Re: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] USF fund issues
Marlon, Where can one find out what the telco gets in usf funding? I'd like to know what the rate is around here... Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Out here the telco gets $109 per month per pots line in usf funds. I think that's why they require a pots line in order to have dsl service. Without the pots line subsidy they could never afford to offer their $30 dsl service free install and all! USF should either go away or be made fair and be ok'd for all of us. Wireless, bpl, dsl, cable etc. Make it an infrastructure issue or nothing at all. laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] USF fund issues
Out here the telco gets $109 per month per pots line in usf funds. I think that's why they require a pots line in order to have dsl service. Without the pots line subsidy they could never afford to offer their $30 dsl service free install and all! USF should either go away or be made fair and be ok'd for all of us. Wireless, bpl, dsl, cable etc. Make it an infrastructure issue or nothing at all. laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 4:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] USF fund issues What they really need to do is just add WISPs as logical beneficiaries to USF funds, and the problem would be fixed. Then who cares who would pay into it. It will never be possible to add VOIP providers as USPF fund recipients for Rural area, because its near impossible to control where the VOIP service purchased will be used geographically. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Forbes Mercy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 2:05 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] USF fund issues I thought I'd take a few minutes to comment on the USF and other attempts to tax VoIP as if it were a fresh new source of tax revenue for Democrats everywhere. Of course just like the last draft from a congressional staffer re-writing the Telecom act of 1996 (over 300 pages) this FCC document is 30 pages. More light reading over a long beer tonight, why do these lawyers continue to get paid by the word so they produce ridiculously long documents that say the same thing over and over but leave ambiguity so they don't have to define a clear role. My USF comments will summarize that this fund being used for so much more than rural deployment should be cut back to it's original use but if we have to fund it then we get a piece of it when we deploy into the Rural Areas ourselves. Beyond that concession we should be receiving credits for moving broadband into rural areas including exemption from the USF for saving their ridiculous subsidizing as we bring VoIP into those previously funded areas. This would save the need for them to subsidize anything. Forbes Mercy Washington Broadband, Inc. Ps. I keep getting the moderator must approve, I'm not a member. Gee really? -Original Message- From: Marlon K. Schafer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 7:16 PM To: Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] USF fund issues Did anyone ever take this issue on? We have only about 2 more weeks to make comments. marlon - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization" Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 9:17 AM Subject: [WISPA FCC] USF fund issues Hi All, I assume we'll want to file on this issue http://www.broadbandwirelessreports.com/pressreleases/files/DOC-262639A1 .pdf Here's the actual nprm http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-205A1.pdf If anyone really understands the ins and outs of this, please speak up. I'd ask Kris Twoomey but I don't have his addy on my laptop. Can someone please forward? thanks, marlon ___ FCC mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/fcc -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] USF fund issues
What they really need to do is just add WISPs as logical beneficiaries to USF funds, and the problem would be fixed. Then who cares who would pay into it. It will never be possible to add VOIP providers as USPF fund recipients for Rural area, because its near impossible to control where the VOIP service purchased will be used geographically. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Forbes Mercy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 2:05 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] USF fund issues I thought I'd take a few minutes to comment on the USF and other attempts to tax VoIP as if it were a fresh new source of tax revenue for Democrats everywhere. Of course just like the last draft from a congressional staffer re-writing the Telecom act of 1996 (over 300 pages) this FCC document is 30 pages. More light reading over a long beer tonight, why do these lawyers continue to get paid by the word so they produce ridiculously long documents that say the same thing over and over but leave ambiguity so they don't have to define a clear role. My USF comments will summarize that this fund being used for so much more than rural deployment should be cut back to it's original use but if we have to fund it then we get a piece of it when we deploy into the Rural Areas ourselves. Beyond that concession we should be receiving credits for moving broadband into rural areas including exemption from the USF for saving their ridiculous subsidizing as we bring VoIP into those previously funded areas. This would save the need for them to subsidize anything. Forbes Mercy Washington Broadband, Inc. Ps. I keep getting the moderator must approve, I'm not a member. Gee really? -Original Message- From: Marlon K. Schafer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 7:16 PM To: Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] USF fund issues Did anyone ever take this issue on? We have only about 2 more weeks to make comments. marlon - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization" Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 9:17 AM Subject: [WISPA FCC] USF fund issues Hi All, I assume we'll want to file on this issue http://www.broadbandwirelessreports.com/pressreleases/files/DOC-262639A1 .pdf Here's the actual nprm http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-205A1.pdf If anyone really understands the ins and outs of this, please speak up. I'd ask Kris Twoomey but I don't have his addy on my laptop. Can someone please forward? thanks, marlon ___ FCC mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/fcc -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] USF fund issues
In reviewing the NPRM, (FCC 05-205: CC 96-45 - WC 05-337), I found 40 "we seek" comment requests. This NPRM is as expected, a complex issue and will take some distilling to comment on the most important issues that would be of relevance. Frank Muto Co-founder - Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us - Original Message - From: "Forbes Mercy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I thought I'd take a few minutes to comment on the USF and other > attempts to tax VoIP as if it were a fresh new source of tax revenue for > Democrats everywhere. Of course just like the last draft from a > congressional staffer re-writing the Telecom act of 1996 (over 300 > pages) this FCC document is 30 pages. More light reading over a long > beer tonight, why do these lawyers continue to get paid by the word so > they produce ridiculously long documents that say the same thing over > and over but leave ambiguity so they don't have to define a clear role. > > My USF comments will summarize that this fund being used for so much > more than rural deployment should be cut back to it's original use but > if we have to fund it then we get a piece of it when we deploy into the > Rural Areas ourselves. > > Beyond that concession we should be receiving credits for moving > broadband into rural areas including exemption from the USF for saving > their ridiculous subsidizing as we bring VoIP into those previously > funded areas. This would save the need for them to subsidize anything. > > Forbes Mercy > Washington Broadband, Inc. > > Ps. I keep getting the moderator must approve, I'm not a member. Gee > really? > > -Original Message- > From: Marlon K. Schafer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 7:16 PM > To: Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] USF fund issues > > Did anyone ever take this issue on? We have only about 2 more weeks to > make > comments. > > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization" > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 9:17 AM > Subject: [WISPA FCC] USF fund issues > > > > Hi All, > > > > I assume we'll want to file on this issue > > > > > http://www.broadbandwirelessreports.com/pressreleases/files/DOC-262639A1 > .pdf > > > > Here's the actual nprm > > > > http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-205A1.pdf > > > > If anyone really understands the ins and outs of this, please speak > up. > > I'd ask Kris Twoomey but I don't have his addy on my laptop. Can > someone > > please forward? > > > > thanks, > > marlon -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] USF fund issues
I thought I'd take a few minutes to comment on the USF and other attempts to tax VoIP as if it were a fresh new source of tax revenue for Democrats everywhere. Of course just like the last draft from a congressional staffer re-writing the Telecom act of 1996 (over 300 pages) this FCC document is 30 pages. More light reading over a long beer tonight, why do these lawyers continue to get paid by the word so they produce ridiculously long documents that say the same thing over and over but leave ambiguity so they don't have to define a clear role. My USF comments will summarize that this fund being used for so much more than rural deployment should be cut back to it's original use but if we have to fund it then we get a piece of it when we deploy into the Rural Areas ourselves. Beyond that concession we should be receiving credits for moving broadband into rural areas including exemption from the USF for saving their ridiculous subsidizing as we bring VoIP into those previously funded areas. This would save the need for them to subsidize anything. Forbes Mercy Washington Broadband, Inc. Ps. I keep getting the moderator must approve, I'm not a member. Gee really? -Original Message- From: Marlon K. Schafer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 7:16 PM To: Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] USF fund issues Did anyone ever take this issue on? We have only about 2 more weeks to make comments. marlon - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization" Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 9:17 AM Subject: [WISPA FCC] USF fund issues > Hi All, > > I assume we'll want to file on this issue > > http://www.broadbandwirelessreports.com/pressreleases/files/DOC-262639A1 .pdf > > Here's the actual nprm > > http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-205A1.pdf > > If anyone really understands the ins and outs of this, please speak up. > I'd ask Kris Twoomey but I don't have his addy on my laptop. Can someone > please forward? > > thanks, > marlon > > ___ > FCC mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/fcc > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] USF fund issues
Did anyone ever take this issue on? We have only about 2 more weeks to make comments. marlon - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization" Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 9:17 AM Subject: [WISPA FCC] USF fund issues Hi All, I assume we'll want to file on this issue http://www.broadbandwirelessreports.com/pressreleases/files/DOC-262639A1.pdf Here's the actual nprm http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-205A1.pdf If anyone really understands the ins and outs of this, please speak up. I'd ask Kris Twoomey but I don't have his addy on my laptop. Can someone please forward? thanks, marlon ___ FCC mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/fcc -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
