I was on a conference call with the State of Nebraska broadband mapping contractors and the Public Service Commission this morning and came away with a bad feeling.
Based on the Form477 data, and the PSC's broadband provider registration information, there are 283 broadband providers in the state of Nebraska. But they only have complete information for about 25, and signed NDAs from only 160. I offered to them that they would have better luck getting data if they weren't asking for so much information. The data template that they ask for includes: 1) All subscriber addresses, and the type of broadband deployed at that location 2) GPS coordinates for all of our tower locations, the types of antennas provided and the frequencies in use at that location 3) Key "anchor institutions" that are receiving service from our system I have had a couple of phone calls and several emails back and forth with the mapping subcontractors, and they (and the PSC) are still adamant about the data collection requirements. I thought that we had negotiated to the point that they would accept a shape file and a summary of the number of subscribers per census block, but the phone call this morning confirmed that incomplete data submissions (ones that do not include the tower verification information and subscriber information in the format that they requested) will not be included in the summary data, or the state broadband availability map that will be released to the public. The contractors and the attorney for the PSC gave the indication that the NTIA is mandating this level of data collection, and that their NDA should be enough protection to ensure the safety of our proprietary information. My position, and the position of the majority of WISP operators that I have visited with, is that I am not going to turn over the information that they are asking for. Full disclosure of all my tower sites and the addresses of my customers is an onerous request and fundamentally unnecessary to determine where broadband coverage exists within the state. I would prefer to run the risk of being overbuilt by a government funded program in the future than to turn over information to entities (NTIA in particular) that could be legally obligated to turn over that information through a FOIA request. I don't know whether it is too late to push back at the NTIA to reduce the data that they are requesting. I can sympathise to a certain degree with the PSC and the contractors, as they are just trying to collect the data that NTIA has mandated them to collect. But they are simply asking for too much information. In the end, it will be another inaccurate representation of broadband coverage and that information will be used to develop policy and programs that will make the competitive environment for WISPs and other independent ISPs even more difficult to succeed in. That sucks. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 4/12/2010 10:29 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: > BTOP Mapping grants given to States are Federal initiatives. The states > have to answer and report to the Feds on their progress. > > Basically they will report to the Feds, who they contacted, and who provided > info and who didn't. The State mappers have little authority to do anything > about whether you give them information or not. > But the Feds potentially could. Remember it is FCC policy/law to provide > Form 477 data, down to Census track. > > It may come down to a legal issue on whether the FCC has authority to demand > confidential information or not from provate companies. When a WISP does > not provide info, whether the Feds or States make a stink about it, may > depend on the impact of the data that would be missing, and their real legal > opinion which I'm sure they would not truly disclose outside of court. > > In MD, we were just contacted, and the mapping initiative is really a racket > for free money. MD had already started a very substanial mapping effort at > the State Level. But that is considered different. So with teh BTOP mapping > grant they got, they cant or choose not to use the pre-existing MApping > platform, and basically are starting a seperate project to comply to the > federal initatives. Basically DOUBLE spending, to get the FREE money. Or > maybe I should say different applicants would be beneficiaries of the > mapping funds. The mapping group in our state was given to a legit group > that was formed by the state and gained many members of wireline and fiber > carriers. > > They reached out to me with intent to try to amicably work with us, but they > were surprised by some of the comments that I made prior. For example, they > brought up the benefit of lead generation if I filed. I stated... "If they > were going to post my coverage and contact info for the world to see, I > wouldn't file because I dont want everyone from all over the place calling > me for service, because it would clog our sales lines with unqualified or > less dersirable leads, and that we make sales by precisely targeting our > prospects, and the areas and clients that are most profitable for us to > serve get targeted, since we have limited funding? I mentioned we had > coverage to serve several million subscribers, but we only had funding to > install 20 per month. They wanted subscriber level detail, I told them I > might give them Block level detail. But the funny part was that the same > group just applied for a BTOP grant in round2 to provide fiber to most of > the state. So I told them I'd give them my mapping data as soon as they gave > me theirs. I told them the round1 applciation, proposed to overbuild our > entire coverage, and I'm sure the round2 one would also. I told them there > was a huge conflict of interest with me providinh them my coverage data > without them providing me theirs. I'd likely have to protest their governor > led Round2 BTOP application, and to provide my coverage data prior to the > announcement of success or failure of an award, would be a huge comflict of > interest, considering I plan to protest the BTOP application. I asked > them, If I disclosed my coverage, would they be willing to carve that > coverage out of their application... They bypassed that question. > > They said the Governor's office will be provided a list of providers that > complied and didn't. I asked, if they'd join my lobby effort to fight the > Governor's office to stop charging property tax on broadband investment? > They bypassed that question. > > Actually.... There were three big Round1 apps in Maryland. One was State > led, and got turned down for many reasons, mostly because it was focusing on > overbuilding served areas. ($100 million in Fiber). The second was Maryland > Broadband Cooperative that legitimately was focussing on rural unserved > parts of the state. Neither got an award for good reasons. In Round2, the > Governor changed the plan, and actually incorporated the MVC as a > subcomponent of teh State's grant, so that it would add credability to the > application. Basically it was a political move that indirectly said.... we > now have one unified application, and to get the rural parts served (MBC) > you got to also look the otherway when we through in some served areas that > that state wants. They are absolutely crazy if they think I 'll provide my > data before the BTOP Round2 protests and awards are finished. > > However, after that time period, we are very likely to provide full Census > Block coverage information to MBC. We want to be looked at as a ISP that > shares a possisitive vision for growth of broadband in the state, but we > will not give them everything they want in the form they want. We will > withhold things, such as we will NOT give any subscriber data, location or > count. We will simply disclose "coverage". > > Our position is to convey the facts that we can cover vast territory with in > palce infrastructure, and Funding is the primary limitation to expansion. > But it will never help us to disclose the volume of our subscriber count, > for the public to see. > And we'll make them take us to court before we'll provide it. > > I'd like to give an example, of D&B and Getting Leases. One thing we learned > is that Giving D&B info hurts you if you give them info that proves you dont > meet the qualification of lenders. For example, If a lendor wants to see > that you have over 10 employees, you would not want to tell D&B to list that > you have only 5. Its better to not tell D&B anything, and leave the value > at ZERO, so there is no proof that you dont qualify. And as well, by > providing no information, one would not have to lie to try to prove > compliance. The same thing applies to other fields, such as annual revenue. > Less is more, unless the data is possitive info. My point here is that what > you dont tell people, they dont know, and what they dont know they cant hold > against you. You only disclose the info that helps you. > > The same principle applies to marketing one's company. If a provider is a 2 > man company, would a fortunte 100 company select that provider as their > provider? Probably not. But the Fortune 100 company does not know that the > provider is a 2 person company, if no body tells them, and the provider's > reputation is good. The day a provider has a few 100,000 subs, it will > help to disclose subs. But not when its a few 1000. > > WISPs need to continue to promote it's COVERAGE!!! We are STRONG when it > comes to Coverage, But I jsut dont get promoting subscribers, because we are > NOT strong in subscriber count proporationally to our competitors. > But I highly recommend that WISPs continue to show our coverage, at a > broader range, what ever range a WISP feels is not a risk to disclose. > > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL& Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Scott Reed"<scottr...@onlyinternet.net> > To: "WISPA General List"<wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 10:38 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] connected nation mapping data > > > >> There as been some comment on this on the list. >> They just contacted us as well. >> My plan is to tell them to look at our website to get the coverage >> area. The rest is company confidential information. >> I do remember some folks in IL refusing to give them anything. >> I have not seen anything that says we have to give them data. They make >> it sound like it is a requirement, but I don't think that is the case. >> >> Kurt Fankhauser wrote: >> >>> Does anyone here have any experience with Connected Nation / Connect Ohio >>> on >>> them wanting data from you for their mapping purposes? They are >>> requesting I >>> sign a non-disclosure agreement and then hand them over a list of all my >>> towers, coordinates, frequency's, antenna, cable loss, equipment >>> manufacturer, service plan speeds. Seems like they want a lot of personal >>> information. I am just wondering besides mapping purposes what the >>> secondary >>> uses of this collected data will be used for. >>> >>> >>> >>> Feel free to email me off-list as well. >>> >>> >>> >>> Kurt Fankhauser >>> WAVELINC >>> P.O. Box 126 >>> Bucyrus, OH 44820 >>> 419-562-6405 >>> www.wavelinc.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/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> Scott Reed >> Sr. Systems Engineer >> GAB Midwest >> 1-800-363-1544 x2241 >> 1-260-827-2241 >> Cell: 260-273-7239 >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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/
