Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on May 26, 2015 10:51:15 GMT -5
My curiousness has been piqued with regard to some of the things then board member, kn Lws spoke about with regards to L.W. Wireless during those late 2010 board meetings.
Why would Mr. Kn Lws give a rat's behind about L.W. Wireless' problem of folks getting their internet services from unsecured routers--and/or neighbors "poaching" the services from other neighbors who had a signal? This seems odd, unless L.W. Wireless and Kn Lws had an unknown business relationship that we knew/know nothing about.
Mr. Lws makes statements in these minutes that, to me, seemed to show he had some sort of (business) relationship with L.W. Wireless--and I'm not talking about the obvious possibility that Mr. Lws may have purchased his personal internet services from L.W. Wireless.
The reason I say this is because I believe that L.W. Wireless could not control the poachers, was losing money and decided to close shop, but do so only after they got paid from their subscribers for advance service, then pull the plug and "get outta Dodge" so to speak.
But then, all of a sudden, certain board members, Bb stabe, along with his cohorts, started putting towers up all over SLR in April, 2010--and these towers went up right after the majority of snow birds left. Also, previous to that, after the owners of SLR had just voted NO to the board's/Bb stabe's internet ballot option--for the SECOND TIME.
I don't know about anyone else, but my intuition, along with certain things I know to be true, and new things I've gleaned from those late 2010 board meeting minutes has lead me to believe there has got to be some sort of connection between L.W. Wirelss and Kay c Netz.
|
|
|
Post by pestcontrol on May 26, 2015 14:49:31 GMT -5
What!!! I have just been informed that every tower, all guy wires and poles will have to be enclosed by a 6' fence and in addition signs must be posted on the fence along with landscaping around the the fenced in areas.
We Saddlebaggers are being asked to pay for all of this. That is in addition of having to live with the unsightliness.
Say good - bye to the Beach House ambiance.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 26, 2015 15:41:40 GMT -5
h. Communication towers sH all be enclosed by security fencing not less than six feet in height. Access to communication towers sH all be through a lockable gate. m. The visual impacts of communication towers on nearby viewers sH all be mitigated to the extent reasonably possible. At a minimum, a row of Trees at least six feet tall at planting sH all be planted around the perimeter of the fence to the property and a continuous hedge at least 30 inches high
p. Each owner or operator of a communication tower located in unincorporated Polk County sH all submit an annual report to the Land Development Division on forms to be provided by the Land Development Division.
FCC 3. Communication towers and supporting equipment sH all be finished and maintained in non-glare colors that minimize their visibility to the greatest extent possible. Equipment attached to the tower sH all match the color of the tower. Colors that blend with background landscapes or structures will be required.
Polk County Code
b. In residential zones, lighting sH all be limited to Security lighting that is manually-operated or motion-detector controlled.
7. Signage sH all be limited to required address and facility identification signs, emergency and safety hazard signage.
2. Prior to the issuance of any entitlement permit, the applicant sH all provide a Facility Maintenance/Removal Agreement to the Planning Director, binding the developer and successors in interest, to an agreement to:
a. Maintain the facility as approved; and
b. Notify the County of intent to vacate the site, agreeing that the applicant will remove all facilities within 12 months unless the site is occupied by a successor; or
Provide a cash bond equal in cost to removing the tower and associated facilities.
3. A permanent, weatherproof, facility identification sign, no more than 12” x 24” in size, identifying the facility operator and a 24-hour phone number, sH all be placed on the fence, the equipment building or tower base. If larger signage is required by the FCC, the applicant sH all provide proof of the requirement, and signage sH all not exceed the required size.
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on May 26, 2015 23:50:15 GMT -5
If these requirements apply to the present Communication Towers in SLR, who is paying this bill, the Internet Corporation or SLohA.
Also if the guy wires supporting said towers need to be inside of the fenced area, that would be 5 ugly sites with a very large foot print. That may lead to removing the present towers, that need to be supported. And maybe erecting 5 free standing towers, which have a much larger base and do not require any guy wires. The 6' fence would then have a smaller foot print on our parks appearance.
My suggestion would be to remove them from our community. All of this for 120 present WiFi subscribers in SLR. This is just not right, the cheese has definitely slid in our lap. What a shame !
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 27, 2015 6:26:34 GMT -5
Dick Tracy posted:
According to the $1500 Land Abuse Application to Polk County, stab has 449 subscribers in S-bag of which 110 of them are feeding off his tower at 28GH. That is the story on the Application.
The relocation of service of these few subscribers to newer wireless technology and broader access mobile capability for a competitive cost is not a consideration that the Land Commission will pay attention to. They don't care where you get your signal from or even IF you get a signal. In this case, both Sprint and Verizon service S-bag just fine and there may be other providers as well.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 27, 2015 7:13:52 GMT -5
Dick Tracy posted: Good point--it appears that the Polk County requirements for permits to erect towers is awesomely expensive and detailed and that the current configuration would consume a LOT of real estate! If Polk County refuses to issue permit(s), our leaders might decide to pay for the re-configuration of some or all the KCN towers to "free-standing". A heavy duty 100' self supporting tower runs around $5-6000 before delivery and installation. Here is some information about free-standing communications towers. Here is the size of the hole in the ground required to support one of these babies! Here is the base foundation Here is a 50' section ready to be anchored to the base. Wow these can be erected to 400 feet! I wonder if that will that satisfy KCNetwork's mission to establish "commercial quality internet" for Polk County?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 27, 2015 7:22:10 GMT -5
pestcontrol posted:
Not True. Saddlebaggers are NOT BEING ASKED to pay for all this.
Our assessment income is being captured by our "trusted" custodians and diverted to use for activities/equipment NOT OWNED by SLohA.
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on May 27, 2015 7:22:36 GMT -5
My bad. I was under the impression that the 120 number was the off season count (year round) KCNet subscribers. Thanks for setting the record straight.
Does anyone know if these fence requirements pertain to the towers in SLR?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 27, 2015 7:43:22 GMT -5
Dick Tracy posted: Unknown. However, that information is taken from Polk County's published Code Guidelines guidelines that are published elsewhere on this Forum. What they eventually choose to do and why is another matter entirely! Here is the link to the entire Code: Polk County FL Land Development CodeHere is the Forum location of the Polk County Code for Communications Towers, Chapter 3 Section 303 Pre-Lawsuit #3-Breach of Covenants Lawsuit>>ISSUE #1-Polk Cty Land Development Code-Ch 3 Sec 303
|
|
Lake Wales Wireless
Guest
|
Post by Lake Wales Wireless on Sept 30, 2015 17:40:42 GMT -5
Many folks are unaware of the real reason why xxxxxxxxx was closed. This was mostly due to some of the influences xxxxx imposed on xxxxxxxx and the business relationships they held. The owner of xxxxxxxxx was always assured that xxxxxxx never wanted to be in the wireless internet business. The owner of xxxxxxxxxx made large investments into towers, erection of towers, maintenance, agreements with providers and land owners to have an internet business. Constant pressure was put on xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and their owners to either keep the price of the internet at $35 per month or lower. xxxxxxx maintained this pricing for the 10 years while it was in business. However given the constant increase in costs and equipment it was only a matter of time until this financial level would fail. The owner of xxxxxxxxxxx even gained other employment to try and keep the business afloat only to be sabatoged and taken out of the picture completely.
The towers and gear were damaged by vandals at multiple sites, tower owners were contacted and told xxxxxxxxx would soon be out of business, and the internet supplier was even contacted and told to discontinue service on circuits' xxxxxxxxxxxxxx had purchased to run their business. As you can only imagine, it was not long until the owners of xxxxxxxxxx could no longer fund the business and was eventually forced out.
It was only later that it was discovered who the real person was behind these constant mishaps that caused xxxxxxxxx to fold. Hence the birth of xxxxxxxxxx service brought to you by xxxxxx. Not only did xxxxx force the shutdown of a hard working business family, but also took over the assets they work hard to build. The towers built by xxxxxxxx costs over $100k to build and xxxxxxxx acquired them by being decisive and at no cost to them out of pocket. After learning xxxxx past, one must not be surprised at his horrible business tactics and what he does to steal from an honest person. Unfortunately the damage is done and many people suffered from the fall out. All one can hope is that the madness stops and xxxx is locked behind bars once and for all.
Editor: I had to do some serious editing of this post before approving it because it contained many unsubstantiated statements about specific businesses and persons. It is my feeling that the person posting this detailed content has "inside" information. As suggested by the thread's name, I have long suspected that there is much more to be learned about the sudden disappearance of one business and the almost immediate replacement by another business. The story will emerge one day.
|
|
gusto
Addict
"A Friend of Bill W."
Posts: 117
|
Post by gusto on Oct 2, 2015 5:57:10 GMT -5
Reading the above post by: "Lake Wales Wireless (Guest), it sounds like The Big Boys are having some Growing Pains, and maybe a inside Whistle Blower." Mr. Robber B. stab's track record back in Coralville, Iowa is one with Federal Fraud Convictions. A Google search will give one lots of insight into the past. Gusto
|
|
|
Post by LWW on Aug 12, 2016 14:40:37 GMT -5
As an Insider with detailed information on the relationship of LWW and Mr stab I would be glad to share details about how Mr stab destroyed a great business so he could take over and capitalize on something he put no blood, sweat, and tears into. Please ask your questions and Ill answer them as time allows.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 12, 2016 22:24:49 GMT -5
LWW posted:
First question: Can you relate your proximity to having knowledge of this business and/or reasonably establish your credibility to speak to details of stab's business conduct while LWW was in operation? I assume you don't want your identify known.
Second question: To your knowledge, was there ever "inside" collusion, cooperation or assistance from any owner in S-bag during the evolution of the intentional "dismantling" of LWW in anticipation of establishment of business for KCNet? If yes, when did this process begin and who participated?
You can PM me if you wish.
|
|
|
Post by LWW on Mar 30, 2017 12:49:20 GMT -5
I have first hand knowledge over conversations and a 3rd party whiteness as to the conversations that took place with Mr stab. stab was consistently dabbling in a business he knew nothing about and stating if rates were increased at all he would be forced to start up a competitive operation. The rate was 35$ per month plus tax it was 37.50. Buy 5 months get sixth free. Buy 10 months get two free. Made the deal even better dropping the rate to around 26.75 per month.
At one point in time an office manager pulled me into their office and stated that Mr stab had voiced concerns over LWW. Making comments that the gear on the tower was not industrial grade, service was poor at best, customer service was horrible. I believe customers felt differently and based on what i read still feel LWW was a way better option. It was not long after this discussion that it was realized other discussions were taking place for stab to invest in LWW or become their largest competitor. After being turned down as an investor the gloves came off. In the end Mr stab won.
Its very disheartening to know that the madness continues and all we can do is hope for the best. There are some great alternatives available to the Park that would provide internet, tv, and voice. It would just take a commitment from the people and the part to see it to fruition. SB is a great community with some awesome people.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 30, 2017 15:10:35 GMT -5
@lww: I believe you are the same person who posted in Sept 2015 and August 2016. Who was colluding with stab inside S-bag? Was this as early as 2007? What was the timeline? How was the potential investor status between stab and LWW derailed? Was the office you referred to an LWW office or S-bag office? Believe it or not, there are many people who care very much about the collapse of LWW and the nearly-immediate replacement service by stab. Certain sponsors in S-bag were overly zealous to support stab's efforts to establish IMMEDIATE internet service--even using Owner funds to pay for his business expenses and trying to add an internet fee to the common assessments. I strongly suspect there were business investors among S-bag owners. Owners of S-bag have been repeatedly victimized by two separate efforts to force owners to pay for internet service whether they want it or not, by stab-initiated PUD modifications, by unauthorized occupation of common property by stab's towers and recently, targeted service interruptions to customers who are in disfavor. Owners have been paying for stab's business since 2007 and now even pay part of the assessment for a Reserve fund to repair/replace his towers. Owners have never been consulted nor has S-bag ever put the acquisition of this equipment to a vote per the Bylaws. Worst, the Board colluded with stab (Virginia, the legal owner of KCNET) by drawing up a one-sided Lease Agreement in which owners pay KCNET!!!!! To this day, the Lease has not been ratified by the required Board vote. We feel your pain. If you want to PM me confidentially outside the forum, feel free: movinsue@gmail.com
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Mar 30, 2017 17:58:55 GMT -5
Robber berns stab and Norly D.Brnd are not your friend.
They are 2 of the players, with a Get Out Of Jail Free Pass. The Truth will come to light in time.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2017 13:35:20 GMT -5
Dick Tracy posted:
Add Kn Lws.
There are more. These three are just the most visible at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Apr 7, 2017 4:27:51 GMT -5
They do like to HAM It Up Over The Airways, using that much needed additional Ham Antenna, Robber stab had installed on the tennis courts tower.
Yes, the Ham Antenna that needed the original KCNet Tower at the Tennis Courts to be raised in height, to assure a World Class Ham Reception.
Just more deceit.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 7, 2017 19:54:37 GMT -5
Dick Tracy posted:
Natch, this was done AFTER most eyes left the park to go back up north. That's the S-bag strategy--do it in the summer while most people are not there to see it.
Let's hope that our returning northern visitors will not be greeted by a Brand New Beach Tower and the smell of bacon...
|
|