Fred,
There is a clear difference in what CL professes to be true, than what is reality. I am glad to jump on any bandwagon to disprove these hubris statements. And I, personally, will be happy to support any endeavor to demolish these accusations that have been laid at the WISPA doorstep. I thank you for your confidence in my logic. I am just an old Missouri gal, and call it as I see it. Respectfully, Victoria Proffer <http://www.stlwimax.com/> STLWiMAX, LLC 314-720-1000 From: Fred Goldstein [mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 8:50 PM To: victo...@stlbroadband.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Happy Independence Day! At 6/29/2012 09:36 PM, Victoria Proffer wrote: > For those who may have missed it, the petition is here: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021978603 I am sorry if I don't get this right Fred, but I don't believe this is the petition, rather than it is the complaint. Is that correct? It is their "Petition for Waiver". It is basically a complaint, but since WISPs are not licensees, and the WISPs haven't actually done anything wrong, they cannot file a real complaint against them. Instead they are petitioning to have WISPs ignored in CAF Phase I. However, it is accompanied by a number of Exhibits which deserve attention too. To see it, go to the FCC's e-filing page, then ECFS, and search for "CenturyLink" as the filer and "petition for waiver" as the type. You'll see that this was filed in a whole bunch of Dockets. They pulled a bunch of WISPs' coverage maps off of the NBM and decided that they were "implausible". Now a few are sort of sloppy, basically simple radii. CL claims that radio coverage never fits a perfect circle due to terrain and they are close to correct there. However, some WISP maps may simply stop at 10 miles even if they can go farther. They also rule any WISP implausible if its coverage area is more than 10 miles wide. They simply assume that a WISP has exactly one tower, so any bigger coverage must be a lie! I note that some of the maps look like they were generated by RadioMobile. But they were fed into the state mapping entity as part of the NBM project. The state maps in turn tend to be normalized to census blocks or even larger areas. So the map is not identical to the RadioMobile coverage prediction or for that matter any real coverage. This is an artifact of the NBM, not the WISPs' own doing. The map exaggerates CL's coverage too, the same way. DSL touching a census block makes that whole block look covered. And let me state on a side note ... your interjections in WISPA business, in my opinion, is extremely valued! There have been several times that you have broken a complex problem down to common sense. Thank you. Thank you! Victoria Proffer STLWiMAX, LLC <http://www.stlwimax.com/> 314-720-1000 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [ mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org> ] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 8:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Happy Independence Day! At 6/29/2012 08:45 PM, Victoria Proffer wrote: ... In my years in this industry, it is clear that some fail, as well as some become a sterling example of what I consider my industry is primarily made of, girt, fortitude, honesty, common sense, gumption, imaginativeness (check it out, it is a word =), resourcefulness ... oh well, you get the picture =) With that said, I have to make my comment. It is one as an individual and not necessarily representing the views of the board of directors. The Century Link FCC filing is a direct attack on our industry and what our, sometimes small, enterprises stand for. The Century Link filing, in my opinion and it has been mentioned, a clear sign of weakness on their part and shows their dependency on .gov subsidies. In this aspect is a victory for WISPA! Yet it is slanderous document that WISPA and the individuals accused must refute. As an elected member of the WISPA board of directors, I can assure you that the board is addressing these issues and considers this a priority. For those who may have missed it, the petition is here: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021978603 Century Telephone Enterprises, by whatever name it's using, has always been the worst of the worst. My nickname for them is "The Devil Incarnate". These are the folks who, facing a modem pool owned by a tiny carrier during the dial-up years, simply refused to pass calls to that carrier as "local", even though the rate center was local. Utterly sleazy. Their petition is indeed slanderous, basically claiming that WISPs can't offer as good a service as they can, and demanding that the FCC treat all WISPs like satellite providers. This would let CenturyLink take Phase I CAF funding of $775/subscriber to overbuild WISPs. To show how ridiculous this is, just turn it around. What could you, as a WISP, do with a gift of $775 in capital per subscriber? Yeah, a lot more than they can. That's a lot of money to a WISP, but bupkis to a subsidy whore like Century. I look forward to the Board's response, and if the Petition is open to Comment from others, it deserves a serious blasting. -- Fred Goldstein k1io 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 -- Fred Goldstein k1io 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
