In some rural areas, it can be tough to do it in 1 to 5 years. What if you need to provide service to the 2 houses that are 15 miles from your current tower and there is 0 potential for growth? This would allow you to charge enough for long enough that you don't have to lose money. How about 5-10 years for build out? I can't think of too many scenarios where you couldn't do it in 10 years.
John >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeromie Reeves [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:30 PM >To: 'WISPA General List' >Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform > >10 to 20 year time line? I would like to see 1 to 5 years. I do not see >how a network can not be profitable >in that time frame with "free" monies. > >Jeromie > >Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Here's what WISPA is prepared to submit to the commerce committee. >> Thought you guys would like a peek at it first. >> >> >> >> WISPA USF Reform Position Paper >> >> >> >> WISPA is a the WISP industry's only industry owned and >> operated trade association. We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 >> person, membership elected board. >> >> >> >> The goals for USF should be clarified. Are laptops for >> kids part of the program goals? Was it the original intent that USF >> exclude small local entrepreneurs and give preferential treatment to >> the incumbent? As USF changes, do the changes have a clear goal? Is >> this just a mechanism to try to put more funds into the program >> otherwise leave it as is? Or does Congress want to see substantial >> changes in the program that do more to foster rather than stifle >> innovation? >> >> >> >> WISPA believes that market forces should mostly be left to >> their own. Without government tweaking. USF should be canceled >> completely. If a real need for outside funding in regions or small >> pockets turns out to be needed, address those issues on a case by case >> basis. At the very least the USF program needs major reform as its >> cost based fee structure encourages abuse. >> >> >> >> An example of artificially high costs would be in Odessa, >> Washington. In the early 2000 time frame the local telco replaced an >> 8 T-1 microwave link with a fiber optic line at a cost (or so we've >> been told) of $600,000. Even at the time, the cost of a microwave >> replacement with more capacity would have been half or less. This is >> for a town of 1000 that's not on the way to anywhere. The telco is >> now in the process of adding more fiber to complete a fiber loop to >> other areas. This next 30 mile stretch is through many solid rock >> canyons and the costs are expected to be even higher. >> >> >> >> This same telco has installed $60,000 DSL systems in rural >> areas that have fewer than 15 houses within 18,000 feet of the hut. >> Clearly these are cost raising mechanisms. >> >> >> >> We understand that USF is not likely to go away at this >> time. The above telco gets 2/3rds of its income via subsidies and >> would not likely survive without them. Leaving such business >> practices in place permanently is not good public policy though. >> >> >> >> WISPA proposes that a time limit on the USF program be >> instituted. Expand the program to include all communications >> companies and use USF to help them build an infrastructure. Once that >> system is built, it needs to stand on its own two legs though. If it >> doesn't, then that's the company's fault and they can live with the >> results of the network they built. Somewhere between 10 and 20 years >> should allow plenty of time for efficient network upgrades or >> construction. The program should not be viewed as a permanent profit >> line item for companies but rather be a short term >> capitalization/construction fund that will end and leave the company >> standing (or not) on its own two feet at a set specific date. >> >> >> >> We believe that opening up USF to all operators would likely cause >> multiple networks to be built at the same time and the most efficient >> ones would survive. If, after USF was discontinued some areas were >> left with no viable options for service those specific cases could be >> addressed under some more targeted program. Funds should be collected >> and distributed based on customers serviced. This would help prevent >> speculation with the funds, rather the funds would reward those that >> have already stepped up to the plate. Tying fund distribution with >> the FCC form 477 would also likely help lead to more accurate market >> data availability. >> >> >> >> WISPA also believes that USF's goals should be readdressed. We don't >> believe that using USF funds to provide laptop computers to 68,000 7th >> and 8th graders in Massachusetts is a proper use of the program. >> >> >> >> We would also like to see some changes in the way that USF is >> distributed. The E-Rate program excludes almost all entrepreneurial >> providers. In some areas the local WISP offers greater service levels >> for less cost than the local hospital or school is paying via the >> E-Rate programs. We're not allowed to service those portions of the >> account that we could take care of because we don't have CLEC status >> or can't offer all services. >> >> >> >> It seems to us that a complicated mechanism to compute pay in and pay >> out isn't needed or wanted at this time. We propose that the current >> contributions simply be expanded to any broadband provider in any area >> that the incumbent currently contributes. And in any area where USF >> funds are distributed all providers be given equal shares based on >> customer base. And one customer equals one share. No company should >> get more money for more services. This would slow down the >> convergence of services into increasingly efficient networks in rural >> markets. >> >> >> >> This model should encourage both competition and a shift from high >> cost to low cost network design. >> >> >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Marlon K. Schafer >> >> Founding Board Member >> >> FCC Committee Chairman >> >> WISPA >> >> (509) 982-2181 >> >> (509) 988-0260 cell >> >> >> laters, >> Marlon >> (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales >> (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services >> 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! >> 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) >> www.odessaoffice.com/wireless >> www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam >> >> >> > > > >-- >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
