4 ms·

A WISP (or any other provider) that provides 25Mbps download+some nominal upload to a area (and reports that on their bi-annual FCC form 477) would cause the ar

by jauer 11y ago

A WISP (or any other provider) that provides 25Mbps download+some nominal upload to a area (and reports that on their bi-annual FCC form 477) would cause the area to be marked as "served" and thus ineligible for CAF funding. IIRC the USDA BTOP program which funded a lot of middle mile projects had similar restriction. From what I've seen this mostly spoils the traditional telcos (e.g. Centurylink & Frontier) because CAF (replacement for USF) won't pay for their upgrades (usually something like adding a VDSL2 DSLAM in a cabinet somewhere and running fiber back to their CO) when a high-performing WISP is in the area. Of course some little telcos that do FTTH are also affected.

sathackr 11y ago
Interesting. Many WISPs like to exaggerate their coverage area to look bigger than they are (I don't get why it seems to be the goal of every small company to appear larger than they are...but that's another topic). I wonder how much damage this is doing by preventing CAF funding for areas a WISP claims but can't actually provide service to? IMO a WISP will always be a temporary solution. They serve as a good filler until it is financially feasible for a wireline(this includes fiber) provider to service the area. A WISP can put $15,000 in equipment on a tower they pay $750/month for and cover 300 square miles of land. Add a 1GB connection to a Tier1 provider and you're still well under what it would cost for a wireline provider to even do the paperwork for the same area. After the wireline provider comes into the area, the WISP can serve as a check to keep the prices reasonable, but the RF spectrum just isn't there to serve large amounts of data. WISP coverage shouldn't preclude CAF funding, IMO. Most WISPs would probably say otherwise as it is not in their best financial interest to promote legislation that would fund their competition.
- jauer 11y ago
  Oh, I forgot to mention... there is a mechanism for providers to challenge coverage to get CAF funding because all sorts of providers overestimate coverage--there was a Ars article a few months ago about a Cable provider telling someone they served a area but it turned out to only be one side of a street or something. Map of CAF2 areas: https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/maps/caf-2-accepted-map https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/maps/caf-2-accepted-map I've seen some interesting back and forth on grant applications that depend on a area being unserved. The bigger companies have regulatory and GIS staff to say "hey, we totally serve this area. Don't fund competitor X" while they smaller companies bring letters from town administrators and residents saying "hey, we tried to buy from company Y but they said they couldn't serve us / could only could provide 768k DSL because degraded copper plant".

by jauer 11y ago

sathackr 11y ago

Interesting. Many WISPs like to exaggerate their coverage area to look bigger than they are (I don't get why it seems to be the goal of every small company to appear larger than they are...but that's another topic). I wonder how much damage this is doing by preventing CAF funding for areas a WISP claims but can't actually provide service to? IMO a WISP will always be a temporary solution. They serve as a good filler until it is financially feasible for a wireline(this includes fiber) provider to service the area. A WISP can put $15,000 in equipment on a tower they pay $750/month for and cover 300 square miles of land. Add a 1GB connection to a Tier1 provider and you're still well under what it would cost for a wireline provider to even do the paperwork for the same area. After the wireline provider comes into the area, the WISP can serve as a check to keep the prices reasonable, but the RF spectrum just isn't there to serve large amounts of data. WISP coverage shouldn't preclude CAF funding, IMO. Most WISPs would probably say otherwise as it is not in their best financial interest to promote legislation that would fund their competition.

jauer 11y ago
Oh, I forgot to mention... there is a mechanism for providers to challenge coverage to get CAF funding because all sorts of providers overestimate coverage--there was a Ars article a few months ago about a Cable provider telling someone they served a area but it turned out to only be one side of a street or something. Map of CAF2 areas: https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/maps/caf-2-accepted-map https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/maps/caf-2-accepted-map I've seen some interesting back and forth on grant applications that depend on a area being unserved. The bigger companies have regulatory and GIS staff to say "hey, we totally serve this area. Don't fund competitor X" while they smaller companies bring letters from town administrators and residents saying "hey, we tried to buy from company Y but they said they couldn't serve us / could only could provide 768k DSL because degraded copper plant".