[rodeogulchbroadband] Re: The Comcast map

Bart,
Is it possible for you to take my email off this list?  I would certainly appreciate it.

Thanks
ginger

naughty dog studio
831 428-2654

visit my web site at:
http://web.mac.com/gingert

On Apr 12, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Bart Teeuwisse <bart.teeuwisse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I've been trying to find out exactly which houses have Comcast on Hidden Valley Rd. Some have said 825 and up, others place it in the 1000 range. I have a call out to John Nordahl who lead the installation of Comcast at the time but haven't heard back yet.

I'm pretty certain that only 1530, 1025, 1450, 1425,
1440, 1430, 1501 & 1290 have Comcast. These are the last 8 properties on Hidden Valley Rd. They are the parcels past Suncrest Dr. Notice how 1025 is near the top of the road in between 1530 and 1425 and not next to 1023 as one would expect. Perhaps this is why there is confusion as to how far Comcast is already coming down the road.

People on Hidden Valley Rd, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Bart Teeuwisse // =bartt // (831) 480-5106
twitter: bartt // linkedin: bartt

On 4/12/11 8:51 AM, Pete Haworth wrote:
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: