Net Neutrality...

Bob Evans bob at
Wed Jul 16 14:31:16 UTC 2014

Wow, first time I ever saw this line.... so thanks for the text.

partnerships among interested entities...that leaves it open to all.
Unless, a bureaucrat wants to pull out this some other supporting
documents....something additional that is all encompassing like our equal
opportunity, filed and registered bla-blah-blah, on the government
list...and now you have to do this and this and this. Sometimes it's even
referred to on page often becomes a battle of words. That
cost money and demands time. Do you know how difficult it is to teach a
lawyer somethings a simple as what an IP address is.

Seen that happen before a lot !  Just saying.....however, you did prove
your point that it's possible. Well done.

Thank You
Bob Evans

> Page 9-10 from the Connect America Fund (CAF) Report and Order on Rural
> Broadband Experiments.  I don't think this needs translation, but please
> read carefully.
> *2.*
>         We concluded in the Tech Transitions Order that we would encourage
> participation in
> the rural broadband experiments from a wide range of entities—including
> competitive local exchange
> carriers, electric utilities, fixed and mobile wireless providers, WISPs,
> State and regional authorities,
> Tribal governments, and partnerships among interested entities.49
>  We were encouraged to see the
> diversity in the expressions of interest submitted by interested parties.
> Of the more than 1,000
> expressions of interest filed, almost half were from entities that are not
> currently ETCs, including electric
> utilities, WISPS, and agencies of state, county or local governments.
> *22.* We remind entities that they need not be ETCs at the time they
> initially submit their
> formal proposals for funding through the rural broadband experiments, but
> that they must obtain ETC
> designation after being identified as winning bidders for the funding
> award.
>  As stated in the Tech
> Transitions Order, we expect entities to confirm their ETC status within
> 90
> days of the public notice
> announcing the winning bidders selected to receive funding.51
>  Any winning bidder that fails to notify the
> Bureau that it has obtained ETC designation within the 90 day timeframe
> will be considered in default
> and will not be eligible to receive funding for its proposed rural
> broadband experiment. Any funding that
> is forfeited in such a manner will not be redistributed to other
> applicants. We conclude this is necessary
> so that we can move forward with the experiments in a timely manner.
> However, a waiver of this
> deadline may be appropriate if a winning bidder is able to demonstrate
> that
> it has engaged in good faith to
> obtain ETC designation, but has not received approval within the 90-day
> timeframe.[52]
> *23.* We sought comment in the Tech Transitions FNPRM on whether to adopt
> a
> presumption
> that if a state fails to act on an ETC application from a selected
> participant within a specified period of
> time, the state lacks jurisdiction over the applicant, and the Commission
> will address the ETC
> application.   Multiple commenters supported this proposal.54
>  We now conclude that, for purposes of this experiment, if after 90 days a
> state has failed to act on a pending ETC application, an entity may
> request that the Commission designate it as an ETC, pursuant to section
> 214(e)(6).55
>  Although we are
> confident that states share our desire to work cooperatively to advance
> broadband, and we expect states to
> expeditiously designate qualified entities that have expressed an interest
> in providing voice and
> broadband to consumers in price cap areas within their states, we also
> recognize the need to adopt
> measures that will provide a pathway to obtaining ETC designation in
> situations where there is a lack of
> action by the state.
> ======
>  52 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.3. We expect entities selected for funding to
> submit
> their ETC applications to the relevant
> jurisdiction as soon as possible after release of the public notice
> announcing winning bids, and will presume an
> entity to have shown good faith if it files its ETC application within 15
> days of release of the public notice. A
> waiver of the 90-day deadline would be appropriate if, for example, if an
> entity has an ETC application pending with
> a state, and the state’s next meeting at which it would consider the ETC
> application will occur after the 90-day
> window.
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at>
> wrote:
>> I'll just say that we've consulted legal counsel about what it would
>> take
>> to become an ETC, and it's simply too burdensome for us to consider.
>> We'd
>> need to become a telephone company, at the very time when old fashioned
>> telephone service is becoming a thing of the past. (We enthusiastically
>> support "over the top" VoIP so that we can help our customers get
>> inexpensive
>> telephone service without ourselves having to be a telephone company.)
>> --Brett Glass
>> At 07:53 PM 7/15/2014, Bob Evans wrote:
>>  I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is
>>> riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for
>>> internet services...pretty much just for LECs.
>>> Thank You
>>> Bob Evans
>>> CTO
> --
> Fletcher Kittredge
> 8 Pomerleau Street
> Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
> 207-602-1134

More information about the NANOG mailing list