[WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever

[Brian Webster]

Steve Coran just posted the message below to the WISPA FCC committee list. I
took particular note to the following statement:

 

- would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at
least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive
provider that does not receive support

 

Now the way I read the above statement is that if a WISP covers 75% of a
current USF recipients service area, there will no longer be eligibility to
receive USF funds. Remember if they have broadband they also have access to
many VOIP providers even if you do not provide VOIP services. Vonage and
Skype come to mind, not to mention cellular coverage. This would be a huge
factor in leveling the playing field for WISP's in rural markets! I cannot
see a more compelling reason to document and map your networks than this.
Not only will it prevent yet another subsidized competitor from coming in to
your service area, but it will also erode funding  for any Telco who
currently receives USF in your markets. This would bring wireless as a
delivery method to the forefront because there are then no artificial
revenue streams subsidizing the cost to deliver last mile service. We all
know that wireless has the least cost per household passed in low density
markets.

 

There are many ways to document and map your coverage areas. First and
foremost though is that you should file the Form 477 as required. Next one
should map their network with an accurate service area where you would
confidently offer service. This can be done many ways (including paying me
to do it). This also shows a very important reason to be participating in
your state broadband mapping efforts. I would expect that those state maps
will become one of the major verification sources to establish the 75%
coverage. The FCC 477 database will probably become another verification
source. If you are listed in both of them it would be very hard for someone
to say you don't exist and don't offer coverage in their areas.

 

One of the downsides to this bill is that all broadband providers will be
required to contribute to the fund. My gut feeling though is that if WISP's
were accurately mapped and documented it would show so much less of the US
is unserved by broadband and thus the required funding through USF to get it
there will be much less.



Brian

--

 

Last week, Reps. Boucher (D-VA) and Terry (R-NE) introduced legislation that
would reform the Universal Service Fund.  The Press Release, Overview,
Section by Section summary and text of the bill are available at this link:

http://www.boucher.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content
 &task=view&id=1579&Itemid=122

 

I have not read these documents, but plan to do so soon.  A few highlights
that the trade press has noted:

- would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at
least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive
provider that does not receive support

- FCC would create cost model that includes broadband in figuring
support models

- competitive bidding among wireless carriers for USF support

- no more than two wireless CETCs could get support in the same area

- carriers would have 5 years to provide broadband throughout their
service areas, or would lose support

- all broadband providers would pay into USF to expand contribution base

- FCC to decide appropriate speed for broadband 

 

Rep. Boucher has said that the bill is on his "front burner" and that he
wants to get the legislation passed this Fall.  Please feel free to comment
on-list AFTER you've reviewed the documents so that you can promote
education of the WISPA membership and help shape whatever position WISPA may
wish to take as the bill works its way through Congress.  Thanks.  

 

Stephen E. Coran

Rini Coran, PC

1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600 

Washington, D.C. 20036

202.463.4310 - voice

202.669.3288 - cell

202.296.2014 - fax

  sco...@rinicoran.com - e-mail

www.rinicoran.com  

www.telecommunicationslaw.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] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever

[St. Louis Broadband]

- would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at
least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive
provider that does not receive support

 

Ø  Now the way I read the above statement is that if a WISP covers 75% of a
current USF recipients service area, there will no longer be eligibility to
receive USF funds. Remember if they have broadband they also have access to
many VOIP providers even if you do not provide VOIP services. Vonage and
Skype come to mind, not to mention cellular coverage. This would be a huge
factor in leveling the playing field for WISP’s in rural markets!

 

That is the way I see it too!

 

 

Victoria Proffer

www.ShowMeBroadband.com

www.StLouisBroadband.com

314-974-5600

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Brian Webster
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:37 AM
To: memb...@wispa.org; 'WISPA General List'; motor...@afmug.com
Subject: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to
document and map your network coverage ever
Importance: High

 

Steve Coran just posted the message below to the WISPA FCC committee list. I
took particular note to the following statement:

 

- would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at
least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive
provider that does not receive support

 

Now the way I read the above statement is that if a WISP covers 75% of a
current USF recipients service area, there will no longer be eligibility to
receive USF funds. Remember if they have broadband they also have access to
many VOIP providers even if you do not provide VOIP services. Vonage and
Skype come to mind, not to mention cellular coverage. This would be a huge
factor in leveling the playing field for WISP’s in rural markets! I cannot
see a more compelling reason to document and map your networks than this.
Not only will it prevent yet another subsidized competitor from coming in to
your service area, but it will also erode funding  for any Telco who
currently receives USF in your markets. This would bring wireless as a
delivery method to the forefront because there are then no artificial
revenue streams subsidizing the cost to deliver last mile service. We all
know that wireless has the least cost per household passed in low density
markets.

 

There are many ways to document and map your coverage areas. First and
foremost though is that you should file the Form 477 as required. Next one
should map their network with an accurate service area where you would
confidently offer service. This can be done many ways (including paying me
to do it). This also shows a very important reason to be participating in
your state broadband mapping efforts. I would expect that those state maps
will become one of the major verification sources to establish the 75%
coverage. The FCC 477 database will probably become another verification
source. If you are listed in both of them it would be very hard for someone
to say you don’t exist and don’t offer coverage in their areas.

 

One of the downsides to this bill is that all broadband providers will be
required to contribute to the fund. My gut feeling though is that if WISP’s
were accurately mapped and documented it would show so much less of the US
is unserved by broadband and thus the required funding through USF to get it
there will be much less.



Brian

--

 

Last week, Reps. Boucher (D-VA) and Terry (R-NE) introduced legislation that
would reform the Universal Service Fund.  The Press Release, Overview,
Section by Section summary and text of the bill are available at this link:

http://www.boucher.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content
<http://www.boucher.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1579
&Itemid=122> &task=view&id=1579&Itemid=122

 

I have not read these documents, but plan to do so soon.  A few highlights
that the trade press has noted:

- would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at
least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive
provider that does not receive support

- FCC would create cost model that includes broadband in figuring
support models

- competitive bidding among wireless carriers for USF support

- no more than two wireless CETCs could get support in the same area

- carriers would have 5 years to provide broadband throughout their
service areas, or would lose support

- all broadband providers would pay into USF to expand contribution base

- FCC to decide appropriate speed for broadband 

 

Rep. Boucher has said that the bill is on his "front burner" and that he
wants to get the legislation passed this Fall.  Please feel free to comment
on-list AFTER you've reviewed the documents so that you can promote
education of the WISPA membership and help shape wha

Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever

[Fred Goldstein]

At 7/28/2010 12:59 PM, you wrote:

- would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where 
at least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a 
competitive provider that does not receive support


Ø  Now the way I read the above statement is that if a WISP covers 
75% of a current USF recipients service area, there will no longer 
be eligibility to receive USF funds. Remember if they have broadband 
they also have access to many VOIP providers even if you do not 
provide VOIP services. Vonage and Skype come to mind, not to mention 
cellular coverage. This would be a huge factor in leveling the 
playing field for WISP's in rural markets!


That is the way I see it too!


I don't.  See page 22 of the bill (scanned version only on line, 
alas; emphasis added):


"...the Commission determines that at least 75% of the households can 
purchase **wireline** voice service and **wired** high-speed 
broadband service from an unsupported, facilities-based, 
non-incumbent provider..."


There's also a reference further down (p24) to "voice service of 
standard quality".  That rules out Skype or any non-QoS-enabled VoIP 
platform, or any non-PSTN non-E.164 service.  If this were the only 
issue though, it would be easy enough to provide a technical fix.


The rule appears aimed at cable.  If there is unsubsidized 
PacketCable telephony, then why should the FCC subsidize ILECs?


There's also support in the bill for "mobile wireless" 
providers.  Over the past decade, CMRS carriers have been the largest 
(by far) competitive ETCs.  Current FCC plans phase this out.  The 
largest recipients are AT&T and Verizon, the latter via its Alltel / 
Western Wireless purchase.  The Boucher (D-Verizon) bill instead 
allows CMRSs to bid to become the supported mobile carrier in a given area.


There are various other goodies (if you're Verizon) in the bill, 
including an order that the FCC complete intercarrier compensation 
reform within a year (it has been an open docket since April, 2001, 
and each Commission seems to want to pass the ball to its successor 
rather than do anything).  And section 303 apparently bans access 
revenue sharing, so the free conference call industry goes out of 
business.  I guess we'll all have to move our conference calls to the 
Internet.  This is a real pain, but VZ, ATT and Sprint don't want to 
pay the teensy bit that it costs them (though it helps encourage the 
sale of overpriced flat-rate usage plans).


The bill adds USF taxes to WISPs and basically prohibits them from 
receiving anything.  This is consistent with the FCC's current "pay 
for the bullet" proposal.  Such a deal!


 --
 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] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever

[Cameron Crum]

Also,

Keep in mind that we offer free 477 data prep in a program on our web site.
Go to www.wispmon.com and click on the FCC  477 Util.. You can even download
a free desktop geocoder to pre-geocode your data (makes things go a little
faster in the form prep). No "proprietary" info has to be given. We don't
share data with anyone, ever. There is some prep work involved on your end,
but it would have to be done regardless of how you chose to get the data.
Instructions for use are on the page.

Regards,

Cameron

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:

>  At 7/28/2010 12:59 PM, you wrote:
>
> *- would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at
> least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive
> provider that does not receive support
> *
> Ø  Now the way I read the above statement is that if a WISP covers 75% of a
> current USF recipients service area, there will no longer be eligibility to
> receive USF funds. Remember if they have broadband they also have access to
> many VOIP providers even if you do not provide VOIP services. Vonage and
> Skype come to mind, not to mention cellular coverage. *This would be a
> huge factor in leveling the playing field for WISP’s in rural markets!
> *
> That is the way I see it too!
>
>
> I don't.  See page 22 of the bill (scanned version only on line, alas;
> emphasis added):
>
> "...the Commission determines that at least 75% of the households can
> purchase **wireline** voice service and **wired** high-speed broadband
> service from an unsupported, facilities-based, non-incumbent provider..."
>
> There's also a reference further down (p24) to "voice service of standard
> quality".  That rules out Skype or any non-QoS-enabled VoIP platform, or any
> non-PSTN non-E.164 service.  If this were the only issue though, it would be
> easy enough to provide a technical fix.
>
> The rule appears aimed at cable.  If there is unsubsidized PacketCable
> telephony, then why should the FCC subsidize ILECs?
>
> There's also support in the bill for "mobile wireless" providers.  Over the
> past decade, CMRS carriers have been the largest (by far) competitive ETCs.
> Current FCC plans phase this out.  The largest recipients are AT&T and
> Verizon, the latter via its Alltel / Western Wireless purchase.  The Boucher
> (D-Verizon) bill instead allows CMRSs to bid to become the supported mobile
> carrier in a given area.
>
> There are various other goodies (if you're Verizon) in the bill, including
> an order that the FCC complete intercarrier compensation reform within a
> year (it has been an open docket since April, 2001, and each Commission
> seems to want to pass the ball to its successor rather than do anything).
> And section 303 apparently bans access revenue sharing, so the free
> conference call industry goes out of business.  I guess we'll all have to
> move our conference calls to the Internet.  This is a real pain, but VZ, ATT
> and Sprint don't want to pay the teensy bit that it costs them (though it
> helps encourage the sale of overpriced flat-rate usage plans).
>
> The bill adds USF taxes to WISPs and basically prohibits them from
> receiving anything.  This is consistent with the FCC's current "pay for the
> bullet" proposal.  Such a deal!
>
>  --
>  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
>  ionary Consultinghttp://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] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever

[RickG]

I'd like to but I dont know where to begin and with my limited time I
cant even try to figure it out.

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Brian Webster
 wrote:
> Steve Coran just posted the message below to the WISPA FCC committee list. I
> took particular note to the following statement:
>
>
>
> - would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at
> least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive
> provider that does not receive support
>
>
>
> Now the way I read the above statement is that if a WISP covers 75% of a
> current USF recipients service area, there will no longer be eligibility to
> receive USF funds. Remember if they have broadband they also have access to
> many VOIP providers even if you do not provide VOIP services. Vonage and
> Skype come to mind, not to mention cellular coverage. This would be a huge
> factor in leveling the playing field for WISP’s in rural markets! I cannot
> see a more compelling reason to document and map your networks than this.
> Not only will it prevent yet another subsidized competitor from coming in to
> your service area, but it will also erode funding  for any Telco who
> currently receives USF in your markets. This would bring wireless as a
> delivery method to the forefront because there are then no artificial
> revenue streams subsidizing the cost to deliver last mile service. We all
> know that wireless has the least cost per household passed in low density
> markets.
>
>
>
> There are many ways to document and map your coverage areas. First and
> foremost though is that you should file the Form 477 as required. Next one
> should map their network with an accurate service area where you would
> confidently offer service. This can be done many ways (including paying me
> to do it). This also shows a very important reason to be participating in
> your state broadband mapping efforts. I would expect that those state maps
> will become one of the major verification sources to establish the 75%
> coverage. The FCC 477 database will probably become another verification
> source. If you are listed in both of them it would be very hard for someone
> to say you don’t exist and don’t offer coverage in their areas.
>
>
>
> One of the downsides to this bill is that all broadband providers will be
> required to contribute to the fund. My gut feeling though is that if WISP’s
> were accurately mapped and documented it would show so much less of the US
> is unserved by broadband and thus the required funding through USF to get it
> there will be much less.
>
> Brian
>
> --
>
>
>
> Last week, Reps. Boucher (D-VA) and Terry (R-NE) introduced legislation that
> would reform the Universal Service Fund.  The Press Release, Overview,
> Section by Section summary and text of the bill are available at this link:
>
> http://www.boucher.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1579&Itemid=122
>
>
>
> I have not read these documents, but plan to do so soon.  A few highlights
> that the trade press has noted:
>
>     - would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at
> least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive
> provider that does not receive support
>
>     - FCC would create cost model that includes broadband in figuring
> support models
>
>     - competitive bidding among wireless carriers for USF support
>
>     - no more than two wireless CETCs could get support in the same area
>
>     - carriers would have 5 years to provide broadband throughout their
> service areas, or would lose support
>
>     - all broadband providers would pay into USF to expand contribution base
>
> - FCC to decide appropriate speed for broadband
>
>
>
> Rep. Boucher has said that the bill is on his "front burner" and that he
> wants to get the legislation passed this Fall.  Please feel free to comment
> on-list AFTER you've reviewed the documents so that you can promote
> education of the WISPA membership and help shape whatever position WISPA may
> wish to take as the bill works its way through Congress.  Thanks.
>
>
>
> Stephen E. Coran
>
> Rini Coran, PC
>
> 1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600
>
> Washington, D.C. 20036
>
> 202.463.4310 - voice
>
> 202.669.3288 - cell
>
> 202.296.2014 - fax
>
> sco...@rinicoran.com - e-mail
>
> www.rinicoran.com
>
> www.telecommunicationslaw.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/
--

Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever

[Brian Webster]

Hit me off list and I can offer some suggestions.



Brian


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of RickG
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason
to document and map your network coverage ever

I'd like to but I dont know where to begin and with my limited time I
cant even try to figure it out.

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Brian Webster
 wrote:
> Steve Coran just posted the message below to the WISPA FCC committee list.
I
> took particular note to the following statement:
>
>
>
> - would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at
> least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive
> provider that does not receive support
>
>
>
> Now the way I read the above statement is that if a WISP covers 75% of a
> current USF recipients service area, there will no longer be eligibility
to
> receive USF funds. Remember if they have broadband they also have access
to
> many VOIP providers even if you do not provide VOIP services. Vonage and
> Skype come to mind, not to mention cellular coverage. This would be a huge
> factor in leveling the playing field for WISP’s in rural markets! I cannot
> see a more compelling reason to document and map your networks than this.
> Not only will it prevent yet another subsidized competitor from coming in
to
> your service area, but it will also erode funding  for any Telco who
> currently receives USF in your markets. This would bring wireless as a
> delivery method to the forefront because there are then no artificial
> revenue streams subsidizing the cost to deliver last mile service. We all
> know that wireless has the least cost per household passed in low density
> markets.
>
>
>
> There are many ways to document and map your coverage areas. First and
> foremost though is that you should file the Form 477 as required. Next one
> should map their network with an accurate service area where you would
> confidently offer service. This can be done many ways (including paying me
> to do it). This also shows a very important reason to be participating in
> your state broadband mapping efforts. I would expect that those state maps
> will become one of the major verification sources to establish the 75%
> coverage. The FCC 477 database will probably become another verification
> source. If you are listed in both of them it would be very hard for
someone
> to say you don’t exist and don’t offer coverage in their areas.
>
>
>
> One of the downsides to this bill is that all broadband providers will be
> required to contribute to the fund. My gut feeling though is that if
WISP’s
> were accurately mapped and documented it would show so much less of the US
> is unserved by broadband and thus the required funding through USF to get
it
> there will be much less.
>
> Brian
>
> --
>
>
>
> Last week, Reps. Boucher (D-VA) and Terry (R-NE) introduced legislation
that
> would reform the Universal Service Fund.  The Press Release, Overview,
> Section by Section summary and text of the bill are available at this
link:
>
>
http://www.boucher.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1579&;
Itemid=122
>
>
>
> I have not read these documents, but plan to do so soon.  A few highlights
> that the trade press has noted:
>
>     - would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where
at
> least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive
> provider that does not receive support
>
>     - FCC would create cost model that includes broadband in figuring
> support models
>
>     - competitive bidding among wireless carriers for USF support
>
>     - no more than two wireless CETCs could get support in the same area
>
>     - carriers would have 5 years to provide broadband throughout their
> service areas, or would lose support
>
>     - all broadband providers would pay into USF to expand contribution
base
>
> - FCC to decide appropriate speed for broadband
>
>
>
> Rep. Boucher has said that the bill is on his "front burner" and that he
> wants to get the legislation passed this Fall.  Please feel free to
comment
> on-list AFTER you've reviewed the documents so that you can promote
> education of the WISPA membership and help shape whatever position WISPA
may
> wish to take as the bill works its way through Congress.  Thanks.
>
>
>
> Stephen E. Coran
>
> Rini Coran, PC
>
> 1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600
>
> Wash

Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever

[Fred Goldstein]

At 7/29/2010 08:01 AM, Brian wrote:
>Hit me off list and I can offer some suggestions.

As I mentioned, the 75% rule only applies to wireline providers 
(i.e., cable), so mapping WISP coverage buys nothing.

The Boucher-Terry bill has nothing in it to help WISPs and plenty to 
hurt them, including a rather high tax to support your competitors.



>Brian
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of RickG
>Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:24 PM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason
>to document and map your network coverage ever
>
>I'd like to but I dont know where to begin and with my limited time I
>cant even try to figure it out.
>
>On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Brian Webster
> wrote:
> > Steve Coran just posted the message below to the WISPA FCC committee list.
>I
> > took particular note to the following statement:
> >
> >
> >
> > - would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at
> > least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive
> > provider that does not receive support
> >
> >
> >
> > Now the way I read the above statement is that if a WISP covers 75% of a
> > current USF recipients service area, there will no longer be eligibility
>to
> > receive USF funds. Remember if they have broadband they also have access
>to
> > many VOIP providers even if you do not provide VOIP services. Vonage and
> > Skype come to mind, not to mention cellular coverage. This would be a huge
> > factor in leveling the playing field for WISP's in rural markets! I cannot
> > see a more compelling reason to document and map your networks than this.
> > Not only will it prevent yet another subsidized competitor from coming in
>to
> > your service area, but it will also erode funding  for any Telco who
> > currently receives USF in your markets. This would bring wireless as a
> > delivery method to the forefront because there are then no artificial
> > revenue streams subsidizing the cost to deliver last mile service. We all
> > know that wireless has the least cost per household passed in low density
> > markets.
> >
> >
> >
> > There are many ways to document and map your coverage areas. First and
> > foremost though is that you should file the Form 477 as required. Next one
> > should map their network with an accurate service area where you would
> > confidently offer service. This can be done many ways (including paying me
> > to do it). This also shows a very important reason to be participating in
> > your state broadband mapping efforts. I would expect that those state maps
> > will become one of the major verification sources to establish the 75%
> > coverage. The FCC 477 database will probably become another verification
> > source. If you are listed in both of them it would be very hard for
>someone
> > to say you don't exist and don't offer coverage in their areas.
> >
> >
> >
> > One of the downsides to this bill is that all broadband providers will be
> > required to contribute to the fund. My gut feeling though is that if
>WISP's
> > were accurately mapped and documented it would show so much less of the US
> > is unserved by broadband and thus the required funding through USF to get
>it
> > there will be much less.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> > Last week, Reps. Boucher (D-VA) and Terry (R-NE) introduced legislation
>that
> > would reform the Universal Service Fund.  The Press Release, Overview,
> > Section by Section summary and text of the bill are available at this
>link:
> >
> >
>http://www.boucher.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1579&;
>Itemid=122
> >
> >
> >
> > I have not read these documents, but plan to do so soon.  A few highlights
> > that the trade press has noted:
> >
> > - would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where
>at
> > least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive
> > provider that does not receive support
> >
> > - FCC would create cost model that includes broadband in figuring
> > support models
> >
> > - competitive bidding among wireless carriers for USF support
> >
> > - no more than two wireless CETCs could get support in the same area
> >
> > - carriers would have 5 years to provide broadband through

Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever

[Brian Webster]

Fred,
That is understood, however I think that WISPA may try to lobby to
have the term "wireline" removed such that any technology that delivers the
defined broadband and voice services should be qualified to meet the 75%
requirement. This is still a bill and not a law so there are opportunities
to change this although I don't expect that one to go through without a
fight. In this case we might be able to ally ourselves with the cable
industry. I am sure they would love to see Telco's lose their USF subsidies
in markets that are served by cable.



Brian

-Original Message-
From: Fred Goldstein [mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 9:42 AM
To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason
to document and map your network coverage ever

At 7/29/2010 08:01 AM, Brian wrote:
>Hit me off list and I can offer some suggestions.

As I mentioned, the 75% rule only applies to wireline providers 
(i.e., cable), so mapping WISP coverage buys nothing.

The Boucher-Terry bill has nothing in it to help WISPs and plenty to 
hurt them, including a rather high tax to support your competitors.



>Brian
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of RickG
>Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:24 PM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling
reason
>to document and map your network coverage ever
>
>I'd like to but I dont know where to begin and with my limited time I
>cant even try to figure it out.
>
>On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Brian Webster
> wrote:
> > Steve Coran just posted the message below to the WISPA FCC committee
list.
>I
> > took particular note to the following statement:
> >
> >
> >
> > - would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at
> > least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a
competitive
> > provider that does not receive support
> >
> >
> >
> > Now the way I read the above statement is that if a WISP covers 75% of a
> > current USF recipients service area, there will no longer be eligibility
>to
> > receive USF funds. Remember if they have broadband they also have access
>to
> > many VOIP providers even if you do not provide VOIP services. Vonage and
> > Skype come to mind, not to mention cellular coverage. This would be a
huge
> > factor in leveling the playing field for WISP's in rural markets! I
cannot
> > see a more compelling reason to document and map your networks than
this.
> > Not only will it prevent yet another subsidized competitor from coming
in
>to
> > your service area, but it will also erode funding  for any Telco who
> > currently receives USF in your markets. This would bring wireless as a
> > delivery method to the forefront because there are then no artificial
> > revenue streams subsidizing the cost to deliver last mile service. We
all
> > know that wireless has the least cost per household passed in low
density
> > markets.
> >
> >
> >
> > There are many ways to document and map your coverage areas. First and
> > foremost though is that you should file the Form 477 as required. Next
one
> > should map their network with an accurate service area where you would
> > confidently offer service. This can be done many ways (including paying
me
> > to do it). This also shows a very important reason to be participating
in
> > your state broadband mapping efforts. I would expect that those state
maps
> > will become one of the major verification sources to establish the 75%
> > coverage. The FCC 477 database will probably become another verification
> > source. If you are listed in both of them it would be very hard for
>someone
> > to say you don't exist and don't offer coverage in their areas.
> >
> >
> >
> > One of the downsides to this bill is that all broadband providers will
be
> > required to contribute to the fund. My gut feeling though is that if
>WISP's
> > were accurately mapped and documented it would show so much less of the
US
> > is unserved by broadband and thus the required funding through USF to
get
>it
> > there will be much less.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> > Last week, Reps. Boucher (D-VA) and Terry (R-NE) introduced legislation
>that
> > would reform the Universal Service Fund.  The Press Release, Overview,
> > Section by Section summary and text of the bill are available at this
>link:
> >

Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever

[Brian Webster]

Yes but if the cable companies could also ally with wireless carriers to get
other areas excluded from USF subsidies, the field would be a more level one
should the cable companies try to compete in other markets. We might also
get Clearwire and the cellular carriers to support the position although
most of their deployments will probably be in areas that would never have
qualified for USF to begin with. If the terms wireline are kept in the bill
it would appear that wireless services might also be excluded from receiving
any USF funds which basically keeps USF funds in the exclusive hands of the
Telco's as it has been.

Personally I think that if we don't out and out oppose the bill for USF
reform, but rather do something like this as a minor change, the WISP
industry can make out better. USF reform will happen and USF funds will be
spent on deploying broadband to unserved areas no matter what. What we need
to do is make sure the law does not fund builds in areas already served by
WISP's and other technologies. If the battle could also be fought and won to
allow WISP's access to the funds for broadband deployments then great. When
going up against the cable and Telco lobbies, one has to be wise about
picking their battles as the funding to fight this will be limited.



Brian


-Original Message-
From: Jeff Broadwick [mailto:jeffl...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 10:07 AM
To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compellingreason
to document and map your network coverage ever

Is cable not considered a "wireline" service? 


Regards,

Jeff


Jeff Broadwick
ImageStream
800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Brian Webster
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 10:02 AM
To: 'Fred Goldstein'; 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compellingreason
to document and map your network coverage ever

Fred,
That is understood, however I think that WISPA may try to lobby to
have the term "wireline" removed such that any technology that delivers the
defined broadband and voice services should be qualified to meet the 75%
requirement. This is still a bill and not a law so there are opportunities
to change this although I don't expect that one to go through without a
fight. In this case we might be able to ally ourselves with the cable
industry. I am sure they would love to see Telco's lose their USF subsidies
in markets that are served by cable.



Brian

-Original Message-
From: Fred Goldstein [mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 9:42 AM
To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason
to document and map your network coverage ever

At 7/29/2010 08:01 AM, Brian wrote:
>Hit me off list and I can offer some suggestions.

As I mentioned, the 75% rule only applies to wireline providers (i.e.,
cable), so mapping WISP coverage buys nothing.

The Boucher-Terry bill has nothing in it to help WISPs and plenty to hurt
them, including a rather high tax to support your competitors.



>Brian
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of RickG
>Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:24 PM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling
reason
>to document and map your network coverage ever
>
>I'd like to but I dont know where to begin and with my limited time I
>cant even try to figure it out.
>
>On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Brian Webster
> wrote:
> > Steve Coran just posted the message below to the WISPA FCC committee
list.
>I
> > took particular note to the following statement:
> >
> >
> >
> > - would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at
> > least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a
competitive
> > provider that does not receive support
> >
> >
> >
> > Now the way I read the above statement is that if a WISP covers 75% of a
> > current USF recipients service area, there will no longer be eligibility
>to
> > receive USF funds. Remember if they have broadband they also have access
>to
> > many VOIP providers even if you do not provide VOIP services. Vonage and
> > Skype come to mind, not to mention cellular coverage. This would be a
huge
> > factor in leveling the playing field for WISP's in rural markets! I
cannot
> > see a more compelling reason to document and map your networks than
this.
> > Not only will it prevent yet a

Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever

[Brian Webster]

Yes Patrick I agree with you but remember who is lobbying this bill. They
will play to win even though the government is not supposed to be picking
winners..



Brian


-Original Message-
From: Patrick Leary [mailto:ple...@apertonet.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 10:37 AM
To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; WISPA General List; Fred Goldstein
Subject: RE: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compellingreason
to document and map your network coverage ever

You'd think there would be an excellent legal argument to fight that.
Seems it'd be difficult to enact a law that in effect discriminates
against certain classes of providers, especially since WISPs are the
only "pure play" broadband providers out there. Theorectically the
re-configured USF is meant to propel broadband...so how could the feds
exclude the only entity that provides broadband first, other services
second. All other providers have "broadband" as a secondary play.  


Patrick Leary
Aperto Networks
813.426.4230 mobile

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Brian Webster
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:02 AM
To: 'Fred Goldstein'; 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most
compellingreason to document and map your network coverage ever

Fred,
That is understood, however I think that WISPA may try to lobby
to have the term "wireline" removed such that any technology that
delivers the defined broadband and voice services should be qualified to
meet the 75% requirement. This is still a bill and not a law so there
are opportunities to change this although I don't expect that one to go
through without a fight. In this case we might be able to ally ourselves
with the cable industry. I am sure they would love to see Telco's lose
their USF subsidies in markets that are served by cable.



Brian

-Original Message-
From: Fred Goldstein [mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 9:42 AM
To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling
reason to document and map your network coverage ever

At 7/29/2010 08:01 AM, Brian wrote:
>Hit me off list and I can offer some suggestions.

As I mentioned, the 75% rule only applies to wireline providers (i.e.,
cable), so mapping WISP coverage buys nothing.

The Boucher-Terry bill has nothing in it to help WISPs and plenty to
hurt them, including a rather high tax to support your competitors.



>Brian
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of RickG
>Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:24 PM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling
reason
>to document and map your network coverage ever
>
>I'd like to but I dont know where to begin and with my limited time I
>cant even try to figure it out.
>
>On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Brian Webster
> wrote:
> > Steve Coran just posted the message below to the WISPA FCC committee
list.
>I
> > took particular note to the following statement:
> >
> >
> >
> > - would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where
at
> > least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a
competitive
> > provider that does not receive support
> >
> >
> >
> > Now the way I read the above statement is that if a WISP covers 75%
of a
> > current USF recipients service area, there will no longer be
eligibility
>to
> > receive USF funds. Remember if they have broadband they also have
access
>to
> > many VOIP providers even if you do not provide VOIP services. Vonage
and
> > Skype come to mind, not to mention cellular coverage. This would be
a
huge
> > factor in leveling the playing field for WISP's in rural markets! I
cannot
> > see a more compelling reason to document and map your networks than
this.
> > Not only will it prevent yet another subsidized competitor from
coming
in
>to
> > your service area, but it will also erode funding  for any Telco who
> > currently receives USF in your markets. This would bring wireless as
a
> > delivery method to the forefront because there are then no
artificial
> > revenue streams subsidizing the cost to deliver last mile service.
We
all
> > know that wireless has the least cost per household passed in low
density
> > markets.
> >
> >
> >
> > There are many ways to document and map your coverage areas. First
and
> > foremost though is that you should file the Form 477 as required.
Next
one
> > should map their network with an accurate service area where you
would

Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever

[Fred Goldstein]

besides 
14k is harder.)

So what the Boucher bill does is push the FCC along the path it was 
considering anyway, with some tweaks.  The 75% clause is there to cut 
off support to ILECs that have been almost fully overbuilt by cable, 
not because cable cares (they don't get USF), but because it may 
lower the total cost of the USF, and let's face it, PacketCable is 
just as good as most POTS.  It's not Skype!  It's not even on the 
Internet.  Verizon HATES the cable industry, especially Comcast, but 
if the presence of cable can be used against USF subsidy-suckers, 
then it's counted.

USF still only goes to "ETCs", as before, and getting to be an ETC 
may not be easy.  The FCC has largely frozen out new competitors, and 
their plan is to limit USF high-cost support to ILECs only.  The 
Boucher bill opens it up by creating a subsidized wireless franchise 
too, so Verizon and its best buddy ATT can split up the country that 
way.  (Sprint and other can bid too, though they're less likely to 
win.)  The odds of a WISP getting USF out of this bill are roughly 
those of getting a unicorn to ride on to visit customer sites.

Now let's get back to the technical issue.  The bill not only 
specifies "wireline", but it requires standard-quality 
telephony.  That means, basically, full-QoS POTS with local phone 
numbers.  Can a WISP deliver that?  Yes, but it's not trivial.  It 
requires QoS-engineered networks.  It requires high reliability, 
battery backup, etc. It may be hard for any "routed" network can meet 
the grade, but that can be fixed in software.

It also requires that you use, or be, a local CLEC for the voice 
service.  This is pretty scary for most ISPs, but if there were a 
good reason for it, then it could be handled.  There are a few 
ways.  If there is a local CLEC already, the WISP can partner with 
it.  Or a CLEC can sell wholesale dial tone  (SIP, MGCP or H.248, for 
instance) to the WISP, though that requires the WISP to be a CLEC 
too.  Or the WISP/CLEC can outsource the whole thing to a company who 
operates a centralized call agent, and who places down a media 
gateway at the local tandem and does all the work.  There are a 
number of variations possible here and I see some of them in my CLEC 
work, though the "rent-a-switch" and "rent-a-call-agent" business 
hasn't developed as far as I'd like it to.

But since the WISP still doesn't get USF, there's not much reason to 
try, unless the WISP wants the voice revenue.  Which isn't a bad 
thing, actually... you can deliver it for a much lower *cost* than 
the rural ILEC.  But you can't undercut the ILEC's *price*, since USF 
is paying most of the freight.  That's the trouble with the whole 
system.  And Boucher and Terry, who represent largely rural 
constituencies, are not interested in fixing that!  In theory, if the 
law didn't specify wireline and the WISP-CLEC could pass the 75% 
test, then the ILEC would take a big hit and have to raise its 
prices, which would be politically unpopular.  That's the only 
upside, and it's a long shot at best.

>Brian
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Jeff Broadwick [mailto:jeffl...@comcast.net]
>Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 10:07 AM
>To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: RE: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compellingreason
>to document and map your network coverage ever
>
>Is cable not considered a "wireline" service?
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Jeff
>
>
>Jeff Broadwick
>ImageStream
>800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
>+1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
>
>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of Brian Webster
>Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 10:02 AM
>To: 'Fred Goldstein'; 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compellingreason
>to document and map your network coverage ever
>
>Fred,
> That is understood, however I think that WISPA may try to lobby to
>have the term "wireline" removed such that any technology that delivers the
>defined broadband and voice services should be qualified to meet the 75%
>requirement. This is still a bill and not a law so there are opportunities
>to change this although I don't expect that one to go through without a
>fight. In this case we might be able to ally ourselves with the cable
>industry. I am sure they would love to see Telco's lose their USF subsidies
>in markets that are served by cable.
>
>
>
>Brian
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Fred Goldstein [mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com]
>Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 9:42 AM
>To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; WISPA General List

Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever

[Jeff Broadwick]

I am so glad you moved over to the Wispa list Fred!  I don't always agree
with you, but I REALLY appreciate how much thought and detail you put into
your responses. 


Regards,

Jeff


Jeff Broadwick
ImageStream
800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:20 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason
to document and map your network coverage ever

At 7/29/2010 10:34 AM, Brian Webster wrote:
>Yes but if the cable companies could also ally with wireless carriers 
>to get other areas excluded from USF subsidies, the field would be a 
>more level one should the cable companies try to compete in other 
>markets. We might also get Clearwire and the cellular carriers to 
>support the position although most of their deployments will probably 
>be in areas that would never have qualified for USF to begin with. If 
>the terms wireline are kept in the bill it would appear that wireless 
>services might also be excluded from receiving any USF funds which 
>basically keeps USF funds in the exclusive hands of the Telco's as it has
been.
>
>Personally I think that if we don't out and out oppose the bill for USF 
>reform, but rather do something like this as a minor change, the WISP 
>industry can make out better. USF reform will happen and USF funds will 
>be spent on deploying broadband to unserved areas no matter what. What 
>we need to do is make sure the law does not fund builds in areas 
>already served by WISP's and other technologies. If the battle could 
>also be fought and won to allow WISP's access to the funds for 
>broadband deployments then great. When going up against the cable and 
>Telco lobbies, one has to be wise about picking their battles as the
funding to fight this will be limited.

And on a related note, Patrick Leary wrote,

>You'd think there would be an excellent legal argument to fight that.
>Seems it'd be difficult to enact a law that in effect discriminates 
>against certain classes of providers, especially since WISPs are the 
>only "pure play" broadband providers out there. Theorectically the 
>re-configured USF is meant to propel broadband...so how could the feds 
>exclude the only entity that provides broadband first, other services 
>second. All other providers have "broadband" as a secondary play.

Patrick's first... We're talking about a new law, so the legal argument
boils down to whatever the law says is legal, is legal, unless it's a
flagrant constitutional violation.  Which I don't see, since the main issue
here is simply who gets government handouts, and handing out money (and
taxing) is sort of the normal role of government.  The problem is that the
system is so corrupt by now that the handouts appear to be irrational.  In
practice they're not; they just aren't done for the public good.

Back to Brian's point... You first have to think about whose bill this is.
Boucher doesn't make this stuff up himself.  Nor does his staff, though they
know more about it than most congressional staffers.  Boucher's job in
Washington is, and has always been, to carry Verizon's water.  When he puts
a bill in the hopper, it comes from them.  Tom Tauke's staff probably
drafted most of the bill.

So what is Verizon asking for?  You again have to look at what USF is all
about.  It was created as part of intercarrier compensation reform.  Before
USF, toll settlements to rural carriers were high enough to pay the
subsidies. Make a 30 cent call and the rural carrier gets 50 cents for
terminating it.  This worked because Long Distance was a huge luxury and
thus could be milked.  As the cost of delivering LD went down, the amount
that could be diverted to supporting the ILECs went up.  But the system
broke down under competition, especially from VoIP, but also from something
called "reality" -- you can't perpetuate a rotten system like that forever.
It was hugely inefficient.  So intercarrier payments from IXCs to LECs no
longer pay the whole freight, and explicit USF makes up the difference.  The
IXCs, however, are the main payers of USF.  They count the cards differently
but the kitty still goes the same way.

In the 1980s, Verizon (then called Bell Atlantic) was a LEC and on the
receiving end of IXC switched access charges.  But now the Bells get much
lower switched access rates, so it's not a big revenue source for them.
Instead, you have Verizon owning the former MCI and Worldcom assets and
Southwestern Bell owning the former AT&T Corp. 
assets, so the two mega-Bells are probably net payers, not recipients, of
subsidies to the rurals, both via USF and acc

Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever

[Brian Webster]

Fred,
Does the bill state that the voice and data service have to be
provided by the SAME carrier or just that the consumer has access to them?
Would cellular service qualify in that case? Thought is that is there is
cell or CLEC service and a WISP also covers the same area with only
broadband, it could be considered served. The issue of QOS and all the other
call reliability standards would be addressed by others and not the WISP.

I get and understand every point you made on the bill and the
players. It all makes sense and pretty much what one would expect. Changes
to allow WISP's or wireless to be considered part of the 75% coverage would
really hurt the rurals that are trying to save their revenue stream and will
meet with a massive fight. USF reform was expected to have spurred a big
fight from those who stand to lose. There have been a lot of votes and
campaign contributions bought with that money over the years.



Brian


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:20 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason
to document and map your network coverage ever

At 7/29/2010 10:34 AM, Brian Webster wrote:
>Yes but if the cable companies could also ally with wireless carriers to
get
>other areas excluded from USF subsidies, the field would be a more level
one
>should the cable companies try to compete in other markets. We might also
>get Clearwire and the cellular carriers to support the position although
>most of their deployments will probably be in areas that would never have
>qualified for USF to begin with. If the terms wireline are kept in the bill
>it would appear that wireless services might also be excluded from
receiving
>any USF funds which basically keeps USF funds in the exclusive hands of the
>Telco's as it has been.
>
>Personally I think that if we don't out and out oppose the bill for USF
>reform, but rather do something like this as a minor change, the WISP
>industry can make out better. USF reform will happen and USF funds will be
>spent on deploying broadband to unserved areas no matter what. What we need
>to do is make sure the law does not fund builds in areas already served by
>WISP's and other technologies. If the battle could also be fought and won
to
>allow WISP's access to the funds for broadband deployments then great. When
>going up against the cable and Telco lobbies, one has to be wise about
>picking their battles as the funding to fight this will be limited.

And on a related note, Patrick Leary wrote,

>You'd think there would be an excellent legal argument to fight that.
>Seems it'd be difficult to enact a law that in effect discriminates
>against certain classes of providers, especially since WISPs are the
>only "pure play" broadband providers out there. Theorectically the
>re-configured USF is meant to propel broadband...so how could the feds
>exclude the only entity that provides broadband first, other services
>second. All other providers have "broadband" as a secondary play.

Patrick's first... We're talking about a new law, so the legal 
argument boils down to whatever the law says is legal, is legal, 
unless it's a flagrant constitutional violation.  Which I don't see, 
since the main issue here is simply who gets government handouts, and 
handing out money (and taxing) is sort of the normal role of 
government.  The problem is that the system is so corrupt by now that 
the handouts appear to be irrational.  In practice they're not; they 
just aren't done for the public good.

Back to Brian's point... You first have to think about whose bill 
this is.  Boucher doesn't make this stuff up himself.  Nor does his 
staff, though they know more about it than most congressional 
staffers.  Boucher's job in Washington is, and has always been, to 
carry Verizon's water.  When he puts a bill in the hopper, it comes 
from them.  Tom Tauke's staff probably drafted most of the bill.

So what is Verizon asking for?  You again have to look at what USF is 
all about.  It was created as part of intercarrier compensation 
reform.  Before USF, toll settlements to rural carriers were high 
enough to pay the subsidies. Make a 30 cent call and the rural 
carrier gets 50 cents for terminating it.  This worked because Long 
Distance was a huge luxury and thus could be milked.  As the cost of 
delivering LD went down, the amount that could be diverted to 
supporting the ILECs went up.  But the system broke down under 
competition, especially from VoIP, but also from something called 
"reality" -- you can't perpetuate a rotten system like that 
forever.  It was hugely inefficient.  So intercarrier pay

Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever

[Brian Webster]

Yes, he is very informative! Thanks Fred. Always helps for everyone to know
the other side of the fence and get a reality check of the world we play in.



Brian

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:41 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason
to document and map your network coverage ever

I am so glad you moved over to the Wispa list Fred!  I don't always agree
with you, but I REALLY appreciate how much thought and detail you put into
your responses. 


Regards,

Jeff


Jeff Broadwick
ImageStream
800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:20 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason
to document and map your network coverage ever

At 7/29/2010 10:34 AM, Brian Webster wrote:
>Yes but if the cable companies could also ally with wireless carriers 
>to get other areas excluded from USF subsidies, the field would be a 
>more level one should the cable companies try to compete in other 
>markets. We might also get Clearwire and the cellular carriers to 
>support the position although most of their deployments will probably 
>be in areas that would never have qualified for USF to begin with. If 
>the terms wireline are kept in the bill it would appear that wireless 
>services might also be excluded from receiving any USF funds which 
>basically keeps USF funds in the exclusive hands of the Telco's as it has
been.
>
>Personally I think that if we don't out and out oppose the bill for USF 
>reform, but rather do something like this as a minor change, the WISP 
>industry can make out better. USF reform will happen and USF funds will 
>be spent on deploying broadband to unserved areas no matter what. What 
>we need to do is make sure the law does not fund builds in areas 
>already served by WISP's and other technologies. If the battle could 
>also be fought and won to allow WISP's access to the funds for 
>broadband deployments then great. When going up against the cable and 
>Telco lobbies, one has to be wise about picking their battles as the
funding to fight this will be limited.

And on a related note, Patrick Leary wrote,

>You'd think there would be an excellent legal argument to fight that.
>Seems it'd be difficult to enact a law that in effect discriminates 
>against certain classes of providers, especially since WISPs are the 
>only "pure play" broadband providers out there. Theorectically the 
>re-configured USF is meant to propel broadband...so how could the feds 
>exclude the only entity that provides broadband first, other services 
>second. All other providers have "broadband" as a secondary play.

Patrick's first... We're talking about a new law, so the legal argument
boils down to whatever the law says is legal, is legal, unless it's a
flagrant constitutional violation.  Which I don't see, since the main issue
here is simply who gets government handouts, and handing out money (and
taxing) is sort of the normal role of government.  The problem is that the
system is so corrupt by now that the handouts appear to be irrational.  In
practice they're not; they just aren't done for the public good.

Back to Brian's point... You first have to think about whose bill this is.
Boucher doesn't make this stuff up himself.  Nor does his staff, though they
know more about it than most congressional staffers.  Boucher's job in
Washington is, and has always been, to carry Verizon's water.  When he puts
a bill in the hopper, it comes from them.  Tom Tauke's staff probably
drafted most of the bill.

So what is Verizon asking for?  You again have to look at what USF is all
about.  It was created as part of intercarrier compensation reform.  Before
USF, toll settlements to rural carriers were high enough to pay the
subsidies. Make a 30 cent call and the rural carrier gets 50 cents for
terminating it.  This worked because Long Distance was a huge luxury and
thus could be milked.  As the cost of delivering LD went down, the amount
that could be diverted to supporting the ILECs went up.  But the system
broke down under competition, especially from VoIP, but also from something
called "reality" -- you can't perpetuate a rotten system like that forever.
It was hugely inefficient.  So intercarrier payments from IXCs to LECs no
longer pay the whole freight, and explicit USF makes up the difference.  The
IXCs, however, are the main payers of USF.  They count the cards differently
but the kitty still g

Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever

[Fred Goldstein]

At 7/29/2010 11:51 AM, Brian Webster wrote:
>Fred,
> Does the bill state that the voice and data service have to be
>provided by the SAME carrier or just that the consumer has access to them?

It says that they purchase it "from" the unsupported non-incumbent 
provider.  So that implies at least a resale relationship.  Bear in 
mind that many cable companies who provide voice service do not have 
their own voice networks; Sprint, for instance, is the wholesale CLEC 
supplier to much of Suddenlink and TW Cable.  The bill does not 
specify that the seller be a CLEC per se.  It does require a 
stand-alone voice service (bundles only don't count), toll 
restriction option, E911, etc.  And there can be "just and 
reasonable" charges for extending the line outside of the normal 
service range, again resembling telco practice for houses set back 
too far, etc.

>Would cellular service qualify in that case?

No; it's written for wireline, and "standard" POTS parameters.  The 
bill allows up to two CMRS carriers to get USF too.  If there are at 
least three CMRS carriers in an area, they "bid" for the right to 
receive USF.  If there aren't three, but one already gets USF, it 
keeps it, without bidding, at current levels.  This latter clause 
might end up giving VZ and ATT a lot of extra money vs. current FCC 
plans to reduce USF support to them, which shows you how the bill is 
not really one to reduce USF so much as to direct it certain ways!

>Thought is that is there is
>cell or CLEC service and a WISP also covers the same area with only
>broadband, it could be considered served. The issue of QOS and all the other
>call reliability standards would be addressed by others and not the WISP.

No, because mobile standards are counted differently, towards the 
separate mobile USF entitlement.  WISPs are left out.  (Time to crack 
out the lobbyists!)


> I get and understand every point you made on the bill and the
>players. It all makes sense and pretty much what one would expect. Changes
>to allow WISP's or wireless to be considered part of the 75% coverage would
>really hurt the rurals that are trying to save their revenue stream and will
>meet with a massive fight. USF reform was expected to have spurred a big
>fight from those who stand to lose. There have been a lot of votes and
>campaign contributions bought with that money over the years.

Yes, I expect that this bill will receive a fair amount of opposition 
from the subsidy-suckers too.



>Brian
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
>Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:20 AM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason
>to document and map your network coverage ever
>
>At 7/29/2010 10:34 AM, Brian Webster wrote:
> >Yes but if the cable companies could also ally with wireless carriers to
>get
> >other areas excluded from USF subsidies, the field would be a more level
>one
> >should the cable companies try to compete in other markets. We might also
> >get Clearwire and the cellular carriers to support the position although
> >most of their deployments will probably be in areas that would never have
> >qualified for USF to begin with. If the terms wireline are kept in the bill
> >it would appear that wireless services might also be excluded from
>receiving
> >any USF funds which basically keeps USF funds in the exclusive hands of the
> >Telco's as it has been.
> >
> >Personally I think that if we don't out and out oppose the bill for USF
> >reform, but rather do something like this as a minor change, the WISP
> >industry can make out better. USF reform will happen and USF funds will be
> >spent on deploying broadband to unserved areas no matter what. What we need
> >to do is make sure the law does not fund builds in areas already served by
> >WISP's and other technologies. If the battle could also be fought and won
>to
> >allow WISP's access to the funds for broadband deployments then great. When
> >going up against the cable and Telco lobbies, one has to be wise about
> >picking their battles as the funding to fight this will be limited.
>
>And on a related note, Patrick Leary wrote,
>
> >You'd think there would be an excellent legal argument to fight that.
> >Seems it'd be difficult to enact a law that in effect discriminates
> >against certain classes of providers, especially since WISPs are the
> >only "pure play" broadband providers out there. Theorectically the
> >re-configured USF is meant to propel broadband...so how could the feds
> >exclude th

Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever

[Mike Hammett]

  Agreed, very much so!

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



On 7/29/2010 10:41 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
> I am so glad you moved over to the Wispa list Fred!  I don't always agree
> with you, but I REALLY appreciate how much thought and detail you put into
> your responses.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeff
>
>
> Jeff Broadwick
> ImageStream
> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
> +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:20 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason
> to document and map your network coverage ever
>
> At 7/29/2010 10:34 AM, Brian Webster wrote:
>> Yes but if the cable companies could also ally with wireless carriers
>> to get other areas excluded from USF subsidies, the field would be a
>> more level one should the cable companies try to compete in other
>> markets. We might also get Clearwire and the cellular carriers to
>> support the position although most of their deployments will probably
>> be in areas that would never have qualified for USF to begin with. If
>> the terms wireline are kept in the bill it would appear that wireless
>> services might also be excluded from receiving any USF funds which
>> basically keeps USF funds in the exclusive hands of the Telco's as it has
> been.
>> Personally I think that if we don't out and out oppose the bill for USF
>> reform, but rather do something like this as a minor change, the WISP
>> industry can make out better. USF reform will happen and USF funds will
>> be spent on deploying broadband to unserved areas no matter what. What
>> we need to do is make sure the law does not fund builds in areas
>> already served by WISP's and other technologies. If the battle could
>> also be fought and won to allow WISP's access to the funds for
>> broadband deployments then great. When going up against the cable and
>> Telco lobbies, one has to be wise about picking their battles as the
> funding to fight this will be limited.
>
> And on a related note, Patrick Leary wrote,
>
>> You'd think there would be an excellent legal argument to fight that.
>> Seems it'd be difficult to enact a law that in effect discriminates
>> against certain classes of providers, especially since WISPs are the
>> only "pure play" broadband providers out there. Theorectically the
>> re-configured USF is meant to propel broadband...so how could the feds
>> exclude the only entity that provides broadband first, other services
>> second. All other providers have "broadband" as a secondary play.
> Patrick's first... We're talking about a new law, so the legal argument
> boils down to whatever the law says is legal, is legal, unless it's a
> flagrant constitutional violation.  Which I don't see, since the main issue
> here is simply who gets government handouts, and handing out money (and
> taxing) is sort of the normal role of government.  The problem is that the
> system is so corrupt by now that the handouts appear to be irrational.  In
> practice they're not; they just aren't done for the public good.
>
> Back to Brian's point... You first have to think about whose bill this is.
> Boucher doesn't make this stuff up himself.  Nor does his staff, though they
> know more about it than most congressional staffers.  Boucher's job in
> Washington is, and has always been, to carry Verizon's water.  When he puts
> a bill in the hopper, it comes from them.  Tom Tauke's staff probably
> drafted most of the bill.
>
> So what is Verizon asking for?  You again have to look at what USF is all
> about.  It was created as part of intercarrier compensation reform.  Before
> USF, toll settlements to rural carriers were high enough to pay the
> subsidies. Make a 30 cent call and the rural carrier gets 50 cents for
> terminating it.  This worked because Long Distance was a huge luxury and
> thus could be milked.  As the cost of delivering LD went down, the amount
> that could be diverted to supporting the ILECs went up.  But the system
> broke down under competition, especially from VoIP, but also from something
> called "reality" -- you can't perpetuate a rotten system like that forever.
> It was hugely inefficient.  So intercarrier payments from IXCs to LECs no
> longer pay the whole freight, and explicit USF makes up the difference.  The
> IXCs, however, are the main payers of USF.  They count the cards d

Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever

[Fred Goldstein]

At 7/29/2010 04:32 PM, you wrote:
>   Agreed, very much so!

Thanks guys!

And I do appreciate the help I get from you on all of my silly little 
equipment questions.

>-
>Mike Hammett
>Intelligent Computing Solutions
>http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
>On 7/29/2010 10:41 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
> > I am so glad you moved over to the Wispa list Fred!  I don't always agree
> > with you, but I REALLY appreciate how much thought and detail you put into
> > your responses.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> > Jeff Broadwick
> > ImageStream
> > 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
> > +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> > Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
> > Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:20 AM
> > To: WISPA General List
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most 
> compelling reason
> > to document and map your network coverage ever
> >
> > At 7/29/2010 10:34 AM, Brian Webster wrote:
> >> Yes but if the cable companies could also ally with wireless carriers
> >> to get other areas excluded from USF subsidies, the field would be a
> >> more level one should the cable companies try to compete in other
> >> markets. We might also get Clearwire and the cellular carriers to
> >> support the position although most of their deployments will probably
> >> be in areas that would never have qualified for USF to begin with. If
> >> the terms wireline are kept in the bill it would appear that wireless
> >> services might also be excluded from receiving any USF funds which
> >> basically keeps USF funds in the exclusive hands of the Telco's as it has
> > been.
> >> Personally I think that if we don't out and out oppose the bill for USF
> >> reform, but rather do something like this as a minor change, the WISP
> >> industry can make out better. USF reform will happen and USF funds will
> >> be spent on deploying broadband to unserved areas no matter what. What
> >> we need to do is make sure the law does not fund builds in areas
> >> already served by WISP's and other technologies. If the battle could
> >> also be fought and won to allow WISP's access to the funds for
> >> broadband deployments then great. When going up against the cable and
> >> Telco lobbies, one has to be wise about picking their battles as the
> > funding to fight this will be limited.
> >
> > And on a related note, Patrick Leary wrote,
> >
> >> You'd think there would be an excellent legal argument to fight that.
> >> Seems it'd be difficult to enact a law that in effect discriminates
> >> against certain classes of providers, especially since WISPs are the
> >> only "pure play" broadband providers out there. Theorectically the
> >> re-configured USF is meant to propel broadband...so how could the feds
> >> exclude the only entity that provides broadband first, other services
> >> second. All other providers have "broadband" as a secondary play.
> > Patrick's first... We're talking about a new law, so the legal argument
> > boils down to whatever the law says is legal, is legal, unless it's a
> > flagrant constitutional violation.  Which I don't see, since the main issue
> > here is simply who gets government handouts, and handing out money (and
> > taxing) is sort of the normal role of government.  The problem is that the
> > system is so corrupt by now that the handouts appear to be irrational.  In
> > practice they're not; they just aren't done for the public good.
> >
> > Back to Brian's point... You first have to think about whose bill this is.
> > Boucher doesn't make this stuff up himself.  Nor does his staff, 
> though they
> > know more about it than most congressional staffers.  Boucher's job in
> > Washington is, and has always been, to carry Verizon's water.  When he puts
> > a bill in the hopper, it comes from them.  Tom Tauke's staff probably
> > drafted most of the bill.
> >
> > So what is Verizon asking for?  You again have to look at what USF is all
> > about.  It was created as part of intercarrier compensation reform.  Before
> > USF, toll settlements to rural carriers were high enough to pay the
> > subsidies. Make a 30 cent call and the rural carrier gets 50 cents for
> > terminating it.  This worked because Long Distance was a huge luxury and
> > 

Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever

[RickG]

He reminds me of Tom!

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Jeff Broadwick  wrote:
> I am so glad you moved over to the Wispa list Fred!  I don't always agree
> with you, but I REALLY appreciate how much thought and detail you put into
> your responses.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeff
>
>
> Jeff Broadwick
> ImageStream
> 800-813-5123 x106     (US/Can)
> +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:20 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason
> to document and map your network coverage ever
>
> At 7/29/2010 10:34 AM, Brian Webster wrote:
>>Yes but if the cable companies could also ally with wireless carriers
>>to get other areas excluded from USF subsidies, the field would be a
>>more level one should the cable companies try to compete in other
>>markets. We might also get Clearwire and the cellular carriers to
>>support the position although most of their deployments will probably
>>be in areas that would never have qualified for USF to begin with. If
>>the terms wireline are kept in the bill it would appear that wireless
>>services might also be excluded from receiving any USF funds which
>>basically keeps USF funds in the exclusive hands of the Telco's as it has
> been.
>>
>>Personally I think that if we don't out and out oppose the bill for USF
>>reform, but rather do something like this as a minor change, the WISP
>>industry can make out better. USF reform will happen and USF funds will
>>be spent on deploying broadband to unserved areas no matter what. What
>>we need to do is make sure the law does not fund builds in areas
>>already served by WISP's and other technologies. If the battle could
>>also be fought and won to allow WISP's access to the funds for
>>broadband deployments then great. When going up against the cable and
>>Telco lobbies, one has to be wise about picking their battles as the
> funding to fight this will be limited.
>
> And on a related note, Patrick Leary wrote,
>
>>You'd think there would be an excellent legal argument to fight that.
>>Seems it'd be difficult to enact a law that in effect discriminates
>>against certain classes of providers, especially since WISPs are the
>>only "pure play" broadband providers out there. Theorectically the
>>re-configured USF is meant to propel broadband...so how could the feds
>>exclude the only entity that provides broadband first, other services
>>second. All other providers have "broadband" as a secondary play.
>
> Patrick's first... We're talking about a new law, so the legal argument
> boils down to whatever the law says is legal, is legal, unless it's a
> flagrant constitutional violation.  Which I don't see, since the main issue
> here is simply who gets government handouts, and handing out money (and
> taxing) is sort of the normal role of government.  The problem is that the
> system is so corrupt by now that the handouts appear to be irrational.  In
> practice they're not; they just aren't done for the public good.
>
> Back to Brian's point... You first have to think about whose bill this is.
> Boucher doesn't make this stuff up himself.  Nor does his staff, though they
> know more about it than most congressional staffers.  Boucher's job in
> Washington is, and has always been, to carry Verizon's water.  When he puts
> a bill in the hopper, it comes from them.  Tom Tauke's staff probably
> drafted most of the bill.
>
> So what is Verizon asking for?  You again have to look at what USF is all
> about.  It was created as part of intercarrier compensation reform.  Before
> USF, toll settlements to rural carriers were high enough to pay the
> subsidies. Make a 30 cent call and the rural carrier gets 50 cents for
> terminating it.  This worked because Long Distance was a huge luxury and
> thus could be milked.  As the cost of delivering LD went down, the amount
> that could be diverted to supporting the ILECs went up.  But the system
> broke down under competition, especially from VoIP, but also from something
> called "reality" -- you can't perpetuate a rotten system like that forever.
> It was hugely inefficient.  So intercarrier payments from IXCs to LECs no
> longer pay the whole freight, and explicit USF makes up the difference.  The
> IXCs, however, are the main payers of USF.  They count the cards differently
> but the kitty still goes the same way.
>
> In the 1980s

Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever

[Scottie Arnett]

I agree with Fred on this. I have read many of his statements on
cybertelecom's email list. If you are an ISP, I strongly recommend that
you join it off of < http://www.cybertelecom.org/ >

Since around 2002, maybe a little earlier, at the time of The
Tauzin-Dingell Telecom Bill, the Congress, and the FCC pretty much did
away with "line sharing" or the ability for us(ISP's) to use any lines
provided by Ilec's(< http://www.manymedia.com/futures/tauzding.html >).
After this it lead to the "Triennial Review." All this finally leads to
the fact that the ILEC's do not even have to share their fiber.

Fred may not agree with me on this, but as far as I can see it, the FCC
and Congress have been out to do away with the small ISP's since around
2000. They have one agenda, that makes it even more sound is that in the
last few months, the FCC has now classified broadband as 4 meg down/1 meg
up. That not only has DE-classified many of the WISP as providing
broadband, but also the satellite providers, and many DSL systems.

I recently had an awakening, on the 2nd round BIP, that even though my
company had coverage in the same area as a Rural Telco(Twin Lakes
Telephone Cooperative) they could apply for BIP, but I could not because
they already had USDA funding as a Telco. Guess what? They received 16
million in grants and also received 16 million in low cost loans to
provide FTTH in my coverage area.

Call me what you will, but the FCC and everything behind them only want
the duopoly of cable and telco to deal with. We are just pissing in the
wind and it is why I have not joined WISPA yet. I may be missing the boat,
but I am waiting for WISPA to prove me wrong. I have seen beyond and
experienced beyond the norm. Show me something that I can have faith(and
provide financial incentives) in or I will stay exactly where I am at and
look for other income.

Scottie Arnett
Info-Ed, Inc.

> At 7/29/2010 08:01 AM, Brian wrote:
>>Hit me off list and I can offer some suggestions.
>
> As I mentioned, the 75% rule only applies to wireline providers
> (i.e., cable), so mapping WISP coverage buys nothing.
>
> The Boucher-Terry bill has nothing in it to help WISPs and plenty to
> hurt them, including a rather high tax to support your competitors.
>
>
>
>>Brian
>>
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>Behalf Of RickG
>>Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:24 PM
>>To: WISPA General List
>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling
>> reason
>>to document and map your network coverage ever
>>
>>I'd like to but I dont know where to begin and with my limited time I
>>cant even try to figure it out.
>>
>>On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Brian Webster
>> wrote:
>> > Steve Coran just posted the message below to the WISPA FCC committee
>> list.
>>I
>> > took particular note to the following statement:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > - would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where
>> at
>> > least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a
>> competitive
>> > provider that does not receive support
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Now the way I read the above statement is that if a WISP covers 75% of
>> a
>> > current USF recipients service area, there will no longer be
>> eligibility
>>to
>> > receive USF funds. Remember if they have broadband they also have
>> access
>>to
>> > many VOIP providers even if you do not provide VOIP services. Vonage
>> and
>> > Skype come to mind, not to mention cellular coverage. This would be a
>> huge
>> > factor in leveling the playing field for WISP's in rural markets! I
>> cannot
>> > see a more compelling reason to document and map your networks than
>> this.
>> > Not only will it prevent yet another subsidized competitor from coming
>> in
>>to
>> > your service area, but it will also erode funding  for any Telco who
>> > currently receives USF in your markets. This would bring wireless as a
>> > delivery method to the forefront because there are then no artificial
>> > revenue streams subsidizing the cost to deliver last mile service. We
>> all
>> > know that wireless has the least cost per household passed in low
>> density
>> > markets.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > There are many ways to document and map your coverage areas. First and
>> > foremost though is that you should file the Form 477 as required. Next
>> one
>> > shou

Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever

[Marlon K. Schafer]

Scottie,

There just weren't enough of us to stop things like that from happening.

It's a chicken and egg thing.  It takes members to get things done.  Some 
don't want to join until we can point to positive results.

I guess it's a matter of how far in the future do you want to look?  If you 
don't look past the end of your nose you are right, WISPA is a waste of 
time.  We do have an impact but it's still hard to quantify much of the 
time.

If you can look years or decades down the road WISPA is a no brainer.  After 
all, who else is speaking for you?  Who else is working to make the 
complicated understandable?

Not picking on your Scottie, you just happen to be the guy that brought this 
up this time

Also, there IS a value in WISPA already.  How much have you learned from the 
lists?  What's it worth to be able to ask questions of the best experts in 
the industry, and have them answer you?  Who pays for the servers and 
bandwidth so you can do that?  Who pays for people's time so you can get 
your answers?  If we all give a little of our time and a little of our money 
much good gets done.

Since WISPA has been functional (around 2004) we've gotten Whitespaces, 
3650, 255mhz of new 5 gig spectrum, relaxed antenna certification rules and 
more.  WISPA was very involved in all of those items at an FCC level.  We've 
also worked with the FBI for CALEA (believe me, if you knew all of the back 
story you'd be REALLY glad we did this), the UTC for some items and 
we've helped people reach out to their congress people.

WISPA has gained a good reputation with many other organizations and with 
the FCC.  Oh sure, some think of us as cowboys or clod hoppers from time to 
time.  But we're always the most knowledgeable and most educated when it 
comes to unlicensed operations servicing real world customers in real world 
situations.

I can't possibly find the words to sufficiently urge you to join.  Look back 
at the dial-up and DSL portions of our industry if you'd like to see where 
WISPs will be in another 10 years without an effective and strong voice in 
DC.

laters,
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Scottie Arnett" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason 
to document and map your network coverage ever


>I agree with Fred on this. I have read many of his statements on
> cybertelecom's email list. If you are an ISP, I strongly recommend that
> you join it off of < http://www.cybertelecom.org/ >
>
> Since around 2002, maybe a little earlier, at the time of The
> Tauzin-Dingell Telecom Bill, the Congress, and the FCC pretty much did
> away with "line sharing" or the ability for us(ISP's) to use any lines
> provided by Ilec's(< http://www.manymedia.com/futures/tauzding.html >).
> After this it lead to the "Triennial Review." All this finally leads to
> the fact that the ILEC's do not even have to share their fiber.
>
> Fred may not agree with me on this, but as far as I can see it, the FCC
> and Congress have been out to do away with the small ISP's since around
> 2000. They have one agenda, that makes it even more sound is that in the
> last few months, the FCC has now classified broadband as 4 meg down/1 meg
> up. That not only has DE-classified many of the WISP as providing
> broadband, but also the satellite providers, and many DSL systems.
>
> I recently had an awakening, on the 2nd round BIP, that even though my
> company had coverage in the same area as a Rural Telco(Twin Lakes
> Telephone Cooperative) they could apply for BIP, but I could not because
> they already had USDA funding as a Telco. Guess what? They received 16
> million in grants and also received 16 million in low cost loans to
> provide FTTH in my coverage area.
>
> Call me what you will, but the FCC and everything behind them only want
> the duopoly of cable and telco to deal with. We are just pissing in the
> wind and it is why I have not joined WISPA yet. I may be missing the boat,
> but I am waiting for WISPA to prove me wrong. I have seen beyond and
> experienced beyond the norm. Show me something that I can have faith(and
> provide financial incentives) in or I will stay exactly where I am at and
> look for other income.
>
> Scottie Arnett
> Info-Ed, Inc.
>
>> At 7/29/2010 08:01 AM, Brian wrote:
>>>Hit me off list and I can offer some suggestions.
>>
>> As I mentioned, the 75% rule only applies to wireline providers
>> (i.e., cable), so mapping WISP coverage buys nothing.
>>
>> The Boucher-Terry bill has nothing in it to help WISPs and plenty to
>> hurt them, including a rather high tax to suppor