Agree 100% Jeff Broadwick CTIconnect 312-205-2519 Office 574-220-7826 Cell jbroadw...@cticonnect.com
> On Jul 22, 2019, at 11:50 AM, G. Nicholas <gnicho...@nwnc.net> 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: kj...@ethoplex.com;policycommit...@wispa.org;ebow...@aristotle.net > Cc: memb...@wispa.org;wireless@wispa.org > 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) | > sco...@lermansenter.com<mailto:sco...@lermansenter.com> |@stevecoran – > twitter >> >> From: policycommittee-boun...@wispa.org <policycommittee-boun...@wispa.org> > On Behalf Of Keefe John via PolicyCommittee >> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 7:38 PM >> To: L. Elizabeth Bowles <ebow...@aristotle.net> >> Cc: Ken Hohhof via Members <memb...@wispa.org>; WISPA General List > <wireless@wispa.org>; policycommit...@wispa.org >> 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 > <ebow...@aristotle.net<mailto:ebow...@aristotle.net>> 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 > <cai...@wispa.org<mailto:cai...@wispa.org>> 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: wireless-boun...@wispa.org<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org> > <wireless-boun...@wispa.org<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>> on behalf of > Keefe John via Wireless <wireless@wispa.org<mailto:wireless@wispa.org>> >> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 9:03:18 AM >> To: Mark Radabaugh; WISPA General List; > policycommit...@wispa.org<mailto:policycommit...@wispa.org> >> 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 > <wireless@wispa.org<mailto:wireless@wispa.org>> 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" > <policycommit...@wispa.org<mailto:policycommit...@wispa.org>> >> Subject: [PolicyCommittee] Draft Items for August 1 FCC Meeting >> Date: July 11, 2019 at 5:48:29 PM EDT >> To: "'policycommit...@wispa.org<mailto:policycommit...@wispa.org>'" > <policycommit...@wispa.org<mailto:policycommit...@wispa.org>> >> Reply-To: "Coran, Steve" > <sco...@lermansenter.com<mailto:sco...@lermansenter.com>>, > <policycommit...@wispa.org<mailto:policycommit...@wispa.org>> >> >> 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) | > sco...@lermansenter.com<mailto:sco...@lermansenter.com> |@stevecoran – > twitter >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org<mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> _______________________________________________ >> Members mailing list >> memb...@wispa.org<mailto:memb...@wispa.org> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/members >> > > _______________________________________________ > Members mailing list > memb...@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/members _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
