Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] [PolicyCommittee] Draft Itemsfor August 1 FCC Meeting
Steve and policy committee, There is one item in the NPRM that is a change from the CAF2 letter of credit rules and should be lobbied hard against as this adds increased costs for our small WISPS. In item #84 "We also propose that the letter of credit remain in place until USAC and the Commission verify that a Rural Digital Opportunity Fund winning bidder has met its minimum coverage and service requirements at the end of the six-year milestone." As noted under item 82 "A CAF Phase II auction support recipient must only maintain an open letter of credit until the recipient has certified it has met the final service milestone and the certification has been verified.155" Given that WISP technology allows faster build out then fiber, many Wisps may be able to meet their build-out completions in the first year. Requiring them to carry a letter of credit for 6 years could add 30% to a winning bidders cost (at 5%/yr for the LOC) these are funds that reduce the actual amount available to be spent on true broadband build out. Hopefully we can make one last push to the FCC on why that is a bad idea before the August meeting. Garth - Original Message - From: Coran, Steve Sent: 7/22/2019 7:55:27 AM To: kj...@ethoplex.com;policycommit...@wispa.org;ebow...@aristotle.net Cc: memb...@wispa.org;wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA Members] [PolicyCommittee] [WISPA] Draft Itemsfor August 1 FCC Meeting > Some good ideas here, which need to be measured against the FCCâs objectives. In countless meetings with the FCC on CAF II rules and, more recently, speed/latency testing, it is ever-apparent that the FCC wants as much of this process to be a âcheck the boxâ exercise so they do not have to rely on their own resources and lack of expertise to decide eligibility and compliance. For example, when we approached the FCC about expanding the list of banks eligible to issue letters of credit, the concern was not expanding the list but an ability of the FCC to look at some independent list which would make the judgment for them. So we went from less than 100 banks on the S&P list to more than 3,600 banks on the Weiss list. Requiring audited financials provides a measure of independent verification from the FCC. I donât even know if the FCC looks at the audited financials â and I donât think anyone has been disqualified based on the content of the financials â they just want to know that someone independent and with expertise has conducted an audit (and recall that WISPA was influential in removing this requirement from the front end of the auction so that only winners have to spend the money for the audit). When it comes to assessing financial wherewithal, the FCC would have no ability to look at tax returns and decide who is financially viable and who is not. Same with speed/latency testing â the FCC wants to look at a list and determine the testing route, not rely on every CAF recipient to provide traffic routing maps. While we can quibble with the standards the FCC adopted, I think having standards is a better solution than having the FCC make independent â and by definition arbitrary â judgements for each applicant. > > Also, each CAF recipient is required to make annual certifications that it has enough money for the next year to meet its obligations. So, taken together, the FCC prescribes gating criteria on the front end that enables them to determine eligibility without doing any application-by-application analysis and drawing lines in gray areas, and follows that up with annual certifications and threat of USAC audits. I do not see that structure changing over time. > > I do think it is worth asking the FCC to allow an RDOF applicant to post a performance bond as an alternative to obtaining a letter of credit. WISPA pushed for this before, and the FCC rejected it. The FCC is considering a performance bond in the Uniendo a Puerto Rico and Connect USVI Fund programs, so we will see if there is movement there. We can also ask the FCC to reduce the value of the letter of credit over time (the carrying costs can exceed 5% per month), but it would be great if we had a history of CAF buildout compliance on which to rely. We may not have that at the outset of RDOF. I also like the idea about approved underwriting from other governmental agencies. > > As for a member survey, that might be more appropriate once the rules are established. The FCC has included a proposal that would make CAF-supported broadband adoption a criterion â meaning that RDOF recipients would give back support if subscribership in supported areas did not meet certain benchmarks up to 70%. Industry stakeholders will strongly oppose this â how can you dictate adoption? â and Iâm optimistic the FCC will not move forward with this proposal, which would have a significant deterrent effect on RDOF auction participation. On the positiv
Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] [PolicyCommittee] Draft Itemsfor August 1 FCC Meeting
My sense is that if you finish before Year 6 and USAC verifies that, you don't have to carry the LOC to term. We can seek clarity in our Comments, or perhaps we stay silent so as not to create a strawman for others to oppose. Stephen E. Coran Lerman Senter PLLC |2001 L Street, NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20036 202-416-6744 (o) | 202-669-3288 (m) | sco...@lermansenter.com |@stevecoran – twitter -Original Message- From: members-boun...@wispa.org On Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick - Lists Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 12:01 PM To: memb...@wispa.org Cc: policycommit...@wispa.org; wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA Members] [PolicyCommittee] [WISPA] Draft Itemsfor August 1 FCC Meeting Agree 100% Jeff Broadwick CTIconnect 312-205-2519 Office 574-220-7826 Cell jbroadw...@cticonnect.com > On Jul 22, 2019, at 11:50 AM, G. Nicholas wrote: > > Steve and policy committee, > > There is one item in the NPRM that is a change from the CAF2 letter of > credit rules and should be lobbied hard against as this adds increased > costs for our small WISPS. > > In item #84 "We also propose that the letter of credit remain in > place until USAC and the Commission verify that a Rural Digital > Opportunity Fund winning bidder has met its minimum coverage and > service requirements at the end of the six-year milestone." > > As noted under item 82 "A CAF Phase II auction support recipient must > only maintain an open letter of credit until the recipient has > certified it has met the final service milestone and the certification has > been verified.155" > > > Given that WISP technology allows faster build out then fiber, many Wisps may > be able to meet their build-out completions in the first year. Requiring > them to carry a letter of credit for 6 years could add 30% to a > winning bidders cost (at 5%/yr for the LOC) these are funds that > reduce the actual amount available to be spent on true broadband build out. > > > Hopefully we can make one last push to the FCC on why that is a bad > idea before the August meeting. > > > Garth > > > > - Original Message - > From: Coran, Steve > Sent: 7/22/2019 7:55:27 AM > To: kj...@ethoplex.com;policycommit...@wispa.org;ebow...@aristotle.net > Cc: memb...@wispa.org;wireless@wispa.org > Subject: Re: [WISPA Members] [PolicyCommittee] [WISPA] Draft Itemsfor > August 1 FCC Meeting > >> Some good ideas here, which need to be measured against the FCC’s > objectives. In countless meetings with the FCC on CAF II rules and, > more recently, speed/latency testing, it is ever-apparent that the FCC > wants as much of this process to be a “check the box” exercise so they > do not have to rely on their own resources and lack of expertise to > decide eligibility and compliance. For example, when we approached > the FCC about expanding the list of banks eligible to issue letters of > credit, the concern was not expanding the list but an ability of the > FCC to look at some independent list which would make the judgment for > them. So we went from less than 100 banks on the S&P list to more > than 3,600 banks on the Weiss list. Requiring audited financials > provides a measure of independent verification from the FCC. I don’t > even know if the FCC looks at the audited financials – and I don’t > think anyone has been disqualified based on the content of the > financials – they just want to know that someone independent and with > expertise has conducted an audit (and recall that WISPA was > influential in removing this requirement from the front end of the > auction so that only winners have to spend the money for the audit). > When it comes to assessing financial wherewithal, the FCC would have > no ability to look at tax returns and decide who is financially viable > and who is not. Same with speed/latency testing – the FCC wants to > look at a list and determine the testing route, not rely on every CAF > recipient to provide traffic routing maps. While we can quibble with > the standards the FCC adopted, I think having standards is a better solution > than having the FCC make independent – and by definition arbitrary – > judgements for each applicant. >> >> Also, each CAF recipient is required to make annual certifications >> that it > has enough money for the next year to meet its obligations. So, taken > together, the FCC prescribes gating criteria on the front end that > enables them to determine eligibility without doing any > application-by-application analysis and drawing lines in gray areas, > and follows that up with annual certifications and threat of USAC > audits. I do not see that structure changing over time. >> >> I do think it is worth asking the FCC to allow an RDOF applicant to >> post a > performance bond as an alternative to obtaining a letter of credit. > WISPA pushed for this before, and the FCC rejected it. The FCC is > considering a performance bond in the Uniendo a Puerto Ric
Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] [PolicyCommittee] Draft Itemsfor August 1 FCC Meeting
Agree 100% Jeff Broadwick CTIconnect 312-205-2519 Office 574-220-7826 Cell jbroadw...@cticonnect.com > On Jul 22, 2019, at 11:50 AM, G. Nicholas wrote: > > Steve and policy committee, > > There is one item in the NPRM that is a change from the CAF2 letter of credit > rules and should be lobbied hard against as this adds increased costs for our > small WISPS. > > In item #84 "We also propose that the letter of credit remain in place until > USAC and the Commission verify that a Rural Digital Opportunity > Fund winning bidder has met its minimum coverage and service requirements at > the end of the six-year milestone." > > As noted under item 82 "A CAF Phase II auction support recipient must only > maintain an open letter of credit until the recipient has certified it has > met the final service milestone and the certification has been verified.155" > > > Given that WISP technology allows faster build out then fiber, many Wisps may > be able to meet their build-out completions in the first year. Requiring > them to carry a letter of credit for 6 years could add 30% to a winning > bidders cost (at 5%/yr for the LOC) these are funds that reduce the actual > amount available to be spent on true broadband build out. > > > Hopefully we can make one last push to the FCC on why that is a bad idea > before the August meeting. > > > Garth > > > > - Original Message - > From: Coran, Steve > Sent: 7/22/2019 7:55:27 AM > To: kj...@ethoplex.com;policycommit...@wispa.org;ebow...@aristotle.net > Cc: memb...@wispa.org;wireless@wispa.org > Subject: Re: [WISPA Members] [PolicyCommittee] [WISPA] Draft Itemsfor > August 1 FCC Meeting > >> Some good ideas here, which need to be measured against the FCC’s > objectives. In countless meetings with the FCC on CAF II rules and, more > recently, speed/latency testing, it is ever-apparent that the FCC wants as > much of this process to be a “check the box” exercise so they do not have > to rely on their own resources and lack of expertise to decide eligibility > and compliance. For example, when we approached the FCC about expanding the > list of banks eligible to issue letters of credit, the concern was not > expanding the list but an ability of the FCC to look at some independent list > which would make the judgment for them. So we went from less than 100 banks > on the S&P list to more than 3,600 banks on the Weiss list. Requiring > audited financials provides a measure of independent verification from the > FCC. I don’t even know if the FCC looks at the audited financials – and > I don’t think anyone has been disqualified based on the content of the > financials – they just want to know that someone independent and with > expertise has conducted an audit (and recall that WISPA was influential in > removing this requirement from the front end of the auction so that only > winners have to spend the money for the audit). When it comes to assessing > financial wherewithal, the FCC would have no ability to look at tax returns > and decide who is financially viable and who is not. Same with speed/latency > testing – the FCC wants to look at a list and determine the testing route, > not rely on every CAF recipient to provide traffic routing maps. While we > can quibble with the standards the FCC adopted, I think having standards is a > better solution than having the FCC make independent – and by definition > arbitrary – judgements for each applicant. >> >> Also, each CAF recipient is required to make annual certifications that it > has enough money for the next year to meet its obligations. So, taken > together, the FCC prescribes gating criteria on the front end that enables > them to determine eligibility without doing any application-by-application > analysis and drawing lines in gray areas, and follows that up with annual > certifications and threat of USAC audits. I do not see that structure > changing over time. >> >> I do think it is worth asking the FCC to allow an RDOF applicant to post a > performance bond as an alternative to obtaining a letter of credit. WISPA > pushed for this before, and the FCC rejected it. The FCC is considering a > performance bond in the Uniendo a Puerto Rico and Connect USVI Fund programs, > so we will see if there is movement there. We can also ask the FCC to reduce > the value of the letter of credit over time (the carrying costs can exceed 5% > per month), but it would be great if we had a history of CAF buildout > compliance on which to rely. We may not have that at the outset of RDOF. I > also like the idea about approved underwriting from other governmental > agencies. >> >> As for a member survey, that might be more appropriate once the rules are > established. The FCC has included a proposal that would make CAF-supported > broadband adoption a criterion – meaning that RDOF recipients would give > back support if subscribership in supported a
