Twin Lakes Telephone Cooperative and North Central Telephone Cooperative. Twin Lakes headquarters is in Gainesboro, TN and North Central's is in Lafayette, TN. If you need NPA-NXX they are 931-268 and 615-666, of course there are more. I would be interested in what they receive in USF. Neither will sell DSL without a phone line too, so I am guessing it is getting subsidized extremely through USF.
Scottie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Goldstein" <fgoldst...@ionary.com> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 4:34 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] A quick primer on USF > At 2/13/2011 12:39 PM, you wrote: >>I live in one of these rural coop areas. I bet the rates here are much >>lower >>than the people in the city pay. The last home telephone I had(2008) ran >>me >>around $24/mth including all taxes, etc... with no long distance. The >>telco >>workers make twice to three times the hourly prevailing wage in this area, >>but on par with what a telco worker would make in say New Jersey. I think >>something is flawed in this? They are supposed to be non-profit and they >>making so much money, instead of giving it back to the coop members, they >>just give everyone raises and bonuses. I would like to know just how much >>they get in USF in my area. > > Who's your telco, where? The USF numbers are public and I have > downloaded some fairly recent ones. > > Coops sometimes do give back their excess revenues to members; this > essentially reduces the net price to something much less than urban > customers pay for their own service... in effect they're also paying > for the coop's service. > >>"> Oh, voice? Well, the real scandal of USF is that the ILEC-ETC is >> > allowed to do practically anything so long as it's useful for >> > voice. They can build Fiber to the Ranch, for $20,000+/home (CapEx) >> > or more, or $1000/month per sub (though they propose making it harder >> > to get >$250/line/mo), if it also delivers voice, *even if* they >> > already have copper to the ranch *and* an unlicensed WISP. Check out >> > Border to Border in Texas. So USF does fund broadband; it just does >> > it indirectly, by letting them build a broadband-ready network with >> > subsidy money. The ISP they run across it is then "incidental", not >> > *directly* subsidized, but if the wire or fiber is already there, how >> > much does more it cost to drop on broadband Internet? Thanks to this >> > policy, many rural ILECs have better broadband coverage than >> > unsubsidized Bells." >> >>This is the one that really gets under my skin. I compete against it every >>day and they get BIP/BTOP funding in addition. I think they need to FORCE >>every company getting funding from the government or USF to either >>separate >>their ISP/telco activities and resell to any ISP at the same rate as their >>ISP, or be FORCED to open their network for other ISP's to use at a >>competitive rate. I guess you could say I would like to see it got back to >>the Computer Inquiries. > > I sure agree on that! But then I think the Computer Inquiries should > apply to all ILECs, permanently. > >>Nice explanation Fred. > > Thanks. > >>Scottie >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Fred Goldstein" <fgoldst...@ionary.com> >>To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >>Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 12:48 PM >>Subject: [WISPA] A quick primer on USF >> >> >> > First off, this last thread's title was offensive, so I changed >> > it. The current Administration is not doing much that previous ones >> > didn't do, and that's the problem. The FCC sees the spectrum as a >> > source of revenue (auctions), and Congress sees the FCC as a source >> > of subsidy money to rural states. >> > >> > USF exists because the Telecom Act requires it. USF replaced an even >> > uglier system wherein rural telcos charged really really high >> > switched access per minute rates to LD carriers at either end of the >> > call. VoIP would have killed that anyway... so now there are >> > explicit cash subsidies. >> > >> > Let's set aside the smaller parts of USF (Schools & Libraries, Rural >> > Health Care, and Low Income) and focus on the one on the table now, >> > High Cost Support. This is the one that gets the bulk of the tax >> > money anyway. The statutory requirement is that rural telephone >> > rates be comparable (not identical) to urban ones. So if it really >> > costs $100/month to provide telephone service in East Overshoe, then >> > the East Overshoe Telephone Cooperative is entitled to USF to let >> > them hold down the rate. >> > >> > But it's a lot more complicated than that. Cost is averaged across a >> > "study area", which is in general the operating territory of one >> > (historic, pre-merger) telephone company in one state. So South >> > Central Bell- Mississippi is one study area, and South Central Bell- >> > Tennessee is another. Verizon has at least two study areas in >> > California, though, one ex-Contel and one ex-GTE. CenturyTel has a >> > heap of them all over the place, as does TDS. >> > >> > The point of averaging across a study area is that low-cost urban >> > areas cross-subsidize high-cost rural ones. So Qwest in Omaha is >> > supposed to subsidize Qwest in the rural parts of Nebraska. Thus the >> > big recipients are the small telephone companies who do not have >> > urban areas. That would be bad enough, but a small telephone company >> > typically has a separate corporate structure, including IT, CS, etc., >> > which supports very few subscribers. So the OpEx per subscriber can >> > be really high too, because small telcos are inefficient. If TDS or >> > CenturyTel buys them, they often keep the study areas separate... >> > cost goes down but the money still flows! (The pending NPRM does >> > however at least open the issue of merging study areas.) And the >> > Bells, especially Qwest/USWest, have sold off a lot of rural >> > areas. So they have lowered their average cost. This doesn't lower >> > their rate, though, because they don't get USF anyway, and they are >> > on price caps, not rate of return, so they keep their rates and raise >> > their margins. The rural chains that buy the rural turf eventually >> > (this takes a couple of years, though again the pending NPRM may >> > reduce this interval, which the FCC cutely calls "The Parent Trap") >> > get new subsidy flows for them. So we're screwed both ways. >> > >> > When TA96 passed, the FCC at the time was pro-competition (Hundt, >> > Kennard) and they wanted to make USF pro-competition too. So they >> > created the "Equal Support Rule". This is a tiny bit like Jeremie's >> > suggested voucher system. A USF-eligible carrier is called an ETC >> > (eligible telecommunications carrier). A Competitive ETC (CETC) could >> > move into an area whose ILEC got USF. The CETC would then get the >> > same amount *per line* as the ILEC-ETC. So if East Overshoe >> > Telephone got $80/month/line, then Northern Wireless could get >> > $80/month/line for selling a fixed-wireless telephone line (using >> > their cellular network and a POTS-phone adapter). Northern Wireless >> > (I made that name up but it alludes to a once-huge CETC) would not >> > need to show its own costs, as competitors don't fit the ILEC >> > accounting >> > model. >> > >> > Now you'd think that this was a great idea, like a voucher, but it >> > had a big problem. The ILEC-ETC is usually under Rate of Return >> > regulation. So their profit margin is fixed. Most of their costs >> > are fixed too. So if the CETC takes lines away, the ILEC-ETC is >> > still entitled to keep the subsidy level needed to maintain their >> > rate of return and the same low prices. So they keep their subsidy, >> > and USF ends up paying twice! This is the FCC's justification for >> > wanting to do away with competitive ETCs entirely -- they could have >> > simply removed Equal Support, but they're killing CETC in toto, >> > regardless of what the law actually says. A few years ago, they >> > capped CETC support. If a new CETC comes into an area, their subsidy >> > comes out of other CETCs, no longer equal support. The total is >> > supposed to phase down to 0 over five years. >> > >> > BTW the biggest CETCs were cellular carriers, including Sprint, AT&T >> > Mobility and its predecessors, and some Verizon Wireless >> > acquisitions. VZ and I think Sprint agreed to phase out their CETC >> > support as merger conditions. CLECs got a rather small share of the >> > pie. WISPS need not apply, since they're not carriers, and the >> > support was technically for voice. >> > >> > Oh, voice? Well, the real scandal of USF is that the ILEC-ETC is >> > allowed to do practically anything so long as it's useful for >> > voice. They can build Fiber to the Ranch, for $20,000+/home (CapEx) >> > or more, or $1000/month per sub (though they propose making it harder >> > to get >$250/line/mo), if it also delivers voice, *even if* they >> > already have copper to the ranch *and* an unlicensed WISP. Check out >> > Border to Border in Texas. So USF does fund broadband; it just does >> > it indirectly, by letting them build a broadband-ready network with >> > subsidy money. The ISP they run across it is then "incidental", not >> > *directly* subsidized, but if the wire or fiber is already there, how >> > much does more it cost to drop on broadband Internet? Thanks to this >> > policy, many rural ILECs have better broadband coverage than >> > unsubsidized Bells. >> > >> > We pay for this. USF is funded by a tax on "interstate >> > telecommunications". That includes long distance calls, circuits, and >> > interconnected VoIP (assumed 64.9% interstate, IIRC, but I'm typing >> > this off-line on my laptop in a rural location -- I haven't paid VZW >> > for tethering and for some reason it no longer works on my cell phone >> > ;-] ). This is technically a "fee" rather than "tax" because it >> > doesn't go to the Treasury's General Fund, but it is enforced like a >> > tax (big fines if you don't pay). It goes to USAC, who runs >> > USF. It's a self-adjusting tax. Every quarter, they compute a new >> > rate, and it takes effect automatically. It started out around 3% >> > and is now around 15.5%. >> > >> > The FCC's new set of proposals has a couple of major impacts. It >> > continues the phase-out of CETC support. It also creates a new fund, >> > "Connect America", which explicitly covers "broadband", as if that >> > were a noun. (Broadband what? It's an adjective.) This will be >> > distibuted by reverse auction; the ETC who asks the least to serve a >> > given area gets the exclusive support. If may be the ILEC. Whether >> > or not it's the ILEC, the ILEC-ETC *continues* to get their current >> > support. Connect America is incremental. So the ILECs can get even >> > more. >> > >> > BTW there's a separate pending proposal to create a new USF to fund >> > mobile wireless -- licensed CMRS, not WISP. This may be related to >> > the recently announced 98% goal, though it seem to me that Verizon >> > had planned that for its LTE network anyway! BTW the Frontline >> > Wireless plan that almost happened in 2007 was required to have 99.3% >> > population coverage, though (speaking as one of their network >> > designers) that was sort of optimistic, and a sane proposal (that >> > might have happened) would have needed a lower number. >> > >> > -- >> > 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/ > > -- > 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/
