Butch... It's all nice and great to think that a little bit of money can go
a long ways to improving rural life...
But, we live in the real world, where handouts go to those most adept at
grabbing them, not providing what they're supposed to be used for.
The money is with the telcos, the lawyers are hired by the telcos, the
lobbyists are with the telcos. And, like it or not, Durbin cares not about
you, or me, or any other WISP, but about getting elected. So long as he
can strut around saying "I brough broadband to the rural areas", it won't
matter if it's real, if it's just another handout to the telcos, or if it
ever works... He'll still use it as a vote getter that will work for a
certain number of both rural and city people.
Seriously, the last thing I want is some program that gives money to someone
who has more interest in grabbing handouts than providing services.
If Durbin REALLY wants to do something real... Then... here's what he can
do:
Protected spectrum for rural WISP's.
FREE or true low-cost federal land use for location of communications
infrastructure.If any of you have ever tried to deploy out west, you
understand just how impenetrable a wall federal land has become. The US
Forest Service explained that to locate a communications site of ANY size on
federal land would cost in excess of three quarters of a million dollars in
fees, environmental impact studies, engineering studies, etc, etc. Thus,
unless you can find private land to hopscotch across, federal land is a
completely impenetrable wall where communications services of ANY kind are
concerned, unless you're Qwest or AT&T.
Tax credit to the provider for each customer serviced within the defined
rural areas - basically, stop taxing rural providers. This means, that
should 2 providers come to town, each can benefit from rural subsidy, if
we're going to do that.
To summarize, instead of money that people compete or apply for, instead, we
remove many of the obstacles for rural deployment, and financially assist
ANY provider who comes in and provides service.Does this sound like USF?
Well, sort of... With the exception that there is no qualification for who
can receive the credits, and the money can't be sucked up by a non-provider,
or someone who's just applying for it to prevent others from getting it
(yes, local wisp did that, got MILLIONS tied up but never used the loans, to
prevent anyone else from doing it).
It's time to stop thinking conventional, playing the same old political
games. Those lead to precisely what we do not want.
- Original Message -
From: "Butch Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 9:48 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Taxation to support rural internet service (WAS:
SenatorDurbin)
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, David Sovereen wrote:
>
> >Since when do the people on this list support taxation, waste, and
> >government subsidies? Why should the burden of providing
> >high-speed Internet to people in underserved (typically rural)
> >areas fall on the shoulders of taxpayers? I don't want my taxes to
> >pay to expand your network or for Joe User to get your service.
>
> There is a reality that you are missing here. The USF was
> established to do EXACTLY this for rural telephone services.
> Without USF, telephone services in the rural parts of the country
> would be unavailable or unreasonably expensive. Like many programs
> the government dreams up, the USF program is somewhat out of hand
> (but that's another topic). As for you (Joe Taxpayer) paying to
> expand another network (or subsidizing Joe User's access) you may
> not realize this, but you are already doing this in the form of USF
> $$. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but it is, none the
> less, a fact.
>
> In reality, I agree with you to a certain extent. Not entirely,
> however. I think that any program initiated by the government will
> eventually be corrupted and be abused. It will, also, grow beyond
> it's initial intention and never be able to be dropped. SO, why
> would a bill like this be considered a good thing by a group like
> this (that is comprised of mostly conservative people)? I think it
> is partly $$. I believe it is partly due to the understanding that
> many on this list have that bringing broadband access to certain
> areas is simply unrealistic due to economic realities.
>
> Broadband access is important to our national economy for a variety
> of reasons. It is not simply a matter of Joe User's kids chatting
> with other kids, Joe's wife playing Scrabble online or Joe surfing
> porn late at night. Broadband access can make a real and measurable
> difference in a local economy. This is more than just profits for
> the ISP.
>
> I only hope that if a program such as what is being discussed here
> is implemented, that it is geared toward making it possible for
> small providers (or even new startups) to participate. We (the
> government) shoul
