My sense is that if you finish before Year 6 and USAC verifies that, you don't have to carry the LOC to term. We can seek clarity in our Comments, or perhaps we stay silent so as not to create a strawman for others to oppose.
Stephen E. Coran Lerman Senter PLLC |2001 L Street, NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20036 202-416-6744 (o) | 202-669-3288 (m) | [email protected] |@stevecoran – twitter -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick - Lists Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 12:01 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [WISPA Members] [PolicyCommittee] [WISPA] Draft Itemsfor August 1 FCC Meeting Agree 100% Jeff Broadwick CTIconnect 312-205-2519 Office 574-220-7826 Cell [email protected] > On Jul 22, 2019, at 11:50 AM, G. Nicholas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Steve and policy committee, > > There is one item in the NPRM that is a change from the CAF2 letter of > credit rules and should be lobbied hard against as this adds increased > costs for our small WISPS. > > In item #84 "We also propose that the letter of credit remain in > place until USAC and the Commission verify that a Rural Digital > Opportunity Fund winning bidder has met its minimum coverage and > service requirements at the end of the six-year milestone." > > As noted under item 82 "A CAF Phase II auction support recipient must > only maintain an open letter of credit until the recipient has > certified it has met the final service milestone and the certification has > been verified.155" > > > Given that WISP technology allows faster build out then fiber, many Wisps may > be able to meet their build-out completions in the first year. Requiring > them to carry a letter of credit for 6 years could add 30% to a > winning bidders cost (at 5%/yr for the LOC) these are funds that > reduce the actual amount available to be spent on true broadband build out. > > > Hopefully we can make one last push to the FCC on why that is a bad > idea before the August meeting. > > > Garth > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Coran, Steve > Sent: 7/22/2019 7:55:27 AM > To: [email protected];[email protected];[email protected] > Cc: [email protected];[email protected] > Subject: Re: [WISPA Members] [PolicyCommittee] [WISPA] Draft Itemsfor > August 1 FCC Meeting > >> Some good ideas here, which need to be measured against the FCC’s > objectives. In countless meetings with the FCC on CAF II rules and, > more recently, speed/latency testing, it is ever-apparent that the FCC > wants as much of this process to be a “check the box” exercise so they > do not have to rely on their own resources and lack of expertise to > decide eligibility and compliance. For example, when we approached > the FCC about expanding the list of banks eligible to issue letters of > credit, the concern was not expanding the list but an ability of the > FCC to look at some independent list which would make the judgment for > them. So we went from less than 100 banks on the S&P list to more > than 3,600 banks on the Weiss list. Requiring audited financials > provides a measure of independent verification from the FCC. I don’t > even know if the FCC looks at the audited financials – and I don’t > think anyone has been disqualified based on the content of the > financials – they just want to know that someone independent and with > expertise has conducted an audit (and recall that WISPA was > influential in removing this requirement from the front end of the > auction so that only winners have to spend the money for the audit). > When it comes to assessing financial wherewithal, the FCC would have > no ability to look at tax returns and decide who is financially viable > and who is not. Same with speed/latency testing – the FCC wants to > look at a list and determine the testing route, not rely on every CAF > recipient to provide traffic routing maps. While we can quibble with > the standards the FCC adopted, I think having standards is a better solution > than having the FCC make independent – and by definition arbitrary – > judgements for each applicant. >> >> Also, each CAF recipient is required to make annual certifications >> that it > has enough money for the next year to meet its obligations. So, taken > together, the FCC prescribes gating criteria on the front end that > enables them to determine eligibility without doing any > application-by-application analysis and drawing lines in gray areas, > and follows that up with annual certifications and threat of USAC > audits. I do not see that structure changing over time. >> >> I do think it is worth asking the FCC to allow an RDOF applicant to >> post a > performance bond as an alternative to obtaining a letter of credit. > WISPA pushed for this before, and the FCC rejected it. The FCC is > considering a performance bond in the Uniendo a Puerto Rico and > Connect USVI Fund programs, so we will see if there is movement there. > We can also ask the FCC to reduce the value of the letter of credit > over time (the carrying costs can exceed 5% per month), but it would > be great if we had a history of CAF buildout compliance on which to > rely. We may not have that at the outset of RDOF. I also like the > idea about approved underwriting from other governmental agencies. >> >> As for a member survey, that might be more appropriate once the rules >> are > established. The FCC has included a proposal that would make > CAF-supported broadband adoption a criterion – meaning that RDOF > recipients would give back support if subscribership in supported > areas did not meet certain benchmarks up to 70%. Industry > stakeholders will strongly oppose this – how can you dictate adoption? > – and I’m optimistic the FCC will not move forward with this proposal, > which would have a significant deterrent effect on RDOF auction > participation. On the positive side, the FCC is considering reducing > some of the gating criteria for established broadband providers and existing > CAF winners. >> >> Stephen E. Coran >> Lerman Senter PLLC<http://www.lermansenter.com/> |2001 L Street, NW, >> Suite > 400 | Washington, DC 20036 >> 202-416-6744 (o) | 202-669-3288 (m) | > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> |@stevecoran > – twitter >> >> From: [email protected] >> <[email protected]> > On Behalf Of Keefe John via PolicyCommittee >> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 7:38 PM >> To: L. Elizabeth Bowles <[email protected]> >> Cc: Ken Hohhof via Members <[email protected]>; WISPA General List > <[email protected]>; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [PolicyCommittee] [WISPA Members] [WISPA] Draft Items >> for > August 1 FCC Meeting >> >> Agreed on the bond issue. >> >> If we fail to see movement on the Letter of Credit we could approach >> the > SBA about offering a solution. They already have an export Letter of > Credit program. Could something be modified or created for broadband > purposes? >> >> A coalition of WISPs who'd like to participate in this funding >> program is > essential. Can WISPA send out a survey so we can get accurate numbers > on how many WISPs would participate in this funding program? It might > be powerful to say "We have 500 members interested in participating in > FCC funding programs, however, only 20 were able to participate in CAF > II due to X, Y, and Z." >> >> It is worth at least making it known in our filings that requiring >> audited > financials makes these programs inaccessible to many of our members. > What's their rationale in requiring audited financials instead of tax > returns and transcripts. Tax returns are good enough for lending from > other agencies, such as the SBA. How does the FCC determine what > constitutes a financially sound company anyways? Are there guidelines or is > it arbitrary? >> >> How about an exemption to the audited financials for companies who've > recently gone through the underwriting process to obtain financing via > another government agency like the USDA or SBA. Surely these are > creditworthy companies in the eyes of the Federal government. >> >> Best, >> >> Keefe John >> CEO >> Ethoplex >> Direct: 262.345.5200 >> -------------------- >> Ethoplex Business Internet >> http://www.ethoplex.com/ >> Signal Residential Internet >> http://www.signalisp.com/ >> >> https://www.linkedin.com/in/keefejohn/ >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 9:45 AM L. Elizabeth Bowles > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> From my perspective, taking another run at eliminating the letter of >> credit > requirement should be a priority. It is a huge barrier to smaller > companies seeking this funding, and the policy the FCC is trying to > accomplish can be met with a bond. >> >> I agree we need a coalition of small WISPs to advocate for this, but >> we > also should leverage the experience of the WISPs who have already > received CAF funding - that first-hand perspective will be helpful in > showing that the LOC is burdensome in reality, not just hypothetically. >> >> As for the audited financials, I don’t think any energy should be >> spent > on trying to eliminate that requirement because we are likely to fail. > USDA also requires audited financials for many of its grants and > loans, and worse, they require the last two years. It is hella > expensive, but I don’t think we will win this argument, and any energy > spent would be better spent elsewhere. >> >> Best, >> Elizabeth >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jul 12, 2019, at 9:23 AM, Claude Aiken > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> We pushed for reducing these burdens (audited financials and LoC) >> last > time. Before WISPA's advocacy, LoC must have been procured from a Top > 100 bank, and audited financials had to be submitted before bidding > began. We were able to get both of those changed to allow more > financial entities to provide thr LoC (FCC said no on the performance > bond), and get audited financials submitted only by winners. >> We will try again this time, and will likely get a coalition of >> smaller > providers associations together to try to push this. >> For my edification, are you suggesting we de-prioritize spectrum >> advocacy > in favor of this? >> Claude Aiken >> President & CEO >> WISPA >> >> ________________________________ >> From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on > behalf of Keefe John via Wireless > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 9:03:18 AM >> To: Mark Radabaugh; WISPA General List; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> Cc: Ken Hohhof via Members >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Draft Items for August 1 FCC Meeting >> >> More funding is always welcome! >> >> What can be done to ensure access to this funding by all WISPs? The >> CAF II > rules were so onerous that only a tiny percentage of WISPA members > were able to participate. This needs to change. WISPA's #1 priority > should be crafting rules that allow ALL WISPs to have a chance to participate. >> >> The two biggest barriers to entry are: >> >> Letter of Credit - These are very difficult to obtain, especially for >> the > majority of our members. Can we propose a bond as an alternative? >> >> Audited Financial Statements - Audited financial statements cost >> $10,000 - > $50,000 per year or more. This is a huge hurdle for the majority of WISPs. > Can we propose CPA-prepared financial statements and/or IRS tax return > transcripts for small entities? >> >> Keefe John >> CEO >> Ethoplex >> Direct: 262.345.5200 >> -------------------- >> Ethoplex Business Internet >> http://www.ethoplex.com/ >> Signal Residential Internet >> http://www.signalisp.com/ >> >> https://www.linkedin.com/in/keefejohn/ >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 7:52 AM Mark Radabaugh via Wireless > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> There are two upcoming items on the FCC’s August 1st meeting on items > that will effect all WISP’s. Please review the documents below. >> >> Short summary: >> >> 477 Order - will revamp the 477 data collection process and information. > Personally this is a good thing. >> >> RDOF - This is the next $20,400,000,000 (20.4 Billion Dollars) that >> will be > spend to overbuild your network if you are not currently providing > 25/3 service & phone. >> >> WISPA has time to meet with the commissioners and discuss up to the 25th. > A lot of effort has already gone into making sure that both of these are fair > and open to all providers, not just the Telco’s. There is no way to stop > the feds from spending this money - it’s coming regardless of what we do. > Both political parties, the administration, and the FCC all want to > spend money on rural broadband. >> >> YOU HAVE TO DO YOUR PART to either position yourself to receive this > funding, or prevent your competitors from getting it and overbuilding you. >> >> Mark >> >> Mark Radabaugh >> WISPA Policy Committee Chair >> 419-261-5996 >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: "Coran, Steve via PolicyCommittee" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >> Subject: [PolicyCommittee] Draft Items for August 1 FCC Meeting >> Date: July 11, 2019 at 5:48:29 PM EDT >> To: "'[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>'" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >> Reply-To: "Coran, Steve" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >> >> Just released, below are links to draft items of interest for the >> FCC’s > August 1 open meeting. We have the opportunity to meet with the > Commissioners until the afternoon of July 25. Would appreciate the > Committee’s input on these soon. Just released, and I have not had a > chance to review these yet. >> >> DRAFT Form 477 Order + FNPRM: >> https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC- > 358433A1.pdf >> DRAFT RDOF NPRM: >> https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-358432A1.pdf >> >> Stephen E. Coran >> Lerman Senter PLLC<http://www.lermansenter.com/> |2001 L Street, NW, >> Suite > 400 | Washington, DC 20036 >> 202-416-6744 (o) | 202-669-3288 (m) | > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> |@stevecoran > – twitter >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wireless mailing list >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> _______________________________________________ >> Members mailing list >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/members >> > > _______________________________________________ > Members mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/members _______________________________________________ Members mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/members _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
