At 5/29/2012 12:40 PM, MarlonS wrote: >Right. > >And that's why we still have to fight they current rules as proposed.
Trouble is, that rule already passed. CAF now "will" subsidize "broadband". >We've made the statement that if any company offers un subsidized service >then no one should get a tax payer funded leg up in the market. > >Under the current rules a SINGLE company has to provide both *facilities >based *voice and broadband without subsidies before the faucet is shut off >to the USF/CAF recipient. Yes, and WISPA has petitioned to change that detail, though whether they accept it is anybody's guess. Now is a good time to add voice to your product mix if you don't have it yet. I did receive in the morning mail two Notices of Appeal. They're from groups of rural ILECs who are unhappy with the other changes in the CAF order. In particular, the FCC is limiting support to the highest-cost ILECs, and using TeleAtlas data to determine the size of their service areas. Apparently the TeleAtlas maps omit some territory. It's sort of hard to figure out where a wireline company's turf is when their density is less than one sub per square mile. They do theoretically file maps with their tariffs, but they're hard to find, usually fuzzy from decades of copying, and not available in electronic form. Hence very very costly GIS maps from TeleAtlas are assembled over time and may not be accurate. It strikes me as rather strange that there is no official electronic map of ILEC or even USF-recipient turf, so they are still arguing over it. And that's easier to map than wireless coverage. The currently-open Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is over how to change the way USF taxes work. They are looking at several options. Among them, - tax ISPs - tax telephone numbers - tax circuits based on size, not cost The latter two are gimmicks. The first one threatens WISPs. >We're in the bottom of the 9th inning and we're down by a couple of runs, 2 >out full count and Casey is at bat. > >Are we going to swing at the ball or just stand there and watch it fly by? > >marlon > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Fred Goldstein" <fgoldst...@ionary.com> >To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:16 AM >Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF/CAF > > > > At 5/25/2012 01:03 PM, Matt wrote: > >>Perhaps anyone accepting money from these funds should be required to > >>wholesale there services at a discount such as dry loop dsl? They > >>should also not be allowed to price under cut wholesalers for that to > >>work? > > > > In fact, that *was* the rule. Or at least they had to wholesale the > > DSL, even if it was bundled with cheap POTS. When the FCC detariffed > > DSL in 2005, it was permissive, so the Bells could detariff while the > > subsidized rural ILECs stayed on tariff in order to maximize their USF. > > > > The new Connect America Fund rules make one major change -- they > > allow the ILEC to detariff DSL, offer it only as a retail information > > service, and still get subsidized. That's how they want to "improve" > > broadband availability. Gee, do you think any telco lobbyists were > > active in getting that passed? ;-) > > > > -- > > Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com > > ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ > > +1 617 795 2701 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wireless mailing list > > Wireless@wispa.org > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >_______________________________________________ >Wireless mailing list >Wireless@wispa.org >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
