Fiber Deployments by Independent Telcos

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Fiber Deployments by Independent Telcos INDEPENDENT TELCOS Fiber Deployments By Independent Telcos The number of independent telcos deploying fiber continues to rise rapidly, as a result of both stimulus funding and privately funded builds. By Masha Zager ■ Broadband Properties ABOUT THE LIST Since 2005, Broadband Properties has maintained a list of independent telephone companies that are deploying fiber to the premises. We publish the list several times each year. We also maintain the list online at www.bbpmag.com/ search.php to enable you to search, sort and download all this information. The online list includes other types of de- ployers in addition to independent telcos. Although we gather information from as many sources as we can, we know the list is not complete. To add to the list, fill in missing information or correct any errors, please contact [email protected]. he Broadband Properties list of Fiber to the home has become the default choice independent telcos deploying Tfiber has now grown to 475 – for independent telephone companies when they about 10 times the size of the first list we compiled in 2005. Companies have have to build new plant. A few have decided to announced so many new fiber projects replace all their legacy copper plant with fiber. that we’ve had trouble keeping up with them; there are probably another 50 infrastructure with fiber – though cer- • a longstanding commitment to local or more that we haven’t accounted for. tainly, some are doing so. But when they economic development That means about half the independent wire new subdivisions, replace deterio- • a desire to provide advanced services telcos in the United States now have at rated copper p lant or overbuild into ter- to residential customers. least some experience deploying fiber to ritories served by other providers, telcos Many, if not most, of the telcos on the premises. now tend to choose fiber to the home. “I the list are in the midst of long-term One source of this growth is broad- never want to dig up this town again,” fiber upgrades. After starting with trial band stimulus funding from the Rural one general manager told us, explain- deployments, they commit to building Utilities Service, which has awarded ing that the fiber he was putting in the out fiber wherever it makes economic the bulk of its last-mile funds to FTTH ground was likely to outlast his career. sense, including in CLEC territories projects. (See this issue’s Fiber Deploy- Telcos are choosing fiber because of close to their established service areas. ment Roundup for details.) However, • continuing technological develop- Telcos that were early adopters of many of the RUS awards – especially ment that has reduced the cost of FTTH have also continued to upgrade the largest ones – were to companies deploying fiber and made it compa- their fiber electronics. Though our list that have deployed fiber for years, such rable to, or less expensive than, the still shows a number of BPON deploy- as Rural Telephone in Kansas and Xfone cost of deploying new copper plant ers, we suspect that many of them have in Texas. A more significant reason the list is growing is that FTTH has become the About the Author default choice for telcos when they have Masha Zager is the editor of Broadband Properties. You can reach her at masha@ to build new plant. Few telcos have un- broadbandproperties.com. dertaken the replacement of their entire 114 | BROADBAND PROPERTIES | www.broadbandproperties.com | MARCH/APRIL 2010 INDEPENDENT TELCOS in fact upgraded by now. By deploying newer technologies, they demonstrate FTTH Network Builders by Type that they have achieved their original goals of “future proofing” their net- works: They can use the same fiber to ILECs and offer more advanced services. their CLEC WHY BUILD FIBER? subsidiaries Independents told us they decided to build fiber networks in situations such as Pure CLECs these: 14% • Their old copper plant was failing and they didn’t want to replace it Independents usually build in their area of incumbency, but often expand into neighboring towns as CLECs. Pure CLECs may have no geographical bases. with more copper that would soon be obsolete. • In new housing developments, they • They saw opportunities to compete Five of six companies on our list found that FTTH was comparable in underserved areas outside their tra- are ILECs (incumbent carriers dat- to copper in terms of capital cost but ditional service areas where residents ing back before 1996) that are either would be less costly to maintain and were unhappy with the available replacing old copper plant with fiber, have a longer useful life. choices for video or Internet service. building fiber to new developments • They wanted to offer video and Because independent telcos rarely in their service areas, or overbuild- other advanced services and decided compete, they tend to regard one an- ing towns near their service areas that DSL had too many limitations. other as colleagues. They share experi- where they have name recognition Many rural telcos already owned ca- ences and pool information. As infor- – or some combination of the three. ble TV plant (they are exempt from In most states they must form CLEC cable-telephone cross-ownership re- mation spreads, one success gives rise to another. Over the last several years, subsidiaries to move outside their strictions) and wanted to upgrade traditional service areas, but we still their video services without pouring with fiber deployment costs falling and list them as ILECs even if their fiber- money into obsolete cable networks. the cost of copper rising, more and more to-the-home networks are only in • Their service areas were losing jobs independents have been encouraged to and population, and they believed try deploying fiber to the home. their CLEC areas. fiber would attract more economic The remaining companies are opportunity. WHat THE NUMBERS SHOW pure CLECs (competitive carriers) • Their service areas were growing rap- 1. The great majority of independent with no traditional geographic bases. idly, and new residents moving in telcos building fiber networks are in- These companies seek out promising from metropolitan areas considered cumbent providers or subsidiaries of territories to overbuild with fiber. A fiber an amenity. incumbents. few of them build hybrid fiber-coax WHat IS an INDEPENDEnt TELCO? The companies that appear on this list are licensed providers of wireline voice services other than Verizon, AT&T and Qwest. They are regulated in the United States as ILECs (incumbent providers) or CLECs (competitive providers) or both. The majority are rural providers, many of them cooperatives or small family-owned businesses, set up 50 or more years ago to offer telephone service in regions not covered by the Bell system. A smaller number came into existence after the Telecommunications Act of 1996, some specifically to build fiber-to-the-home networks in new housing de- velopments, others to serve businesses or to offer telecommunications alternatives in underserved areas. With each passing year, the telco category becomes more difficult to define. Many companies other than traditional telcos deliver reliable, interconnected voice service, using either wireless or wireline networks. Excluding these compa- nies is somewhat arbitrary, especially because many telephone companies have moved beyond traditional switched telephony to offer wireless service and wireline VoIP. Some nontraditional telephony providers are functionally no different from CLECs. However, telcos still exist as a historical and legal category, and our definition is consistent with industry usage. To the extent possible, we have excluded from the list telcos whose only involvement with FTTH is to deliver ser- vices over fiber access networks that they do not own and were not involved in building – for example, networks owned by municipalities or housing developers. MARCH/APRIL 2010 | www.broadbandproperties.com | BROADBAND PROPERTIES | 115 INDEPENDENT TELCOS 3. Companies are choosing more ad- Services Planned or Delivered vanced FTTP technology options. Our first published list included Voice, Data, Video mainly BPON systems, with a few 60% EPON and one active Ethernet sys- tem. Today, although passive optical Voice, Data networking remains most popular, 14% more than 100 independent telcos use active (point-to-point) Ethernet Triple Play Plus for one or more projects. Although Other Unknown Additional some telcos have made a company- 2% 20% Services wide commitment to active Ethernet, 4% many use it for niche applications, Video is usually necessary to recoup the cost of an FTTH network, especially in residential areas. The such as serving large businesses. triple play continues to be the standard offering. Gigabit passive networks, both GPON and GEPON, have become networks in some areas and FTTH dent telcos also manage cable TV standard. GPON is the PON of networks in others. networks alongside their telephone choice for this group – five of six The proportion of ILECs to networks. Deploying fiber to the companies with passive optical net- CLECs has remained surprisingly home allows them to merge the two, works have adopted GPON. (The constant over the five years we have reducing network management costs actual proportion is probably even tracked telco fiber builds, even as the while adding high-definition TV, higher – chances are that we haven’t number of companies on the list in- heard about all the migrations from DVR, video on demand and a wider creased tenfold. BPON to GPON.) The migration selection of channels. Most of the pure CLECs origi- to GPON was speeded by the avail- Beyond the triple play, the most nally collaborated with housing ability of Calix’s auto-sensing optical common additional service is secu- developers to build networks in network terminal, which allows tel- greenfield developments and master- rity monitoring. Some telcos also of- cos to upgrade central-office equip- planned communities, but given the fer gaming, caller ID on TV and PC ment without having to replace the shortage of new housing in the last (convergent applications) or business customer-premises equipment.
Recommended publications
  • In the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Richmond Division
    Case 21-30209-KRH Doc 177 Filed 02/25/21 Entered 02/25/21 18:13:35 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 40 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION ) In re: ) Chapter 11 ) ALPHA MEDIA HOLDINGS LLC, et al.,1 ) Case No. 21-30209 (KRH) ) Debtors. ) (Joint Administration Requested) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Julian A. Del Toro, depose and say that I am employed by Stretto, the claims and noticing agent for the Debtors in the above-captioned cases. On February 11, 2021, at my direction and under my supervision, employees of Stretto caused the following documents to be served via first-class mail on the service list attached hereto as Exhibit A, and via electronic mail on the service list attached hereto as Exhibit B: • Stipulation and Order Regarding Final Hearing on Debtors’ Motion for Entry of Interim and Final Orders (I) Authorizing the Debtors to Obtain Senior Secured Priming Superpriority Postpetition Financing, (II) Granting Liens and Superpriority Administrative Expense Claims, (III) Authorizing the Use of Cash Collateral, (IV) Granting Adequate Protection, (V) Modifying the Automatic Stay, (VI) Scheduling a Final Hearing, and (VII) Granting Related Relief (Docket No. 127) • Final Order (I) Authorizing the Debtors to Maintain, Renew, or Supplement Their Insurance Policies and Honor All Obligations in Respect Thereof, and (II) Granting Related Relief (Docket No. 128) • Final Order (I) Authorizing the Debtors to (A) Pay Prepetition Wages, Salaries, Other Compensation, and Reimbursable Expenses and (B) Continue Employee Benefits Programs, and (II) Granting Related Relief (Docket No. 129) • Final Order (I) Approving Debtors’ Proposed Adequate Assurance of Payment for Future Utility Services, (II) Prohibiting Utility Companies from Altering, Refusing, or Discontinuing Services, (III) Approving Debtors’ Proposed Procedures for Resolving Additional Assurance Requests, and (IV) Granting Related Relief (Docket No.
    [Show full text]
  • Grantee Changes and Corrections
    CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS FOR APRIL 2013 MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS Throughout the course of the SBI program, CN has maintained a repository of electronic records related to its provider outreach activities. Due to the high volume of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) within the provider community, CN continues to maintain a listing of M&A activities as a way of supplementing the Provider Changes and Corrections. M&A activities for this submission period for the state of Alaska are listed below with a brief description and date as obtained through public records or provider disclosure. Alaska Telecom, Inc. acquired atContact and became Futaris The website for Futaris states: “Alaska Telecom, Inc. acquired atContact in 2011, a leading enterprise and federal contractor providing fully managed satellite communication networks worldwide. atContact was founded in 1997 to service the demand for high-speed data, audio, and video communication in unserved and underserved regions of the globe. atContact delivers innovative broadcast, transport, and IP connectivity solutions to rural customers in the United States, Canada, Alaska, and Antarctica. “In 2008, our parent company, Calista Corporation, acquired Alaska Telecom, Inc. As part of the acquisition, Calista Corporation brought Alaska Telecom, Inc. and atContact together to form what is known today as Futaris. Futaris is committed to honoring Calista Corporation’s tradition of providing services to areas that continually meet challenges, such as access limitations and economic difficulties.” DATASET CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS As requested by the SBI Program Office, a listing of the changes and/or corrections to the datasets between the October 2012 and April 2013 submissions is included in this narrative.
    [Show full text]
  • BEFORE the INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY COMMISSION Application of AMG Technology Investment Group, LLC D/B/A Nextlink Internet
    BEFORE THE INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY COMMISSION Application of AMG Technology ) Investment Group, LLC d/b/a NextLink ) Internet for Designation as an Eligible ) CAUSE NO. _____________________ Telecommunications Carrier for the Purpose ) of Providing Services Supported by the ) FCC’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund ) VERIFIED APPLICATION OF AMG TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC D/B/A NEXTLINK INTERNET FOR DESIGNATION AS AN ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER AMG Technology Investment Group, LLC d/b/a NextLink Internet (NextLink Internet or the Company), by its counsel, respectfully submits this Application for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) pursuant to section 214(e)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), section 54.201 et seq. of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and applicable provisions of Title 8 of the Indiana Code and General Administrative Order 2019-5 (Application). NextLink Internet requests that the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) grant it designation as an ETC in the proposed service area for purposes of receiving support from the federal Universal Service Fund (USF), including support through the FCC’s high-cost USF program.1 Specifically, NextLink Internet seeks designation as an ETC on or before May 28, 2021 to receive funding awarded to the Company through the recently completed Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) Auction 1 As discussed below, high-cost ETCs are expected to participate in the low-income (Lifeline) program as well. Consequently, NextLink Internet seeks designation to operate within, and receive funding from, both federal USF programs. The Company is not seeking funding through any state high-cost or Lifeline programs at this time.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Communications Commission DA 16-613 50 APPENDIX a Over
    Federal Communications Commission DA 16-613 APPENDIX A Over the Air Reception of Out-of-Market Stations List 1: DMAs with Reception of Full Power Out-of-Market Signal Counts List 2: Counties with Reception of Full Power Out-of-Market Signal Counts List 3: Counties with No Reception of Full Power Out-of-Market Signals List 4: DMAs with Reception of Low Power Out-of-Market Signal Counts Lists 1 through 4 are attached hereto. List 5: All Full Power Out-of-Market Signals Received, By DMA and County List 6: All Low Power Out-of-Market Signals Received, By DMA and County List 7: Counties with Reception of Low Power Out-of-Market Signal Counts List 8: Counties with No Reception of Low Power Out-of-Market Signals Lists 5 through 8 are available at https://www.fcc.gov/2016-stelar-section-109-report-congress. 50 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-613 APPENDIX A – List 1 DMAs with Reception of Full Power Out-of-Market Signal Counts DMA of County Count of out of DMA Out of DMA Signals Adjusted for Coverage of DMA signals DMA Population Population Abilene-Sweetwater 7 310,967 4.448088169 Albany-Schenectady-Troy 28 1,390,886 16.40502548 Albany, GA 18 419,886 13.0365963 Albuquerque-Santa Fe 12 1,707,201 6.575441837 Alexandria, LA 15 248,329 10.01826859 Alpena 2 40,540 1.343333364 Amarillo 9 514,202 6.312244892 Anchorage 0 445,857 0 Atlanta 49 6,310,920 31.97871399 Augusta-Aiken 26 693,227 17.44350433 Austin 33 1,858,852 22.06852531 Bakersfield 24 839,631 5.091428757 Baltimore 45 2,902,642 31.1796608 Bangor 7 349,746 4.026750088 Baton Rouge 27 903,564
    [Show full text]
  • SHOWTIME® BILLIONS PROMOTION CONTEST RULES Official Rules
    SHOWTIME® BILLIONS PROMOTION CONTEST RULES Official Rules for Adams Catv Inc., Advanced Cable Comm. (Shurz), Allo Communications, Arkwest Communications, Algona Municipal Utilities, Allen's TV Cable Service, Inc., Alta Municipal Utilities, Americable International Inc., AMHERST COMMUNICATIONS, Anne Arundel Broadband LLC, Antietam Cable TV, Armstrong Group, Atkins Cablevision Inc., Atlantic Broadband, Atlantic Telephone Membership, B R Cablevision/Watch TV, Bailey Cable TV, Inc., Barbourville Utility Comm., Bay Country Communications, BCI Mississippi Maxxsouth, Beaver Creek Coop Telephone Co., Berkshire Cable, Bevcomm, Blue Ridge Cable TV, Braintree Electric Light Dept., Bristol Virginia Utilities, Broken Bow TV Cable, Buckeye Cablevision (Toledo), Bulk TV and Internet, Cable America Corporation, Cable One, Cable TV of East Alabama, CableCo, LLC, CableSouth Media III LLC, Cablevision of Marion Co. LLC, Cablevision Systems, CalNeva Broadband, LLC, Cameron dbaCarlyss Cablevision, Canby Telephone Association, Cannon Valley Cablevision, CAP Cable, LLC, CAS (Formerly Community Antenn, Cass Cable T.V., Inc., Catawba Services Inc (Comporium), CC Communications, Cedar Falls Utilities, Central Valley Cable TV, LLC, CenturyTel-CenturyLink, Chaparral Cable Co. Inc, Charter Communications Inc., Cherokee Communications, Choice Cable TV, Cincinnati Bell Ext. Ter. LLC, Cinergy Metronet, Citizens Mutual Telephone Coop, City Of Bardstown KY/Bardstown, City Of Coldwater CBPU, City of Ketchikan dba KPU, City of Monroe Water & Gas, City of Sumas Cable, City
    [Show full text]
  • FCC Keep America Connected Pledge List
    FCC Keep America Connected Pledge List 24-7 & West Wisconsin Telcom AcenTek ACIRA – Powered by Farmers Mutual Telephone Company & Federated Telephone Advanced Communications Technology Advanced Wireless Aerwave Agate Mutual Telephone Agile Connect Agri-Valley Communications AireSpring AirFiber Alaska Communications Alenco Communications All West Communications Alliance Communications ALLO Communications Allstream Business US AlticeUSA Altus Technology Amery Telecom Amherst Telephone Company Amplex ANI Networks Antietam Broadband Appalachian Wireless Aristotle Unified Communications Arlington Telephone Company Arlington TV Cooperative Armstrong Arvig Ashland Home Net Astrea AT&T ATC Communications Atlantic Broadband ATMC B2 Solutions Backstage Networks Baldwin Lightstream Bandwidth Baraga Telephone Company BARC Connects Barnesville Municipal Telephone and Internet Bays-ET Highspeed BBT Beaver Creek Cooperative Telephone Company Beehive Broadband BEK Communications Belmont Telephone Company Ben Lomand Connect Benkelman Telephone Company Beresford Municipal Telephone Bergen Telephone Company Beulahland Communications BEVCOMM BeyondReach Bijou Telephone Co-Op Blackburn Networks Blackfoot Communications Blair Telephone Company Blanca Networks Blanchard Telephone Company Bledsoe Telephone Cooperative Bloomer Telephone Company Bloomingdale Communications Bloomingdale Home Telephone Company Blue Ridge Communications Blue Valley Tele-Communications Bluebird Network BluIP BOLT Fiber Optic Services Bolt Internet BOYCOM Vision BPS Long Distance BPS
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Communications Commission DA 14-32 Before the Federal
    Federal Communications Commission DA 14-32 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Connect America Fund ) WC Docket No. 10-90 ) ORDER Adopted: January 10, 2014 Released: January 10, 2014 Deadline for Acceptance of Withheld Funding: February 24, 2014 By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: TABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Paragraph # I. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………1 II. Background…………………………………………………………………………………………3 III. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….…………….4 A. Price Cap Carrier Challenges………………………………………….…………………..……5 B. Framework for Analyzing Challenges to Price Cap Carrier Elections.……….………………...9 C. Resolution of Challenges……………………………………….………………….…………..22 D. Funding Authorizations……………………………….…………………………...…………298 IV. Ordering Clause………………………………………………………………………..…………300 I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Order, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) addresses outstanding challenges regarding the eligibility of census blocks elected by price cap carriers for the second round of Connect America Phase I.1 Two price cap carriers challenged the designation of census blocks shown as served on the National Broadband Map, and 82 other providers filed challenges contesting census blocks elected by one or more of the price cap carriers. Of the 82 providers that submitted challenges, we grant 64 of those challenges and reject or dismiss 13. The remaining five challenges are granted in part and denied in part. Of the approximately $98 million in funding that was subject to challenge, approximately $18.7 million is now authorized for disbursement to extend broadband-capable infrastructure in 22 states. 1 The Bureau previously has issued $288 million in funding authorizations to extend broadband in 43 states and one territory. See Over $32 Million of Connect America Funding Authorized to Connect Unserved Homes and Businesses in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, WC Docket No.
    [Show full text]
  • Chester County South Carolina
    CHESTER COUNTY FY 2019-2020 AP ACCOUNT DISTRIBUTION BY ACCOUNT OPEN & PAID VOUCHERS CHECK DATES 10/01/2019 TO 10/31/2019 PAY DATES 10/01/2019 TO 10/31/2019 BOTH ACCRUALS AND NON ACCRUALS CHECK RUN 0 TO 2147483647 VOUCHER PO CHECK PAY DATE/ NUMBER VENDOR NUMBER NUMBER CHECK DATE AMOUNT 100 GENERAL FUND 100-101-5205 COMMUNICATIONS E 234834 021375 TRUVISTA COMMUNICATIONS 15009 10/11/2019 40.64 COUNTY COUNCIL - PHONE 235419 100332 VERIZON WIRELESS 134928 10/25/2019 45.41 COUNTY COUNCIL - CELL PHONE 86.05 100-101-5207 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT E 234965 102064 JOSEPH R BRANHAM 14935 10/11/2019 67.28 COUNTY COUNCIL - BRANHAM - MILEAGE - SCAC STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING - 9/27/19 235160 1000330 SC ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 34682 134905 10/18/2019 60.00 COUNTY COUNCIL - BRANHAM - COUNTY COUNCIL COALITION - COLUMBIA, SC - 10/24/19 235176 1000330 SC ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 34765 134905 10/18/2019 175.00 COUNTY COUNCIL - 2019 SCAC LEGISLATIVE CONF - BRANHAM - CHARLESTON - DEC 5-9, 2019 235395 1000492 THE TURNING POINT OF CHESTER 34776 134925 10/25/2019 200.00 COUNTY COUNCIL - TURNING POINT OF CHESTER - FALL BANQUENT TABLE FOR 8 502.28 100-101-5214 MAINT AND SERV CONTRACTS E 235146 101824 MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATION 34708 15096 10/25/2019 900.00 COUNTY COUNCIL - ONLINE CODE HOSTING 900.00 100-102-5202 OPERATING SUPPLIES E 234719 100426 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 34531 14919 10/04/2019 60.60 DELEGATION - SUPPLIES 60.60 100-102-5205 COMMUNICATIONS E 234835 021375 TRUVISTA COMMUNICATIONS 15009 10/11/2019 99.05 DELEGATION - PHONES 99.05 100-105-5202 OPERATING SUPPLIES
    [Show full text]
  • Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C
    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of the Joint Application of ) ) The Chester Telephone Company d/b/a Tru- ) WC Docket No. 19-_____________ Vista Communications, Transferor ) ) IB File No. ITC-T/C-2019________ and ) ) York Telecoms Holdings US L.P., Transferee ) ) for Grant of Authority Pursuant to Section 214 ) of the Communications Act of 1934, as ) amended, and Sections 63.04 and 63.24 of the ) Commission’s Rules to Transfer Control of Do- ) mestic and International Section 214 Authoriza- ) tion Holders to York Telecoms Holdings US ) L.P. ) JOINT APPLICATION The Chester Telephone Company d/b/a TruVista Communications ( “TruVista” or “Transferor”) and York Telecoms Holdings US L.P. (“York” or “Transferee”) (together, “Applicants”), pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”), 47 U.S.C. § 214, and Sections 63.04 and 63.24 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 63.04 & 63.24, request Commission approval for Transferee to acquire ownership and control of TruVista (the “Transaction”), which will result in the transfer of direct or indirect control to Transferee of the following Section 214 authority holders: TruVista, Lockhart Telephone Company (“Lockhart”), Ridgeway Telephone Company (“Ridgeway”), Fairfield Communications, Inc. (“Fairfield”), Camden Corporate Investments, LLC (“Camden”), TruVista Communications of Georgia, LLC (“TruVista-GA”), and Chester Long Distance Services, Inc. (“Chester Long Distance”) (Lockhart, Ridgeway, Fairfield, Camden, Chester Communications, LLC (“Chester Comm”), TruVista-GA, and Chester Long Distance are wholly owned subsidiaries of TruVista (“Subsidiaries”), and TruVista together with its Subsidiaries, the “Licensees”). As discussed in more detail below, the Applicants have entered into an agreement where- by York will acquire all of the ownership interests in TruVista and, indirectly, its Subsidiaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Connect with These Top Companies Visit Their Booths Or Ask the BBP Staff in the Expo Hall to Provide an Introduction
    Connect With These Top Companies Visit their booths or ask the BBP staff in the Expo Hall to provide an introduction. Booth #402 $)XUXNDZD&RPSDQ\ www.ofsoptics.com www.glds.com www.connexiontechnologies.net www.calix.com Booth # 317 www.corning.com www.multicominc.com www.timewarnercable.com www.tonercable.com www.smstv.com Booth #308 www.suttleonline.com Booth #117 www.adc.com Booth #416 Don’t miss the all-new bonus pages in our upcoming Digital editions Get valuable added editorial in our digital issue BONUS sections. Extra articles • Charts • Maps • Graphs • Statistics FOR A LIMITED TIME, Search each issue and across all issues. qualified subscribers can sign up for both print Save time by clicking on links to ads. and digital editions and continue to receive both articles to colleagues with one click. Send at no charge. Click through the pages with ease — much better than a PDF. Go to www.bbpmag.com/subscribe and START or RENEW your subscription now. Select either DIGITAL or BOTH PRINT AND DIGITAL. Do you have the bandwidth to attract and keep residents? Broadband at the speed of fi ber-optic light. Streaming video and interactive gaming that defy description. The coolest programming, and more of it, on the purity of HDTV. Pure joy. This is what today’s residents demand. And this is what you can give them with Verizon FiOS®, the most advanced TV, Internet and phone service available. Set up by our own experts, who will create a custom installation plan just for you. Verizon FiOS. It’s a clear signal to today’s residents that you get it.
    [Show full text]
  • Truvista Communications of Georgia, Llc Tariff F.C.C. No
    TRUVISTA COMMUNICATIONS OF GEORGIA, LLC TARIFF F.C.C. NO. 1 Original Title Page 1 ACCESS SERVICE Rates, Terms and Conditions applying to the provision of interstate access service by the Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) providing service within the operating Territories of the Issuing Carriers: TRUVISTA COMMUNICATIONS OF GEORGIA, LLC by TARIFF F.C.C. NO. 1 All material contained herein is new. Access Services are provided by means of wire, fiber optics, radio or any other suitable technology or a combination thereof. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Issued: April 11, 2018 Effective: April 12, 2018 Brian Singleton, President TRUVISTA COMMUNICATIONS OF GEORGIA, LLC 112 York Street, Chester, South Carolina 29706-0160 TRUVISTA COMMUNICATIONS OF GEORGIA, LLC TARIFF F.C.C. NO. 1 Original Title Page 2 ISSUING CARRIERS TRUVISTA COMMUNICATIONS OF GEORGIA, LLC Competitive Local Exchange Carrier OCN 847G 112 York Street, Chester, South Carolina 29706-0160 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Issued: April 11, 2018 Effective: April 12, 2018 Brian Singleton, President TRUVISTA COMMUNICATIONS OF GEORGIA, LLC 112 York Street, Chester, South Carolina 29706-0160 TRUVISTA COMMUNICATIONS OF GEORGIA, LLC TARIFF F.C.C. NO. 1 Original Page 1 ACCESS SERVICE CHECK SHEET The title page and pages 1 through 12-8 inclusive of this Tariff are effective as of the dates shown. Original and revised pages, as named below, comprise all changes
    [Show full text]
  • FCC Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Phase I Auction Auction ID: 904 Winning Bidder Summary
    Attachment A FCC Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Phase I Auction Auction ID: 904 Winning Bidder Summary (Sorted by Bidder Name) Date of Report: 12/07/2020 08:17 AM ET Assigned Number of Support over 10 Locations Bidder FRN State Years Assigned 4-Corners Consortium 0029719283 New Mexico $ 2,598,030.00 635 AB Indiana LLC 0021994686 Florida $ 668,304.10 261 ACT 0029754652 Mississippi $ 1,622,136.00 925 Albion Telephone Company, Inc. 0003714805 Utah $ 599,795.70 141 All West Communications, Inc. 0004924809 Wyoming $ 46,648.00 218 Allen's T.V. Cable Service, Inc. 0003746898 Louisiana $ 371,348.10 620 Altice USA, Inc. 0025637406 Arkansas $ 58,415.00 528 Altice USA, Inc. 0025637406 Idaho $ 10,556.00 140 Altice USA, Inc. 0025637406 Kentucky $ 351,065.00 1,734 Altice USA, Inc. 0025637406 Louisiana $ 303,952.00 2,267 Altice USA, Inc. 0025637406 Texas $ 364.00 15 Altice USA, Inc. 0025637406 West Virginia $ 125,528.00 536 American Heartland 0002594190 Iowa $ 1,821,520.00 1,549 AMG Technology Investment Group 0021701891 Illinois $ 193,098,839.90 68,921 LLC AMG Technology Investment Group 0021701891 Indiana $ 18,947,203.50 11,803 LLC AMG Technology Investment Group 0021701891 Iowa $ 112,637,885.70 36,228 LLC Page 1 of 30 Attachment A FCC Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Phase I Auction Auction ID: 904 Winning Bidder Summary (Sorted by Bidder Name) Date of Report: 12/07/2020 08:17 AM ET Assigned Number of Support over 10 Locations Bidder FRN State Years Assigned AMG Technology Investment Group 0021701891 Kansas $ 25,546,674.50 26,466 LLC AMG Technology
    [Show full text]