Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
Charles has another good idea, But would they kill-off the smallest WISPS? Ron Wallace Hahnron, Inc. 220 S. Jackson Dt. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517)547-8410 Mobile: (517)270-2410 e-mail: rwall...@newgenet.net rwall...@tigernet.bz -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:c...@cticonnect.com] Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 11:26 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband It looks like a success-based voucher technologically neutral system for USF Reform/CAF is what's being proposed by the RCA (Rural Cellular Association) http://rca-usa.org/press/rca-press-releases/five-things-the-fcc-can-do-to-accelerate-broadband-deployment/914048 Perhaps WISPA should/could partner up with them for a stronger voice? -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 11:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband We need to have the USF turned into a voucher credit system that the end user can apply to what ever supplier they chose. Maybe its not the best idea, but I do not feel I have heard of a better one. Better for /the users/ not better for the I/CLECs and other very vested interests. On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 2/11/2011 01:06 AM, JohnS wrote: The FCC is looking for comments, so we all need to make it quite clear that the funds should be available for any and all broadband providers! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20110207/tc_nf/77213 Bret We should comment. The comment should be that we do not support any form of broadband subsidies and that USF should be eliminated. It is a New Internet Tax. We should all call it that and get people riled up about it. The FCC can't eliminate USF entirely. It is statutory: The Telecom Act of 1996 established USF and called for it to keep rural telephone rates comparable to urban rates. Because rural states get two senators just like big states, they have undue influence on subsidy legislation. Ted Stevens of Alaska was a leader here; he later wanted the FCC to outlaw VoIP, since it threatened the costly toll minutes that paid into USF. The new proposal makes matters worse, though, since it keeps existing USF intact and adds yet another fund to allow one provider per place to provide subsidized Internet access. I expect that it will usually be the ILEC, getting more money to compete with WISPs. -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
At 2/13/2011 11:26 AM, Charles Wu wrote: It looks like a success-based voucher technologically neutral system for USF Reform/CAF is what's being proposed by the RCA (Rural Cellular Association) http://rca-usa.org/press/rca-press-releases/five-things-the-fcc-can-do-to-accelerate-broadband-deployment/914048 Perhaps WISPA should/could partner up with them for a stronger voice? It would not do WISPs much good. Very, very few would qualify as ETC, or even want to be ETCs. RCA is trying to stave off a proposal to get rid of competitive ETC support entirely, most of which goes to cellular carriers for their fixed-wireless deployments. Supporting RCA seems pointless too, since they would be trying to get the exclusive CAF designations in their turf. Given the anti-competitive bent of the pending NPRM, expecting to move it towards more competition and subsidies to smaller providers seems unrealistic. WISP participation might, however, be useful in letting the FCC know just how messed up the system is. WISPs provide service for a much lower cost than ETCs, with no subsidies, and don't need subsidized competitors putting them otu of business. And just raising the idea of subsidizing low-cost WISPs, as an alternative to the fat RLECs, might help push the Overton Window just a little bit more away from the monopoly side. -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 11:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband We need to have the USF turned into a voucher credit system that the end user can apply to what ever supplier they chose. Maybe its not the best idea, but I do not feel I have heard of a better one. Better for /the users/ not better for the I/CLECs and other very vested interests. On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 2/11/2011 01:06 AM, JohnS wrote: The FCC is looking for comments, so we all need to make it quite clear that the funds should be available for any and all broadband providers! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20110207/tc_nf/77213 Bret We should comment. The comment should be that we do not support any form of broadband subsidies and that USF should be eliminated. It is a New Internet Tax. We should all call it that and get people riled up about it. The FCC can't eliminate USF entirely. It is statutory: The Telecom Act of 1996 established USF and called for it to keep rural telephone rates comparable to urban rates. Because rural states get two senators just like big states, they have undue influence on subsidy legislation. Ted Stevens of Alaska was a leader here; he later wanted the FCC to outlaw VoIP, since it threatened the costly toll minutes that paid into USF. The new proposal makes matters worse, though, since it keeps existing USF intact and adds yet another fund to allow one provider per place to provide subsidized Internet access. I expect that it will usually be the ILEC, getting more money to compete with WISPs. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
Subsidizing the low-cost WISP is not a bad idea. But the thing is thats easilly achievable without create monopoly like award systems. A voucher system solves that. It allows ANY/ALL competitive WISPs and even Any Telcos, to have an opportunity to gain subsidee, for affordably deploying broadband. The problem that will arrise is consumers want faster speeds like fiber, and will argue incentives should be given to those that offer higher speeds, which will unlevel the playing field once a gain. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 9:56 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband At 2/13/2011 11:26 AM, Charles Wu wrote: It looks like a success-based voucher technologically neutral system for USF Reform/CAF is what's being proposed by the RCA (Rural Cellular Association) http://rca-usa.org/press/rca-press-releases/five-things-the-fcc-can-do-to-accelerate-broadband-deployment/914048 Perhaps WISPA should/could partner up with them for a stronger voice? It would not do WISPs much good. Very, very few would qualify as ETC, or even want to be ETCs. RCA is trying to stave off a proposal to get rid of competitive ETC support entirely, most of which goes to cellular carriers for their fixed-wireless deployments. Supporting RCA seems pointless too, since they would be trying to get the exclusive CAF designations in their turf. Given the anti-competitive bent of the pending NPRM, expecting to move it towards more competition and subsidies to smaller providers seems unrealistic. WISP participation might, however, be useful in letting the FCC know just how messed up the system is. WISPs provide service for a much lower cost than ETCs, with no subsidies, and don't need subsidized competitors putting them otu of business. And just raising the idea of subsidizing low-cost WISPs, as an alternative to the fat RLECs, might help push the Overton Window just a little bit more away from the monopoly side. -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 11:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband We need to have the USF turned into a voucher credit system that the end user can apply to what ever supplier they chose. Maybe its not the best idea, but I do not feel I have heard of a better one. Better for /the users/ not better for the I/CLECs and other very vested interests. On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 2/11/2011 01:06 AM, JohnS wrote: The FCC is looking for comments, so we all need to make it quite clear that the funds should be available for any and all broadband providers! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20110207/tc_nf/77213 Bret We should comment. The comment should be that we do not support any form of broadband subsidies and that USF should be eliminated. It is a New Internet Tax. We should all call it that and get people riled up about it. The FCC can't eliminate USF entirely. It is statutory: The Telecom Act of 1996 established USF and called for it to keep rural telephone rates comparable to urban rates. Because rural states get two senators just like big states, they have undue influence on subsidy legislation. Ted Stevens of Alaska was a leader here; he later wanted the FCC to outlaw VoIP, since it threatened the costly toll minutes that paid into USF. The new proposal makes matters worse, though, since it keeps existing USF intact and adds yet another fund to allow one provider per place to provide subsidized Internet access. I expect that it will usually be the ILEC, getting more money to compete with WISPs. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
I think we should consider supporting it only as our fallback position. I think our primary mission should be on bringing awareness that it makes no sense to raise government money by selling off the one asset (spectrum) required to bring affordable and plentiful broadband to the masses to the highest bidders and then turn around and pay those same bidders to build broadband. It is insane. Just give us the spectrum. We'll build the damn broadband. It is that easy. The voucher should be the exclusive spectrum license granted to those who build the tower and serve the broadband. Why do we have to have auctions, USF and go broke with paying out trillions in stimulus. Free Spectrum Licenses = Universal low-cost broadband. Problem solved. Scriv On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Charles Wu c...@cticonnect.com wrote: It looks like a success-based voucher technologically neutral system for USF Reform/CAF is what's being proposed by the RCA (Rural Cellular Association) http://rca-usa.org/press/rca-press-releases/five-things-the-fcc-can-do-to-accelerate-broadband-deployment/914048 Perhaps WISPA should/could partner up with them for a stronger voice? -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 11:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband We need to have the USF turned into a voucher credit system that the end user can apply to what ever supplier they chose. Maybe its not the best idea, but I do not feel I have heard of a better one. Better for /the users/ not better for the I/CLECs and other very vested interests. On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 2/11/2011 01:06 AM, JohnS wrote: The FCC is looking for comments, so we all need to make it quite clear that the funds should be available for any and all broadband providers! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20110207/tc_nf/77213 Bret We should comment. The comment should be that we do not support any form of broadband subsidies and that USF should be eliminated. It is a New Internet Tax. We should all call it that and get people riled up about it. The FCC can't eliminate USF entirely. It is statutory: The Telecom Act of 1996 established USF and called for it to keep rural telephone rates comparable to urban rates. Because rural states get two senators just like big states, they have undue influence on subsidy legislation. Ted Stevens of Alaska was a leader here; he later wanted the FCC to outlaw VoIP, since it threatened the costly toll minutes that paid into USF. The new proposal makes matters worse, though, since it keeps existing USF intact and adds yet another fund to allow one provider per place to provide subsidized Internet access. I expect that it will usually be the ILEC, getting more money to compete with WISPs. -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
At 2/14/2011 11:30 AM, John Scrivner wrote: I think we should consider supporting it only as our fallback position. I think our primary mission should be on bringing awareness that it makes no sense to raise government money by selling off the one asset (spectrum) required to bring affordable and plentiful broadband to the masses to the highest bidders and then turn around and pay those same bidders to build broadband. It is insane. Only if you step outside from the belly of the beast and look at it objectively. That is just *so hard* for the insiders to do... (Of course when I point out the same thing to netheads, that TCP/IP is terribly obsolete, they look at me like I'm nuts, but then they're inside the belly of their beast too.) Just give us the spectrum. We'll build the damn broadband. It is that easy. The voucher should be the exclusive spectrum license granted to those who build the tower and serve the broadband. Why do we have to have auctions, USF and go broke with paying out trillions in stimulus. Free Spectrum Licenses = Universal low-cost broadband. Problem solved. Scriv Good idea. Of course it doesn't fly with the FCC, and for the silliest reason: The people in charge of broadband and USF are the FCC's Wireline [prevention of] Competition Bureau, while auctions belong to the Wirelss Telecommunications Bureau. WTB will no nothing to help WCB. Each has its own metrics. WTB's is auction revenue, so free spectrum would hurt their metrics. And WCB's subsidiary USAC can just raise taxes. I actually proposed this once and the results were interesting: A brief, sad study in how the FCC reads Comments Fred Goldstein, November 2003 http://www.ionary.com/ion-FCC-comments.html -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
(Of course when I point out the same thing to netheads, that TCP/IP is terribly obsolete, they look at me like I'm nuts, but then they're inside the belly of their beast too.) If you have a link to any of your past writings along that regard I would very much like to see them. Just give us the spectrum. We'll build the damn broadband. It is that easy. The voucher should be the exclusive spectrum license granted to those who build the tower and serve the broadband. Why do we have to have auctions, USF and go broke with paying out trillions in stimulus. Free Spectrum Licenses = Universal low-cost broadband. Problem solved. Scriv Good idea. Of course it doesn't fly with the FCC, and for the silliest reason: The people in charge of broadband and USF are the FCC's Wireline [prevention of] Competition Bureau, while auctions belong to the Wirelss Telecommunications Bureau. WTB will no nothing to help WCB. Each has its own metrics. WTB's is auction revenue, so free spectrum would hurt their metrics. And WCB's subsidiary USAC can just raise taxes. I actually proposed this once and the results were interesting: A brief, sad study in how the FCC reads Comments Fred Goldstein, November 2003 http://www.ionary.com/ion-FCC-comments.html Fred, I can definitely feel your pain. And I am also greatly enlightened with the revelations I read in your article. I have seen the same level of near schizophrenic interpretations of comments in how they word their ROs. I learned something in your article I did not know about the WTB and the WCB. I did not know how their missions were at odds. Thank you for sharing this perspective. I would suggest everyone read Fred's article. The date may be from 2003 but the content is very much apropos to the issues we are facing today within the FCC. John Scrivner WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
At 2/14/2011 01:40 PM, you wrote: (Of course when I point out the same thing to netheads, that TCP/IP is terribly obsolete, they look at me like I'm nuts, but then they're inside the belly of their beast too.) If you have a link to any of your past writings along that regard I would very much like to see them. Sure, be happy to. My web site has a couple. You can poke around http://www.ionary.com/vis.html or just go to this article http://www.ionary.com/PSOC-MovingBeyondTCP.pdf for a summary of our RINA proposal and the motivations behind it. And from 2005, before we went public with PNA/RINA, I wrote this little phillipic about IPv6: http://www.ionary.com/ion-ipv6.html The Pouzin Society web site also has some material. Just give us the spectrum. We'll build the damn broadband. It is that easy. The voucher should be the exclusive spectrum license granted to those who build the tower and serve the broadband. Why do we have to have auctions, USF and go broke with paying out trillions in stimulus. Free Spectrum Licenses = Universal low-cost broadband. Problem solved. Scriv Good idea. Of course it doesn't fly with the FCC, and for the silliest reason: The people in charge of broadband and USF are the FCC's Wireline [prevention of] Competition Bureau, while auctions belong to the Wirelss Telecommunications Bureau. WTB will no nothing to help WCB. Each has its own metrics. WTB's is auction revenue, so free spectrum would hurt their metrics. And WCB's subsidiary USAC can just raise taxes. I actually proposed this once and the results were interesting: A brief, sad study in how the FCC reads Comments Fred Goldstein, November 2003 http://www.ionary.com/ion-FCC-comments.html Fred, I can definitely feel your pain. And I am also greatly enlightened with the revelations I read in your article. I have seen the same level of near schizophrenic interpretations of comments in how they word their ROs. I learned something in your article I did not know about the WTB and the WCB. I did not know how their missions were at odds. Thank you for sharing this perspective. I would suggest everyone read Fred's article. The date may be from 2003 but the content is very much apropos to the issues we are facing today within the FCC. John Scrivner And that's the sad thing. When K-Mart left the FCC, there was jubilation in the halls of The Portals and outside too. But while Julius has not been the martinet that K-Mart was, he has left the silos intact, preferring instead to put on little kabuki dances for the crowds (Neutrality, Plan) while still largely doing the incumbents' bidding. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
It looks like a success-based voucher technologically neutral system for USF Reform/CAF is what's being proposed by the RCA (Rural Cellular Association) http://rca-usa.org/press/rca-press-releases/five-things-the-fcc-can-do-to-accelerate-broadband-deployment/914048 Perhaps WISPA should/could partner up with them for a stronger voice? -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 11:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband We need to have the USF turned into a voucher credit system that the end user can apply to what ever supplier they chose. Maybe its not the best idea, but I do not feel I have heard of a better one. Better for /the users/ not better for the I/CLECs and other very vested interests. On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 2/11/2011 01:06 AM, JohnS wrote: The FCC is looking for comments, so we all need to make it quite clear that the funds should be available for any and all broadband providers! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20110207/tc_nf/77213 Bret We should comment. The comment should be that we do not support any form of broadband subsidies and that USF should be eliminated. It is a New Internet Tax. We should all call it that and get people riled up about it. The FCC can't eliminate USF entirely. It is statutory: The Telecom Act of 1996 established USF and called for it to keep rural telephone rates comparable to urban rates. Because rural states get two senators just like big states, they have undue influence on subsidy legislation. Ted Stevens of Alaska was a leader here; he later wanted the FCC to outlaw VoIP, since it threatened the costly toll minutes that paid into USF. The new proposal makes matters worse, though, since it keeps existing USF intact and adds yet another fund to allow one provider per place to provide subsidized Internet access. I expect that it will usually be the ILEC, getting more money to compete with WISPs. -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
At 2/11/2011 01:06 AM, JohnS wrote: The FCC is looking for comments, so we all need to make it quite clear that the funds should be available for any and all broadband providers! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20110207/tc_nf/77213 Bret We should comment. The comment should be that we do not support any form of broadband subsidies and that USF should be eliminated. It is a New Internet Tax. We should all call it that and get people riled up about it. The FCC can't eliminate USF entirely. It is statutory: The Telecom Act of 1996 established USF and called for it to keep rural telephone rates comparable to urban rates. Because rural states get two senators just like big states, they have undue influence on subsidy legislation. Ted Stevens of Alaska was a leader here; he later wanted the FCC to outlaw VoIP, since it threatened the costly toll minutes that paid into USF. The new proposal makes matters worse, though, since it keeps existing USF intact and adds yet another fund to allow one provider per place to provide subsidized Internet access. I expect that it will usually be the ILEC, getting more money to compete with WISPs. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
We need to have the USF turned into a voucher credit system that the end user can apply to what ever supplier they chose. Maybe its not the best idea, but I do not feel I have heard of a better one. Better for /the users/ not better for the I/CLECs and other very vested interests. On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 2/11/2011 01:06 AM, JohnS wrote: The FCC is looking for comments, so we all need to make it quite clear that the funds should be available for any and all broadband providers! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20110207/tc_nf/77213 Bret We should comment. The comment should be that we do not support any form of broadband subsidies and that USF should be eliminated. It is a New Internet Tax. We should all call it that and get people riled up about it. The FCC can't eliminate USF entirely. It is statutory: The Telecom Act of 1996 established USF and called for it to keep rural telephone rates comparable to urban rates. Because rural states get two senators just like big states, they have undue influence on subsidy legislation. Ted Stevens of Alaska was a leader here; he later wanted the FCC to outlaw VoIP, since it threatened the costly toll minutes that paid into USF. The new proposal makes matters worse, though, since it keeps existing USF intact and adds yet another fund to allow one provider per place to provide subsidized Internet access. I expect that it will usually be the ILEC, getting more money to compete with WISPs. -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
The FCC is looking for comments, so we all need to make it quite clear that the funds should be available for any and all broadband providers! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20110207/tc_nf/77213 Bret Bret Clark Spectra Access 25 Lowell Street Manchester, NH 03101 www.spectraaccess.com We should comment. The comment should be that we do not support any form of broadband subsidies and that USF should be eliminated. It is a New Internet Tax. We should all call it that and get people riled up about it. John Scrivner WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
that is an acceptable solution. Penalize the masses, to help the minority, for a stronger total USA. I'd have to agree with the idealology. The question now is... Is it still necessary? Has the work already been done? Is DSL, T1s, and Fixed Wireless good enough for Super Rural America? If we want to stop USF, we must prove that the job is already done, and there is no need for USF anymore. The second ethical question is... Should someone qualify for subsidees that didn;t pay into the fund. I say yes, because its not about who is the beneficiary, its about fortunateate consumers helping other less fortunateate consumers. Its irrelevent who the recipient is, if it creates a stronger broadband solution for the consumers of the area, and most efficiently uses the funds available. ONce again we must strongly argue that wireless is the most efficient use of funds for rural areas, quick to deploy. And above all ONGOING Competitive environments not lcoal monopolies not a specific speed technology, is what benefits consumer's most. LAstly, Our theme song should be... You cant always have what you want, but if you try you can have what you need :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.com To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 5:55 PM Subject: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband Ugh...not good. Last thing I need is to compete with the ILEC who is getting money from the Universal Slush Fund to provide government subsidized broadband in rural areas. And I can see every ILEC in America lobbing to ensure that the distribution of USF continues as is if the shift is made to broadband instead of telephone...basically filling the ILEC's coffers! The FCC is looking for comments, so we all need to make it quite clear that the funds should be available for any and all broadband providers! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20110207/tc_nf/77213 Bret Bret Clark Spectra Access 25 Lowell Street Manchester, NH 03101 www.spectraaccess.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
that in areas where there really isn;t enough subs for competition to exist, it wont be a problem, because business men will analyze a market and competitive environment and not waste their time deploying in an area where there is already someone else that got a head start in a limited sub market. . One would assume so. 6)Argue, the problem with USF may not be the terms of payee side. The problem is program terms on how many is awarded. Many of the USF requirements are a issue. Every USF person I have talked to has said they pretty much pay 1 to 3 people to handle just the paper work, and that was the easy part. 7) Argue there are good enough technologies available to serve rural area cost effectively with less USF subsidations. (AKA wireless). Ok so this is a reversal of 'disadvantaged' or? 8) Argue that there is little need for USF for broadband anymore. I believe it is still possible to gain an outcome to kill USF. Ask New Jersey senator what he thinks! Only if that is a USF becoming BBUSF. Alaska will not let the USF die, Period, Ever. They are one of the few places left that the USF truly is needed. 9) Subsidees should have DUAL purpose not single purpose. Meaning, it should not just be to get broadband to rural area. It should also simulataneously subsidize the growth of small yound companies to stronger companies to build and strengthen an industry. Did you mean young? For my company, a single credit of $200/installed user would be enough to let me grow at a wild rate. The reality Truth is If Verizon were to charge their non-rural subs 6%, and then be forced to reallocated that 6% revenue to fund Verizon build-out, would that be a Good thing? Forcing one company to deploy a specific percentage of profit to rural America? That is the fundamental arguement that needs to be answered first. (that removes the arguement verison should have to subsidize their competitors). One reason USF has not been easy to kill is that many believe that is an acceptable solution. Penalize the masses, to help the minority, for a stronger total USA. I'd have to agree with the idealology. The question now is... Is it still necessary? Has the work already been done? Is DSL, T1s, and Fixed Wireless good enough for Super Rural America? If we want to stop USF, we must prove that the job is already done, and there is no need for USF anymore. The cellcos have started to nibble at the rural internet. Slow speed IS enough for most people. It is the downloaders/netflixers/gamers that want the really high speed, as well as the users who just want bigger for the sake of bigger. The second ethical question is... Should someone qualify for subsidees that didn;t pay into the fund. I say yes, because its not about who is the beneficiary, its about fortunateate consumers helping other less fortunateate consumers. In the case of credits/vouchers applied by the end user, I agree. Cellular should not be allowed to receive the credits. Or at least not old cellular. True 4G at the very minimum, not this '2.5g no its 3g no its now 4g' stuff Its irrelevent who the recipient is, if it creates a stronger broadband solution for the consumers of the area, and most efficiently uses the funds available. ONce again we must strongly argue that wireless is the most efficient use of funds for rural areas, quick to deploy. And above all ONGOING Competitive environments not lcoal monopolies not a specific speed technology, is what benefits consumer's most. LAstly, Our theme song should be... You cant always have what you want, but if you try you can have what you need :-) I should never sing. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.com To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 5:55 PM Subject: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband Ugh...not good. Last thing I need is to compete with the ILEC who is getting money from the Universal Slush Fund to provide government subsidized broadband in rural areas. And I can see every ILEC in America lobbing to ensure that the distribution of USF continues as is if the shift is made to broadband instead of telephone...basically filling the ILEC's coffers! The FCC is looking for comments, so we all need to make it quite clear that the funds should be available for any and all broadband providers! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20110207/tc_nf/77213 Bret Bret Clark Spectra Access 25 Lowell Street Manchester, NH 03101 www.spectraaccess.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http
[WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
Ugh...not good. Last thing I need is to compete with the ILEC who is getting money from the Universal Slush Fund to provide government subsidized broadband in rural areas. And I can see every ILEC in America lobbing to ensure that the distribution of USF continues as is if the shift is made to broadband instead of telephone...basically filling the ILEC's coffers! The FCC is looking for comments, so we all need to make it quite clear that the funds should be available for any and all broadband providers! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20110207/tc_nf/77213 Bret Bret Clark Spectra Access 25 Lowell Street Manchester, NH 03101 www.spectraaccess.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
I would rather see the fund /not/ be available. I can not afford to compete against the money nor can I afford to take the money and keep my business mine. On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.com wrote: Ugh...not good. Last thing I need is to compete with the ILEC who is getting money from the Universal Slush Fund to provide government subsidized broadband in rural areas. And I can see every ILEC in America lobbing to ensure that the distribution of USF continues as is if the shift is made to broadband instead of telephone...basically filling the ILEC's coffers! The FCC is looking for comments, so we all need to make it quite clear that the funds should be available for any and all broadband providers! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20110207/tc_nf/77213 Bret Bret Clark Spectra Access 25 Lowell Street Manchester, NH 03101 www.spectraaccess.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
USF should not go to areas that meet criteria for an already demonstrated ability to have private sector dollars profitably deploy broadband. Check out my blog on the topic with a data chart for a few states as to the household density of those areas with existing broadband and those without. USF funds on a state by state basis should not be able to be used in areas that fall within the numbers where it has been proven that broadband systems have been deployed without USF assistance http://wp.me/p1eoQy-f Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com www.Broadband-Mapping.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Bret Clark Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 5:55 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband Ugh...not good. Last thing I need is to compete with the ILEC who is getting money from the Universal Slush Fund to provide government subsidized broadband in rural areas. And I can see every ILEC in America lobbing to ensure that the distribution of USF continues as is if the shift is made to broadband instead of telephone...basically filling the ILEC's coffers! The FCC is looking for comments, so we all need to make it quite clear that the funds should be available for any and all broadband providers! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20110207/tc_nf/77213 Bret Bret Clark Spectra Access 25 Lowell Street Manchester, NH 03101 www.spectraaccess.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
