|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 23, 2015 10:51:55 GMT -5
The PhoneVite to 836 SLR member phones was launched at 4pm yesterday. In it, Gary skeeverse notified owners about the availability of internet services comparable to that offered by Kay c Networks and stated an informational meeting was being held in the Clubhouse this evening at 7pm to discuss the services. Mr stab was also invited (personally by Mr skeeverse) to attend.
The meeting purpose is twofold: 1) to inform Owners that high speed internet service is available from a local owner, HighlanderData, as a comparable alternative to Kay c Networks and 2) to dispell the persistent rumor that the ONLY internet available to Saddlebaggers is through Kay c Networks.
Gary skeeverse AND the Office were deluged with calls from people who wanted to know "What was going on?" Gary has talked to 25 people so far who did not know about the Brnd/stab Land Use Modification with Polk County. Some of them indicated they would be sending letters to the County opposing the Brnd/stab application.
Internet is currently available through DirecTV, DISH Networks, Excede, HughesNet, Sprint, Verizon (and various resellers), HighlanderData and Kay c Networks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Jul 23, 2015 22:43:12 GMT -5
Verizon, Sprint, Direct TV, Dish Net, Excede, Highlander Data, and other Internet Service Providers, better take Notice of Bb St aib's "one liner" posted on July 23 under Current Issue.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is one of several questions Bb would have asked at the Meeting on Thursday Evening....
But his schedule would not allow him to attend.
3. Who is the internet supplier?
(KCnet: Level 3 Communications, the largest internet supplier on the Planet)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is Bb saying?
Is he implying that KCNet is the largest internet supplier on the Planet?
Or Level 3 Communications is the largest ISP on the Planet? (Yes this is True)
Plus who cares !
What I Care About is That KCNet is in My Backyard & it is "One Ulgy Site" !
I do not see Verizon or AT&T...
Note News Below:
RCR WIRELESS NEWS
AT&T, Verizon both sign interconnect deals with Level 3
By Sean Kinney on May 12, 2015 Carriers, Ntwerk Infrastructure
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 24, 2015 5:38:07 GMT -5
Dick Tracy posted:
(Editor: This came from CHUG and a limited handout at the June 23 Owner Meeting.)
When D Brnd stated this from Bb stab's prepared written statement, the Guest speaker from HighlanderData indicated that he did not believe that it was correct because Level 3 Communications did not directly "supply anything" to an end user; that Level 3 was the biggest infrastructure carrier (broadband backbone supplier) in the entire universe and only supplied the biggest of the biggest, such as the Feds, Verizon, Sprint and AT&T. Level 3, with current revenues of over SIX BILLION Dollars/yr, sells to the BIG Corps and they, in turn, sell to the Not-Quite-As-Big Corps, who package and offer to the end consumer.
To that comment, D got a queasy half-grin on his face and said in his humble (yet not) manner "From everything thing I know about Bb stab, he is dealing in a million(s) and could be directly dealing with Level 3." (This is not a direct quote but the gist so save yourself some Defamation Depot paper, DBag!)
It appears that Kay c Networks is attempting to claim credibility through association here--as Dick Tracy notes: Who Cares?
One wonders: why would the BIGGEST Boy on the Block choose to do business with Kay c Ntwerk after doing a perfunctory credit check or Google search?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on Jul 24, 2015 6:13:24 GMT -5
Your reference to Level 3 Communications prompted me to do some quick research on that company. Based upon what I learned, I have a question: Is it possible that KCNET is what is known as a "last mile carrier" for Level 3 Communications; i.e., KCNET purchases "bulk" broadband signal from Level 3 for redistribution to KCNET's local customer base? The reason I'm asking is that, if that is so, wouldn't it be possible for another local ISP to go into competition with KCNET? Perhaps SLohA itself could enter into a business relationship with Level 3 and run a local ISP service ourselves - thereby eliminating the "middleman" while providing wireless internet service to S-bag residents at a greatly reduced price (because we would operate it as a non-profit).
I admit that I am not a saavy computer geek and may be talking complete gibberish. But I'm just thinking out loud.
Incidentally, I recently came across an interesting fact. That huge communications tower on SR 60 near the entrance to S-bag is owned by American Towers Corporation. American Towers is not an ISP but rather it erects and maintains "multi-tenant" communication towers; i.e. it rents space on its towers to internet providers, cellular companies, etc. for their respective repeater antennae. Given the height of that tower on SR 60, couldn't it serve all S-bag's internet needs, thereby eliminating KCNET's towers in the S-bag complex?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 25, 2015 9:48:19 GMT -5
Your reference to Level 3 Communications prompted me to do some quick research on that company. Based upon what I learned, I have a question: Is it possible that KCNET is what is known as a "last mile carrier" for Level 3 Communications; i.e., KCNET purchases "bulk" broadband signal from Level 3 for redistribution to KCNET's local customer base? The reason I'm asking is that, if that is so, wouldn't it be possible for another local ISP to go into competition with KCNET? Perhaps SLohA itself could enter into a business relationship with Level 3 and run a local ISP service ourselves - thereby eliminating the "middleman" while providing wireless internet service to S-bag residents at a greatly reduced price (because we would operate it as a non-profit). I admit that I am not a saavy computer geek and may be talking complete gibberish. But I'm just thinking out loud. Incidentally, I recently came across an interesting fact. That huge communications tower on SR 60 near the entrance to S-bag is owned by American Towers Corporation. American Towers is not an ISP but rather it erects and maintains "multi-tenant" communication towers; i.e. it rents space on its towers to internet providers, cellular companies, etc. for their respective repeater antennae. Given the height of that tower on SR 60, couldn't it serve all S-bag's internet needs, thereby eliminating KCNET's towers in the S-bag complex? Apparently, some prideful egos got hurt by our ISP guest's (an engineer for 20 years with Brighthouse) comments about doubting that Level 3 Communications were directly supplying Bb stab. Of all the important things discussed, THIS was one that the Investment Pair decided to write about on CHUG! Something that is a matter of curiosity and concerns no one except the huge egos hurt by the doubt that they were not "big enough" to deal directly with Level 3. I wouldn't know how big is big enough and I doubt that most people care.... As far as the American Towers mega-commercial tower at SR60, our guest ISP stated the rental rate is too rich for his blood at $5-8K per month. I'm sure Bb stab could find a way to finance a commercial tower or two! We should not be surprised if someday our Clubhouse is replaced by such a Mega tower as this Board continues to muscle its way past the objections of owners in pursuit of its profit agenda. Owners need to remember what the limited authority is for the SLohA--it is to MAINTAIN and OPERATE the common properties owned by SLohA as created and delivered by the Developer in 1977. It has very limited authority to add anything without owners' consent. We even balloted adding the swimming pool lights! Although the spycams were added without consent; perhaps that was a "test" of Owners' tolerance for the Board/stab dictatorship.
SLohA has NO AUTHORITY to TAKE AWAY our property or ADD TO our property without Owner Consent. However, they are spitting "S u e ME" and have boldly stated their intent to ADD TOWERS and INCREASE ASSESSMENT FEES and ADD PREMISES LIABILITY BURDEN to all owners' obligations by belatedly signing a contract with Kay c Networks.I can almost hear D saying "Huh? Where did you get that from?" The Directors (individually) would be well advised to seek individual competent legal opinion before voting for this scheme. It is possible that Tower Hill will not want to insure them for breach of fiduciary especially after the last legal fiasco sponsored by Management's able legal counsel (who couldn't even get the Revitalization Consent Ballot forms right). |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 26, 2015 8:07:16 GMT -5
D posted on CHUG 7/24:
I see No need for this attempt at "verifying" what is likely a self-generated rumor but verify if it is makes you feel better.
The PhoneVite was CLEARLY identified as coming from Gary both at the beginning of the message AND at the END of the message. He identified himself by NAME...as a S-bag Owner...he identified his street address...and his personal phone number. His phone number appeared on the Caller ID. He repeated his name and phone number at the end. Why on earth would anyone think that it was coming from the office--how much plainer can a human being be?
Is D thinking S-bag owners are Too Dense to understand the difference between an office phone call and an individual phone call? Is this yet another made up story because it is not what I heard and it's not what Gary heard. What I heard (and others in the office overheard while hearing Shn on the phone) was that the office received many calls WANTING TO KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON and were told it was a meeting about the internet.
As a result of this outreach, Gary has spoken to at least 30 owners, most of whom were totally unaware of the land use modification and were aghast at what has been happening this summer while most owners were away from the park. Many of these people wanted to know how to contact the county to object to the Brnd/stab application and indicated they would be writing.
As a result of this PhoneVite response, I followed up and dedicated a Newsletter to updating people about the APPEAL and providing Contact Information for Polk County. (This was sent out last night and I doubt that there is anyone who is confused about if the office sent the newsletter.)
This morning around 8:30am, I received a phone call asking if I would be home to receive a $$$ donation to assist with legal costs.
I think most Baggers are smart enough to know that 499 is not the only source of communication in the park.
Imagine that-Free Speech-even in S-bag!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 3, 2015 7:30:07 GMT -5
posted on CHUG by leery Allison
Received from leery Allison 07/30/2015 10:09 AM
leery A would probably fit right in with this board and should all means be considered for the board vacancy. He would probably end up good buddies with "One Voice, One Park" leery L.
Distasteful, immature, dictatorlike--this is a bold attempt to suppress the masses from even being exposed to alternate points of view.
Emergency-Press 5! Close your eyes, cover your ears with your hands and sing "La La La La.."
Its message is that it is dangerous to listen to any information offered by your neighbors that depart from the BOD mantras "One Voice-One Park". It reminds me of third world countries where rulers control all means of communications so people remain ignorant and powerless to help themselves. Implementation of such a suggestion would inevitably have the sobering effect of taking S-bag into a new era of decay--further suppressing Owner participation and resulting in fearful, suspicious people scurrying around in golf carts, furtively glancing at their neighbors and wondering if they will be caught on a spycam and blasphemed for speaking to an enemy of the ruling party--the Board. Our marquee sign will remind us daily: One Board Voice--One Board/KCNet Park", our mail will be sorted at the Post Office and our computers hacked by the Special Sidekick to the Board.
The only optimistic thought I take away is this kind of "thinking" reflects the FEAR of the writer who seems to have something to hide. We have been put on notice to increase vigilance, question everything and scrutinize board behavior. Eventually that "something" will see the light of day in time to contain or reverse the damage to SLR.
|
|
