Re: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup
Nice, Matt, nice... - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 5:50 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org; nnsq...@nnsquad.org; Telecom Regulation the Internet cyberteleco...@listserv.aol.com Subject: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup Apparently my tirade about broadband mapping reached a few ears in Washington, as the NE PSC called me this afternoon to let me know that the NTIA is willing to accept shape files and is willing to relax some of the data requirements in order to get fuller representation from WISPs.Making ourselves heard and showing a willingness to be part of the solution is the first step to getting better results. Here is a copy of the email that I sent to the Nebraska PSC today with my followup comments. Other commentary and discussion regarding this is available at Wireless Cowboys http://www.wirelesscowboys.com/ Matt Larsen vistabeam.com I am writing with further comments and concerns about the Nebraska Broadband Mapping Initiative. After participating in the conference call about the mapping program yesterday, I was left with several concerns. My first concern is about the accuracy of the data that will be collected. The number of providers that have not responded to the NDA request and/or the data request is very high, and that means that there will be substantial inaccuracies in the final dataset that will make the final results of the project flawed. A dataset that only includes 20-50% of the total data needed could lead to policy decisions that could have an adverse affect on the smaller providers that cover otherwise unserved areas by encouraging government supported overbuilds. This would be wasteful of taxpayer money and could put many of the smaller providers out of business, causing a net loss of jobs and the loss of broadband service to customers of those smaller providers. It is critical that most if not all of the broadband providers in the state be represented in this project. The attitude that the state contractor appears to have is that non respondents will simply not be included. I would hope that this attitude will change to be more inclusive of the smaller, non-wireline providers who do not have the ability to generate the requested data easily. My second concern is about the data that is being requested. The data request template is asking for a lot of data that I don't feel comfortable divulging to any outside entities, including customer addresses, GPS coordinates and frequencies used on our towers and the anchor institutions that we serve. Many of the other WISPs that I work with are also not comfortable turning this information over to an outside party, even with the NDA. After several discussions with other experts in the mapping and data collection field, I have come to the conclusion that the mapping requirements would be effectively served by delivering the GIS shape files of our coverage areas along with a summary of subscribers in each census block. I have already delivered the requested shape files showing our coverage, and am working toward the census block summaries. If the data requirements could be adjusted so that this information would be suitable, I believe that you would get more response from the smaller providers. My third concern is about the cost for smaller, non-wireline providers to collect the data. While most wireline providers already have shape files and geocoding information already collected and available, many wireless providers do not have this information readily available and do not have the tools or technical knowledge to get this information collected within the requested time frame. Committing man hours to do this in-house or bring in outside assistance places an undue financial burden on providers that are often self-funded and would prefer to invest that money into their networks. The grant was given to the PSC, not the providers, and yet we are being asked to spend our time and money to get this information together. Coming up with a way to help provide the manpower and financial assistance necessary to collect this information would provide a win-win situation for the providers and the PSC and increase the amount of data collected. Finally, I believe that more effective outreach could be established with the providers so that the comfort level is higher. Sending an email with a large data request and a short deadline for response is not going to be received well. A series of emails with detailed explanations of the program's purposes and benefits to providers, an intelligently designed website with progress reports and followup phone calls to the providers who have not returned the information would go over much better. WISPs have not been required to collect this
Re: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup
Big Brother is listening...S! lol:) --- On Tue, 4/13/10, Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com wrote: From: Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com Subject: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org, nnsq...@nnsquad.org, Telecom Regulation the Internet cyberteleco...@listserv.aol.com Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 6:50 PM Apparently my tirade about broadband mapping reached a few ears in Washington, as the NE PSC called me this afternoon to let me know that the NTIA is willing to accept shape files and is willing to relax some of the data requirements in order to get fuller representation from WISPs. Making ourselves heard and showing a willingness to be part of the solution is the first step to getting better results. Here is a copy of the email that I sent to the Nebraska PSC today with my followup comments. Other commentary and discussion regarding this is available at Wireless Cowboys http://www.wirelesscowboys.com/ Matt Larsen vistabeam.com I am writing with further comments and concerns about the Nebraska Broadband Mapping Initiative. After participating in the conference call about the mapping program yesterday, I was left with several concerns. My first concern is about the accuracy of the data that will be collected. The number of providers that have not responded to the NDA request and/or the data request is very high, and that means that there will be substantial inaccuracies in the final dataset that will make the final results of the project flawed. A dataset that only includes 20-50% of the total data needed could lead to policy decisions that could have an adverse affect on the smaller providers that cover otherwise unserved areas by encouraging government supported overbuilds. This would be wasteful of taxpayer money and could put many of the smaller providers out of business, causing a net loss of jobs and the loss of broadband service to customers of those smaller providers. It is critical that most if not all of the broadband providers in the state be represented in this project. The attitude that the state contractor appears to have is that non respondents will simply not be included. I would hope that this attitude will change to be more inclusive of the smaller, non-wireline providers who do not have the ability to generate the requested data easily. My second concern is about the data that is being requested. The data request template is asking for a lot of data that I don't feel comfortable divulging to any outside entities, including customer addresses, GPS coordinates and frequencies used on our towers and the anchor institutions that we serve. Many of the other WISPs that I work with are also not comfortable turning this information over to an outside party, even with the NDA. After several discussions with other experts in the mapping and data collection field, I have come to the conclusion that the mapping requirements would be effectively served by delivering the GIS shape files of our coverage areas along with a summary of subscribers in each census block. I have already delivered the requested shape files showing our coverage, and am working toward the census block summaries. If the data requirements could be adjusted so that this information would be suitable, I believe that you would get more response from the smaller providers. My third concern is about the cost for smaller, non-wireline providers to collect the data. While most wireline providers already have shape files and geocoding information already collected and available, many wireless providers do not have this information readily available and do not have the tools or technical knowledge to get this information collected within the requested time frame. Committing man hours to do this in-house or bring in outside assistance places an undue financial burden on providers that are often self-funded and would prefer to invest that money into their networks. The grant was given to the PSC, not the providers, and yet we are being asked to spend our time and money to get this information together. Coming up with a way to help provide the manpower and financial assistance necessary to collect this information would provide a win-win situation for the providers and the PSC and increase the amount of data collected. Finally, I believe that more effective outreach could be established with the providers so that the comfort level is higher. Sending an email with a large data request and a short deadline for response is not going to be received well. A series of emails with detailed explanations of the program's purposes and benefits to providers, an intelligently designed website with progress reports and followup phone calls to the providers who have not returned the information would go over much better. WISPs have not been required to collect this information up to this point and there is no mandate
Re: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup
On 04/13/2010 06:50 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Apparently my tirade about broadband mapping reached a few ears in Washington, as the NE PSC called me this afternoon to let me know that the NTIA is willing to accept shape files and is willing to relax some of the data requirements in order to get fuller representation from WISPs.Making ourselves heard and showing a willingness to be part of the solution is the first step to getting better results. snip Matt...excellent letter...very professional et al. Leon 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] Broadband Fiasco Followup
Big brother (my friend at the NTIA) should be subscribed to this list now :-) Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jason Bailey Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 7:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup Big Brother is listening...S! lol:) --- On Tue, 4/13/10, Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com wrote: From: Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com Subject: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org, nnsq...@nnsquad.org, Telecom Regulation the Internet cyberteleco...@listserv.aol.com Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 6:50 PM Apparently my tirade about broadband mapping reached a few ears in Washington, as the NE PSC called me this afternoon to let me know that the NTIA is willing to accept shape files and is willing to relax some of the data requirements in order to get fuller representation from WISPs. Making ourselves heard and showing a willingness to be part of the solution is the first step to getting better results. Here is a copy of the email that I sent to the Nebraska PSC today with my followup comments. Other commentary and discussion regarding this is available at Wireless Cowboys http://www.wirelesscowboys.com/ Matt Larsen vistabeam.com I am writing with further comments and concerns about the Nebraska Broadband Mapping Initiative. After participating in the conference call about the mapping program yesterday, I was left with several concerns. My first concern is about the accuracy of the data that will be collected. The number of providers that have not responded to the NDA request and/or the data request is very high, and that means that there will be substantial inaccuracies in the final dataset that will make the final results of the project flawed. A dataset that only includes 20-50% of the total data needed could lead to policy decisions that could have an adverse affect on the smaller providers that cover otherwise unserved areas by encouraging government supported overbuilds. This would be wasteful of taxpayer money and could put many of the smaller providers out of business, causing a net loss of jobs and the loss of broadband service to customers of those smaller providers. It is critical that most if not all of the broadband providers in the state be represented in this project. The attitude that the state contractor appears to have is that non respondents will simply not be included. I would hope that this attitude will change to be more inclusive of the smaller, non-wireline providers who do not have the ability to generate the requested data easily. My second concern is about the data that is being requested. The data request template is asking for a lot of data that I don't feel comfortable divulging to any outside entities, including customer addresses, GPS coordinates and frequencies used on our towers and the anchor institutions that we serve. Many of the other WISPs that I work with are also not comfortable turning this information over to an outside party, even with the NDA. After several discussions with other experts in the mapping and data collection field, I have come to the conclusion that the mapping requirements would be effectively served by delivering the GIS shape files of our coverage areas along with a summary of subscribers in each census block. I have already delivered the requested shape files showing our coverage, and am working toward the census block summaries. If the data requirements could be adjusted so that this information would be suitable, I believe that you would get more response from the smaller providers. My third concern is about the cost for smaller, non-wireline providers to collect the data. While most wireline providers already have shape files and geocoding information already collected and available, many wireless providers do not have this information readily available and do not have the tools or technical knowledge to get this information collected within the requested time frame. Committing man hours to do this in-house or bring in outside assistance places an undue financial burden on providers that are often self-funded and would prefer to invest that money into their networks. The grant was given to the PSC, not the providers, and yet we are being asked to spend our time and money to get this information together. Coming up with a way to help provide the manpower and financial assistance necessary to collect this information would provide a win-win situation for the providers and the PSC and increase the amount of data collected. Finally, I believe that more effective outreach could be established with the providers so that the comfort level is higher. Sending an email with a large data request and a short deadline for response is not going to be received well. A series of emails
Re: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup
Well, my hats off to your NTIA friend for taking an interest. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup Big brother (my friend at the NTIA) should be subscribed to this list now :-) Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jason Bailey Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 7:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup Big Brother is listening...S! lol:) --- On Tue, 4/13/10, Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com wrote: From: Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com Subject: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org, nnsq...@nnsquad.org, Telecom Regulation the Internet cyberteleco...@listserv.aol.com Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 6:50 PM Apparently my tirade about broadband mapping reached a few ears in Washington, as the NE PSC called me this afternoon to let me know that the NTIA is willing to accept shape files and is willing to relax some of the data requirements in order to get fuller representation from WISPs. Making ourselves heard and showing a willingness to be part of the solution is the first step to getting better results. Here is a copy of the email that I sent to the Nebraska PSC today with my followup comments. Other commentary and discussion regarding this is available at Wireless Cowboys http://www.wirelesscowboys.com/ Matt Larsen vistabeam.com I am writing with further comments and concerns about the Nebraska Broadband Mapping Initiative. After participating in the conference call about the mapping program yesterday, I was left with several concerns. My first concern is about the accuracy of the data that will be collected. The number of providers that have not responded to the NDA request and/or the data request is very high, and that means that there will be substantial inaccuracies in the final dataset that will make the final results of the project flawed. A dataset that only includes 20-50% of the total data needed could lead to policy decisions that could have an adverse affect on the smaller providers that cover otherwise unserved areas by encouraging government supported overbuilds. This would be wasteful of taxpayer money and could put many of the smaller providers out of business, causing a net loss of jobs and the loss of broadband service to customers of those smaller providers. It is critical that most if not all of the broadband providers in the state be represented in this project. The attitude that the state contractor appears to have is that non respondents will simply not be included. I would hope that this attitude will change to be more inclusive of the smaller, non-wireline providers who do not have the ability to generate the requested data easily. My second concern is about the data that is being requested. The data request template is asking for a lot of data that I don't feel comfortable divulging to any outside entities, including customer addresses, GPS coordinates and frequencies used on our towers and the anchor institutions that we serve. Many of the other WISPs that I work with are also not comfortable turning this information over to an outside party, even with the NDA. After several discussions with other experts in the mapping and data collection field, I have come to the conclusion that the mapping requirements would be effectively served by delivering the GIS shape files of our coverage areas along with a summary of subscribers in each census block. I have already delivered the requested shape files showing our coverage, and am working toward the census block summaries. If the data requirements could be adjusted so that this information would be suitable, I believe that you would get more response from the smaller providers. My third concern is about the cost for smaller, non-wireline providers to collect the data. While most wireline providers already have shape files and geocoding information already collected and available, many wireless providers do not have this information readily available and do not have the tools or technical knowledge to get this information collected within the requested time frame. Committing man hours to do this in-house or bring in outside assistance places an undue financial burden on providers that are often self-funded and would prefer to invest that money into their networks. The grant was given to the PSC, not the providers, and yet we are being asked to spend our time and money to get this information together. Coming up with a way to help provide the manpower and financial assistance necessary to collect this information would provide a win-win situation for the providers and the PSC and increase
Re: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup
They have been monitoring wisp chatter for years!!:) --- On Tue, 4/13/10, Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com wrote: From: Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 8:23 PM Big brother (my friend at the NTIA) should be subscribed to this list now :-) Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jason Bailey Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 7:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup Big Brother is listening...S! lol:) --- On Tue, 4/13/10, Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com wrote: From: Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com Subject: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org, nnsq...@nnsquad.org, Telecom Regulation the Internet cyberteleco...@listserv.aol.com Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 6:50 PM Apparently my tirade about broadband mapping reached a few ears in Washington, as the NE PSC called me this afternoon to let me know that the NTIA is willing to accept shape files and is willing to relax some of the data requirements in order to get fuller representation from WISPs. Making ourselves heard and showing a willingness to be part of the solution is the first step to getting better results. Here is a copy of the email that I sent to the Nebraska PSC today with my followup comments. Other commentary and discussion regarding this is available at Wireless Cowboys http://www.wirelesscowboys.com/ Matt Larsen vistabeam.com I am writing with further comments and concerns about the Nebraska Broadband Mapping Initiative. After participating in the conference call about the mapping program yesterday, I was left with several concerns. My first concern is about the accuracy of the data that will be collected. The number of providers that have not responded to the NDA request and/or the data request is very high, and that means that there will be substantial inaccuracies in the final dataset that will make the final results of the project flawed. A dataset that only includes 20-50% of the total data needed could lead to policy decisions that could have an adverse affect on the smaller providers that cover otherwise unserved areas by encouraging government supported overbuilds. This would be wasteful of taxpayer money and could put many of the smaller providers out of business, causing a net loss of jobs and the loss of broadband service to customers of those smaller providers. It is critical that most if not all of the broadband providers in the state be represented in this project. The attitude that the state contractor appears to have is that non respondents will simply not be included. I would hope that this attitude will change to be more inclusive of the smaller, non-wireline providers who do not have the ability to generate the requested data easily. My second concern is about the data that is being requested. The data request template is asking for a lot of data that I don't feel comfortable divulging to any outside entities, including customer addresses, GPS coordinates and frequencies used on our towers and the anchor institutions that we serve. Many of the other WISPs that I work with are also not comfortable turning this information over to an outside party, even with the NDA. After several discussions with other experts in the mapping and data collection field, I have come to the conclusion that the mapping requirements would be effectively served by delivering the GIS shape files of our coverage areas along with a summary of subscribers in each census block. I have already delivered the requested shape files showing our coverage, and am working toward the census block summaries. If the data requirements could be adjusted so that this information would be suitable, I believe that you would get more response from the smaller providers. My third concern is about the cost for smaller, non-wireline providers to collect the data. While most wireline providers already have shape files and geocoding information already collected and available, many wireless providers do not have this information readily available and do not have the tools or technical knowledge to get this information collected within the requested time frame. Committing man hours to do this in-house or bring in outside assistance places an undue financial burden on providers that are often self-funded and would prefer to invest that money into their networks. The grant was given to the PSC, not the providers, and yet we are being asked to spend our time and money to get this information together. Coming up with a way to help provide the manpower and financial assistance necessary to collect this information would provide a win-win situation for the providers and the PSC
