaded), though YMMV.
 
Are you saying no one is providing service past 1.5/384 with Canopy 100?
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

[Fred Goldstein]

At 11/30/2012 11:45 AM, Matt wrote:
  approach is used, you could comment that raising it from 768/200 to 4/1 is
  excessive, and perhaps say a 1.5/384 standard is more appropriate.  Even
  Canopy 100 can probably claim that (if it's not loaded), though YMMV.

Are you saying no one is providing service past 1.5/384 with Canopy 100?

I'm referring to the 900 MHz version with a 4 Mbps one-way burst 
rate.  That won't pass the 4/1 test.


  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

[Matt]

  approach is used, you could comment that raising it from 768/200 to 4/1 is
  excessive, and perhaps say a 1.5/384 standard is more appropriate.  Even
  Canopy 100 can probably claim that (if it's not loaded), though YMMV.

Are you saying no one is providing service past 1.5/384 with Canopy 100?

 I'm referring to the 900 MHz version with a 4 Mbps one-way burst
 rate.  That won't pass the 4/1 test.

Ok, makes sense.  Wireless utility meter readers trashed most of 900
spectrum for us.
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

[Brian Webster]

The rule as it stands now is 3 meg down and 768 up. The 4 meg down and 1 meg
up was something put in the National Broadband Plan by the white house team.
Problem with that is the National Broadband Map (of which was already spec'd
out when they wrote that plan) uses download speed tier breakouts of 3 and 6
meg and 768 and 1.5 meg. There will be no way to actually compute the 4 meg
1 meg rule unless they change the national broadband map AND they get all
carriers to revise their reporting. The rule is not really 4 meg and 1 meg
either, it's an aggregate to 5 meg, you could be doing 3 meg down and 2 up
and meet the standard. Remember that is currently just your advertised
maximum download and upload speed. Not all of your customers have to
subscribe to that. A WISP even using 900 MHz could limit those plans to say
only 1 to 5% of the customers on an AP and technically still be within the
rules.

Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com
www.Broadband-Mapping.com


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 11:59 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc!

At 11/30/2012 11:45 AM, Matt wrote:
  approach is used, you could comment that raising it from 768/200 to 
  4/1 is excessive, and perhaps say a 1.5/384 standard is more 
  appropriate.  Even Canopy 100 can probably claim that (if it's not
loaded), though YMMV.

Are you saying no one is providing service past 1.5/384 with Canopy 100?

I'm referring to the 900 MHz version with a 4 Mbps one-way burst rate.  That
won't pass the 4/1 test.


  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

[Brian Webster]

A WISP could also offer these speeds and raise the price for this plan to
account for the total number of regular speed clients they might lose due to
capacity issues with the higher speed plan. Nowhere do the rules state that
you have to offer those speeds at any given price.

Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com
www.Broadband-Mapping.com


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Brian Webster
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 3:27 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc!

The rule as it stands now is 3 meg down and 768 up. The 4 meg down and 1 meg
up was something put in the National Broadband Plan by the white house team.
Problem with that is the National Broadband Map (of which was already spec'd
out when they wrote that plan) uses download speed tier breakouts of 3 and 6
meg and 768 and 1.5 meg. There will be no way to actually compute the 4 meg
1 meg rule unless they change the national broadband map AND they get all
carriers to revise their reporting. The rule is not really 4 meg and 1 meg
either, it's an aggregate to 5 meg, you could be doing 3 meg down and 2 up
and meet the standard. Remember that is currently just your advertised
maximum download and upload speed. Not all of your customers have to
subscribe to that. A WISP even using 900 MHz could limit those plans to say
only 1 to 5% of the customers on an AP and technically still be within the
rules.

Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com
www.Broadband-Mapping.com


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 11:59 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc!

At 11/30/2012 11:45 AM, Matt wrote:
  approach is used, you could comment that raising it from 768/200 to
  4/1 is excessive, and perhaps say a 1.5/384 standard is more 
  appropriate.  Even Canopy 100 can probably claim that (if it's not
loaded), though YMMV.

Are you saying no one is providing service past 1.5/384 with Canopy 100?

I'm referring to the 900 MHz version with a 4 Mbps one-way burst rate.  That
won't pass the 4/1 test.


  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

[Fred Goldstein]

At 11/30/2012 03:26 PM, Brian Webster wrote:
The rule as it stands now is 3 meg down and 768 up. The 4 meg down and 1 meg
up was something put in the National Broadband Plan by the white house team.
Problem with that is the National Broadband Map (of which was already spec'd
out when they wrote that plan) uses download speed tier breakouts of 3 and 6
meg and 768 and 1.5 meg. There will be no way to actually compute the 4 meg
1 meg rule unless they change the national broadband map AND they get all
carriers to revise their reporting. The rule is not really 4 meg and 1 meg
either, it's an aggregate to 5 meg, you could be doing 3 meg down and 2 up
and meet the standard. Remember that is currently just your advertised
maximum download and upload speed. Not all of your customers have to
subscribe to that. A WISP even using 900 MHz could limit those plans to say
only 1 to 5% of the customers on an AP and technically still be within the
rules.

Yes, the FCC and the mapping folks are out of sync. So the FCC 
proposal says that 4/1 would officially be the new speed *but* really 
it's just being on the map at 3/.768, since that's the closest map 
speed.  They call the map a lower speed surrogate for 4/1.

If you think that's a disconnect, just try to get the FCC's Wireline 
[prevention of] Competition Bureau to play nice with the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau.  Even Abe Lincoln would have trouble 
getting that team of rivals to work together.

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

[Cliff Leboeuf]

Rick, I thought that we did this task, but please tell me how I can
confirm. - Cliff





On 11/28/12 4:45 PM, Rick Harnish rharn...@wispa.org wrote:

Fred,

I assure you the WISPA FCC Committee is indeed on this.  You make great
points and we appreciate your review. You are definitely correct, that
WISPs
NEED to get on the National Broadband Map NOW!  Those that don't will be
suffering from subsidized competition.  Anyone who does not know who to
contact, drop me a line.  I have contacts now for all states.  Maybe, I
can
get that list up on the WISPA website under WISP Resources.  There is one
now, but it is not complete.  I now have 4-5 names per state I believe.

The guys at towercoverage.com are making it easy and inexpensive to make
your maps and get them uploaded to the National/State Maps as well.

Where there is a Wisp, there is a way!

Respectfully,

Rick Harnish
Executive Director
WISPA
260-307-4000 cell
866-317-2851 Option 2 WISPA Office
Skype: rick.harnish.
rharn...@wispa.org
adm...@wispa.org (Trina and Rick)





 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
 Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 5:17 PM
 To: wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc!
 
 The FCC's home page ( transition.fcc.gov ) has an item about Connect
America
 Fund, posted with no description.  This turns out to be a further NPRM
about
 Phase I funding.
 
 As you may recall, CAF Phase I was the short-term (2012) step that
offered
 $775 per line to price-cap ILECs (the Bells and other big
 ones) to bring broadband to unserved areas that they otherwise
wouldn't. It
 was budgeted for $300M but only about $115M was claimed, mostly by
 Frontier.  The Bells didn't take much.  CenturyLink however whined that
the
 definition of served should be changed to specifically exclude areas
WISPs, so
 they could get subsidy money to overbuild existing WISPs.  The FCC
turned
that
 one down, though CenturyLink did take money for some other areas.
 
 The new Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC-12
-
 138A1.pdf
 asks what to do about the remaining Phase I money.  While they could of
 course just not spend it, lowering the USF tax (now around 17%!), that's
not one
 of the two options they are proposing to select from.  One option is to
simply
 add this funding to Phase II, which begins in 2013.  Phase II allows for
 competition in the awarding of funds; there will be a reverse auction,
and
the
 bidder who asks for the least subsidy money gets it.
 
 Most of the FNPRM, however, is devoted to the other option, essentially
a
 second round of Phase I.  They propose changing Phase I rules to
encourage
the
 ILECs to take more money.  There are a lot of questions about details,
but
the
 basic ideas are along these lines:
 
 1)  Redefine unserved to be anywhere that doesn't have 4/1 service,
vs.
 768k/200k in the first round.  This would be based on the National
Broadband
 Map, using 3M/768k as a surrogate for 4/1.  (The agencies apparently
hadn't
 agreed on speed tiers.)  So an area served by a WISP at 2M/500k, or by
Canopy
 100s, would be deemed unserved, since it's not 4/1.
 
 2)  Allow challenges to the national map.  So if an ILEC thinks an area
is
 unserved even if a WISP claims it's served, they can argue the matter to
the
 FCC.  This works both ways, so I suppose an ISP could claim that the map
 omitted them by mistake.  But it points out that a WISP SHOULD MAKE SURE
 ITS COVERAGE AREAS ARE ON THE MAP!  (Just a little shouting in case
anyone
 didn't hear it.)
 
 They are supposed to come out with a list of unserved areas (census
 blocks0 next month.
 
 There are some other interesting details.  Phase I awards are $775 per
new
 customer.  That number may be adjusted in this second round.  Also, in
areas
 served by (rural, subsidized) Rate of Return Carriers, the subsidy
number
comes
 from the FCC's High Cost Proxy Model.  In Phase 2, these areas get
subsidized
 according to a more elaborate cost model now being debated.
 
 There is also the possibility that the Phase I recipient may have to
build
a
 certain amount of second mile (basically, exchange feeder
 fiber) as well as last mile distribution.  But there's no clear
obligation to make
 this available at wholesale, which would be nice.
 They also ask about how to handle builds that have to go through served
areas
 in order to reach unserved ones.  So even if you're on the map, you
could
get
 overbuilt by the ILEC.
 
 Note that a Phase I awardee must apply to serve specific unserved areas
and
 applies to serve a certain number of unserved subscribers,
 *but* they do not actually have to use it where they said they would.
The
 applications are merely suggestions of where they might
 find their unserved customers.   They can actually spend it
 elsewhere, so long as they get at least one customer added per

Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

[Rick Harnish]

Are you on the Louisiana Broadband Map?
http://www.bakerbb.com/labroadbandmapping/

My contact in Louisiana is:
Mr. Craig Johnson
Louisiana State University
E313 Howe-Russell Geoscience Complex
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
cjohn...@lsu.edu

I do however see Michael Baker Group is the contractor. I suggest calling
them to find out who from their group is working on Louisiana.

Michael Baker Corporation
100 Airside Dr
Moon Township, PA 15108-2783
(800) 553-1153

Where there is a Wisp, there is a way!

Respectfully,

Rick Harnish
Executive Director
WISPA
260-307-4000 cell
866-317-2851 Option 2 WISPA Office
Skype: rick.harnish.
rharn...@wispa.org
adm...@wispa.org (Trina and Rick)





 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Cliff Leboeuf
 Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 4:01 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc!
 
 Rick, I thought that we did this task, but please tell me how I can
confirm. - Cliff
 
 
 
 
 
 On 11/28/12 4:45 PM, Rick Harnish rharn...@wispa.org wrote:
 
 Fred,
 
 I assure you the WISPA FCC Committee is indeed on this.  You make great
 points and we appreciate your review. You are definitely correct, that
 WISPs NEED to get on the National Broadband Map NOW!  Those that don't
 will be suffering from subsidized competition.  Anyone who does not
 know who to contact, drop me a line.  I have contacts now for all
 states.  Maybe, I can get that list up on the WISPA website under WISP
 Resources.  There is one now, but it is not complete.  I now have 4-5
 names per state I believe.
 
 The guys at towercoverage.com are making it easy and inexpensive to
 make your maps and get them uploaded to the National/State Maps as well.
 
 Where there is a Wisp, there is a way!
 
 Respectfully,
 
 Rick Harnish
 Executive Director
 WISPA
 260-307-4000 cell
 866-317-2851 Option 2 WISPA Office
 Skype: rick.harnish.
 rharn...@wispa.org
 adm...@wispa.org (Trina and Rick)
 
 
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
  On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
  Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 5:17 PM
  To: wireless@wispa.org
  Subject: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc!
 
  The FCC's home page ( transition.fcc.gov ) has an item about Connect
 America
  Fund, posted with no description.  This turns out to be a further
  NPRM
 about
  Phase I funding.
 
  As you may recall, CAF Phase I was the short-term (2012) step that
 offered
  $775 per line to price-cap ILECs (the Bells and other big
  ones) to bring broadband to unserved areas that they otherwise
 wouldn't. It
  was budgeted for $300M but only about $115M was claimed, mostly by
  Frontier.  The Bells didn't take much.  CenturyLink however whined
  that
 the
  definition of served should be changed to specifically exclude
  areas
 WISPs, so
  they could get subsidy money to overbuild existing WISPs.  The FCC
 turned
 that
  one down, though CenturyLink did take money for some other areas.
 
  The new Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
 
 http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC
 -12
 -
  138A1.pdf
  asks what to do about the remaining Phase I money.  While they could
  of course just not spend it, lowering the USF tax (now around 17%!),
  that's
 not one
  of the two options they are proposing to select from.  One option is
  to
 simply
  add this funding to Phase II, which begins in 2013.  Phase II allows
 for  competition in the awarding of funds; there will be a reverse
 auction, and
 the
  bidder who asks for the least subsidy money gets it.
 
  Most of the FNPRM, however, is devoted to the other option,
 essentially a  second round of Phase I.  They propose changing Phase I
 rules to encourage
 the
  ILECs to take more money.  There are a lot of questions about
 details, but
 the
  basic ideas are along these lines:
 
  1)  Redefine unserved to be anywhere that doesn't have 4/1 service,
 vs.
  768k/200k in the first round.  This would be based on the National
 Broadband
  Map, using 3M/768k as a surrogate for 4/1.  (The agencies apparently
 hadn't
  agreed on speed tiers.)  So an area served by a WISP at 2M/500k, or
  by
 Canopy
  100s, would be deemed unserved, since it's not 4/1.
 
  2)  Allow challenges to the national map.  So if an ILEC thinks an
 area is  unserved even if a WISP claims it's served, they can argue
 the matter to
 the
  FCC.  This works both ways, so I suppose an ISP could claim that the
 map  omitted them by mistake.  But it points out that a WISP SHOULD
 MAKE SURE  ITS COVERAGE AREAS ARE ON THE MAP!  (Just a little shouting
 in case anyone  didn't hear it.)
 
  They are supposed to come out with a list of unserved areas (census
  blocks0 next month.
 
  There are some other interesting details.  Phase I awards are $775
 per new  customer.  That number may be adjusted in this second

[WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

[Fred Goldstein]

The FCC's home page ( transition.fcc.gov ) has an item about Connect 
America Fund, posted with no description.  This turns out to be a 
further NPRM about Phase I funding.

As you may recall, CAF Phase I was the short-term (2012) step that 
offered $775 per line to price-cap ILECs (the Bells and other big 
ones) to bring broadband to unserved areas that they otherwise 
wouldn't. It was budgeted for $300M but only about $115M was claimed, 
mostly by Frontier.  The Bells didn't take much.  CenturyLink however 
whined that the definition of served should be changed to 
specifically exclude areas WISPs, so they could get subsidy money to 
overbuild existing WISPs.  The FCC turned that one down, though 
CenturyLink did take money for some other areas.

The new Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC-12-138A1.pdf
 
asks what to do about the remaining Phase I money.  While they could 
of course just not spend it, lowering the USF tax (now around 17%!), 
that's not one of the two options they are proposing to select 
from.  One option is to simply add this funding to Phase II, which 
begins in 2013.  Phase II allows for competition in the awarding of 
funds; there will be a reverse auction, and the bidder who asks for 
the least subsidy money gets it.

Most of the FNPRM, however, is devoted to the other option, 
essentially a second round of Phase I.  They propose changing Phase I 
rules to encourage the ILECs to take more money.  There are a lot of 
questions about details, but the basic ideas are along these lines:

1)  Redefine unserved to be anywhere that doesn't have 4/1 service, 
vs. 768k/200k in the first round.  This would be based on the 
National Broadband Map, using 3M/768k as a surrogate for 4/1.  (The 
agencies apparently hadn't agreed on speed tiers.)  So an area served 
by a WISP at 2M/500k, or by Canopy 100s, would be deemed unserved, 
since it's not 4/1.

2)  Allow challenges to the national map.  So if an ILEC thinks an 
area is unserved even if a WISP claims it's served, they can argue 
the matter to the FCC.  This works both ways, so I suppose an ISP 
could claim that the map omitted them by mistake.  But it points out 
that a WISP SHOULD MAKE SURE ITS COVERAGE AREAS ARE ON THE 
MAP!  (Just a little shouting in case anyone didn't hear it.)

They are supposed to come out with a list of unserved areas (census 
blocks0 next month.

There are some other interesting details.  Phase I awards are $775 
per new customer.  That number may be adjusted in this second 
round.  Also, in areas served by (rural, subsidized) Rate of Return 
Carriers, the subsidy number comes from the FCC's High Cost Proxy 
Model.  In Phase 2, these areas get subsidized according to a more 
elaborate cost model now being debated.

There is also the possibility that the Phase I recipient may have to 
build a certain amount of second mile (basically, exchange feeder 
fiber) as well as last mile distribution.  But there's no clear 
obligation to make this available at wholesale, which would be nice. 
They also ask about how to handle builds that have to go through 
served areas in order to reach unserved ones.  So even if you're on 
the map, you could get overbuilt by the ILEC.

Note that a Phase I awardee must apply to serve specific unserved 
areas and applies to serve a certain number of unserved subscribers, 
*but* they do not actually have to use it where they said they 
would.  The applications are merely suggestions of where they might 
find their unserved customers.   They can actually spend it 
elsewhere, so long as they get at least one customer added per $775.

An open question is that several awardees said that their proposed 
service areas are confidential. The FCC has not decided if this is 
acceptable, so it's an open question now.  I'd think that a WISP 
should be allowed to know if the ILEC plans to build subsidized 
service to an area they're thinking of building to, so this should be 
public information, not confidential.  So tell the FCC!

I am hoping the FCC Committee and others interested will take note of 
this.  It probably won't reach the Federal Register for a while, and 
then the 30 day Comment period begins.

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701  

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

[Rick Harnish]

Fred,

I assure you the WISPA FCC Committee is indeed on this.  You make great
points and we appreciate your review. You are definitely correct, that WISPs
NEED to get on the National Broadband Map NOW!  Those that don't will be
suffering from subsidized competition.  Anyone who does not know who to
contact, drop me a line.  I have contacts now for all states.  Maybe, I can
get that list up on the WISPA website under WISP Resources.  There is one
now, but it is not complete.  I now have 4-5 names per state I believe.

The guys at towercoverage.com are making it easy and inexpensive to make
your maps and get them uploaded to the National/State Maps as well.  

Where there is a Wisp, there is a way!

Respectfully,

Rick Harnish
Executive Director
WISPA
260-307-4000 cell
866-317-2851 Option 2 WISPA Office
Skype: rick.harnish.
rharn...@wispa.org
adm...@wispa.org (Trina and Rick)





 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
 Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 5:17 PM
 To: wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc!
 
 The FCC's home page ( transition.fcc.gov ) has an item about Connect
America
 Fund, posted with no description.  This turns out to be a further NPRM
about
 Phase I funding.
 
 As you may recall, CAF Phase I was the short-term (2012) step that offered
 $775 per line to price-cap ILECs (the Bells and other big
 ones) to bring broadband to unserved areas that they otherwise
wouldn't. It
 was budgeted for $300M but only about $115M was claimed, mostly by
 Frontier.  The Bells didn't take much.  CenturyLink however whined that
the
 definition of served should be changed to specifically exclude areas
WISPs, so
 they could get subsidy money to overbuild existing WISPs.  The FCC turned
that
 one down, though CenturyLink did take money for some other areas.
 
 The new Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC-12-
 138A1.pdf
 asks what to do about the remaining Phase I money.  While they could of
 course just not spend it, lowering the USF tax (now around 17%!), that's
not one
 of the two options they are proposing to select from.  One option is to
simply
 add this funding to Phase II, which begins in 2013.  Phase II allows for
 competition in the awarding of funds; there will be a reverse auction, and
the
 bidder who asks for the least subsidy money gets it.
 
 Most of the FNPRM, however, is devoted to the other option, essentially a
 second round of Phase I.  They propose changing Phase I rules to encourage
the
 ILECs to take more money.  There are a lot of questions about details, but
the
 basic ideas are along these lines:
 
 1)  Redefine unserved to be anywhere that doesn't have 4/1 service, vs.
 768k/200k in the first round.  This would be based on the National
Broadband
 Map, using 3M/768k as a surrogate for 4/1.  (The agencies apparently
hadn't
 agreed on speed tiers.)  So an area served by a WISP at 2M/500k, or by
Canopy
 100s, would be deemed unserved, since it's not 4/1.
 
 2)  Allow challenges to the national map.  So if an ILEC thinks an area is
 unserved even if a WISP claims it's served, they can argue the matter to
the
 FCC.  This works both ways, so I suppose an ISP could claim that the map
 omitted them by mistake.  But it points out that a WISP SHOULD MAKE SURE
 ITS COVERAGE AREAS ARE ON THE MAP!  (Just a little shouting in case anyone
 didn't hear it.)
 
 They are supposed to come out with a list of unserved areas (census
 blocks0 next month.
 
 There are some other interesting details.  Phase I awards are $775 per new
 customer.  That number may be adjusted in this second round.  Also, in
areas
 served by (rural, subsidized) Rate of Return Carriers, the subsidy number
comes
 from the FCC's High Cost Proxy Model.  In Phase 2, these areas get
subsidized
 according to a more elaborate cost model now being debated.
 
 There is also the possibility that the Phase I recipient may have to build
a
 certain amount of second mile (basically, exchange feeder
 fiber) as well as last mile distribution.  But there's no clear
obligation to make
 this available at wholesale, which would be nice.
 They also ask about how to handle builds that have to go through served
areas
 in order to reach unserved ones.  So even if you're on the map, you could
get
 overbuilt by the ILEC.
 
 Note that a Phase I awardee must apply to serve specific unserved areas
and
 applies to serve a certain number of unserved subscribers,
 *but* they do not actually have to use it where they said they would.  The
 applications are merely suggestions of where they might
 find their unserved customers.   They can actually spend it
 elsewhere, so long as they get at least one customer added per $775.
 
 An open question is that several awardees said that their proposed service
 areas are confidential. The FCC has not decided

Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

[Mike Hammett]

Perhaps renewed efforts with the vendors?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

- Original Message -
From: Rick Harnish rharn...@wispa.org
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 4:45:15 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc!

Fred,

I assure you the WISPA FCC Committee is indeed on this.  You make great
points and we appreciate your review. You are definitely correct, that WISPs
NEED to get on the National Broadband Map NOW!  Those that don't will be
suffering from subsidized competition.  Anyone who does not know who to
contact, drop me a line.  I have contacts now for all states.  Maybe, I can
get that list up on the WISPA website under WISP Resources.  There is one
now, but it is not complete.  I now have 4-5 names per state I believe.

The guys at towercoverage.com are making it easy and inexpensive to make
your maps and get them uploaded to the National/State Maps as well.  

Where there is a Wisp, there is a way!

Respectfully,

Rick Harnish
Executive Director
WISPA
260-307-4000 cell
866-317-2851 Option 2 WISPA Office
Skype: rick.harnish.
rharn...@wispa.org
adm...@wispa.org (Trina and Rick)





 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
 Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 5:17 PM
 To: wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc!
 
 The FCC's home page ( transition.fcc.gov ) has an item about Connect
America
 Fund, posted with no description.  This turns out to be a further NPRM
about
 Phase I funding.
 
 As you may recall, CAF Phase I was the short-term (2012) step that offered
 $775 per line to price-cap ILECs (the Bells and other big
 ones) to bring broadband to unserved areas that they otherwise
wouldn't. It
 was budgeted for $300M but only about $115M was claimed, mostly by
 Frontier.  The Bells didn't take much.  CenturyLink however whined that
the
 definition of served should be changed to specifically exclude areas
WISPs, so
 they could get subsidy money to overbuild existing WISPs.  The FCC turned
that
 one down, though CenturyLink did take money for some other areas.
 
 The new Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC-12-
 138A1.pdf
 asks what to do about the remaining Phase I money.  While they could of
 course just not spend it, lowering the USF tax (now around 17%!), that's
not one
 of the two options they are proposing to select from.  One option is to
simply
 add this funding to Phase II, which begins in 2013.  Phase II allows for
 competition in the awarding of funds; there will be a reverse auction, and
the
 bidder who asks for the least subsidy money gets it.
 
 Most of the FNPRM, however, is devoted to the other option, essentially a
 second round of Phase I.  They propose changing Phase I rules to encourage
the
 ILECs to take more money.  There are a lot of questions about details, but
the
 basic ideas are along these lines:
 
 1)  Redefine unserved to be anywhere that doesn't have 4/1 service, vs.
 768k/200k in the first round.  This would be based on the National
Broadband
 Map, using 3M/768k as a surrogate for 4/1.  (The agencies apparently
hadn't
 agreed on speed tiers.)  So an area served by a WISP at 2M/500k, or by
Canopy
 100s, would be deemed unserved, since it's not 4/1.
 
 2)  Allow challenges to the national map.  So if an ILEC thinks an area is
 unserved even if a WISP claims it's served, they can argue the matter to
the
 FCC.  This works both ways, so I suppose an ISP could claim that the map
 omitted them by mistake.  But it points out that a WISP SHOULD MAKE SURE
 ITS COVERAGE AREAS ARE ON THE MAP!  (Just a little shouting in case anyone
 didn't hear it.)
 
 They are supposed to come out with a list of unserved areas (census
 blocks0 next month.
 
 There are some other interesting details.  Phase I awards are $775 per new
 customer.  That number may be adjusted in this second round.  Also, in
areas
 served by (rural, subsidized) Rate of Return Carriers, the subsidy number
comes
 from the FCC's High Cost Proxy Model.  In Phase 2, these areas get
subsidized
 according to a more elaborate cost model now being debated.
 
 There is also the possibility that the Phase I recipient may have to build
a
 certain amount of second mile (basically, exchange feeder
 fiber) as well as last mile distribution.  But there's no clear
obligation to make
 this available at wholesale, which would be nice.
 They also ask about how to handle builds that have to go through served
areas
 in order to reach unserved ones.  So even if you're on the map, you could
get
 overbuilt by the ILEC.
 
 Note that a Phase I awardee must apply to serve specific unserved areas
and
 applies to serve a certain number of unserved subscribers,
 *but* they do not actually have to use it where they said

Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

[Blair Davis]

  
  
For a one time payment of $775 per home, I can connect ALL the
unconnected homes in my county...

But that is not how it works, is it?

I'll be buried in red tape and paper for the rest of my life,
right? And, of course, since I took their money, they can now tell
me how to run my network and so on...

I'd be happy if I can just block everyone else in my county from
getting it.

--


On 11/28/2012 5:16 PM, Fred Goldstein
  wrote:


  The FCC's home page ( transition.fcc.gov ) has an item about Connect 
America Fund, posted with no description.  This turns out to be a 
further NPRM about Phase I funding.

As you may recall, CAF Phase I was the short-term (2012) step that 
offered $775 per line to price-cap ILECs (the Bells and other big 
ones) to bring "broadband" to "unserved" areas that they otherwise 
wouldn't. It was budgeted for $300M but only about $115M was claimed, 
mostly by Frontier.  The Bells didn't take much.  CenturyLink however 
whined that the definition of "served" should be changed to 
specifically exclude areas WISPs, so they could get subsidy money to 
overbuild existing WISPs.  The FCC turned that one down, though 
CenturyLink did take money for some other areas.

The new Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC-12-138A1.pdf 
asks what to do about the remaining Phase I money.  While they could 
of course just not spend it, lowering the USF tax (now around 17%!), 
that's not one of the two options they are proposing to select 
from.  One option is to simply add this funding to Phase II, which 
begins in 2013.  Phase II allows for competition in the awarding of 
funds; there will be a reverse auction, and the bidder who asks for 
the least subsidy money gets it.

Most of the FNPRM, however, is devoted to the other option, 
essentially a second round of Phase I.  They propose changing Phase I 
rules to encourage the ILECs to take more money.  There are a lot of 
questions about details, but the basic ideas are along these lines:

1)  Redefine "unserved" to be anywhere that doesn't have 4/1 service, 
vs. 768k/200k in the first round.  This would be based on the 
National Broadband Map, using 3M/768k as a surrogate for 4/1.  (The 
agencies apparently hadn't agreed on speed tiers.)  So an area served 
by a WISP at 2M/500k, or by Canopy 100s, would be deemed "unserved", 
since it's not 4/1.

2)  Allow challenges to the national map.  So if an ILEC thinks an 
area is unserved even if a WISP claims it's served, they can argue 
the matter to the FCC.  This works both ways, so I suppose an ISP 
could claim that the map omitted them by mistake.  But it points out 
that a WISP SHOULD MAKE SURE ITS COVERAGE AREAS ARE ON THE 
MAP!  (Just a little shouting in case anyone didn't hear it.)

They are supposed to come out with a list of unserved areas (census 
blocks0 next month.

There are some other interesting details.  Phase I awards are $775 
per new customer.  That number may be adjusted in this second 
round.  Also, in areas served by (rural, subsidized) Rate of Return 
Carriers, the subsidy number comes from the FCC's High Cost Proxy 
Model.  In Phase 2, these areas get subsidized according to a more 
elaborate cost model now being debated.

There is also the possibility that the Phase I recipient may have to 
build a certain amount of "second mile" (basically, exchange feeder 
fiber) as well as "last mile" distribution.  But there's no clear 
obligation to make this available at wholesale, which would be nice. 
They also ask about how to handle builds that have to go through 
served areas in order to reach unserved ones.  So even if you're on 
the map, you could get overbuilt by the ILEC.

Note that a Phase I awardee must apply to serve specific unserved 
areas and applies to serve a certain number of unserved subscribers, 
*but* they do not actually have to use it where they said they 
would.  The applications are merely suggestions of where they might 
find their unserved customers.   They can actually spend it 
elsewhere, so long as they get at least one customer added per $775.

An open question is that several awardees said that their proposed 
service areas are confidential. The FCC has not decided if this is 
acceptable, so it's an open question now.  I'd think that a WISP 
should be allowed to know if the ILEC plans to build subsidized 
service to an area they're thinking of building to, so this should be 
public information, not confidential.  So tell the FCC!

I am hoping the FCC Committee and others interested will take note of 
this.  It probably won't reach the Federal Register for a while, and 
then the 30 day Comment period begins.

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701  

___
Wireless 

Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

[Fred Goldstein]

At 11/28/2012 05:56 PM, Blair Davis wrote:
For a one time payment of $775 per home, I can connect ALL the 
unconnected homes in my county...


But that is not how it works, is it?


Alas, Phase I is for incumbents only.

Phase II, when it happens next year, will allow others to bid.  This 
will probably not be a one-time capital subsidy (which is not how USF 
normally works) but the more routine monthly subsidy, which is 
typically used to pay off RUS loans.


Just who is eligible to bid on Phase is not determined yet.

I'll be buried in red tape and paper for the rest of my life, 
right?  And, of course, since I took their money, they can now tell 
me how to run my network and so on...


That would be a problem.  The rural ILECs who live on USF have staff 
or consultants to handle it for them.  It's their main business, 
after all; running the network is secondary.



I'd be happy if I can just block everyone else in my county from getting it.


If you're on the map with 3/.768, you're probably okay.  Those who 
are not on the map should follow Rich's advice; there are ways to 
make it fairly easy.




On 11/28/2012 5:16 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:


The FCC's home page ( transition.fcc.gov ) has an item about Connect
America Fund, posted with no description.  This turns out to be a
further NPRM about Phase I funding.

As you may recall, CAF Phase I was the short-term (2012) step that
offered $775 per line to price-cap ILECs (the Bells and other big
ones) to bring broadband to unserved areas that they otherwise
wouldn't. It was budgeted for $300M but only about $115M was claimed,
mostly by Frontier.  The Bells didn't take much.  CenturyLink however
whined that the definition of served should be changed to
specifically exclude areas WISPs, so they could get subsidy money to
overbuild existing WISPs.  The FCC turned that one down, though
CenturyLink did take money for some other areas.

The new Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC-12-138A1.pdfhttp://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC-12-138A1.pdf 


asks what to do about the remaining Phase I money.  While they could
of course just not spend it, lowering the USF tax (now around 17%!),
that's not one of the two options they are proposing to select
from.  One option is to simply add this funding to Phase II, which
begins in 2013.  Phase II allows for competition in the awarding of
funds; there will be a reverse auction, and the bidder who asks for
the least subsidy money gets it.

Most of the FNPRM, however, is devoted to the other option,
essentially a second round of Phase I.  They propose changing Phase I
rules to encourage the ILECs to take more money.  There are a lot of
questions about details, but the basic ideas are along these lines:

1)  Redefine unserved to be anywhere that doesn't have 4/1 service,
vs. 768k/200k in the first round.  This would be based on the
National Broadband Map, using 3M/768k as a surrogate for 4/1.  (The
agencies apparently hadn't agreed on speed tiers.)  So an area served
by a WISP at 2M/500k, or by Canopy 100s, would be deemed unserved,
since it's not 4/1.

2)  Allow challenges to the national map.  So if an ILEC thinks an
area is unserved even if a WISP claims it's served, they can argue
the matter to the FCC.  This works both ways, so I suppose an ISP
could claim that the map omitted them by mistake.  But it points out
that a WISP SHOULD MAKE SURE ITS COVERAGE AREAS ARE ON THE
MAP!  (Just a little shouting in case anyone didn't hear it.)

They are supposed to come out with a list of unserved areas (census
blocks0 next month.

There are some other interesting details.  Phase I awards are $775
per new customer.  That number may be adjusted in this second
round.  Also, in areas served by (rural, subsidized) Rate of Return
Carriers, the subsidy number comes from the FCC's High Cost Proxy
Model.  In Phase 2, these areas get subsidized according to a more
elaborate cost model now being debated.

There is also the possibility that the Phase I recipient may have to
build a certain amount of second mile (basically, exchange feeder
fiber) as well as last mile distribution.  But there's no clear
obligation to make this available at wholesale, which would be nice.
They also ask about how to handle builds that have to go through
served areas in order to reach unserved ones.  So even if you're on
the map, you could get overbuilt by the ILEC.

Note that a Phase I awardee must apply to serve specific unserved
areas and applies to serve a certain number of unserved subscribers,
*but* they do not actually have to use it where they said they
would.  The applications are merely suggestions of where they might
find their unserved customers.   They can actually spend it
elsewhere, so long as they get at least one customer added per $775.

An open question is that several awardees said that their proposed
service areas are confidential. The 

Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

[Brian Webster]

Rick,
It is important to note that generating a coverage map(s) on
Towercoverage.com does not create a map that is easily acceptable to the
state mapping agencies and it certainly cannot just be uploaded to the
national broadband map. There is a great deal of post processing work to
make any of those usable for the National Broadband map. The site does
export a nice list of tower sites and other data that is part of the
required information to be submitted. Some states may still not accept the
data from this site depending on the skills of their GIS and mapping
contractors. We do not want to mislead WISP's in to thinking that if they
sign up with that site that would all they need to do to supply mapping data
and participating on that site does not guarantee that their mapping data
will be included either.

Thank you,
Brian Webster
Telecom Project Coordinator
Partnership for Connected Illinois
(217) 886-4228 Main Number
(217) 886-4229 Direct Line
(217) 718-4546 Fax
http://www.BroadbandIllinois.org

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Rick Harnish
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 5:45 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc!

Fred,

I assure you the WISPA FCC Committee is indeed on this.  You make great
points and we appreciate your review. You are definitely correct, that WISPs
NEED to get on the National Broadband Map NOW!  Those that don't will be
suffering from subsidized competition.  Anyone who does not know who to
contact, drop me a line.  I have contacts now for all states.  Maybe, I can
get that list up on the WISPA website under WISP Resources.  There is one
now, but it is not complete.  I now have 4-5 names per state I believe.

The guys at towercoverage.com are making it easy and inexpensive to make
your maps and get them uploaded to the National/State Maps as well.  

Where there is a Wisp, there is a way!

Respectfully,

Rick Harnish
Executive Director
WISPA
260-307-4000 cell
866-317-2851 Option 2 WISPA Office
Skype: rick.harnish.
rharn...@wispa.org
adm...@wispa.org (Trina and Rick)





 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
 On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
 Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 5:17 PM
 To: wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc!
 
 The FCC's home page ( transition.fcc.gov ) has an item about Connect
America
 Fund, posted with no description.  This turns out to be a further NPRM
about
 Phase I funding.
 
 As you may recall, CAF Phase I was the short-term (2012) step that 
 offered
 $775 per line to price-cap ILECs (the Bells and other big
 ones) to bring broadband to unserved areas that they otherwise
wouldn't. It
 was budgeted for $300M but only about $115M was claimed, mostly by 
 Frontier.  The Bells didn't take much.  CenturyLink however whined 
 that
the
 definition of served should be changed to specifically exclude areas
WISPs, so
 they could get subsidy money to overbuild existing WISPs.  The FCC 
 turned
that
 one down, though CenturyLink did take money for some other areas.
 
 The new Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC-12-
 138A1.pdf
 asks what to do about the remaining Phase I money.  While they could 
 of course just not spend it, lowering the USF tax (now around 17%!), 
 that's
not one
 of the two options they are proposing to select from.  One option is 
 to
simply
 add this funding to Phase II, which begins in 2013.  Phase II allows 
 for competition in the awarding of funds; there will be a reverse 
 auction, and
the
 bidder who asks for the least subsidy money gets it.
 
 Most of the FNPRM, however, is devoted to the other option, 
 essentially a second round of Phase I.  They propose changing Phase I 
 rules to encourage
the
 ILECs to take more money.  There are a lot of questions about details, 
 but
the
 basic ideas are along these lines:
 
 1)  Redefine unserved to be anywhere that doesn't have 4/1 service, vs.
 768k/200k in the first round.  This would be based on the National
Broadband
 Map, using 3M/768k as a surrogate for 4/1.  (The agencies apparently
hadn't
 agreed on speed tiers.)  So an area served by a WISP at 2M/500k, or by
Canopy
 100s, would be deemed unserved, since it's not 4/1.
 
 2)  Allow challenges to the national map.  So if an ILEC thinks an 
 area is unserved even if a WISP claims it's served, they can argue the 
 matter to
the
 FCC.  This works both ways, so I suppose an ISP could claim that the 
 map omitted them by mistake.  But it points out that a WISP SHOULD 
 MAKE SURE ITS COVERAGE AREAS ARE ON THE MAP!  (Just a little shouting 
 in case anyone didn't hear it.)
 
 They are supposed to come out with a list of unserved areas (census
 blocks0 next month.
 
 There are some other interesting details.  Phase I awards are $775 per

Re: [WISPA] FCC broadband deployment report

[Justin Wilson]

I am guessing they get some of the information from the Sam Knows
broadband report.  Over a year ago you could signup on
http://www.samknows.com/ and they sent you a Netgear router with some
custom firmware.  Everynow and then they pull tests from your router.  I
get a report each month on the top speeds, averages, latency, etc.

I am not sure how many of these are out there but it was a pretty 
popular
program with the masses.  I heard a ton of conspiracy theories on the
lists so I doubt many of you have them. I tried to get some of our clients
to do it, but they were too weirded out about the privacy.  I think now
the WISPs are not as represented in SamKnows as they should be.

Justin



-Original Message-
From: Sean Heskett af...@zirkel.us
Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Date: Thursday, August 23, 2012 5:28 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org, a...@afmug.com, us...@wug.cc,
color...@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] FCC broadband deployment report

Hi all,

Sorry for all the cross posts on multiple lists but this seems
troubling to me.  We submitted our coverage data to the state of
Colorado and they submitted our data for the national map.  However,
this FCC broadband deployment report includes this map which doesn't
show our coverage.

Report: http://www.fcc.gov/reports/eighth-broadband-progress-report
Map: http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map

What gives???  WISPA???

Is anyone else noticing their coverage area is not included?

Best regards,


Sean Heskett
ZIRKEL Wireless
High-speed Internet

www.zirkelwireless.com
970-871-8500
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless



___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC broadband deployment report

[John Scrivner]

I have done all that you ask here. I am on EVERY other map ever made by ALL
other agencies and they act like I do not exist on this one. Total BS.
Scriv


On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:

  1. WISPs need to submit their information.

 2. WISPs need to be diligent about working with their State mapping agency
 to correct wrong information.

 No one else is going to do it for us.



  On 8/23/2012 2:59 PM, Ryan Ghering wrote:

 wow, they have my area as covered as NON-Rural DSL and Cable no
 wireless links at all..

 I think someone fixed the books on this info. As its completely BS..

 1. everything out here in our area is Rural..
 2. No wireless listed at ALL ( there are 2 providers ourselves and the
 telco to the south of us)
 3. The local cable company has only a handful of customers
 4. says that over 3500 folks in my county have NO internet.. Complete
 and total BS.. This is farm country and I'd PAY to find more than 50
 homes that don't have internet.

 Again.. the books have been cooked, thanks to either bad info or competition.

 On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Sean Heskett af...@zirkel.us 
 af...@zirkel.us wrote:

  if you hover over a county a popup chart on the right shows up and
 displays the demographics for that county and % of broadband that is
 Fiber, Cable, DSL, or fixed wireless.  both the counties we serve show
 0% fixed wireless.

 -sean


 On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com 
 ch...@lakenetmi.com wrote:

  Our coverage area is not displayed on that map.
 Is it only including wireline providers?

 On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Sean Heskett af...@zirkel.us 
 af...@zirkel.us wrote:

  Hi all,

 Sorry for all the cross posts on multiple lists but this seems
 troubling to me.  We submitted our coverage data to the state of
 Colorado and they submitted our data for the national map.  However,
 this FCC broadband deployment report includes this map which doesn't
 show our coverage.

 Report: http://www.fcc.gov/reports/eighth-broadband-progress-report
 Map: http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map

 What gives???  WISPA???

 Is anyone else noticing their coverage area is not included?

 Best regards,


 Sean Heskett
 ZIRKEL Wireless
 High-speed Internet
 www.zirkelwireless.com970-871-8500
 ___
 Wireless mailing 
 listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

  ___
 Wireless mailing 
 listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

  ___
 Wireless mailing 
 listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


 --
 Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
 Author (2003) - Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks
 Serving the WISP Community since 1993www.ask-wi.com  760-678-5033  
 jun...@ask-wi.com



 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC broadband deployment report

[Mike Hammett]

My county and a few others near me are 100% covered by fixed wireless. Those 
that aren't are mostly above 95%. So they're not against a given technology. It 
must just be an issue with your specific data. As of the June 2011 data, did 
you provide at least 3/768 across the areas that are missing?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

- Original Message -
From: John Scrivner j...@mvn.net
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 11:41:57 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC broadband deployment report


I have done all that you ask here. I am on EVERY other map ever made by ALL 
other agencies and they act like I do not exist on this one. Total BS. 
Scriv 



On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Jack Unger  jun...@ask-wi.com  wrote: 



1. WISPs need to submit their information. 

2. WISPs need to be diligent about working with their State mapping agency to 
correct wrong information. 

No one else is going to do it for us. 






On 8/23/2012 2:59 PM, Ryan Ghering wrote: 


wow, they have my area as covered as NON-Rural DSL and Cable no
wireless links at all..

I think someone fixed the books on this info. As its completely BS..

1. everything out here in our area is Rural..
2. No wireless listed at ALL ( there are 2 providers ourselves and the
telco to the south of us)
3. The local cable company has only a handful of customers
4. says that over 3500 folks in my county have NO internet.. Complete
and total BS.. This is farm country and I'd PAY to find more than 50
homes that don't have internet.

Again.. the books have been cooked, thanks to either bad info or competition.

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Sean Heskett af...@zirkel.us wrote: 

if you hover over a county a popup chart on the right shows up and
displays the demographics for that county and % of broadband that is
Fiber, Cable, DSL, or fixed wireless.  both the counties we serve show
0% fixed wireless.

-sean


On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com wrote: 

Our coverage area is not displayed on that map.
Is it only including wireline providers?

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Sean Heskett af...@zirkel.us wrote: 

Hi all,

Sorry for all the cross posts on multiple lists but this seems
troubling to me.  We submitted our coverage data to the state of
Colorado and they submitted our data for the national map.  However,
this FCC broadband deployment report includes this map which doesn't
show our coverage.

Report: http://www.fcc.gov/reports/eighth-broadband-progress-report Map: 
http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map What 
gives???  WISPA???

Is anyone else noticing their coverage area is not included?

Best regards,


Sean Heskett
ZIRKEL Wireless
High-speed Internet www.zirkelwireless.com 970-871-8500 
___
Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 
___
Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 
___
Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 
-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Author (2003) - Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks
Serving the WISP Community since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 760-678-5033 
jun...@ask-wi.com 
___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 



___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] FCC broadband deployment report

[Sean Heskett]

Hi all,

Sorry for all the cross posts on multiple lists but this seems
troubling to me.  We submitted our coverage data to the state of
Colorado and they submitted our data for the national map.  However,
this FCC broadband deployment report includes this map which doesn't
show our coverage.

Report: http://www.fcc.gov/reports/eighth-broadband-progress-report
Map: http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map

What gives???  WISPA???

Is anyone else noticing their coverage area is not included?

Best regards,


Sean Heskett
ZIRKEL Wireless
High-speed Internet

www.zirkelwireless.com
970-871-8500
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC broadband deployment report

[Chris Fabien]

Our coverage area is not displayed on that map.
Is it only including wireline providers?

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Sean Heskett af...@zirkel.us wrote:
 Hi all,

 Sorry for all the cross posts on multiple lists but this seems
 troubling to me.  We submitted our coverage data to the state of
 Colorado and they submitted our data for the national map.  However,
 this FCC broadband deployment report includes this map which doesn't
 show our coverage.

 Report: http://www.fcc.gov/reports/eighth-broadband-progress-report
 Map: http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map

 What gives???  WISPA???

 Is anyone else noticing their coverage area is not included?

 Best regards,


 Sean Heskett
 ZIRKEL Wireless
 High-speed Internet

 www.zirkelwireless.com
 970-871-8500
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC broadband deployment report

[Jason Bailey]

My coverage update for the 2nd to last round is not there,but the rest is. The 
map is for 3Meg svc. and up also.

--- On Thu, 8/23/12, Sean Heskett af...@zirkel.us wrote:

From: Sean Heskett af...@zirkel.us
Subject: [WISPA] FCC broadband deployment report
To: wireless@wispa.org, a...@afmug.com, us...@wug.cc, color...@wispa.org
Date: Thursday, August 23, 2012, 5:28 PM

Hi all,

Sorry for all the cross posts on multiple lists but this seems
troubling to me.  We submitted our coverage data to the state of
Colorado and they submitted our data for the national map.  However,
this FCC broadband deployment report includes this map which doesn't
show our coverage.

Report: http://www.fcc.gov/reports/eighth-broadband-progress-report
Map: http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map

What gives???  WISPA???

Is anyone else noticing their coverage area is not included?

Best regards,


Sean Heskett
ZIRKEL Wireless
High-speed Internet

www.zirkelwireless.com
970-871-8500
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC broadband deployment report

[Sean Heskett]

if you hover over a county a popup chart on the right shows up and
displays the demographics for that county and % of broadband that is
Fiber, Cable, DSL, or fixed wireless.  both the counties we serve show
0% fixed wireless.

-sean


On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com wrote:
 Our coverage area is not displayed on that map.
 Is it only including wireline providers?

 On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Sean Heskett af...@zirkel.us wrote:
 Hi all,

 Sorry for all the cross posts on multiple lists but this seems
 troubling to me.  We submitted our coverage data to the state of
 Colorado and they submitted our data for the national map.  However,
 this FCC broadband deployment report includes this map which doesn't
 show our coverage.

 Report: http://www.fcc.gov/reports/eighth-broadband-progress-report
 Map: http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map

 What gives???  WISPA???

 Is anyone else noticing their coverage area is not included?

 Best regards,


 Sean Heskett
 ZIRKEL Wireless
 High-speed Internet

 www.zirkelwireless.com
 970-871-8500
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC broadband deployment report

[Ryan Ghering]

wow, they have my area as covered as NON-Rural DSL and Cable no
wireless links at all..

I think someone fixed the books on this info. As its completely BS..

1. everything out here in our area is Rural..
2. No wireless listed at ALL ( there are 2 providers ourselves and the
telco to the south of us)
3. The local cable company has only a handful of customers
4. says that over 3500 folks in my county have NO internet.. Complete
and total BS.. This is farm country and I'd PAY to find more than 50
homes that don't have internet.

Again.. the books have been cooked, thanks to either bad info or competition.

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Sean Heskett af...@zirkel.us wrote:
 if you hover over a county a popup chart on the right shows up and
 displays the demographics for that county and % of broadband that is
 Fiber, Cable, DSL, or fixed wireless.  both the counties we serve show
 0% fixed wireless.

 -sean


 On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com wrote:
 Our coverage area is not displayed on that map.
 Is it only including wireline providers?

 On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Sean Heskett af...@zirkel.us wrote:
 Hi all,

 Sorry for all the cross posts on multiple lists but this seems
 troubling to me.  We submitted our coverage data to the state of
 Colorado and they submitted our data for the national map.  However,
 this FCC broadband deployment report includes this map which doesn't
 show our coverage.

 Report: http://www.fcc.gov/reports/eighth-broadband-progress-report
 Map: http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map

 What gives???  WISPA???

 Is anyone else noticing their coverage area is not included?

 Best regards,


 Sean Heskett
 ZIRKEL Wireless
 High-speed Internet

 www.zirkelwireless.com
 970-871-8500
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless



-- 
Ryan Ghering
Network Operations - Plains.Net
Office: 970-848-0475 - Cell: 970-630-1879
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC broadband deployment report

[Josh Luthman]

Where?

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Ryan Ghering rgher...@gmail.com wrote:

 wow, they have my area as covered as NON-Rural DSL and Cable no
 wireless links at all..

 I think someone fixed the books on this info. As its completely BS..

 1. everything out here in our area is Rural..
 2. No wireless listed at ALL ( there are 2 providers ourselves and the
 telco to the south of us)
 3. The local cable company has only a handful of customers
 4. says that over 3500 folks in my county have NO internet.. Complete
 and total BS.. This is farm country and I'd PAY to find more than 50
 homes that don't have internet.

 Again.. the books have been cooked, thanks to either bad info or
 competition.

 On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Sean Heskett af...@zirkel.us wrote:
  if you hover over a county a popup chart on the right shows up and
  displays the demographics for that county and % of broadband that is
  Fiber, Cable, DSL, or fixed wireless.  both the counties we serve show
  0% fixed wireless.
 
  -sean
 
 
  On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com
 wrote:
  Our coverage area is not displayed on that map.
  Is it only including wireline providers?
 
  On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Sean Heskett af...@zirkel.us wrote:
  Hi all,
 
  Sorry for all the cross posts on multiple lists but this seems
  troubling to me.  We submitted our coverage data to the state of
  Colorado and they submitted our data for the national map.  However,
  this FCC broadband deployment report includes this map which doesn't
  show our coverage.
 
  Report: http://www.fcc.gov/reports/eighth-broadband-progress-report
  Map:
 http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map
 
  What gives???  WISPA???
 
  Is anyone else noticing their coverage area is not included?
 
  Best regards,
 
 
  Sean Heskett
  ZIRKEL Wireless
  High-speed Internet
 
  www.zirkelwireless.com
  970-871-8500
  ___
  Wireless mailing list
  Wireless@wispa.org
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
  ___
  Wireless mailing list
  Wireless@wispa.org
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
  ___
  Wireless mailing list
  Wireless@wispa.org
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless



 --
 Ryan Ghering
 Network Operations - Plains.Net
 Office: 970-848-0475 - Cell: 970-630-1879
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC broadband deployment report

[Jack Unger]

  
  
1. WISPs need to submit their
information. 

2. WISPs need to be diligent about working with their State
mapping agency to correct wrong information. 

No one else is going to do it for us. 



  
On 8/23/2012 2:59 PM, Ryan Ghering
  wrote:


  wow, they have my area as covered as NON-Rural DSL and Cable no
wireless links at all..

I think someone "fixed" the books on this info. As its completely BS..

1. everything out here in our area is Rural..
2. No wireless listed at ALL ( there are 2 providers ourselves and the
telco to the south of us)
3. The local cable company has only a handful of customers
4. says that over 3500 folks in my county have NO internet.. Complete
and total BS.. This is farm country and I'd PAY to find more than 50
homes that don't have internet.

Again.. the books have been cooked, thanks to either bad info or competition.

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Sean Heskett af...@zirkel.us wrote:

  
if you hover over a county a popup chart on the right shows up and
displays the demographics for that county and % of broadband that is
Fiber, Cable, DSL, or fixed wireless.  both the counties we serve show
0% fixed wireless.

-sean


On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com wrote:


  Our coverage area is not displayed on that map.
Is it only including wireline providers?

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Sean Heskett af...@zirkel.us wrote:

  
Hi all,

Sorry for all the cross posts on multiple lists but this seems
troubling to me.  We submitted our coverage data to the state of
Colorado and they submitted our data for the national map.  However,
this FCC broadband deployment report includes this map which doesn't
show our coverage.

Report: http://www.fcc.gov/reports/eighth-broadband-progress-report
Map: http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map

What gives???  WISPA???

Is anyone else noticing their coverage area is not included?

Best regards,


Sean Heskett
ZIRKEL Wireless
High-speed Internet

www.zirkelwireless.com
970-871-8500
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

  
  ___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

  
  





-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Author (2003) - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks"
Serving the WISP Community since 1993
www.ask-wi.com  760-678-5033  jun...@ask-wi.com




  

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC broadband deployment report

[Ryan Ghering]

We did submit, and have worked with the mapping agency in colorado a
number of times.. :(

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:
 1. WISPs need to submit their information.

 2. WISPs need to be diligent about working with their State mapping agency
 to correct wrong information.

 No one else is going to do it for us.



 On 8/23/2012 2:59 PM, Ryan Ghering wrote:

 wow, they have my area as covered as NON-Rural DSL and Cable no
 wireless links at all..

 I think someone fixed the books on this info. As its completely BS..

 1. everything out here in our area is Rural..
 2. No wireless listed at ALL ( there are 2 providers ourselves and the
 telco to the south of us)
 3. The local cable company has only a handful of customers
 4. says that over 3500 folks in my county have NO internet.. Complete
 and total BS.. This is farm country and I'd PAY to find more than 50
 homes that don't have internet.

 Again.. the books have been cooked, thanks to either bad info or
 competition.

 On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Sean Heskett af...@zirkel.us wrote:

 if you hover over a county a popup chart on the right shows up and
 displays the demographics for that county and % of broadband that is
 Fiber, Cable, DSL, or fixed wireless.  both the counties we serve show
 0% fixed wireless.

 -sean


 On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com wrote:

 Our coverage area is not displayed on that map.
 Is it only including wireline providers?

 On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Sean Heskett af...@zirkel.us wrote:

 Hi all,

 Sorry for all the cross posts on multiple lists but this seems
 troubling to me.  We submitted our coverage data to the state of
 Colorado and they submitted our data for the national map.  However,
 this FCC broadband deployment report includes this map which doesn't
 show our coverage.

 Report: http://www.fcc.gov/reports/eighth-broadband-progress-report
 Map: http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map

 What gives???  WISPA???

 Is anyone else noticing their coverage area is not included?

 Best regards,


 Sean Heskett
 ZIRKEL Wireless
 High-speed Internet

 www.zirkelwireless.com
 970-871-8500
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless



 --
 Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
 Author (2003) - Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks
 Serving the WISP Community since 1993
 www.ask-wi.com  760-678-5033  jun...@ask-wi.com




 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless




-- 
Ryan Ghering
Network Operations - Plains.Net
Office: 970-848-0475 - Cell: 970-630-1879
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC broadband deployment report

[Rick Harnish]

Andrew,  (Andrew MacRae from the NTIA is BCC'd)

 

There seems to be some discrepancy in the Colorado and Michigan Data.  Can
you assist as to why Wisp coverage is not represented?  Please read the
email below my signature line.  Also, here are some other comments from
other providers.

 

. Merrill, MI: Our coverage area is not displayed on that map. Is it
only including wireline providers?

 

. Jackson, MI:  My coverage update for the 2nd to last round is not
there, but the rest is. The map is for 3Meg svc. and up also.

 

. Steamboat Springs: If you hover over a county a popup chart on the
right shows up and displays the demographics for that county and % of
broadband that is Fiber, Cable, DSL, or fixed wireless.  both the counties
we serve show 0% fixed wireless.

 

. Yuma: wow, they have my area as covered as NON-Rural DSL and Cable
no wireless links at all..

I think someone fixed the books on this info. As its completely BS..

 

1. everything out here in our area is Rural..

2. No wireless listed at ALL ( there are 2 providers ourselves and the telco
to the south of us) 

3. The local cable company has only a handful of customers 

4. says that over 3500 folks in my county have NO internet.. Complete and
total BS.. This is farm country and I'd PAY to find more than 50 homes that
don't have internet.

 

Again.. the books have been cooked, thanks to either bad info or
competition.

 

 

Where there is a Wisp, there is a way!

 

Respectfully,

 

Rick Harnish

Executive Director

WISPA

260-307-4000 cell

866-317-2851 Option 2 WISPA Office

Skype: rick.harnish.

rharn...@wispa.org

adm...@wispa.org (Trina and Rick)

 

 

 

 

 

 -Original Message-

 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On

 Behalf Of Sean Heskett

 Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 5:29 PM

 To: wireless@wispa.org; a...@afmug.com; us...@wug.cc; color...@wispa.org

 Subject: [WISPA] FCC broadband deployment report

 

 Hi all,

 

 Sorry for all the cross posts on multiple lists but this seems troubling
to me.  We

 submitted our coverage data to the state of Colorado and they submitted
our

 data for the national map.  However, this FCC broadband deployment report

 includes this map which doesn't show our coverage.

 

 Report:  http://www.fcc.gov/reports/eighth-broadband-progress-report
http://www.fcc.gov/reports/eighth-broadband-progress-report

 Map:  http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map
http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map

 

 What gives???  WISPA???

 

 Is anyone else noticing their coverage area is not included?

 

 Best regards,

 

 

 Sean Heskett

 ZIRKEL Wireless

 High-speed Internet

 

  http://www.zirkelwireless.com www.zirkelwireless.com

 970-871-8500

 ___

 Wireless mailing list

  mailto:Wireless@wispa.org Wireless@wispa.org

  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC broadband deployment report

[Jack Unger]

  
  
Great! Keep working with the
mapping agency until they get it right.

  
On 8/23/2012 3:17 PM, Ryan Ghering
  wrote:


  We did submit, and have worked with the mapping agency in colorado a
number of times.. :(

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:

  
1. WISPs need to submit their information.

2. WISPs need to be diligent about working with their State mapping agency
to correct wrong information.

No one else is going to do it for us.



On 8/23/2012 2:59 PM, Ryan Ghering wrote:

wow, they have my area as covered as NON-Rural DSL and Cable no
wireless links at all..

I think someone "fixed" the books on this info. As its completely BS..

1. everything out here in our area is Rural..
2. No wireless listed at ALL ( there are 2 providers ourselves and the
telco to the south of us)
3. The local cable company has only a handful of customers
4. says that over 3500 folks in my county have NO internet.. Complete
and total BS.. This is farm country and I'd PAY to find more than 50
homes that don't have internet.

Again.. the books have been cooked, thanks to either bad info or
competition.

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Sean Heskett af...@zirkel.us wrote:

if you hover over a county a popup chart on the right shows up and
displays the demographics for that county and % of broadband that is
Fiber, Cable, DSL, or fixed wireless.  both the counties we serve show
0% fixed wireless.

-sean


On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com wrote:

Our coverage area is not displayed on that map.
Is it only including wireline providers?

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Sean Heskett af...@zirkel.us wrote:

Hi all,

Sorry for all the cross posts on multiple lists but this seems
troubling to me.  We submitted our coverage data to the state of
Colorado and they submitted our data for the national map.  However,
this FCC broadband deployment report includes this map which doesn't
show our coverage.

Report: http://www.fcc.gov/reports/eighth-broadband-progress-report
Map: http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map

What gives???  WISPA???

Is anyone else noticing their coverage area is not included?

Best regards,


Sean Heskett
ZIRKEL Wireless
High-speed Internet

www.zirkelwireless.com
970-871-8500
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless



--
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Author (2003) - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks"
Serving the WISP Community since 1993
www.ask-wi.com  760-678-5033  jun...@ask-wi.com




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


  
  





-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Author (2003) - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks"
Serving the WISP Community since 1993
www.ask-wi.com  760-678-5033  jun...@ask-wi.com




  

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC broadband deployment report

[Sean Heskett]

ditto.  we have worked with the colorado agency and i have contacted
him today about this issue.

-sean



On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Ryan Ghering rgher...@gmail.com wrote:
 We did submit, and have worked with the mapping agency in colorado a
 number of times.. :(

 On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:
 1. WISPs need to submit their information.

 2. WISPs need to be diligent about working with their State mapping agency
 to correct wrong information.

 No one else is going to do it for us.



 On 8/23/2012 2:59 PM, Ryan Ghering wrote:

 wow, they have my area as covered as NON-Rural DSL and Cable no
 wireless links at all..

 I think someone fixed the books on this info. As its completely BS..

 1. everything out here in our area is Rural..
 2. No wireless listed at ALL ( there are 2 providers ourselves and the
 telco to the south of us)
 3. The local cable company has only a handful of customers
 4. says that over 3500 folks in my county have NO internet.. Complete
 and total BS.. This is farm country and I'd PAY to find more than 50
 homes that don't have internet.

 Again.. the books have been cooked, thanks to either bad info or
 competition.

 On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Sean Heskett af...@zirkel.us wrote:

 if you hover over a county a popup chart on the right shows up and
 displays the demographics for that county and % of broadband that is
 Fiber, Cable, DSL, or fixed wireless.  both the counties we serve show
 0% fixed wireless.

 -sean


 On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com wrote:

 Our coverage area is not displayed on that map.
 Is it only including wireline providers?

 On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Sean Heskett af...@zirkel.us wrote:

 Hi all,

 Sorry for all the cross posts on multiple lists but this seems
 troubling to me.  We submitted our coverage data to the state of
 Colorado and they submitted our data for the national map.  However,
 this FCC broadband deployment report includes this map which doesn't
 show our coverage.

 Report: http://www.fcc.gov/reports/eighth-broadband-progress-report
 Map: http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map

 What gives???  WISPA???

 Is anyone else noticing their coverage area is not included?

 Best regards,


 Sean Heskett
 ZIRKEL Wireless
 High-speed Internet

 www.zirkelwireless.com
 970-871-8500
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless



 --
 Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
 Author (2003) - Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks
 Serving the WISP Community since 1993
 www.ask-wi.com  760-678-5033  jun...@ask-wi.com




 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless




 --
 Ryan Ghering
 Network Operations - Plains.Net
 Office: 970-848-0475 - Cell: 970-630-1879
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC broadband deployment report

[Jason Bailey]

Thanks Rick!

--- On Thu, 8/23/12, Rick Harnish rharn...@wispa.org wrote:

From: Rick Harnish rharn...@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC broadband deployment report
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org, a...@afmug.com, us...@wug.cc, 
color...@wispa.org
Date: Thursday, August 23, 2012, 6:18 PM

Andrew,  (Andrew MacRae from the NTIA is BCC’d)  There seems to be some 
discrepancy in the Colorado and Michigan Data.  Can you assist as to why Wisp 
coverage is not represented?  Please read the email below my signature line.  
Also, here are some other comments from other providers.  · Merrill, 
MI: Our coverage area is not displayed on that map. Is it only including 
wireline providers?  · Jackson, MI:  My coverage update for the 2nd to 
last round is not there, but the rest is. The map is for 3Meg svc. and up also. 
 · Steamboat Springs: If you hover over a county a popup chart on the 
right shows up and displays the demographics for that county and % of broadband 
that is Fiber, Cable, DSL, or fixed wireless.  both the counties we serve show 
0% fixed wireless.  · Yuma: wow, they have my area as covered as 
NON-Rural DSL and Cable no wireless links at all..I think someone
 fixed the books on this info. As its completely BS..  1. everything out here 
in our area is Rural..2. No wireless listed at ALL ( there are 2 providers 
ourselves and the telco to the south of us) 3. The local cable company has only 
a handful of customers 4. says that over 3500 folks in my county have NO 
internet.. Complete and total BS.. This is farm country and I'd PAY to find 
more than 50 homes that don't have internet.  Again.. the books have been 
cooked, thanks to either bad info or competition.    Where there is a Wisp, 
there is a way!  Respectfully,  Rick HarnishExecutive DirectorWISPA260-307-4000 
cell866-317-2851 Option 2 WISPA OfficeSkype: 
rick.harnish.rharnish@wispa.orgadm...@wispa.org (Trina and Rick)           
-Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org 
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Sean Heskett Sent: Thursday, 
August 23, 2012 5:29 PM To: wireless@wispa.org; a...@afmug.com; us...@wug.cc;
 color...@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] FCC broadband deployment report  Hi 
all,  Sorry for all the cross posts on multiple lists but this seems 
troubling to me.  We submitted our coverage data to the state of Colorado and 
they submitted our data for the national map.  However, this FCC broadband 
deployment report includes this map which doesn't show our coverage.  
Report: http://www.fcc.gov/reports/eighth-broadband-progress-report Map: 
http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map  What 
gives???  WISPA???  Is anyone else noticing their coverage area is not 
included?  Best regards,   Sean Heskett ZIRKEL Wireless High-speed 
Internet  www.zirkelwireless.com 970-871-8500 
___ Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
-Inline Attachment Follows-

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] FCC FNPRM on Universal Service contributions -- ISPs could be taxed

[Fred Goldstein]

Over the past few years, the FCC has been redesigning its Universal 
Service Fund.  In last fall's CAF Order, new rules for dispersing the 
fund were laid out.  We've discussed that a bit here.

Last week, the FCC adopted a new Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, this time on how the funds for USF will be collected.  At 
present, providers of interstate telecommunications are taxed; the 
current rate is 17.3%.  It's so high, in part, because the 
contribution base (mostly long distance calling) keeps 
shrinking.  ISPs are not taxed.  But the new Notice opens up all 
sorts of ways to broaden the tax base.  And among those ideas, ISPs 
could be taxed.  That's not the sole idea being put on the table, but 
when they declared DSL to be non-common carriage and removed it from 
the USF rolls, the tax rate on what was left went up 
significantly.  So they may want to put it back on the rolls, but not 
in a way that hurts ILECs' (their patrons') competitive positioning.

The Notice is 182 pages long and I haven't read it all yet, and I 
doubt too many will want to bother.  But I do suggest paying 
attention to this one, so the WISP industry's interests are not 
hurt.  The full notice is here:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0430/FCC-12-46A1.pdf

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] FCC FNPRM on Universal Service contributions -- ISPs could be taxed

[Fred R. Goldstein]

Over the past few years, the FCC has been redesigning its Universal 
Service Fund.  In last fall's CAF Order, new rules for dispersing the 
fund were laid out.  We've discussed that a bit here.

Last week, the FCC adopted a new Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, this time on how the funds for USF will be collected.  At 
present, providers of interstate telecommunications are taxed; the 
current rate is 17.3%.  It's so high, in part, because the 
contribution base (mostly long distance calling) keeps 
shrinking.  ISPs are not taxed.  But the new Notice opens up all 
sorts of ways to broaden the tax base.  And among those ideas, ISPs 
could be taxed.  That's not the sole idea being put on the table, but 
when they declared DSL to be non-common carriage and removed it from 
the USF rolls, the tax rate on what was left went up 
significantly.  So they may want to put it back on the rolls, but not 
in a way that hurts ILECs' (their patrons') competitive positioning.

The Notice is 182 pages long and I haven't read it all yet, and I 
doubt too many will want to bother.  But I do suggest paying 
attention to this one, so the WISP industry's interests are not 
hurt.  The full notice is here:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0430/FCC-12-46A1.pdf

--
  Fred R. Goldstein  fred at interisle.net
  Interisle Consulting Group
  +1 617 795 2701 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] FCC report blasts T-Mobile merger, ATT cries about it

[Cliff Leboeuf]

Boo hoo!
http://venturebeat.com/2011/11/30/fcc-report-att-t-mobile-merger/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs

[Steve Barnes]

Scottie, I have the same issue here in Indiana with one exchange in particular. 
 I have been in contact with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Committee.  They 
are in process of helping us.  They could not understand why we could port and 
have access to all other exchanges in the same rate center but not that one.  

Steve Barnes
General Manager
PCS-WIN / RC-WiFi


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Scottie Arnett
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 12:58 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs

We just happen to fall into one of those 3.65Ghz protected areas! But I have 
heard that the local telco has something going on there too!

Scottie Arnett
President
Info-Ed, Inc.
Electronics and More
931-243-2101
sarn...@info-ed.com
- Original Message -
From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs


 At 11/21/2011 11:18 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote:
Re-reading your posts brings me to another question.has any VOIP
carriers ever used cellular carriers numbers? Is it even possible?

 First, wrt the Livingston exchange, 931-397 and 931-403 belong to US
 Cellular; the latter is pooled (they're using the 7's).  Nextel has
 -871, pooled (using 6 and 7).  Oddly, US Cellular but not S-N says it
 subtends a Gaineborough tandem, which is Twin Lakes, but most Twin
 Lakes exchanges subtend Nashville.

 As to VoIP via cellular numbers, well, its sort of odd, but it might
 be possible.  The new rules may actually say something about this -- 
 there was a VoIP company affiliated with a wireless company that was,
 uh, alleged to have been laundering its LD calls via the cellular
 company in order to get the lower termination rates.  They deny it of
 course... but that may have been addressed in the intercarrier
 rules.  I haven't gotten through it all yet. (It's freakin' huge.)  I
 actually had a client that was a wireless company whose business
 included lots and lots of modems, way back when, so it's not
 unprecedented to have, uh, incidental non-wireless traffic go
 through a wirless feed.  And heck, put up one 3.65 GHz base station
 (if it's allowed there) and declare it CMRS, and you're a cellco too!

 There's one lawyer I know who sort of specializes in this sort of thing.

Scottie Arnett
President
Info-Ed, Inc.
Electronics and More
931-243-2101
sarn...@info-ed.com
- Original Message -
From: Scottie Arnett sarn...@info-ed.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing 
ILECs


  Please explain about the Livingston exchange!!! I have been trying to
  break
  this barrier for almost 12 years.
 
  Scottie Arnett
  President
  Info-Ed, Inc.
  Electronics and More
  931-243-2101
  sarn...@info-ed.com
  - Original Message -
  From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 9:08 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing
  ILECs
 
 
  At 11/21/2011 09:29 PM, you wrote:
 The only other telcos/cellcos here that have local numbers are US
 Cellular
 and Verizon. None of the big VOIP carriers do, such as
 Vonage/Packet8/take
 your pick. They have NO Clec's here either.
 
  I like to think of that as a challenge. ;-)  The good news is that
  they use the Nashville tandem, not their own, so the traffic exchange
  can be indirect.
 
  But it's true that there are no CLECs with numbers in TLTC's
  area.  Powertel, US Cellular, VZW and Sprint Nextel are the only
  other carriers there, all mobile.  No Celina numbers, either, if it
  matters. But Livingston has pooled prefix codes available.
 
 
   --
   Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
   ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
   +1 617 795 2701
 
 
 
 
 
  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 
 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 
 
  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 
 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA

Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs

[Tom DeReggi]

 The FCC just had to have a date, and was nice enough to not close it
 too early.  This also gives WISPs time to do some more construction
 and have it included.


Thats one way to look at it.  (And probably the more productive way, 
recognizing the timeline to protect opportunity.)

 The whole-state rule applies to the big ILECs.  If they say no, the
 rules for the auction aren't written yet, and may work on a smaller
 basis.  I think that's one of the things to discuss in the FNPRM
 Comments, which are due 24 January.

But why would big ILEC's say, no ?
Isn't this process pressuring the ILECs to say yes. Giving the ILECs a 
second chance to get another free ride, now for broadband?
If ILEC took subsidee for Voice in past, why would they not do the same for 
Data?
Small ILECs might say no, because they might not have the funding or 
resources to take on a super large project even with subsidee.
But Big Telco surely has the finances. We can use ATT as an example, who is 
advertising to cover all of America in 5 years, anyway.

Do you think there is any chance that the big telco might say no in some 
states, I dont want USF?

It has happened in the past, to some extent. I can give the example of 
Verizon pulling out of a low profit analog market, and letting a smaller LEC 
take over such as either Century tel or Frontier (forget which LEC, and 
which Eastern state).. Back then it made sense with Verizon focusing on FIOS 
preferring to bypass regulation, that FIOS allowed them.
But would that same justification still be there, when USF subsidees are 
there to compensate?

 If the location is served on the National
 Broadband Map, or if the ILEC *knows* it's served by an unsubsidized
 competitor, it's off limits
..
 Again, only unserved areas will get
 support, though an ILEC can use support to build common plant in an
 area that is more than 50% unserved.

Also, regarding those to comments in your original Email... I think the risk 
here is the same that it was with ARRA.
Whats the definition of unserved, and but more importantly what is the 
definition of area, and what is the protest proof process, and is WISP's 
coverage large enough to qualify an area as served?  And will gerrymandering 
allow a recipient to get around it?  Obviously, the National MAP, that 
documents all reported coverage from all carriers will help quite a bit. But 
I'm still concerned that many WISP's coverage will be to small of a take 
rate or area, to be proportional enough to mark an area as served.   I can 
tell you that in my rural markets, it would be near impossible to get over 
50% coverage, even if I served everyhome that I had coverage to.
Lets use a hypothetical example of the average member WISP having 1000 subs. 
There are not many areas that have less than 2000 potential subs.  I can 
tell you from community connect grant research, looking at census data, it 
was tough finding areas that gained maximum points of under 500 households.

Did it say anything in the rules, to define what an eligible size area is? 
Both for identifying served and unserved, not just USF qualification?

Wondering if NTIA/USDA is going to help identify preferred qualifying area 
on the broadband map?  I dont think it will be as simple as looking for 
blank spots.
IS there currently a map of ILEC coverage area of Voice, that can be 
overlaid to the broadband map?

A question likely to develop for WISPs is What are the safest places to 
invest in expanding coverage, meaning less likely to get overbuilt with 
subsidized competition?
The very Suburban/Urban and very Rural are becomming most likely for 
subsidee and harsh competition. Some where in the middle, such as barely 
rural, may be safer?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs


 At 11/21/2011 08:04 PM, you wrote:
Yes agreed, its not nearly as bad as it could have been. But I still say
ARRGGG!

  Price Cap Carriers will be offered $775 per
  line to add 4/1 broadband serivce to unserved areas

Thats much better for WISPs than if they agreed to pay our competitors
greater than $10,000 per sub for FIOS like Fiber.
WISPs atleast have a chance to compete against 4/1 services, and ILEC
reimbursement now inline with what it would cost a WISP to deploy, and not
to much more..

 Note that this is incremental $775, a subsidy to add to their
 capital budget, not the total investment.  Of course big ILECs tend
 to be wasteful spenders.

  So this might be a good time to make sure the mappers
  are aware of your service areas, or to think about short-term service
  expansion.

yeah, you gotta love help that says WISPs Go hurry up and build a
network at your cost quickly, we wont pay you, but if you dont build 
quick,
we'll pay

Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs

[Sam Tetherow]

Is there any provision in the document for reducing funding in the
future as areas get overbuilt?  Or are we really looking at a 6-8month
land grab?

On 11/21/11 7:04 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
 Yes agreed, its not nearly as bad as it could have been. But I still say 
 ARRGGG!

 Price Cap Carriers will be offered $775 per
 line to add 4/1 broadband serivce to unserved areas
 Thats much better for WISPs than if they agreed to pay our competitors 
 greater than $10,000 per sub for FIOS like Fiber.
 WISPs atleast have a chance to compete against 4/1 services, and ILEC 
 reimbursement now inline with what it would cost a WISP to deploy, and not 
 to much more..

 So this might be a good time to make sure the mappers
 are aware of your service areas, or to think about short-term service
 expansion.
 yeah, you gotta love help that says WISPs Go hurry up and build a 
 network at your cost quickly, we wont pay you, but if you dont build quick, 
 we'll pay your competitor instead.
 (Sarcasm)

 The date by which you must be on the map isn't set yet,
 but it's presumably in 1H2012.
 Well, that is good, that they are looking at mapping for disqualification. 
 Also good that not all WISPs reported their coverage in the past.
 The rules are good incentive for rural WISPs to report now.  Those rules may 
 not have ever made it into the FCC rules, without the insight that it would 
 be incentive to get reamining WISPs to report.  If WISPs had already 
 reported, why would the FCC have needed to include consideration and 
 incentive in the new rules?

 Phase II starts in 2013.  For this, Price Cap Carriers will be
 offered support based on a cost model that the FCC will create in
 2012.  Once the model is complete, the ILEC will decide if it wants
 to take that support for its territory on a state-by-state (all of a
 state or nothing) basis.
 Thats the bad part Only a select few monopoly like companies can afford 
 to do complete State wide deployment, even when subsidized.
 So basically, the FCC is saying Time to force the Monopolies to serve 
 ALL Americans, and leave no unserved areas left for the competitive 
 property.
 Rather than fix the problem, the FCC is trying to secure that the remaining 
 25% of America will have subsidized competitors to private investment.
 There is no longer a consideration for the best party to serve a specific 
 area. Preferrence is given to the big boy.
 no different than Auctions, where only the most fortunate and dominant 
 player can win.
 The biggest flaw in telecom policy is the concept of Serving everyone or no 
 one. Its the founation for every monopoly cable franchise type agreement, 
 and now being replicated into CAF. Forcing acceptance on a complete 
 state-by-state basis in my opinion is a major loss for the industry. Because 
 the mind set hasn't changed from old telecom. They are still thinking state 
 regulation and utility electricity, where there is only ONE primary 
 provider per state.

 Although, I will admit, these funds are targeted to UNSERVED areas, so 
 atleast they aren't giving the whole state away. Just the least desirable 
 part of the state for wireline to serve.

 They are saying. WISPs, if you can serve someone new this year, great, 
 go for it, its your last chance, before we give the market to someone else.

 A separate Extremely High Cost fund will allocate up to $100M/year
 for locations too costly (by the model) to serve via the standard
 subsidy.  This will be separately bid, and it's assumed that fixed
 wireless and satellite will be the mostly likely technologies.  So
 this could allow some subsidies to rustic-but-Bell-area WISPs.
 Yes, that may be good for WISPs.
 Or, better positioned ILECs to become WISPs.

 So on balance, the FCC has done a lot less harm to the rural WISP
 community than it could have, while still encouraging ILECs to deploy
 more broadband via subsidies.
 I fully agree with your conclusion.
 Realistically, that could be considered a victory, for Rural WISPs.

 With that said, I would have preferred the FCC to have the balls to name the 
 new program what it really was...
 They could have called it the CAIF - Connect America to ILECs fund.  or 
 KCC-CAF - Kill Competiton and Choice, but Connect America Fund..

 The interesting part will be to see how many RURAL ILECs will choose to 
 accept $768 per sub, to build out to all remaining Americans in their state.
 What else will be interesting will be to see if, the RBOC fund recipients 
 really do what they are obligated to do afterwords.

 I think it is an ambitious plan to try to get the remaining American's some 
 form of broadband, which outcome would likely be good, I just cant say I 
 agree with the method.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message - 
 From: Fred R. Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 6:02 PM
 Subject: [WISPA

Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs

[Fred Goldstein]

.

Now when auction time comes, AFAIK the size of each area to be 
auctioned has yet to be determined..

And for Rate of Return carriers, the rules will differ, and don't 
seem firm yet, so census blocks might not be the protected 
level.  You might need a much bigger footprint.

Did it say anything in the rules, to define what an eligible size area is?
Both for identifying served and unserved, not just USF qualification?

Wondering if NTIA/USDA is going to help identify preferred qualifying area
on the broadband map?  I dont think it will be as simple as looking for
blank spots.
IS there currently a map of ILEC coverage area of Voice, that can be
overlaid to the broadband map?

A few states do have it, but in general, ILEC coverage maps are not 
publicly available in GIS format.  They are however always included 
in baseline tariffs.  To be sure, the tariff maps you can find are 
usually n-th generation photocopies of hand-tool-drawn maps from the 
1940s or so, and illegible, but they're official.  And there are 
(expensive) commercial GIS layers showing each ILEC wire center's 
coverage boundary.

But this also ties in to Carrier of Last Resort obligations.  ILECs 
have state COLR obligations in most states, which is covered by their 
open-ended (monopoly/USF) finance model. An open question now is what 
happens to COLR if they lose their USF.  Does CAF come with COLR?

A question likely to develop for WISPs is What are the safest places to
invest in expanding coverage, meaning less likely to get overbuilt with
subsidized competition?
The very Suburban/Urban and very Rural are becomming most likely for
subsidee and harsh competition. Some where in the middle, such as barely
rural, may be safer?


I'm not done with the rules yet, but offhand my guess is the safest 
place is one served by a Price Cap Carrier (not a small rural telco) 
that is far from their major focus (cities).  But then the question 
is not really relevant for a lot of WISPs and local ISPs and 
CLECs.  We serve the areas we serve because that's our 
business.  It's finance capital that looks for cream areas to 
skim.  Locals need to be able to operate anywhere.  And that's a 
problem with some of the FCC rules, which assume that the operator is 
really mobile finance capital that will operate where it's most 
profitable, and to hell with potential customers in harder-to-serve 
areas.  These new rules are less evil in that regard than some others 
from the past decade, though -- they at least made some effort to 
balance it a little.


- Original Message -
From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs


  At 11/21/2011 08:04 PM, you wrote:
 Yes agreed, its not nearly as bad as it could have been. But I still say
 ARRGGG!
 
   Price Cap Carriers will be offered $775 per
   line to add 4/1 broadband serivce to unserved areas
 
 Thats much better for WISPs than if they agreed to pay our competitors
 greater than $10,000 per sub for FIOS like Fiber.
 WISPs atleast have a chance to compete against 4/1 services, and ILEC
 reimbursement now inline with what it would cost a WISP to deploy, and not
 to much more..
 
  Note that this is incremental $775, a subsidy to add to their
  capital budget, not the total investment.  Of course big ILECs tend
  to be wasteful spenders.
 
   So this might be a good time to make sure the mappers
   are aware of your service areas, or to think about short-term service
   expansion.
 
 yeah, you gotta love help that says WISPs Go hurry up and build a
 network at your cost quickly, we wont pay you, but if you dont build
 quick,
 we'll pay your competitor instead.
 (Sarcasm)
 
   The date by which you must be on the map isn't set yet,
   but it's presumably in 1H2012.
 
 Well, that is good, that they are looking at mapping for disqualification.
 Also good that not all WISPs reported their coverage in the past.
 The rules are good incentive for rural WISPs to report now.  Those rules
 may
 not have ever made it into the FCC rules, without the insight that it
 would
 be incentive to get reamining WISPs to report.  If WISPs had already
 reported, why would the FCC have needed to include consideration and
 incentive in the new rules?
 
  The FCC just had to have a date, and was nice enough to not close it
  too early.  This also gives WISPs time to do some more construction
  and have it included.
 
   Phase II starts in 2013.  For this, Price Cap Carriers will be
   offered support based on a cost model that the FCC will create in
   2012.  Once the model is complete, the ILEC will decide if it wants
   to take that support for its territory on a state-by-state (all of a
   state or nothing) basis.
 
 Thats the bad part Only a select few monopoly like companies can
 afford
 to do complete State wide deployment, even when subsidized.
 So basically

Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs

[Fred Goldstein]

At 11/22/2011 11:53 AM, Sam Tetherow wrote:
Is there any provision in the document for reducing funding in the
future as areas get overbuilt?  Or are we really looking at a 6-8month
land grab?

Good question. I see two land grabs, actually, Phase 1 and 2, both in 
2012, but potentially a few months apart.  Otherwise, Phase 3 rules 
aren't firm yet. Once Phase 2 is awarded, it's there for five 
years.  Phase 3 is likely to have another unsubsidized-competitor 
test around 2017.  Probably to discuss in the FNPRM, which has a lot 
of questions I haven't all read yet.

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs

[Fred R. Goldstein]

On Friday, the FCC finally released the Order in their Intercarrier 
Compensation and Universal Service Fund docket.  The executive 
summary had come out with the Adoption at last month's FCC Public 
Meeting, but the 759-page (!) Order took a while to finish.

The results, from a WISP perspective, are not nearly as bad as could 
have been.  The FCC has taken safeguards to make it easier for an 
unsubsidized WISP to prevent subsidized competition from an incumbent LEC.

The high-cost portions of the Universal Service Fund are being 
restructured into the Connect America Fund.  This will come into 
being in three phases, each with different rules for Price Cap 
Carriers and Rate of Return Carriers.  About 95% of phone lines are 
in the former category; the latter are basically small rural carriers 
who depend upon USF.

Phase I is just 2012.  Price Cap Carriers will be offered $775 per 
line to add 4/1 broadband serivce to unserved areas that they 
weren't otherwise going to serve.  They can choose how many lines 
this applies to.  If the location is served on the National 
Broadband Map, or if the ILEC *knows* it's served by an unsubsidized 
competitor, it's off limits.  I think this must be at least 768k 
fixed service.  So this might be a good time to make sure the mappers 
are aware of your service areas, or to think about short-term service 
expansion. The date by which you must be on the map isn't set yet, 
but it's presumably in 1H2012.

Phase II starts in 2013.  For this, Price Cap Carriers will be 
offered support based on a cost model that the FCC will create in 
2012.  Once the model is complete, the ILEC will decide if it wants 
to take that support for its territory on a state-by-state (all of a 
state or nothing) basis.  Again, only unserved areas will get 
support, though an ILEC can use support to build common plant in an 
area that is more than 50% unserved.  So a new DSLAM that covers 40% 
unserved would not be covered, but ont that covers 60% unserved would 
be.  So again it's important for WISPs to make their presence 
known.  If the ILEC turns down the state, USF support goes to the low bidder.

Phase III starts in 2018, and will be entirely bid-based, but the 
details will be worked out in the future.

A separate Extremely High Cost fund will allocate up to $100M/year 
for locations too costly (by the model) to serve via the standard 
subsidy.  This will be separately bid, and it's assumed that fixed 
wireless and satellite will be the mostly likely technologies.  So 
this could allow some subsidies to rustic-but-Bell-area WISPs.

The FCC notes that while this gives ILECs first dibs on funding, it 
also takes away Price Cap Carrier USF from areas served by 
unsubsidized competitors, so WISPs could theoretically come out 
better under the new rules.

Now here's a catch:  Unsubsidized competitor is defined as a 
provider of both voice and broadband service.  It's not entirely 
obvious (you try parsing 759 pages of FCC-speak this quickly... ;-) ) 
if that applies to the Price Cap Carrier model, or just the rural 
Rate of Return case, since the PCCs already offer unsubsidized voice 
across most of their territories, and the map isn't about voice.  In 
the rural Rate of Return Carrier case, voice will be more 
important.  This does not mean that the WISP must be a CLEC per se; 
it might be high-quality (QoS) VoIP offered in conjunction with a 
CLEC who has local numbers, for instance.  But for some ISPs, this 
might be a good time to start thinking about adding voice 
service.  (My talk at FISPA last month was about the case for whether 
an ISP should start up a CLEC.)

In areas served by rate-of-return carriers, the new rules phase out 
(over 3 years) all USF support to an ILEC that is 100% overlapped 
(voice and broadband) by an unsubsidized carrier, typically 
cable.  If there is less than 100% overlap, then support will be 
reduced, but the actual methodology is left to be determined via the 
Further NPRM.

So on balance, the FCC has done a lot less harm to the rural WISP 
community than it could have, while still encouraging ILECs to deploy 
more broadband via subsidies.

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs

[Scottie Arnett]

How can you offer voice if you can not get local phone number's because of a 
rural telephone cooperative?

Scottie Arnett
President
Info-Ed, Inc.
Electronics and More
931-243-2101
sarn...@info-ed.com
- Original Message - 
From: Fred R. Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 5:02 PM
Subject: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs


 On Friday, the FCC finally released the Order in their Intercarrier
 Compensation and Universal Service Fund docket.  The executive
 summary had come out with the Adoption at last month's FCC Public
 Meeting, but the 759-page (!) Order took a while to finish.

 The results, from a WISP perspective, are not nearly as bad as could
 have been.  The FCC has taken safeguards to make it easier for an
 unsubsidized WISP to prevent subsidized competition from an incumbent LEC.

 The high-cost portions of the Universal Service Fund are being
 restructured into the Connect America Fund.  This will come into
 being in three phases, each with different rules for Price Cap
 Carriers and Rate of Return Carriers.  About 95% of phone lines are
 in the former category; the latter are basically small rural carriers
 who depend upon USF.

 Phase I is just 2012.  Price Cap Carriers will be offered $775 per
 line to add 4/1 broadband serivce to unserved areas that they
 weren't otherwise going to serve.  They can choose how many lines
 this applies to.  If the location is served on the National
 Broadband Map, or if the ILEC *knows* it's served by an unsubsidized
 competitor, it's off limits.  I think this must be at least 768k
 fixed service.  So this might be a good time to make sure the mappers
 are aware of your service areas, or to think about short-term service
 expansion. The date by which you must be on the map isn't set yet,
 but it's presumably in 1H2012.

 Phase II starts in 2013.  For this, Price Cap Carriers will be
 offered support based on a cost model that the FCC will create in
 2012.  Once the model is complete, the ILEC will decide if it wants
 to take that support for its territory on a state-by-state (all of a
 state or nothing) basis.  Again, only unserved areas will get
 support, though an ILEC can use support to build common plant in an
 area that is more than 50% unserved.  So a new DSLAM that covers 40%
 unserved would not be covered, but ont that covers 60% unserved would
 be.  So again it's important for WISPs to make their presence
 known.  If the ILEC turns down the state, USF support goes to the low 
 bidder.

 Phase III starts in 2018, and will be entirely bid-based, but the
 details will be worked out in the future.

 A separate Extremely High Cost fund will allocate up to $100M/year
 for locations too costly (by the model) to serve via the standard
 subsidy.  This will be separately bid, and it's assumed that fixed
 wireless and satellite will be the mostly likely technologies.  So
 this could allow some subsidies to rustic-but-Bell-area WISPs.

 The FCC notes that while this gives ILECs first dibs on funding, it
 also takes away Price Cap Carrier USF from areas served by
 unsubsidized competitors, so WISPs could theoretically come out
 better under the new rules.

 Now here's a catch:  Unsubsidized competitor is defined as a
 provider of both voice and broadband service.  It's not entirely
 obvious (you try parsing 759 pages of FCC-speak this quickly... ;-) )
 if that applies to the Price Cap Carrier model, or just the rural
 Rate of Return case, since the PCCs already offer unsubsidized voice
 across most of their territories, and the map isn't about voice.  In
 the rural Rate of Return Carrier case, voice will be more
 important.  This does not mean that the WISP must be a CLEC per se;
 it might be high-quality (QoS) VoIP offered in conjunction with a
 CLEC who has local numbers, for instance.  But for some ISPs, this
 might be a good time to start thinking about adding voice
 service.  (My talk at FISPA last month was about the case for whether
 an ISP should start up a CLEC.)

 In areas served by rate-of-return carriers, the new rules phase out
 (over 3 years) all USF support to an ILEC that is 100% overlapped
 (voice and broadband) by an unsubsidized carrier, typically
 cable.  If there is less than 100% overlap, then support will be
 reduced, but the actual methodology is left to be determined via the
 Further NPRM.

 So on balance, the FCC has done a lot less harm to the rural WISP
 community than it could have, while still encouraging ILECs to deploy
 more broadband via subsidies.

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List

Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs

[Fred Goldstein]

At 11/21/2011 06:43 PM, Victoria Proffer wrote:
Great summary!

Thanks!

I saw the VoIP part too and the flag went up. This would tell me, it is
better to put VoIP on your network, sooner than later.

I am curious what you thought of the Remote Fund that specifically mentioned
Fixed Wireless build out and ongoing support for WISPs.

I have attached the Public Knowledge and Benton Foundation document that is
referenced in regards to building Community Networks.  I love this idea!

They have a lot of good ideas in that paper.  Not that they were 
taken terribly seriously at this time.  They mentioned Computer III 
as a model.  That is indeed a good one; Computer II, after all (which 
was watered down by Computer III), is what made the public Internet 
possible.  Its revocation has caused all sorts of trouble.  But the 
FCC went out of their way to avoid touching any of the Computer 
Inquiries, or to use simple solutions that would have fallen out of 
them.  Much of the complexity in their logic is an attempt to abuse 
the law to avoid the clear and simple concepts of the Computer 
Inquiries.  So while the new Order is much better than what we would 
have gotten out of the previous Commission, it doubles down on that 
fundamental error, which of course was a major shibboleth of the 
Bells, who hated it with a purple passion.

The middle mile question was left open for the Further NPRM, so more 
Comments may be welcome.

Also I thought it interesting that the FCC was requesting additional comment
on ECT status for WISPs and considering vetting on the federal, rather than
state level.

Federal designation of ETCs already exists; I expect it will become 
more common in the future.


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Fred R. Goldstein
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 5:03 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs

On Friday, the FCC finally released the Order in their Intercarrier
Compensation and Universal Service Fund docket.  The executive
summary had come out with the Adoption at last month's FCC Public
Meeting, but the 759-page (!) Order took a while to finish.

The results, from a WISP perspective, are not nearly as bad as could
have been.  The FCC has taken safeguards to make it easier for an
unsubsidized WISP to prevent subsidized competition from an incumbent LEC.

The high-cost portions of the Universal Service Fund are being
restructured into the Connect America Fund.  This will come into
being in three phases, each with different rules for Price Cap
Carriers and Rate of Return Carriers.  About 95% of phone lines are
in the former category; the latter are basically small rural carriers
who depend upon USF.

Phase I is just 2012.  Price Cap Carriers will be offered $775 per
line to add 4/1 broadband serivce to unserved areas that they
weren't otherwise going to serve.  They can choose how many lines
this applies to.  If the location is served on the National
Broadband Map, or if the ILEC *knows* it's served by an unsubsidized
competitor, it's off limits.  I think this must be at least 768k
fixed service.  So this might be a good time to make sure the mappers
are aware of your service areas, or to think about short-term service
expansion. The date by which you must be on the map isn't set yet,
but it's presumably in 1H2012.

Phase II starts in 2013.  For this, Price Cap Carriers will be
offered support based on a cost model that the FCC will create in
2012.  Once the model is complete, the ILEC will decide if it wants
to take that support for its territory on a state-by-state (all of a
state or nothing) basis.  Again, only unserved areas will get
support, though an ILEC can use support to build common plant in an
area that is more than 50% unserved.  So a new DSLAM that covers 40%
unserved would not be covered, but ont that covers 60% unserved would
be.  So again it's important for WISPs to make their presence
known.  If the ILEC turns down the state, USF support goes to the low
bidder.

Phase III starts in 2018, and will be entirely bid-based, but the
details will be worked out in the future.

A separate Extremely High Cost fund will allocate up to $100M/year
for locations too costly (by the model) to serve via the standard
subsidy.  This will be separately bid, and it's assumed that fixed
wireless and satellite will be the mostly likely technologies.  So
this could allow some subsidies to rustic-but-Bell-area WISPs.

The FCC notes that while this gives ILECs first dibs on funding, it
also takes away Price Cap Carrier USF from areas served by
unsubsidized competitors, so WISPs could theoretically come out
better under the new rules.

Now here's a catch:  Unsubsidized competitor is defined as a
provider of both voice and broadband service.  It's not entirely
obvious (you try parsing 759 pages of FCC-speak this quickly... ;-) )
if that applies to the Price Cap Carrier model

Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs

[Tom DeReggi]

Yes agreed, its not nearly as bad as it could have been. But I still say 
ARRGGG!

 Price Cap Carriers will be offered $775 per
 line to add 4/1 broadband serivce to unserved areas

Thats much better for WISPs than if they agreed to pay our competitors 
greater than $10,000 per sub for FIOS like Fiber.
WISPs atleast have a chance to compete against 4/1 services, and ILEC 
reimbursement now inline with what it would cost a WISP to deploy, and not 
to much more..

 So this might be a good time to make sure the mappers
 are aware of your service areas, or to think about short-term service
 expansion.

yeah, you gotta love help that says WISPs Go hurry up and build a 
network at your cost quickly, we wont pay you, but if you dont build quick, 
we'll pay your competitor instead.
(Sarcasm)

 The date by which you must be on the map isn't set yet,
 but it's presumably in 1H2012.

Well, that is good, that they are looking at mapping for disqualification. 
Also good that not all WISPs reported their coverage in the past.
The rules are good incentive for rural WISPs to report now.  Those rules may 
not have ever made it into the FCC rules, without the insight that it would 
be incentive to get reamining WISPs to report.  If WISPs had already 
reported, why would the FCC have needed to include consideration and 
incentive in the new rules?

 Phase II starts in 2013.  For this, Price Cap Carriers will be
 offered support based on a cost model that the FCC will create in
 2012.  Once the model is complete, the ILEC will decide if it wants
 to take that support for its territory on a state-by-state (all of a
 state or nothing) basis.

Thats the bad part Only a select few monopoly like companies can afford 
to do complete State wide deployment, even when subsidized.
So basically, the FCC is saying Time to force the Monopolies to serve 
ALL Americans, and leave no unserved areas left for the competitive 
property.
Rather than fix the problem, the FCC is trying to secure that the remaining 
25% of America will have subsidized competitors to private investment.
There is no longer a consideration for the best party to serve a specific 
area. Preferrence is given to the big boy.
no different than Auctions, where only the most fortunate and dominant 
player can win.
The biggest flaw in telecom policy is the concept of Serving everyone or no 
one. Its the founation for every monopoly cable franchise type agreement, 
and now being replicated into CAF. Forcing acceptance on a complete 
state-by-state basis in my opinion is a major loss for the industry. Because 
the mind set hasn't changed from old telecom. They are still thinking state 
regulation and utility electricity, where there is only ONE primary 
provider per state.

Although, I will admit, these funds are targeted to UNSERVED areas, so 
atleast they aren't giving the whole state away. Just the least desirable 
part of the state for wireline to serve.

They are saying. WISPs, if you can serve someone new this year, great, 
go for it, its your last chance, before we give the market to someone else.

 A separate Extremely High Cost fund will allocate up to $100M/year
 for locations too costly (by the model) to serve via the standard
 subsidy.  This will be separately bid, and it's assumed that fixed
 wireless and satellite will be the mostly likely technologies.  So
 this could allow some subsidies to rustic-but-Bell-area WISPs.

Yes, that may be good for WISPs.
Or, better positioned ILECs to become WISPs.

 So on balance, the FCC has done a lot less harm to the rural WISP
 community than it could have, while still encouraging ILECs to deploy
 more broadband via subsidies.

I fully agree with your conclusion.
Realistically, that could be considered a victory, for Rural WISPs.

With that said, I would have preferred the FCC to have the balls to name the 
new program what it really was...
They could have called it the CAIF - Connect America to ILECs fund.  or 
KCC-CAF - Kill Competiton and Choice, but Connect America Fund..

The interesting part will be to see how many RURAL ILECs will choose to 
accept $768 per sub, to build out to all remaining Americans in their state.
What else will be interesting will be to see if, the RBOC fund recipients 
really do what they are obligated to do afterwords.

I think it is an ambitious plan to try to get the remaining American's some 
form of broadband, which outcome would likely be good, I just cant say I 
agree with the method.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Fred R. Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 6:02 PM
Subject: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs


 On Friday, the FCC finally released the Order in their Intercarrier
 Compensation and Universal Service Fund docket.  The executive
 summary had come out with the Adoption at last month's FCC

Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs

[Fred Goldstein]

At 11/21/2011 07:50 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote:
How can you offer voice if you can not get local phone number's because of a
rural telephone cooperative?

I don't believe a rural cooperative can prevent you from pulling 
numbers from the NANPA.  They are even required to interconnect with 
you for the exchange of traffic which, under the new rules, will 
*eventually* (like 9 years out) be at bilk-and-keep.  You might 
however have to interconnect indirectly, via a third-party tandem, 
and there's some issue of recourse if they block calls to you.  They 
are not required to lease you any network elements.  And they don't 
like to be, well, too cooperative...  but I'd first want to check 
with the lawyers to know exactly how much privilege an RTC still has.



  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs

[Fred Goldstein]

At 11/21/2011 08:04 PM, you wrote:
Yes agreed, its not nearly as bad as it could have been. But I still say
ARRGGG!

  Price Cap Carriers will be offered $775 per
  line to add 4/1 broadband serivce to unserved areas

Thats much better for WISPs than if they agreed to pay our competitors
greater than $10,000 per sub for FIOS like Fiber.
WISPs atleast have a chance to compete against 4/1 services, and ILEC
reimbursement now inline with what it would cost a WISP to deploy, and not
to much more..

Note that this is incremental $775, a subsidy to add to their 
capital budget, not the total investment.  Of course big ILECs tend 
to be wasteful spenders.

  So this might be a good time to make sure the mappers
  are aware of your service areas, or to think about short-term service
  expansion.

yeah, you gotta love help that says WISPs Go hurry up and build a
network at your cost quickly, we wont pay you, but if you dont build quick,
we'll pay your competitor instead.
(Sarcasm)

  The date by which you must be on the map isn't set yet,
  but it's presumably in 1H2012.

Well, that is good, that they are looking at mapping for disqualification.
Also good that not all WISPs reported their coverage in the past.
The rules are good incentive for rural WISPs to report now.  Those rules may
not have ever made it into the FCC rules, without the insight that it would
be incentive to get reamining WISPs to report.  If WISPs had already
reported, why would the FCC have needed to include consideration and
incentive in the new rules?

The FCC just had to have a date, and was nice enough to not close it 
too early.  This also gives WISPs time to do some more construction 
and have it included.

  Phase II starts in 2013.  For this, Price Cap Carriers will be
  offered support based on a cost model that the FCC will create in
  2012.  Once the model is complete, the ILEC will decide if it wants
  to take that support for its territory on a state-by-state (all of a
  state or nothing) basis.

Thats the bad part Only a select few monopoly like companies can afford
to do complete State wide deployment, even when subsidized.
So basically, the FCC is saying Time to force the Monopolies to serve
ALL Americans, and leave no unserved areas left for the competitive
property.

The whole-state rule applies to the big ILECs.  If they say no, the 
rules for the auction aren't written yet, and may work on a smaller 
basis.  I think that's one of the things to discuss in the FNPRM 
Comments, which are due 24 January.

...
  A separate Extremely High Cost fund will allocate up to $100M/year
  for locations too costly (by the model) to serve via the standard
  subsidy.  This will be separately bid, and it's assumed that fixed
  wireless and satellite will be the mostly likely technologies.  So
  this could allow some subsidies to rustic-but-Bell-area WISPs.

Yes, that may be good for WISPs.
Or, better positioned ILECs to become WISPs.

Good question.  But due to caps on USF, ILECs might not want to play 
in that space.  Also, the Big Dog Theory might come into play -- big 
dogs want big bones.  A rural ILEC might play though, or a small CMRS.

  So on balance, the FCC has done a lot less harm to the rural WISP
  community than it could have, while still encouraging ILECs to deploy
  more broadband via subsidies.

I fully agree with your conclusion.
Realistically, that could be considered a victory, for Rural WISPs.

With that said, I would have preferred the FCC to have the balls to name the
new program what it really was...
They could have called it the CAIF - Connect America to ILECs fund.  or
KCC-CAF - Kill Competiton and Choice, but Connect America Fund..

The interesting part will be to see how many RURAL ILECs will choose to
accept $768 per sub, to build out to all remaining Americans in their state.
What else will be interesting will be to see if, the RBOC fund recipients
really do what they are obligated to do afterwords.

That number doesn't necessarily apply to Phase II -- if the bids are 
on a more granular area basis, they could go considerably 
higher.  And they'll be for five years of funding, though frankly I'd 
prefer just CapEx, since WISPs need capital and big ILECs just need 
to pay off their investors.

I think it is an ambitious plan to try to get the remaining American's some
form of broadband, which outcome would likely be good, I just cant say I
agree with the method.

I'm with you there.  It's far from ideal, but it could have been worse.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: Fred R. Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 6:02 PM
Subject: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs


  On Friday, the FCC finally released the Order in their Intercarrier
  Compensation and Universal Service Fund docket.  The executive
  summary had come out

Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs

[Scottie Arnett]

The only other telcos/cellcos here that have local numbers are US Cellular 
and Verizon. None of the big VOIP carriers do, such as Vonage/Packet8/take 
your pick. They have NO Clec's here either.

Scottie Arnett
President
Info-Ed, Inc.
Electronics and More
931-243-2101
sarn...@info-ed.com
- Original Message - 
From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs


 At 11/21/2011 07:50 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote:
How can you offer voice if you can not get local phone number's because of 
a
rural telephone cooperative?

 I don't believe a rural cooperative can prevent you from pulling
 numbers from the NANPA.  They are even required to interconnect with
 you for the exchange of traffic which, under the new rules, will
 *eventually* (like 9 years out) be at bilk-and-keep.  You might
 however have to interconnect indirectly, via a third-party tandem,
 and there's some issue of recourse if they block calls to you.  They
 are not required to lease you any network elements.  And they don't
 like to be, well, too cooperative...  but I'd first want to check
 with the lawyers to know exactly how much privilege an RTC still has.



  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs

[Mike Hammett]

http://www.localcallingguide.com/lca_switch.php?tandem=NSVNTNGN00T

Looks like all RLECs, but maybe you'd have luck with one of them.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



On 11/21/2011 8:29 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote:
 The only other telcos/cellcos here that have local numbers are US Cellular
 and Verizon. None of the big VOIP carriers do, such as Vonage/Packet8/take
 your pick. They have NO Clec's here either.

 Scottie Arnett
 President
 Info-Ed, Inc.
 Electronics and More
 931-243-2101
 sarn...@info-ed.com
 - Original Message -
 From: Fred Goldsteinfgoldst...@ionary.com
 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 8:01 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs


 At 11/21/2011 07:50 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote:
 How can you offer voice if you can not get local phone number's because of
 a
 rural telephone cooperative?
 I don't believe a rural cooperative can prevent you from pulling
 numbers from the NANPA.  They are even required to interconnect with
 you for the exchange of traffic which, under the new rules, will
 *eventually* (like 9 years out) be at bilk-and-keep.  You might
 however have to interconnect indirectly, via a third-party tandem,
 and there's some issue of recourse if they block calls to you.  They
 are not required to lease you any network elements.  And they don't
 like to be, well, too cooperative...  but I'd first want to check
 with the lawyers to know exactly how much privilege an RTC still has.



   --
   Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
   ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
   +1 617 795 2701



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs

[Fred Goldstein]

At 11/21/2011 09:29 PM, you wrote:
The only other telcos/cellcos here that have local numbers are US Cellular
and Verizon. None of the big VOIP carriers do, such as Vonage/Packet8/take
your pick. They have NO Clec's here either.

I like to think of that as a challenge. ;-)  The good news is that 
they use the Nashville tandem, not their own, so the traffic exchange 
can be indirect.

But it's true that there are no CLECs with numbers in TLTC's 
area.  Powertel, US Cellular, VZW and Sprint Nextel are the only 
other carriers there, all mobile.  No Celina numbers, either, if it 
matters. But Livingston has pooled prefix codes available.


  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs

[Scottie Arnett]

TN is FULLL of cooperatives. From what I have found, the state of TN 
likes to protect them too.

Scottie Arnett
President
Info-Ed, Inc.
Electronics and More
931-243-2101
sarn...@info-ed.com
- Original Message - 
From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs


 http://www.localcallingguide.com/lca_switch.php?tandem=NSVNTNGN00T

 Looks like all RLECs, but maybe you'd have luck with one of them.

 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com



 On 11/21/2011 8:29 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote:
 The only other telcos/cellcos here that have local numbers are US 
 Cellular
 and Verizon. None of the big VOIP carriers do, such as 
 Vonage/Packet8/take
 your pick. They have NO Clec's here either.

 Scottie Arnett
 President
 Info-Ed, Inc.
 Electronics and More
 931-243-2101
 sarn...@info-ed.com
 - Original Message -
 From: Fred Goldsteinfgoldst...@ionary.com
 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 8:01 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing 
 ILECs


 At 11/21/2011 07:50 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote:
 How can you offer voice if you can not get local phone number's because 
 of
 a
 rural telephone cooperative?
 I don't believe a rural cooperative can prevent you from pulling
 numbers from the NANPA.  They are even required to interconnect with
 you for the exchange of traffic which, under the new rules, will
 *eventually* (like 9 years out) be at bilk-and-keep.  You might
 however have to interconnect indirectly, via a third-party tandem,
 and there's some issue of recourse if they block calls to you.  They
 are not required to lease you any network elements.  And they don't
 like to be, well, too cooperative...  but I'd first want to check
 with the lawyers to know exactly how much privilege an RTC still has.



   --
   Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
   ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
   +1 617 795 2701



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs

[Scottie Arnett]

Please explain about the Livingston exchange!!! I have been trying to break 
this barrier for almost 12 years.

Scottie Arnett
President
Info-Ed, Inc.
Electronics and More
931-243-2101
sarn...@info-ed.com
- Original Message - 
From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs


 At 11/21/2011 09:29 PM, you wrote:
The only other telcos/cellcos here that have local numbers are US 
Cellular
and Verizon. None of the big VOIP carriers do, such as Vonage/Packet8/take
your pick. They have NO Clec's here either.

 I like to think of that as a challenge. ;-)  The good news is that
 they use the Nashville tandem, not their own, so the traffic exchange
 can be indirect.

 But it's true that there are no CLECs with numbers in TLTC's
 area.  Powertel, US Cellular, VZW and Sprint Nextel are the only
 other carriers there, all mobile.  No Celina numbers, either, if it
 matters. But Livingston has pooled prefix codes available.


  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs

[Scottie Arnett]

Re-reading your posts brings me to another question.has any VOIP 
carriers ever used cellular carriers numbers? Is it even possible?

Scottie Arnett
President
Info-Ed, Inc.
Electronics and More
931-243-2101
sarn...@info-ed.com
- Original Message - 
From: Scottie Arnett sarn...@info-ed.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs


 Please explain about the Livingston exchange!!! I have been trying to 
 break
 this barrier for almost 12 years.

 Scottie Arnett
 President
 Info-Ed, Inc.
 Electronics and More
 931-243-2101
 sarn...@info-ed.com
 - Original Message - 
 From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 9:08 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing 
 ILECs


 At 11/21/2011 09:29 PM, you wrote:
The only other telcos/cellcos here that have local numbers are US
Cellular
and Verizon. None of the big VOIP carriers do, such as 
Vonage/Packet8/take
your pick. They have NO Clec's here either.

 I like to think of that as a challenge. ;-)  The good news is that
 they use the Nashville tandem, not their own, so the traffic exchange
 can be indirect.

 But it's true that there are no CLECs with numbers in TLTC's
 area.  Powertel, US Cellular, VZW and Sprint Nextel are the only
 other carriers there, all mobile.  No Celina numbers, either, if it
 matters. But Livingston has pooled prefix codes available.


  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs

[Fred Goldstein]

At 11/21/2011 11:18 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote:
Re-reading your posts brings me to another question.has any VOIP
carriers ever used cellular carriers numbers? Is it even possible?

First, wrt the Livingston exchange, 931-397 and 931-403 belong to US 
Cellular; the latter is pooled (they're using the 7's).  Nextel has 
-871, pooled (using 6 and 7).  Oddly, US Cellular but not S-N says it 
subtends a Gaineborough tandem, which is Twin Lakes, but most Twin 
Lakes exchanges subtend Nashville.

As to VoIP via cellular numbers, well, its sort of odd, but it might 
be possible.  The new rules may actually say something about this -- 
there was a VoIP company affiliated with a wireless company that was, 
uh, alleged to have been laundering its LD calls via the cellular 
company in order to get the lower termination rates.  They deny it of 
course... but that may have been addressed in the intercarrier 
rules.  I haven't gotten through it all yet. (It's freakin' huge.)  I 
actually had a client that was a wireless company whose business 
included lots and lots of modems, way back when, so it's not 
unprecedented to have, uh, incidental non-wireless traffic go 
through a wirless feed.  And heck, put up one 3.65 GHz base station 
(if it's allowed there) and declare it CMRS, and you're a cellco too!

There's one lawyer I know who sort of specializes in this sort of thing.

Scottie Arnett
President
Info-Ed, Inc.
Electronics and More
931-243-2101
sarn...@info-ed.com
- Original Message -
From: Scottie Arnett sarn...@info-ed.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs


  Please explain about the Livingston exchange!!! I have been trying to
  break
  this barrier for almost 12 years.
 
  Scottie Arnett
  President
  Info-Ed, Inc.
  Electronics and More
  931-243-2101
  sarn...@info-ed.com
  - Original Message -
  From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 9:08 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing
  ILECs
 
 
  At 11/21/2011 09:29 PM, you wrote:
 The only other telcos/cellcos here that have local numbers are US
 Cellular
 and Verizon. None of the big VOIP carriers do, such as
 Vonage/Packet8/take
 your pick. They have NO Clec's here either.
 
  I like to think of that as a challenge. ;-)  The good news is that
  they use the Nashville tandem, not their own, so the traffic exchange
  can be indirect.
 
  But it's true that there are no CLECs with numbers in TLTC's
  area.  Powertel, US Cellular, VZW and Sprint Nextel are the only
  other carriers there, all mobile.  No Celina numbers, either, if it
  matters. But Livingston has pooled prefix codes available.
 
 
   --
   Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
   ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
   +1 617 795 2701
 
 
 
  
 
  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
  
 
 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
  
 
  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
  
 
 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs

[Scottie Arnett]

We just happen to fall into one of those 3.65Ghz protected areas! But I have 
heard that the local telco has something going on there too!

Scottie Arnett
President
Info-Ed, Inc.
Electronics and More
931-243-2101
sarn...@info-ed.com
- Original Message - 
From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs


 At 11/21/2011 11:18 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote:
Re-reading your posts brings me to another question.has any VOIP
carriers ever used cellular carriers numbers? Is it even possible?

 First, wrt the Livingston exchange, 931-397 and 931-403 belong to US
 Cellular; the latter is pooled (they're using the 7's).  Nextel has
 -871, pooled (using 6 and 7).  Oddly, US Cellular but not S-N says it
 subtends a Gaineborough tandem, which is Twin Lakes, but most Twin
 Lakes exchanges subtend Nashville.

 As to VoIP via cellular numbers, well, its sort of odd, but it might
 be possible.  The new rules may actually say something about this -- 
 there was a VoIP company affiliated with a wireless company that was,
 uh, alleged to have been laundering its LD calls via the cellular
 company in order to get the lower termination rates.  They deny it of
 course... but that may have been addressed in the intercarrier
 rules.  I haven't gotten through it all yet. (It's freakin' huge.)  I
 actually had a client that was a wireless company whose business
 included lots and lots of modems, way back when, so it's not
 unprecedented to have, uh, incidental non-wireless traffic go
 through a wirless feed.  And heck, put up one 3.65 GHz base station
 (if it's allowed there) and declare it CMRS, and you're a cellco too!

 There's one lawyer I know who sort of specializes in this sort of thing.

Scottie Arnett
President
Info-Ed, Inc.
Electronics and More
931-243-2101
sarn...@info-ed.com
- Original Message -
From: Scottie Arnett sarn...@info-ed.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing 
ILECs


  Please explain about the Livingston exchange!!! I have been trying to
  break
  this barrier for almost 12 years.
 
  Scottie Arnett
  President
  Info-Ed, Inc.
  Electronics and More
  931-243-2101
  sarn...@info-ed.com
  - Original Message -
  From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 9:08 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing
  ILECs
 
 
  At 11/21/2011 09:29 PM, you wrote:
 The only other telcos/cellcos here that have local numbers are US
 Cellular
 and Verizon. None of the big VOIP carriers do, such as
 Vonage/Packet8/take
 your pick. They have NO Clec's here either.
 
  I like to think of that as a challenge. ;-)  The good news is that
  they use the Nashville tandem, not their own, so the traffic exchange
  can be indirect.
 
  But it's true that there are no CLECs with numbers in TLTC's
  area.  Powertel, US Cellular, VZW and Sprint Nextel are the only
  other carriers there, all mobile.  No Celina numbers, either, if it
  matters. But Livingston has pooled prefix codes available.
 
 
   --
   Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
   ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
   +1 617 795 2701
 
 
 
 
 
  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 
 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 
 
  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 
 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org

Re: [WISPA] WISPA FCC Filing on Poles, Rights of Way, etc.

[Jeromie Reeves]

Very interesting. WISPs can have it for the same franchise agreement
that others use to get into the ROWs. My issue is that
most poles here are to short for another player, namely, its setup for
Power at the top, 3ft down to the LV stuff, 2ft down to phone,
6in to cable, and blamo no more room to add a cable run and stay above
the road clearance. This means going underground and
that adds a lot of expense, but mostly its the time that doing so
takes. The place that I have a true hurdle is rail roads. 12K min
PER crossing.

Yes I read the document and I do see how the wording could put WISPs
at a disadvantage. I would like to hear from WISPs that
have been denied ROW access because they were not cable/telco/etc.

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:
 This week WISPA filed FCC Comments highlighting the deployment hurdles that
 WISPs face that cable companies and telecommunications companies do not
 face. Cable and telco companies enjoy pole attachment and other facilities
 and siting privileges that WISPs do not have. WISPA urged the FCC to act to
 extend these siting and facilities privileges to WISPs.

 Our complete filling is attached.

 As always, questions are welcomed.

 Respectfully Submitted,

 Jack Unger
 Chair - WISPA FCC Committee
 818-227-4220

 --
 Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
 Author (2003) - Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks
 Serving the WISP, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
 www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com






 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] FCC webinar on 477

[Martha Huizenga]

Title: signature

  
  
http://www.fcc.gov/events/form-477-compliance-webinar
-- 
  
  
  Martha
  Huizenga
  DC
Access, LLC
  202-546-5898
Friendly,
Local,
  Affordable, Internet!
  Connecting the
  Capitol Hill Community
  Join us on 
  or follow us on 


  




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] FCC 5.4 gig training

[Marlon K. Schafer (509-982-2181)]

Just wondering  How many are going to join the What's legal, what's 
not webinar today?

marlon




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] FCC 5.4 gig training

[Rick Harnish]

Current count 161 registered

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509-982-2181)
 Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 11:05 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Cc: Principal WISPA Member List
 Subject: [WISPA] FCC 5.4 gig training
 
 Just wondering  How many are going to join the What's legal, what's
 not webinar today?
 
 marlon
 
 
 
 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 
 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] FCC 5.4 gig training

[Josh Luthman]

I plan to.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Marlon K. Schafer (509-982-2181) 
o...@odessaoffice.com wrote:

 Just wondering  How many are going to join the What's legal, what's
 not webinar today?

 marlon




 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] FCC 5.4 gig training

[Blake Covarrubias]

Is it possible to receive slides and/or video from this? I was registered to 
watch this, but was pulled away to a conference out of town. The guy I asked to 
fill in didn't come through for me.

I'd really like to have access to this info though. Rick, can you help?

--
Blake Covarrubias

On Jul 13, 2011, at 8:14, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote:

 I plan to.
 
 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373
 
 
 On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Marlon K. Schafer (509-982-2181) 
 o...@odessaoffice.com wrote:
 Just wondering  How many are going to join the What's legal, what's
 not webinar today?
 
 marlon
 
 
 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] FCC Refuses to Say Wireless Industry is Competitive (Again)

[Cliff Leboeuf]

Duh……..
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2387751,00.asp


-
Cliff LeBoeuf
Computer Sales  Services, Inc.
985-879-3219
Www.cssla.com

[www.cssla.com.png]
inline: 5D657671-45FA-4B9E-ABF6-C4518FB95D78[15].png


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] FCC Refuses to Say Wireless Industry is Competitive (Again)

[Josh Luthman]

cat /this/thread 2 /dev/null

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Cliff Leboeuf cliff.lebo...@cssla.comwrote:

   Duh……..
 http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2387751,00.asp


  -
 Cliff LeBoeuf
 Computer Sales  Services, Inc.
 985-879-3219
 Www.cssla.com

 [image: www.cssla.com.png]




 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

5D657671-45FA-4B9E-ABF6-C4518FB95D78[15].png


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] FCC NPRM for Licensed Links in 7 and 13 Ghz

[Gino Villarini]

Anyone has the link for the latest news on this?

 

Gino A. Villarini

g...@aeronetpr.com mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com 

Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.

787.273.4143




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] FCC NPRM for Licensed Links in 7 and 13 Ghz

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 6/8/2011 11:11 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:


Anyone has the link for the latest news on this?

Gino A. Villarini

g...@aeronetpr.com mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com

Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.

787.273.4143



I posted it yesterday

leon



-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1511/3688 - Release Date: 06/08/11


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] FCC NPRM for Licensed Links in 7 and 13 Ghz

[Rick Harnish]

  Released:  06/07/2011.  WIRELESS BACKHAUL:  FURTHER INQUIRY INTO FIXED
SERVICE SHARING OF THE 6875-7125 MHZ AND 12700-13200 MHZ BANDS. (DA No.

11-1011). (Dkt No 10-153 ).  WTB

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1011A1.doc

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1011A2.doc

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1011A1.pdf

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1011A2.pdf

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1011A1.txt

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1011A2.txt

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 11:11 AM
To: WISPA General List; motor...@afmug.com
Subject: [WISPA] FCC NPRM for Licensed Links in 7 and 13 Ghz

 

Anyone has the link for the latest news on this?

 

Gino A. Villarini

g...@aeronetpr.com

Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.

787.273.4143




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/