Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
Charles has another good idea, But would they kill-off the smallest WISPS? Ron Wallace Hahnron, Inc. 220 S. Jackson Dt. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517)547-8410 Mobile: (517)270-2410 e-mail: rwall...@newgenet.net rwall...@tigernet.bz -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:c...@cticonnect.com] Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 11:26 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband It looks like a success-based voucher technologically neutral system for USF Reform/CAF is what's being proposed by the RCA (Rural Cellular Association) http://rca-usa.org/press/rca-press-releases/five-things-the-fcc-can-do-to-accelerate-broadband-deployment/914048 Perhaps WISPA should/could partner up with them for a stronger voice? -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 11:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband We need to have the USF turned into a voucher credit system that the end user can apply to what ever supplier they chose. Maybe its not the best idea, but I do not feel I have heard of a better one. Better for /the users/ not better for the I/CLECs and other very vested interests. On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 2/11/2011 01:06 AM, JohnS wrote: The FCC is looking for comments, so we all need to make it quite clear that the funds should be available for any and all broadband providers! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20110207/tc_nf/77213 Bret We should comment. The comment should be that we do not support any form of broadband subsidies and that USF should be eliminated. It is a New Internet Tax. We should all call it that and get people riled up about it. The FCC can't eliminate USF entirely. It is statutory: The Telecom Act of 1996 established USF and called for it to keep rural telephone rates comparable to urban rates. Because rural states get two senators just like big states, they have undue influence on subsidy legislation. Ted Stevens of Alaska was a leader here; he later wanted the FCC to outlaw VoIP, since it threatened the costly toll minutes that paid into USF. The new proposal makes matters worse, though, since it keeps existing USF intact and adds yet another fund to allow one provider per place to provide subsidized Internet access. I expect that it will usually be the ILEC, getting more money to compete with WISPs. -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
At 2/13/2011 11:26 AM, Charles Wu wrote: It looks like a success-based voucher technologically neutral system for USF Reform/CAF is what's being proposed by the RCA (Rural Cellular Association) http://rca-usa.org/press/rca-press-releases/five-things-the-fcc-can-do-to-accelerate-broadband-deployment/914048 Perhaps WISPA should/could partner up with them for a stronger voice? It would not do WISPs much good. Very, very few would qualify as ETC, or even want to be ETCs. RCA is trying to stave off a proposal to get rid of competitive ETC support entirely, most of which goes to cellular carriers for their fixed-wireless deployments. Supporting RCA seems pointless too, since they would be trying to get the exclusive CAF designations in their turf. Given the anti-competitive bent of the pending NPRM, expecting to move it towards more competition and subsidies to smaller providers seems unrealistic. WISP participation might, however, be useful in letting the FCC know just how messed up the system is. WISPs provide service for a much lower cost than ETCs, with no subsidies, and don't need subsidized competitors putting them otu of business. And just raising the idea of subsidizing low-cost WISPs, as an alternative to the fat RLECs, might help push the Overton Window just a little bit more away from the monopoly side. -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 11:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband We need to have the USF turned into a voucher credit system that the end user can apply to what ever supplier they chose. Maybe its not the best idea, but I do not feel I have heard of a better one. Better for /the users/ not better for the I/CLECs and other very vested interests. On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 2/11/2011 01:06 AM, JohnS wrote: The FCC is looking for comments, so we all need to make it quite clear that the funds should be available for any and all broadband providers! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20110207/tc_nf/77213 Bret We should comment. The comment should be that we do not support any form of broadband subsidies and that USF should be eliminated. It is a New Internet Tax. We should all call it that and get people riled up about it. The FCC can't eliminate USF entirely. It is statutory: The Telecom Act of 1996 established USF and called for it to keep rural telephone rates comparable to urban rates. Because rural states get two senators just like big states, they have undue influence on subsidy legislation. Ted Stevens of Alaska was a leader here; he later wanted the FCC to outlaw VoIP, since it threatened the costly toll minutes that paid into USF. The new proposal makes matters worse, though, since it keeps existing USF intact and adds yet another fund to allow one provider per place to provide subsidized Internet access. I expect that it will usually be the ILEC, getting more money to compete with WISPs. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
Subsidizing the low-cost WISP is not a bad idea. But the thing is thats easilly achievable without create monopoly like award systems. A voucher system solves that. It allows ANY/ALL competitive WISPs and even Any Telcos, to have an opportunity to gain subsidee, for affordably deploying broadband. The problem that will arrise is consumers want faster speeds like fiber, and will argue incentives should be given to those that offer higher speeds, which will unlevel the playing field once a gain. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 9:56 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband At 2/13/2011 11:26 AM, Charles Wu wrote: It looks like a success-based voucher technologically neutral system for USF Reform/CAF is what's being proposed by the RCA (Rural Cellular Association) http://rca-usa.org/press/rca-press-releases/five-things-the-fcc-can-do-to-accelerate-broadband-deployment/914048 Perhaps WISPA should/could partner up with them for a stronger voice? It would not do WISPs much good. Very, very few would qualify as ETC, or even want to be ETCs. RCA is trying to stave off a proposal to get rid of competitive ETC support entirely, most of which goes to cellular carriers for their fixed-wireless deployments. Supporting RCA seems pointless too, since they would be trying to get the exclusive CAF designations in their turf. Given the anti-competitive bent of the pending NPRM, expecting to move it towards more competition and subsidies to smaller providers seems unrealistic. WISP participation might, however, be useful in letting the FCC know just how messed up the system is. WISPs provide service for a much lower cost than ETCs, with no subsidies, and don't need subsidized competitors putting them otu of business. And just raising the idea of subsidizing low-cost WISPs, as an alternative to the fat RLECs, might help push the Overton Window just a little bit more away from the monopoly side. -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 11:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband We need to have the USF turned into a voucher credit system that the end user can apply to what ever supplier they chose. Maybe its not the best idea, but I do not feel I have heard of a better one. Better for /the users/ not better for the I/CLECs and other very vested interests. On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 2/11/2011 01:06 AM, JohnS wrote: The FCC is looking for comments, so we all need to make it quite clear that the funds should be available for any and all broadband providers! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20110207/tc_nf/77213 Bret We should comment. The comment should be that we do not support any form of broadband subsidies and that USF should be eliminated. It is a New Internet Tax. We should all call it that and get people riled up about it. The FCC can't eliminate USF entirely. It is statutory: The Telecom Act of 1996 established USF and called for it to keep rural telephone rates comparable to urban rates. Because rural states get two senators just like big states, they have undue influence on subsidy legislation. Ted Stevens of Alaska was a leader here; he later wanted the FCC to outlaw VoIP, since it threatened the costly toll minutes that paid into USF. The new proposal makes matters worse, though, since it keeps existing USF intact and adds yet another fund to allow one provider per place to provide subsidized Internet access. I expect that it will usually be the ILEC, getting more money to compete with WISPs. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Bandwidth Hog or Hippo ?
What do you do with a client that uses 65gigs in 42 days ? To top it off they are late payers and complain a little and always use the excuse they have to talk to their son in Iraq early in the morning. We only allow 20 gigs for their plan anyhow. Sent via the WebMail system at avolve.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Hog or Hippo ?
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 15:35, Stuart Pierce spie...@avolve.net wrote: What do you do with a client that uses 65gigs in 42 days ? To top it off they are late payers and complain a little and always use the excuse they have to talk to their son in Iraq early in the morning. We only allow 20 gigs for their plan anyhow. If their contract says they get 20 GB of transfer in a billing cycle, and they use more, you bill them. If they don't pay, you shut them off or sue them. It's business, nothing more. David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Hog or Hippo ?
Charge them for being late and charge them for the excessive usage (that is dollar per byte). Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Stuart Pierce spie...@avolve.net wrote: What do you do with a client that uses 65gigs in 42 days ? To top it off they are late payers and complain a little and always use the excuse they have to talk to their son in Iraq early in the morning. We only allow 20 gigs for their plan anyhow. Sent via the WebMail system at avolve.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Hog or Hippo ?
Charge an overage fee if you have it set up, if you don't, let them know you are instituting one. Either they are chatting with their son in 1080p high def or something else is going on. On 2/16/11 3:35 PM, Stuart Pierce wrote: What do you do with a client that uses 65gigs in 42 days ? To top it off they are late payers and complain a little and always use the excuse they have to talk to their son in Iraq early in the morning. We only allow 20 gigs for their plan anyhow. Sent via the WebMail system at avolve.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Hog or Hippo ?
On February 16, 2011, Josh Luthman wrote: Charge them for being late and charge them for the excessive usage (that is dollar per byte). We use both fees as a deterrent. The worst cause for abuse is Bittorrent in our case. It's always good fun to get the parents on the line and let them in on a few facts about copyright violations and usage charges. The back-haul providers bill still needs to get paid. -- Regards, Kevin R. Battersby ke...@battersby.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] ASR Sign Requirements
I own a registered tower site that I bought from another ASR registrant. We have made all needed changes to the ASR records online showing proper ownership information. We still need to prepare the physical sign required at the location. I cannot seem to find the page on the ASR site that describes the requirements of the sign at the registered tower location. Can anyone send me the link to this information or even forward a doc with this data? Any help is greatly appreciated. John Scrivner WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
