[rodeogulchbroadband] Re: The Comcast map

I agree with Alayne.  The only saving grace is that we don't have to include
the mileage along the stretch of HV that already has cable.
Pete

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Alayne Meeks <alayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Stephanie, I tend to agree with you that because some were able to get
> Comcast, the rest of us are now negatively affected in our chances for
> getting Comcast. But it's similar to the mobile home park question and
> probably is answered in the same way: Overall density is not really
> Comcast's issue at this point, it's the remaining unserved population
> density and its applicability to Comcast's agreement with the county.
>
> Maybe this can be a different way to argue our situation if our
> numbers don't add up? Alayne
>
> On 4/11/11, Stephanie Musbach <smusbach@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hello all
> > While walking today up on Hidden Valley I had a thought that we need to
> > count the houses that already have Comcast up here.  They are part of the
> > revenue pool which is what Comcast bases their return on.  Simply because
> > they have already paid for their install should not leave them out of the
> > overall count.  They should not be included in the cost, as they already
> > paid, and should not be included in the cost of install because they
> already
> > have been installed, but should be included in the count that Comcast
> bases
> > their revenue on, which is the overall count of houses per mile.
> > Anyone else see this as valid?
> > Stephanie
> > HV Lady
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Stephanie Musbach
> > Point Comfort Lodge and Cabins
> > 27505 Rocky Point Road
> > Klamath Falls, OR
> > 831-475-7306
> > smusbach@xxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alayne Meeks <alayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: rodeogulchbroadband <rodeogulchbroadband@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2011 10:30 am
> > Subject: [rodeogulchbroadband] Re: The Comcast map
> >
> >
> > I guess because of the work we've done and because most of us know our
> > areas and have given a pretty darn close accounting of houses, I'm
> > tempted to go with our numbers, not the Comcast map, which I should
> > look at again. I just know that if Comcast questioned any of my
> > numbers I could walk in with my list for my area and be able to
> > substantiate every house I counted.
> >
> > I don't know how Comcast counted but I know how we counted so I'm
> > confident. And I think our numbers get us to the 25/mile or more? Did
> > I miss the map and the blue line? I'm going to look again at old
> > messages, but I'm feeling good about our work. My 2 cents.
> >
> > Alayne
> >
> >
> > On 4/11/11, Pete Haworth <pete@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> I was looking at the Comcast map that Eric circulated a few days ago.
>  We
> >> already know that the map doesn't go beyond the old walnut tree and
> >> someone
> >> else noted a few other streets that weren't included on there.  I also
> >> found
> >> that nothing below Amigo Road is on the map, so Whispering Palms, Lupin
> >> Drive, Rodeo Gulch Court, Rodeo Ridge, and Chardonnay are all excluded
> >> from
> >> the map and, presumably, from Comcast's count of 233.  I also noticed
> that
> >> Chimney Creek is not on there, neither is Heide Lane.  Together with the
> >> missing streets noted by someone else, that means somewhere in the
> region
> >> of
> >> 60-70 homes are missing  from Comcast's count, almost certainly more
> when
> >> rentals are included, taking the count to around the 300 mark.
> >>
> >> That could be a conservative number because I haven't included streets
> >> that
> >> are shown on the map but don't have a blue line along them (Outlook
> Ridge
> >> is
> >> an example, as is the upper reaches of Ponza Lane), since I don't know
> >> exactly what the significance of the blue line is.
> >>
> >> I guess I'm wondering if this might be a more productive approach than
> our
> >> own census, particularly since it yields a higher number :-).  Comcast
> >> already have an official number of 233 and it's easy to get that up to
> >> around 300 or more with the streets missing from the map.  I believe
> that
> >> will easily get us to the 25 density target.
> >>
> >> It feels like our efforts to produce a census are just about done so
> with
> >> that and perhaps the alternative approach I outlined, are we ready to go
> >> back to Comcast?
> >>
> >> Pete
> >>
> >
> > ========================================
> >
> > Read the archive of the Rodeo Gulch Broadband list at
> > http://www.freelists.org/archive/rodeogulchbroadband
> >
> > To unsubscribe from the list send an email titled "unsubscribe" to
> > rodeogulchbroadband-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > ========================================
> >
> >
> >
>
> ========================================
>
> Read the archive of the Rodeo Gulch Broadband list at
> http://www.freelists.org/archive/rodeogulchbroadband
>
> To unsubscribe from the list send an email titled "unsubscribe" to
> rodeogulchbroadband-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> ========================================
>

Other related posts: