At 11/21/2011 08:04 PM, you wrote: >Yes agreed, its not nearly as bad as it could have been. But I still say >ARRGGG! > > > Price Cap Carriers will be offered $775 per > > line to add 4/1 broadband serivce to "unserved" areas > >Thats much better for WISPs than if they agreed to pay our competitors >greater than $10,000 per sub for FIOS like Fiber. >WISPs atleast have a chance to compete against 4/1 services, and ILEC >reimbursement now inline with what it would cost a WISP to deploy, and not >to much more..
Note that this is "incremental" $775, a subsidy to add to their capital budget, not the total investment. Of course big ILECs tend to be wasteful spenders. > > So this might be a good time to make sure the mappers > > are aware of your service areas, or to think about short-term service > > expansion. > >yeah, you gotta love help that says.... "WISPs Go hurry up and build a >network at your cost quickly, we wont pay you, but if you dont build quick, >we'll pay your competitor instead." >(Sarcasm) > > > The date by which you must be on the map isn't set yet, > > but it's presumably in 1H2012. > >Well, that is good, that they are looking at mapping for disqualification. >Also good that not all WISPs reported their coverage in the past. >The rules are good incentive for rural WISPs to report now. Those rules may >not have ever made it into the FCC rules, without the insight that it would >be incentive to get reamining WISPs to report. If WISPs had already >reported, why would the FCC have needed to include consideration and >incentive in the new rules? The FCC just had to have a date, and was nice enough to not close it too early. This also gives WISPs time to do some more construction and have it included. > > Phase II starts in 2013. For this, Price Cap Carriers will be > > offered support based on a cost model that the FCC will create in > > 2012. Once the model is complete, the ILEC will decide if it wants > > to take that support for its territory on a state-by-state (all of a > > state or nothing) basis. > >Thats the bad part.... Only a select few monopoly like companies can afford >to do complete State wide deployment, even when subsidized. >So basically, the FCC is saying.... Time to force the Monopolies to serve >ALL Americans, and leave no unserved areas left for the competitive >property. The whole-state rule applies to the big ILECs. If they say no, the rules for the auction aren't written yet, and may work on a smaller basis. I think that's one of the things to discuss in the FNPRM Comments, which are due 24 January. >... > > A separate Extremely High Cost fund will allocate up to $100M/year > > for locations too costly (by the model) to serve via the standard > > subsidy. This will be separately bid, and it's assumed that fixed > > wireless and satellite will be the mostly likely technologies. So > > this could allow some subsidies to rustic-but-Bell-area WISPs. > >Yes, that may be good for WISPs. >Or, better positioned ILECs to become WISPs. Good question. But due to caps on USF, ILECs might not want to play in that space. Also, the Big Dog Theory might come into play -- big dogs want big bones. A rural ILEC might play though, or a small CMRS. > > So on balance, the FCC has done a lot less harm to the rural WISP > > community than it could have, while still encouraging ILECs to deploy > > more broadband via subsidies. > >I fully agree with your conclusion. >Realistically, that could be considered a victory, for Rural WISPs. > >With that said, I would have preferred the FCC to have the balls to name the >new program what it really was... >They could have called it the "CAIF" - Connect America to ILECs fund. or >"KCC-CAF" - Kill Competiton and Choice, but Connect America Fund.". > >The interesting part will be to see how many RURAL ILECs will choose to >accept $768 per sub, to build out to all remaining Americans in their state. >What else will be interesting will be to see if, the RBOC fund recipients >really do what they are obligated to do afterwords. That number doesn't necessarily apply to Phase II -- if the bids are on a more granular area basis, they could go considerably higher. And they'll be for five years of funding, though frankly I'd prefer just CapEx, since WISPs need capital and big ILECs just need to pay off their investors. >I think it is an ambitious plan to try to get the remaining American's some >form of broadband, which outcome would likely be good, I just cant say I >agree with the method. I'm with you there. It's far from ideal, but it could have been worse. >Tom DeReggi >RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <fgoldst...@ionary.com> >To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 6:02 PM >Subject: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs > > > > On Friday, the FCC finally released the Order in their Intercarrier > > Compensation and Universal Service Fund docket. The executive > > summary had come out with the Adoption at last month's FCC Public > > Meeting, but the 759-page (!) Order took a while to finish. > > > > The results, from a WISP perspective, are not nearly as bad as could > > have been. The FCC has taken safeguards to make it easier for an > > unsubsidized WISP to prevent subsidized competition from an incumbent LEC. > > > > The high-cost portions of the Universal Service Fund are being > > restructured into the Connect America Fund. This will come into > > being in three phases, each with different rules for Price Cap > > Carriers and Rate of Return Carriers. About 95% of phone lines are > > in the former category; the latter are basically small rural carriers > > who depend upon USF. > > > > Phase I is just 2012. Price Cap Carriers will be offered $775 per > > line to add 4/1 broadband serivce to "unserved" areas that they > > weren't otherwise going to serve. They can choose how many lines > > this applies to. If the location is "served" on the National > > Broadband Map, or if the ILEC *knows* it's served by an unsubsidized > > competitor, it's off limits. I think this must be at least 768k > > fixed service. So this might be a good time to make sure the mappers > > are aware of your service areas, or to think about short-term service > > expansion. The date by which you must be on the map isn't set yet, > > but it's presumably in 1H2012. > > > > Phase II starts in 2013. For this, Price Cap Carriers will be > > offered support based on a cost model that the FCC will create in > > 2012. Once the model is complete, the ILEC will decide if it wants > > to take that support for its territory on a state-by-state (all of a > > state or nothing) basis. Again, only unserved areas will get > > support, though an ILEC can use support to build common plant in an > > area that is more than 50% unserved. So a new DSLAM that covers 40% > > unserved would not be covered, but ont that covers 60% unserved would > > be. So again it's important for WISPs to make their presence > > known. If the ILEC turns down the state, USF support goes to the low > > bidder. > > > > Phase III starts in 2018, and will be entirely bid-based, but the > > details will be worked out in the future. > > > > A separate Extremely High Cost fund will allocate up to $100M/year > > for locations too costly (by the model) to serve via the standard > > subsidy. This will be separately bid, and it's assumed that fixed > > wireless and satellite will be the mostly likely technologies. So > > this could allow some subsidies to rustic-but-Bell-area WISPs. > > > > The FCC notes that while this gives ILECs first dibs on funding, it > > also takes away Price Cap Carrier USF from areas served by > > unsubsidized competitors, so WISPs could theoretically come out > > better under the new rules. > > > > Now here's a catch: "Unsubsidized competitor" is defined as a > > provider of both voice and broadband service. It's not entirely > > obvious (you try parsing 759 pages of FCC-speak this quickly... ;-) ) > > if that applies to the Price Cap Carrier model, or just the rural > > Rate of Return case, since the PCCs already offer unsubsidized voice > > across most of their territories, and the map isn't about voice. In > > the rural Rate of Return Carrier case, voice will be more > > important. This does not mean that the WISP must be a CLEC per se; > > it might be high-quality (QoS) VoIP offered in conjunction with a > > CLEC who has local numbers, for instance. But for some ISPs, this > > might be a good time to start thinking about adding voice > > service. (My talk at FISPA last month was about the case for whether > > an ISP should start up a CLEC.) > > > > In areas served by rate-of-return carriers, the new rules phase out > > (over 3 years) all USF support to an ILEC that is 100% overlapped > > (voice and broadband) by an unsubsidized carrier, typically > > cable. If there is less than 100% overlap, then support will be > > reduced, but the actual methodology is left to be determined via the > > Further NPRM. > > > > So on balance, the FCC has done a lot less harm to the rural WISP > > community than it could have, while still encouraging ILECs to deploy > > more broadband via subsidies. > > > > -- 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/
