FCC BDC engineer?
jared at puck.nether.net
Tue Jul 5 18:09:30 UTC 2022
Yeah the big thing I’ve seen is that companies have historically over claimed on their 477 reports in weird and interesting ways. I understand why and how it happens, for example, if we do a HH meet for service at location X in census tract 2020-01 and I have a 2 mile loop to location Y in census tract 2020-02, what is the service address? When there’s a new service, how does it get re-geocoded? Did you get all the exceptions handled properly?
The new BDC rules are also a bit odd compared to the 477 ones, which if at an address I sold 2 services, I might have 2 locations but BDC says it’s 1 even if duplex.
Things just get a bit sticky around this is all when it comes to this. I appreciate better accuracy as Comcast still claims to offer service at my home which isn’t true. So do a few other providers as well which is inaccurate.
I already filed my 477 for 1H22, now to get this BDC done.
> On Jul 5, 2022, at 1:58 PM, Andrew Latham <lathama at gmail.com> wrote:
> I read https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-543A1.pdf and a PE is not required.
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 9:47 AM KCI Dave Logan via NANOG <nanog at nanog.org> wrote:
> Hi all. We operate a small regional ISP in Colorado, but no size is too small to ignore the FCC, as you all know.
> We're really struggling to find the required engineer for the filing, and we're small enough that we don't have an officer with engineering credentials.
> Any pointers in the CO/WY/NE/KS area would be great, on or off list.
> I sure hope we're the only org with this problem still, and all the rest of you are good to go.
> Dave Logan
> Kentec Communications, Inc.
> - Andrew "lathama" Latham -
More information about the NANOG