RE: [WISPA] USF fund reform
Erate is a federal program. www.sl.universalservice.org Its not a matter of whether or not the schools or state will allow you to provide the service. It's a competitive bidding process. How you pick your way through the bidding process is an entirely different beast. Start learning now if you want to bid on contracts in the late fall. All the information you need is on the SLD website. It will take a few weeks to completely understand it all. Really. To cook it all down, the whole program is 1/3 federal $$, 1/3 rigged bidding processes and 1/3 fear. You need to position yourself correctly in the bidding process to overcome the fixed bids. You need to educate the school district tech coordinators. 99% of them are overworked and so fearful of making a misstep and loosing their funding that they just cant stomach change. If you start early and help educate them on new services, higher speeds and serious savings you stand a much better chance of helping them overcome their fear, winning a few bids and getting your hands on some of those federal $$. Chris Intelliwave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of KyWiFi LLC Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 2:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform Where does a WISP look to find out if their state/city will allow them to provide broadband service to schools under the erate program? I tried searching google but didn't see any details listed for our state. -Shannon - Original Message - From: Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 6:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform Same here in Michigan. We provide internet and data services under the erate to several schools. John Scrivner wrote: Years ago I looked into what it would take to sell access to the school. erate is set up so that one company provides all telecom needs to the school. Voice, data etc. The only companies that can do that are the ilec or a clec. This is not true in Illinois. We have what is called a SPIN number which allows us to sell Internet to schools even if they get other services from other providers. I am not an ILEC or a CLEC. Scriv -- 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.3/296 - Release Date: 3/29/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform
I think you are missing the point here. We're talking about a mechanism to bring broadband to the entire country! Not just a small expansion for you. Also, most rural telco's will die if they loose these funds. Sure they're milking the system but they'll still fail without it. Like it or not, they are important especially for the next several years. You need backhaul right??? grin Even they need time to change business models, products, infrastructure etc. That help? 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: KyWiFi LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform I agree, I would think that 12 months is plenty long enough, definitely not more than 36 months. Take our company for example, we deployed 7 broadcast sites in our first 12 months of operation and we were profitable by month number 8 or 9 and this was WITHOUT any free money. If a company in this line of work cannot achieve a profit in their first year or two of operation, I don't see them being around long term. Sincerely, Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky http://www.KyWiFi.com http://www.KyWiFiVoice.com Phone: 859.274.4033 A Broadband Phone Internet Provider == Wireless Broadband, Local Calling and UNLIMITED Long Distance only $69! No Taxes, No Regulatory Fees, No Hassles FREE Site Survey: http://www.KyWiFi.com == - Original Message - From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform 10 to 20 year time line? I would like to see 1 to 5 years. I do not see how a network can not be profitable in that time frame with free monies. Jeromie Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Hi All, Here's what WISPA is prepared to submit to the commerce committee. Thought you guys would like a peek at it first. WISPA USF Reform Position Paper WISPA is a the WISP industry's only industry owned and operated trade association. We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 person, membership elected board. The goals for USF should be clarified. Are laptops for kids part of the program goals? Was it the original intent that USF exclude small local entrepreneurs and give preferential treatment to the incumbent? As USF changes, do the changes have a clear goal? Is this just a mechanism to try to put more funds into the program otherwise leave it as is? Or does Congress want to see substantial changes in the program that do more to foster rather than stifle innovation? WISPA believes that market forces should mostly be left to their own. Without government tweaking. USF should be canceled completely. If a real need for outside funding in regions or small pockets turns out to be needed, address those issues on a case by case basis. At the very least the USF program needs major reform as its cost based fee structure encourages abuse. An example of artificially high costs would be in Odessa, Washington. In the early 2000 time frame the local telco replaced an 8 T-1 microwave link with a fiber optic line at a cost (or so we've been told) of $600,000. Even at the time, the cost of a microwave replacement with more capacity would have been half or less. This is for a town of 1000 that's not on the way to anywhere. The telco is now in the process of adding more fiber to complete a fiber loop to other areas. This next 30 mile stretch is through many solid rock canyons and the costs are expected to be even higher. This same telco has installed $60,000 DSL systems in rural areas that have fewer than 15 houses within 18,000 feet of the hut. Clearly these are cost raising mechanisms. We understand that USF is not likely to go away at this time. The above telco gets 2/3rds of its income via subsidies and would not likely survive without them. Leaving such business practices in place permanently is not good public policy though. WISPA proposes that a time limit on the USF program be instituted. Expand the program to include all communications companies and use USF to help them build an infrastructure. Once that system is built, it needs to stand on its own two legs though. If it doesn't, then that's the company's fault and they can live with the results of the network they built. Somewhere between 10 and 20 years should allow plenty of time for efficient network upgrades or construction. The program should not be viewed as a permanent profit line item
Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform
I'm not quite sure how to answer this one in this context. Just went by snippets I'd heard over the years on that one. I'll give you a couple of specific local examples though. Years ago I looked into what it would take to sell access to the school. erate is set up so that one company provides all telecom needs to the school. Voice, data etc. The only companies that can do that are the ilec or a clec. clec status runs $10,000 plus from what I've always been told. That puts the rate of return on the school's system somewhere in never never land if all you want is to provide bandwidth. It's sad, we offer 8 meg connections here for $75 per month and they don't buy from me because the government won't pay that bill but will pay for the t-1 that they have now. Unless they have a 10 meg fiber feed like I do then they are paying hundreds per month like I am. Second is our local hospital with their telemedicine program. I used to sell the hospital internet. They couldn't use my internet for their telemedicine program for security reasons. It just HAD to be a ptp connection to the big hospital. I even tried to split the costs of the t-1 with them as they were only configured to use 348k anyhow. Well, now the telemedicine program is somehow able to sell them internet as part of the same government funded system! It's ok to put internet over the telemedicine system but not telemedicine over the internet. Gotta love it. In both cases there are LOCAL assets available to the government supported agencies and they can't use them because of the design of the grants etc. This needs to be changed. 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: chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org; isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 9:31 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] USF fund reform Marlon- This paper mentions Wispa's desire to see changes in the erate program. Im familiar with the issues involved with erate in Ohio. What types of competitive issues are other wisps facing in efforts to win erate contracts? Chris Intelliwave -- 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] USF fund reform
Years ago I looked into what it would take to sell access to the school. erate is set up so that one company provides all telecom needs to the school. Voice, data etc. The only companies that can do that are the ilec or a clec. This is not true in Illinois. We have what is called a SPIN number which allows us to sell Internet to schools even if they get other services from other providers. I am not an ILEC or a CLEC. Scriv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform
In some rural areas, it can be tough to do it in 1 to 5 years. What if you need to provide service to the 2 houses that are 15 miles from your current tower and there is 0 potential for growth? This would allow you to charge enough for long enough that you don't have to lose money. How about 5-10 years for build out? I can't think of too many scenarios where you couldn't do it in 10 years. John -Original Message- From: Jeromie Reeves [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:30 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform 10 to 20 year time line? I would like to see 1 to 5 years. I do not see how a network can not be profitable in that time frame with free monies. Jeromie Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Hi All, Here's what WISPA is prepared to submit to the commerce committee. Thought you guys would like a peek at it first. WISPA USF Reform Position Paper WISPA is a the WISP industry's only industry owned and operated trade association. We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 person, membership elected board. The goals for USF should be clarified. Are laptops for kids part of the program goals? Was it the original intent that USF exclude small local entrepreneurs and give preferential treatment to the incumbent? As USF changes, do the changes have a clear goal? Is this just a mechanism to try to put more funds into the program otherwise leave it as is? Or does Congress want to see substantial changes in the program that do more to foster rather than stifle innovation? WISPA believes that market forces should mostly be left to their own. Without government tweaking. USF should be canceled completely. If a real need for outside funding in regions or small pockets turns out to be needed, address those issues on a case by case basis. At the very least the USF program needs major reform as its cost based fee structure encourages abuse. An example of artificially high costs would be in Odessa, Washington. In the early 2000 time frame the local telco replaced an 8 T-1 microwave link with a fiber optic line at a cost (or so we've been told) of $600,000. Even at the time, the cost of a microwave replacement with more capacity would have been half or less. This is for a town of 1000 that's not on the way to anywhere. The telco is now in the process of adding more fiber to complete a fiber loop to other areas. This next 30 mile stretch is through many solid rock canyons and the costs are expected to be even higher. This same telco has installed $60,000 DSL systems in rural areas that have fewer than 15 houses within 18,000 feet of the hut. Clearly these are cost raising mechanisms. We understand that USF is not likely to go away at this time. The above telco gets 2/3rds of its income via subsidies and would not likely survive without them. Leaving such business practices in place permanently is not good public policy though. WISPA proposes that a time limit on the USF program be instituted. Expand the program to include all communications companies and use USF to help them build an infrastructure. Once that system is built, it needs to stand on its own two legs though. If it doesn't, then that's the company's fault and they can live with the results of the network they built. Somewhere between 10 and 20 years should allow plenty of time for efficient network upgrades or construction. The program should not be viewed as a permanent profit line item for companies but rather be a short term capitalization/construction fund that will end and leave the company standing (or not) on its own two feet at a set specific date. We believe that opening up USF to all operators would likely cause multiple networks to be built at the same time and the most efficient ones would survive. If, after USF was discontinued some areas were left with no viable options for service those specific cases could be addressed under some more targeted program. Funds should be collected and distributed based on customers serviced. This would help prevent speculation with the funds, rather the funds would reward those that have already stepped up to the plate. Tying fund distribution with the FCC form 477 would also likely help lead to more accurate market data availability. WISPA also believes that USF's goals should be readdressed. We don't believe that using USF funds to provide laptop computers to 68,000 7th and 8th graders in Massachusetts is a proper use of the program. We would also like to see some changes in the way that USF is distributed. The E-Rate program excludes almost all entrepreneurial providers. In some areas the local WISP offers greater service levels for less cost than the local hospital or school is paying via the E-Rate programs. We're not allowed
Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform
Are you willing to put up a tower to serve 2 customers? Only if you think you can get your money back. John -Original Message- From: KyWiFi LLC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 01:11 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform I agree, I would think that 12 months is plenty long enough, definitely not more than 36 months. Take our company for example, we deployed 7 broadcast sites in our first 12 months of operation and we were profitable by month number 8 or 9 and this was WITHOUT any free money. If a company in this line of work cannot achieve a profit in their first year or two of operation, I don't see them being around long term. Sincerely, Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky http://www.KyWiFi.com http://www.KyWiFiVoice.com Phone: 859.274.4033 A Broadband Phone Internet Provider == Wireless Broadband, Local Calling and UNLIMITED Long Distance only $69! No Taxes, No Regulatory Fees, No Hassles FREE Site Survey: http://www.KyWiFi.com == - Original Message - From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform 10 to 20 year time line? I would like to see 1 to 5 years. I do not see how a network can not be profitable in that time frame with free monies. Jeromie Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Hi All, Here's what WISPA is prepared to submit to the commerce committee. Thought you guys would like a peek at it first. WISPA USF Reform Position Paper WISPA is a the WISP industry's only industry owned and operated trade association. We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 person, membership elected board. The goals for USF should be clarified. Are laptops for kids part of the program goals? Was it the original intent that USF exclude small local entrepreneurs and give preferential treatment to the incumbent? As USF changes, do the changes have a clear goal? Is this just a mechanism to try to put more funds into the program otherwise leave it as is? Or does Congress want to see substantial changes in the program that do more to foster rather than stifle innovation? WISPA believes that market forces should mostly be left to their own. Without government tweaking. USF should be canceled completely. If a real need for outside funding in regions or small pockets turns out to be needed, address those issues on a case by case basis. At the very least the USF program needs major reform as its cost based fee structure encourages abuse. An example of artificially high costs would be in Odessa, Washington. In the early 2000 time frame the local telco replaced an 8 T-1 microwave link with a fiber optic line at a cost (or so we've been told) of $600,000. Even at the time, the cost of a microwave replacement with more capacity would have been half or less. This is for a town of 1000 that's not on the way to anywhere. The telco is now in the process of adding more fiber to complete a fiber loop to other areas. This next 30 mile stretch is through many solid rock canyons and the costs are expected to be even higher. This same telco has installed $60,000 DSL systems in rural areas that have fewer than 15 houses within 18,000 feet of the hut. Clearly these are cost raising mechanisms. We understand that USF is not likely to go away at this time. The above telco gets 2/3rds of its income via subsidies and would not likely survive without them. Leaving such business practices in place permanently is not good public policy though. WISPA proposes that a time limit on the USF program be instituted. Expand the program to include all communications companies and use USF to help them build an infrastructure. Once that system is built, it needs to stand on its own two legs though. If it doesn't, then that's the company's fault and they can live with the results of the network they built. Somewhere between 10 and 20 years should allow plenty of time for efficient network upgrades or construction. The program should not be viewed as a permanent profit line item for companies but rather be a short term capitalization/construction fund that will end and leave the company standing (or not) on its own two feet at a set specific date. We believe that opening up USF to all operators would likely cause multiple networks to be built at the same time and the most efficient ones would survive. If, after USF was discontinued some areas were left with no viable options for service those specific cases could be addressed under some more targeted program. Funds should be collected and distributed based on customers serviced. This would help prevent
Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform
Generally speaking no. However, if the 2 customers are commercial customers paying a few hundred or a few thousand dollars per month, then yes, if the numbers work out to our benefit. Cost is what makes or breaks a deal so everything has to be analyzed properly. In most cases, a $400 telephone pole deployment will suffice in place of a tower. Our company has recently started to deploy roof top repeaters to pick up additional customers. Under our business model, we can normally justify the cost of the repeater even if we are just picking up 1 additional residential customer. In most cases, that 1 customer is willing to cover part or all of the cost of the roof top repeater and its installation on a neighbor's home/barn/silo. What are the current requirements in order for a telco to receive USF money? Are they required to provide service to a specific % of the population in the areas where they receive USF money? A good friend of mine was once quoted $11,000 by the local telco to run a phone line to his home (he lives a half mile or so off his road in a rural area). I would think that the telco must provide service to 100% of the population in the areas for which they receive the USF money but this is evidently not how it is structured. Also, how is the USF money currently shared amongst multiple telcos in the same area/city? How much USF money is there? What determines the amount each telco receives? -Shannon - Original Message - From: John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 12:47 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform Are you willing to put up a tower to serve 2 customers? Only if you think you can get your money back. John -Original Message- From: KyWiFi LLC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 01:11 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform I agree, I would think that 12 months is plenty long enough, definitely not more than 36 months. Take our company for example, we deployed 7 broadcast sites in our first 12 months of operation and we were profitable by month number 8 or 9 and this was WITHOUT any free money. If a company in this line of work cannot achieve a profit in their first year or two of operation, I don't see them being around long term. Sincerely, Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky http://www.KyWiFi.com http://www.KyWiFiVoice.com Phone: 859.274.4033 A Broadband Phone Internet Provider == Wireless Broadband, Local Calling and UNLIMITED Long Distance only $69! No Taxes, No Regulatory Fees, No Hassles FREE Site Survey: http://www.KyWiFi.com == - Original Message - From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform 10 to 20 year time line? I would like to see 1 to 5 years. I do not see how a network can not be profitable in that time frame with free monies. Jeromie Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Hi All, Here's what WISPA is prepared to submit to the commerce committee. Thought you guys would like a peek at it first. WISPA USF Reform Position Paper WISPA is a the WISP industry's only industry owned and operated trade association. We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 person, membership elected board. The goals for USF should be clarified. Are laptops for kids part of the program goals? Was it the original intent that USF exclude small local entrepreneurs and give preferential treatment to the incumbent? As USF changes, do the changes have a clear goal? Is this just a mechanism to try to put more funds into the program otherwise leave it as is? Or does Congress want to see substantial changes in the program that do more to foster rather than stifle innovation? WISPA believes that market forces should mostly be left to their own. Without government tweaking. USF should be canceled completely. If a real need for outside funding in regions or small pockets turns out to be needed, address those issues on a case by case basis. At the very least the USF program needs major reform as its cost based fee structure encourages abuse. An example of artificially high costs would be in Odessa, Washington. In the early 2000 time frame the local telco replaced an 8 T-1 microwave link with a fiber optic line at a cost (or so we've been told) of $600,000. Even at the time, the cost of a microwave replacement with more capacity would have been half or less. This is for a town of 1000 that's not on the way to anywhere. The telco is now in the process of adding more fiber to complete a fiber loop to other areas. This next 30 mile stretch is through many solid rock canyons and the costs are expected to be even higher. This same telco has
[WISPA] USF fund reform
Hi All, Here's what WISPA is prepared to submit to the commerce committee. Thought you guys would like a peek at it first. WISPA USF Reform Position Paper WISPA is a the WISP industry's only industry owned and operated trade association. We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 person, membership elected board. The goals for USF should be clarified. Are laptops for kids part of the program goals? Was it the original intent that USF exclude small local entrepreneurs and give preferential treatment to the incumbent? As USF changes, do the changes have a clear goal? Is this just a mechanism to try to put more funds into the program otherwise leave it as is? Or does Congress want to see substantial changes in the program that do more to foster rather than stifle innovation? WISPA believes that market forces should mostly be left to their own. Without government tweaking. USF should be canceled completely. If a real need for outside funding in regions or small pockets turns out to be needed, address those issues on a case by case basis. At the very least the USF program needs major reform as its cost based fee structure encourages abuse. An example of artificially high costs would be in Odessa, Washington. In the early 2000 time frame the local telco replaced an 8 T-1 microwave link with a fiber optic line at a cost (or so we've been told) of $600,000. Even at the time, the cost of a microwave replacement with more capacity would have been half or less. This is for a town of 1000 that's not on the way to anywhere. The telco is now in the process of adding more fiber to complete a fiber loop to other areas. This next 30 mile stretch is through many solid rock canyons and the costs are expected to be even higher. This same telco has installed $60,000 DSL systems in rural areas that have fewer than 15 houses within 18,000 feet of the hut. Clearly these are cost raising mechanisms. We understand that USF is not likely to go away at this time. The above telco gets 2/3rds of its income via subsidies and would not likely survive without them. Leaving such business practices in place permanently is not good public policy though. WISPA proposes that a time limit on the USF program be instituted. Expand the program to include all communications companies and use USF to help them build an infrastructure. Once that system is built, it needs to stand on its own two legs though. If it doesn't, then that's the company's fault and they can live with the results of the network they built. Somewhere between 10 and 20 years should allow plenty of time for efficient network upgrades or construction. The program should not be viewed as a permanent profit line item for companies but rather be a short term capitalization/construction fund that will end and leave the company standing (or not) on its own two feet at a set specific date. We believe that opening up USF to all operators would likely cause multiple networks to be built at the same time and the most efficient ones would survive. If, after USF was discontinued some areas were left with no viable options for service those specific cases could be addressed under some more targeted program. Funds should be collected and distributed based on customers serviced. This would help prevent speculation with the funds, rather the funds would reward those that have already stepped up to the plate. Tying fund distribution with the FCC form 477 would also likely help lead to more accurate market data availability. WISPA also believes that USF's goals should be readdressed. We don't believe that using USF funds to provide laptop computers to 68,000 7th and 8th graders in Massachusetts is a proper use of the program. We would also like to see some changes in the way that USF is distributed. The E-Rate program excludes almost all entrepreneurial providers. In some areas the local WISP offers greater service levels for less cost than the local hospital or school is paying via the E-Rate programs. We're not allowed to service those portions of the account that we could take care of because we don't have CLEC status or can't offer all services. It seems to us that a complicated mechanism to compute pay in and pay out isn't needed or wanted at this time. We propose that the current contributions simply be expanded to any broadband provider in any area that the incumbent currently contributes. And in any area where USF funds are distributed all providers be given equal shares based on customer base. And one customer equals one share. No company should get more money for more services. This would slow down the convergence of services into increasingly efficient networks in rural markets. This model should encourage both competition and a shift from high cost to low cost network
