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 > > 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 access charges. Sprint, of > > course, no longer has any affiliated LECs, so it's a big net loser too. > > Those three companies thus want to lower the bill. The rural > carriers, from > > the few remaining mom-and-pops to the coops up to big CenturyTel and > > Citizens/Frontier, want even more. So they are using "broadband" as an > > excuse. Give them more USF money and they'll extend DSL out further, even > > FTTH. Hey, it's not *their* money! They don't build gold-plated networks. > > It's solid 14k gold. (Not 24k. They're too modest for that, and 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 > >> 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 > >>> <bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com> 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&i > >>> d=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. > >>>> > >>>> > > -- > > Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com > > ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ > > +1 617 795 2701 > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---- > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---- > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >WISPA Wants You! Join today! >http://signup.wispa.org/ >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
