WISPs are eligible for some funding under the Schools and Library program. There is an opportunity under CAFII for WISP’s to get funding from CAF, but the ILEC’s get the first shot at it on a statewide basis. If the ILEC’s opt into the program in whole there is nothing left for the rest of us.
If the ILEC’s reject the CAFII funding on a statewide basis then the FCC is going to hold a ‘reverse auction’ where the lowest priced bidder gets money to serve any census blocks that are ‘high cost’ and ‘unserved’ following the results of the CAFII challenge process. I’m not sure what the FCC does if nobody bids in the reverse auction. I suspect that ‘no bid’ is a very real possibility in a lot of areas. So… there might be some money from CAF for WISP’s - but if you take it you have to be the low bidder and agree to every condition that the FCC will hang on the funding. AFAIK we don’t know what those conditions will be but it’s fairly safe to guess that they will include all of the usual things like audited financials, must-serve, extensive reporting, and agreements to meet government contractor standards (non-discrimination, equal opportunity, yada yada). While I have no problem with many of the EEOC and non-discrimination rules, keeping track of all of the regulations and internal controls to satisfy them is overwhelming for small businesses. So… bottom line - you might maybe be able to get CAF money, but would you really want it? Mark > On Jan 22, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think we were eligible for one of the CAF rounds, I think the latest was > only open to price cap incumbents? Not sure how Title II would change that. > Much discussion of CAF on WISPA list. Very complicated, I can’t remember it > all. > > Just because you pay into the universal service fund doesn’t necessarily mean > you are eligible for subsidies from it. And some of it goes to stuff like > schools and libraries and discounted cellphones under Lifeline program. It > seems like a slush fund that collects a tax that is not a tax, and > distributes it according to the whims of unelected officials under the > influence of lobbyists. > > > From: Cameron Crum <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:26 AM > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] the future of being an ISP > > If ISPs have to collect, does that mean they are also eligible for subsidies? > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> So did all you folks stop worrying about the 5 GHz rules? They are already >> a done deal, the end of new equipment authorization is coming soon, to be >> followed by end of sale. >> >> Seems like this is as big an issue if not bigger than having to pay into USF >> which, let's face it, we just turn around and add as a below-the-line charge >> on customer bills. Customers have already proved they don't pay attention >> to below-the-line charges, plus all the competition would be doing it as >> well. The main downside I see is if they increase the size of the CAF fund >> and our big competition gets even more subsidies to overbuild us. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Rory Conaway >> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 8:14 AM >> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] the future of being an ISP >> >> >> You should change it to, "when required by corrupt, geriatric, ignorant, and >> moronic government politicians". There is no question why Obama is pushing >> this, he is an ideological idiot with absolutely no management or economic >> skills. Add to that his feelings are hurt that the rest of the country is >> now seeing him for the egomaniac immature child that he is. Wheeler is now >> just trying to keep his job temporarily but I guarantee is trying to find a >> way out of this that preserves his lobbying business. The second he can >> get out, preserve his reputation, and probably not let his boss destroy the >> country and his future/former clients any further economically than he >> already has, including the 1200 new regulations taking effect now that will >> cost at least $200B this year alone, he's gone. >> >> All I know is I didn't go far enough with my Tom Wheeler article. Obama >> blindsided me on his need to destroy another industry and make government >> bigger. >> >> Rory >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Af [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] On >> Behalf Of Bill Prince >> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 10:21 PM >> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] the future of being an ISP >> >> We have always had the disclaimer in our service agreement that it would >> include taxes/surcharges if/when required by the government. Doesn't make >> it taste any better, but it covers the reality. >> >> bp >> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >> >> On 1/21/2015 6:23 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: >>> On 1/21/15 18:07, Rory Conaway wrote: >>>> I think we need to tell every single customer why the rates went up. >>>> There is another election in 2 years. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Your rates aren't going up. The explanation to the customer is simple: >>> "the total bill is higher because the government added a new tax. The >>> pre-tax price of service hasn't changed. We're not making any money >>> off this, if anything it adds more overhead to collect it. If you're >>> unhappy with this tax then call/write your representatives in congress." >>> >>> ~Seth >> >> > >
