Re: [WISPA] USF Changes
Yep, they are now going to actively work to put us out of business. Gotta love it. marlon - Original Message - From: "Marco Coelho" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 7:25 AM Subject: [WISPA] USF Changes FCC to propose revamping Universal Service Fund AP By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology Writer – Fri Mar 5, 5:25 pm ET WASHINGTON – Federal regulators trying to bring high-speed Internet connections to all Americans will propose tapping the government program that now subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural areas. The Federal Communications Commission will include a proposal to revamp the Universal Service Fund as part of a national broadband plan due to Congress on March 17. Although the proposal itself has been expected for months, Friday's announcement offered the first solid details. The FCC said it envisions transforming the Universal Service program over the next decade to pay for high-speed Internet access instead of the traditional voice services that it currently finances. The proposal would create a Connect America fund inside the Universal Service program to subsidize broadband, and a Mobility Fund to expand the reach of so-called 3G, or third-generation, wireless networks. "It's time to migrate this 20th-century program," said Blair Levin, the FCC official overseeing the broadband plan, which was mandated by last year's stimulus bill. "We need to move the current system from the traditional networks to the new networks." The Universal Service Fund was established to ensure that all Americans have access to a basic telephone line. Today, the program subsidizes phone service for the poor, funds Internet access in schools and libraries and pays for high-speed connections for rural health clinics. But its biggest function is to bring telephone service to remote, sparsely populated corners of the country, where it is uneconomical for the private companies to build networks. Funding for the $8-billion-a-year program comes from a surcharge that businesses and consumers pay on their long-distance bills. That revenue base is shrinking, placing the Universal Service Fund under mounting pressure even as the FCC seeks to use it to subsidize broadband. The agency's plan will lay out several options to pay for the proposals it outlined Friday, including one that would require no additional money from Congress and one that would accelerate the construction of broadband networks if Congress approves a one-time injection of $9 billion. Either way, Levin stressed, the proposal would not increase the annual size of the Universal Service Fund, but rather would take money from subsidies now used for voice services. The FCC would also seek to save money by subsidizing no more than one broadband provider in an areas. Some critics of the program have complained that wireless companies now overlay landline systems with new networks considered duplicative. Levin said Connect America would not favor one technology over another, be it cable, DSL or wireless. The FCC proposal also envisions revamping the multibillion-dollar "intercarrier compensation" system, the Byzantine menu of charges that telecom carriers pay to access each other's networks and connect calls. Any changes to the Universal Service Fund would also require changes to intercarrier compensation because rural phone companies tend to rely heavily on both funding sources. The FCC's latest proposals will be part of a sweeping national roadmap for bringing universal, affordable broadband connections to all Americans. Although the plan is due on March 17, the agency has already begun releasing details, including a proposal to make more wireless spectrum available for mobile broadband connections by letting television broadcasters and others voluntarily cede some airwaves. Some of the proposals will likely require congressional action, while others might be up to the FCC to implement. Yahoo article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100305/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_fcc_universal_service;_ylt=AgSGtpiLKKQbXooR3LKvT.cPLBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTMzNGcwMmcyBGFzc2V0Ay9hcC8yMDEwMDMwNS9hcF9vbl9oaV90ZS91c190ZWNfZmNjX3VuaXZlcnNhbF9zZXJ2aWNlBHBvcwM3BHNlYwN5bl90b21ic3RvbmUEc2xrA2ZjY3RvcHJvcG9zZQ-- -- Marco C. Coelho Argon Technologies Inc. POB 875 Greenville, TX 75403-0875 903-455-5036 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: w
Re: [WISPA] USF Changes
are we not paying for telecom? if not hang up those phones folks ;-) Let me ask 1 simple question. WHAT CAN THIS GOVERNMENT GIVE YOU THAT IT HAS NOT FIRST TAKEN AWAY / _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. On Mar 7, 2010, at 8:51 PM, Frank Crawford wrote: > Nice call RickG > > RickG wrote: >> I repeat, thats still a tax. >> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Brian Webster >> wrote: >> >>> But USF comes from the ratepayers of the telecom services, not tax dollars. >>> >>> >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on >>> Behalf Of RickG >>> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 2:50 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Changes >>> >>> >>> As a WISP, I resent the idea that my tax dollars may be used to compete with >>> me. >>> As a taxpayer, at what point will the government realize we cant >>> afford all this? >>> -RickG >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Marco Coelho wrote: >>> >>>> FCC to propose revamping Universal Service Fund >>>> AP >>>> >>>> >>>> By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology >>>> Writer – Fri Mar 5, 5:25 pm ET >>>> >>>> WASHINGTON – Federal regulators trying to bring high-speed Internet >>>> connections to all Americans will propose tapping the government >>>> program that now subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural areas. >>>> >>>> The Federal Communications Commission will include a proposal to >>>> revamp the Universal Service Fund as part of a national broadband plan >>>> due to Congress on March 17. Although the proposal itself has been >>>> expected for months, Friday's announcement offered the first solid >>>> details. >>>> >>>> The FCC said it envisions transforming the Universal Service program >>>> over the next decade to pay for high-speed Internet access instead of >>>> the traditional voice services that it currently finances. The >>>> proposal would create a Connect America fund inside the Universal >>>> Service program to subsidize broadband, and a Mobility Fund to expand >>>> the reach of so-called 3G, or third-generation, wireless networks. >>>> >>>> "It's time to migrate this 20th-century program," said Blair Levin, >>>> the FCC official overseeing the broadband plan, which was mandated by >>>> last year's stimulus bill. "We need to move the current system from >>>> the traditional networks to the new networks." >>>> >>>> The Universal Service Fund was established to ensure that all >>>> Americans have access to a basic telephone line. Today, the program >>>> subsidizes phone service for the poor, funds Internet access in >>>> schools and libraries and pays for high-speed connections for rural >>>> health clinics. But its biggest function is to bring telephone service >>>> to remote, sparsely populated corners of the country, where it is >>>> uneconomical for the private companies to build networks. >>>> >>>> Funding for the $8-billion-a-year program comes from a surcharge that >>>> businesses and consumers pay on their long-distance bills. That >>>> revenue base is shrinking, placing the Universal Service Fund under >>>> mounting pressure even as the FCC seeks to use it to subsidize >>>> broadband. >>>> >>>> The agency's plan will lay out several options to pay for the >>>> proposals it outlined Friday, including one that would require no >>>> additional money from Congress and one that would accelerate the >>>> construction of broadband networks if Congress approves a one-time >>>> injection of $9 billion. >>>> >>>> Either way, Levin stressed, the proposal would not increase the annual >>>> size of the Universal Service Fund, but rather would take money from >>>> subsidies now used for voice services. >>>> >>>> The FCC would also seek to save money by subsidizing no more than one >>&g
Re: [WISPA] USF Changes
Nice call RickG RickG wrote: > I repeat, thats still a tax. > > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Brian Webster > wrote: > >> But USF comes from the ratepayers of the telecom services, not tax dollars. >> >> >> >> Brian >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on >> Behalf Of RickG >> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 2:50 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Changes >> >> >> As a WISP, I resent the idea that my tax dollars may be used to compete with >> me. >> As a taxpayer, at what point will the government realize we cant >> afford all this? >> -RickG >> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Marco Coelho wrote: >> >>> FCC to propose revamping Universal Service Fund >>> AP >>> >>> >>> By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology >>> Writer – Fri Mar 5, 5:25 pm ET >>> >>> WASHINGTON – Federal regulators trying to bring high-speed Internet >>> connections to all Americans will propose tapping the government >>> program that now subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural areas. >>> >>> The Federal Communications Commission will include a proposal to >>> revamp the Universal Service Fund as part of a national broadband plan >>> due to Congress on March 17. Although the proposal itself has been >>> expected for months, Friday's announcement offered the first solid >>> details. >>> >>> The FCC said it envisions transforming the Universal Service program >>> over the next decade to pay for high-speed Internet access instead of >>> the traditional voice services that it currently finances. The >>> proposal would create a Connect America fund inside the Universal >>> Service program to subsidize broadband, and a Mobility Fund to expand >>> the reach of so-called 3G, or third-generation, wireless networks. >>> >>> "It's time to migrate this 20th-century program," said Blair Levin, >>> the FCC official overseeing the broadband plan, which was mandated by >>> last year's stimulus bill. "We need to move the current system from >>> the traditional networks to the new networks." >>> >>> The Universal Service Fund was established to ensure that all >>> Americans have access to a basic telephone line. Today, the program >>> subsidizes phone service for the poor, funds Internet access in >>> schools and libraries and pays for high-speed connections for rural >>> health clinics. But its biggest function is to bring telephone service >>> to remote, sparsely populated corners of the country, where it is >>> uneconomical for the private companies to build networks. >>> >>> Funding for the $8-billion-a-year program comes from a surcharge that >>> businesses and consumers pay on their long-distance bills. That >>> revenue base is shrinking, placing the Universal Service Fund under >>> mounting pressure even as the FCC seeks to use it to subsidize >>> broadband. >>> >>> The agency's plan will lay out several options to pay for the >>> proposals it outlined Friday, including one that would require no >>> additional money from Congress and one that would accelerate the >>> construction of broadband networks if Congress approves a one-time >>> injection of $9 billion. >>> >>> Either way, Levin stressed, the proposal would not increase the annual >>> size of the Universal Service Fund, but rather would take money from >>> subsidies now used for voice services. >>> >>> The FCC would also seek to save money by subsidizing no more than one >>> broadband provider in an areas. Some critics of the program have >>> complained that wireless companies now overlay landline systems with >>> new networks considered duplicative. >>> >>> Levin said Connect America would not favor one technology over >>> another, be it cable, DSL or wireless. >>> >>> The FCC proposal also envisions revamping the multibillion-dollar >>> "intercarrier compensation" system, the Byzantine menu of charges that >>> telecom carriers pay to access each other's networks and connect >>> calls. Any changes to the Universal Service Fund would also require >>> changes to intercarrier compensation because rural phone companies >>> ten
Re: [WISPA] USF Changes
I repeat, thats still a tax. On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Brian Webster wrote: > But USF comes from the ratepayers of the telecom services, not tax dollars. > > > > Brian > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on > Behalf Of RickG > Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 2:50 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Changes > > > As a WISP, I resent the idea that my tax dollars may be used to compete with > me. > As a taxpayer, at what point will the government realize we cant > afford all this? > -RickG > > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Marco Coelho wrote: >> FCC to propose revamping Universal Service Fund >> AP >> >> >> By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology >> Writer – Fri Mar 5, 5:25 pm ET >> >> WASHINGTON – Federal regulators trying to bring high-speed Internet >> connections to all Americans will propose tapping the government >> program that now subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural areas. >> >> The Federal Communications Commission will include a proposal to >> revamp the Universal Service Fund as part of a national broadband plan >> due to Congress on March 17. Although the proposal itself has been >> expected for months, Friday's announcement offered the first solid >> details. >> >> The FCC said it envisions transforming the Universal Service program >> over the next decade to pay for high-speed Internet access instead of >> the traditional voice services that it currently finances. The >> proposal would create a Connect America fund inside the Universal >> Service program to subsidize broadband, and a Mobility Fund to expand >> the reach of so-called 3G, or third-generation, wireless networks. >> >> "It's time to migrate this 20th-century program," said Blair Levin, >> the FCC official overseeing the broadband plan, which was mandated by >> last year's stimulus bill. "We need to move the current system from >> the traditional networks to the new networks." >> >> The Universal Service Fund was established to ensure that all >> Americans have access to a basic telephone line. Today, the program >> subsidizes phone service for the poor, funds Internet access in >> schools and libraries and pays for high-speed connections for rural >> health clinics. But its biggest function is to bring telephone service >> to remote, sparsely populated corners of the country, where it is >> uneconomical for the private companies to build networks. >> >> Funding for the $8-billion-a-year program comes from a surcharge that >> businesses and consumers pay on their long-distance bills. That >> revenue base is shrinking, placing the Universal Service Fund under >> mounting pressure even as the FCC seeks to use it to subsidize >> broadband. >> >> The agency's plan will lay out several options to pay for the >> proposals it outlined Friday, including one that would require no >> additional money from Congress and one that would accelerate the >> construction of broadband networks if Congress approves a one-time >> injection of $9 billion. >> >> Either way, Levin stressed, the proposal would not increase the annual >> size of the Universal Service Fund, but rather would take money from >> subsidies now used for voice services. >> >> The FCC would also seek to save money by subsidizing no more than one >> broadband provider in an areas. Some critics of the program have >> complained that wireless companies now overlay landline systems with >> new networks considered duplicative. >> >> Levin said Connect America would not favor one technology over >> another, be it cable, DSL or wireless. >> >> The FCC proposal also envisions revamping the multibillion-dollar >> "intercarrier compensation" system, the Byzantine menu of charges that >> telecom carriers pay to access each other's networks and connect >> calls. Any changes to the Universal Service Fund would also require >> changes to intercarrier compensation because rural phone companies >> tend to rely heavily on both funding sources. >> >> The FCC's latest proposals will be part of a sweeping national roadmap >> for bringing universal, affordable broadband connections to all >> Americans. >> >> Although the plan is due on March 17, the agency has already begun >> releasing details, including a proposal to make more wireless spectrum >> available for mobile broadband connections
Re: [WISPA] USF Changes
Chuck, thats still a tax. On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Chuck Bartosch wrote: > > On Mar 6, 2010, at 2:50 PM, RickG wrote: > >> As a WISP, I resent the idea that my tax dollars may be used to compete with >> me. >> As a taxpayer, at what point will the government realize we cant >> afford all this? > > > Ah, but we CAN afford it. It doesn't come from general tax funds but from the > taxes on telecommunications services. It's got a specific source and a > specific destination, basically. > > There is some hope here though-they've been talking about repurposing the USF > for nearly a decade and it's never happened. I do think there is a higher > chance of it coming to pass this time around, but it's hit a brick wall > before so I would not call it a done deal either. > > Chuck > > >> -RickG >> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Marco Coelho wrote: >>> FCC to propose revamping Universal Service Fund >>> AP >>> >>> >>> By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology >>> Writer – Fri Mar 5, 5:25 pm ET >>> >>> WASHINGTON – Federal regulators trying to bring high-speed Internet >>> connections to all Americans will propose tapping the government >>> program that now subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural areas. >>> >>> The Federal Communications Commission will include a proposal to >>> revamp the Universal Service Fund as part of a national broadband plan >>> due to Congress on March 17. Although the proposal itself has been >>> expected for months, Friday's announcement offered the first solid >>> details. >>> >>> The FCC said it envisions transforming the Universal Service program >>> over the next decade to pay for high-speed Internet access instead of >>> the traditional voice services that it currently finances. The >>> proposal would create a Connect America fund inside the Universal >>> Service program to subsidize broadband, and a Mobility Fund to expand >>> the reach of so-called 3G, or third-generation, wireless networks. >>> >>> "It's time to migrate this 20th-century program," said Blair Levin, >>> the FCC official overseeing the broadband plan, which was mandated by >>> last year's stimulus bill. "We need to move the current system from >>> the traditional networks to the new networks." >>> >>> The Universal Service Fund was established to ensure that all >>> Americans have access to a basic telephone line. Today, the program >>> subsidizes phone service for the poor, funds Internet access in >>> schools and libraries and pays for high-speed connections for rural >>> health clinics. But its biggest function is to bring telephone service >>> to remote, sparsely populated corners of the country, where it is >>> uneconomical for the private companies to build networks. >>> >>> Funding for the $8-billion-a-year program comes from a surcharge that >>> businesses and consumers pay on their long-distance bills. That >>> revenue base is shrinking, placing the Universal Service Fund under >>> mounting pressure even as the FCC seeks to use it to subsidize >>> broadband. >>> >>> The agency's plan will lay out several options to pay for the >>> proposals it outlined Friday, including one that would require no >>> additional money from Congress and one that would accelerate the >>> construction of broadband networks if Congress approves a one-time >>> injection of $9 billion. >>> >>> Either way, Levin stressed, the proposal would not increase the annual >>> size of the Universal Service Fund, but rather would take money from >>> subsidies now used for voice services. >>> >>> The FCC would also seek to save money by subsidizing no more than one >>> broadband provider in an areas. Some critics of the program have >>> complained that wireless companies now overlay landline systems with >>> new networks considered duplicative. >>> >>> Levin said Connect America would not favor one technology over >>> another, be it cable, DSL or wireless. >>> >>> The FCC proposal also envisions revamping the multibillion-dollar >>> "intercarrier compensation" system, the Byzantine menu of charges that >>> telecom carriers pay to access each other's networks and connect >>> calls. Any changes to the Universal Service Fund would also require >>> changes to intercarrier compensation because rural phone companies >>> tend to rely heavily on both funding sources. >>> >>> The FCC's latest proposals will be part of a sweeping national roadmap >>> for bringing universal, affordable broadband connections to all >>> Americans. >>> >>> Although the plan is due on March 17, the agency has already begun >>> releasing details, including a proposal to make more wireless spectrum >>> available for mobile broadband connections by letting television >>> broadcasters and others voluntarily cede some airwaves. >>> >>> Some of the proposals will likely require congressional action, while >>> others might be up to the FCC to implement. >>> >>> Yahoo article: >>> >>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100305/ap_on_hi_te
Re: [WISPA] USF Changes
My brother got on my email! I need to log out/lock the computer when I step away. On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Jack Unger wrote: > Philip, > > I don't know if you are being serious or sarcastic with your comment to > "vote them out of life" but IMO your comment is both ridiculous and > irresponsible. I ask that you try to contribute in a more responsible > fashion to this list. > > jack > > > Philip Dorr wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Chuck Bartosch > wrote: > > > On Mar 6, 2010, at 8:38 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote: > > > > And to add, I thought the Broadband Stimulus was to make more broadband > available. The telco's have everything already handed to them and have not > done it in years. Now the gov't wants to make this available only to one > provider in a given area? Who do you think will get that? WTH? I think we > need to vote every elected person out of office now! Oh wait, money talks! > > > They just get replaced by someone else who does the same thing for > essentially the same reasons (ie, our political system doesn't reward them > for taking care of folks like us, essentially). So what's the point of > bothering to vote them out of office? > > > Instead we should vote them and the companies that pay them out of life. > > > > Chuck > > > > > Scottie > > -- Original Message -- > From: RickG > Reply-To: WISPA General List > Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 14:50:17 -0500 > > > > As a WISP, I resent the idea that my tax dollars may be used to compete with > me. > As a taxpayer, at what point will the government realize we cant > afford all this? > -RickG > > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Marco Coelho wrote: > > > FCC to propose revamping Universal Service Fund > AP > > > By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology > Writer – Fri Mar 5, 5:25 pm ET > > WASHINGTON – Federal regulators trying to bring high-speed Internet > connections to all Americans will propose tapping the government > program that now subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural areas. > > The Federal Communications Commission will include a proposal to > revamp the Universal Service Fund as part of a national broadband plan > due to Congress on March 17. Although the proposal itself has been > expected for months, Friday's announcement offered the first solid > details. > > The FCC said it envisions transforming the Universal Service program > over the next decade to pay for high-speed Internet access instead of > the traditional voice services that it currently finances. The > proposal would create a Connect America fund inside the Universal > Service program to subsidize broadband, and a Mobility Fund to expand > the reach of so-called 3G, or third-generation, wireless networks. > > "It's time to migrate this 20th-century program," said Blair Levin, > the FCC official overseeing the broadband plan, which was mandated by > last year's stimulus bill. "We need to move the current system from > the traditional networks to the new networks." > > The Universal Service Fund was established to ensure that all > Americans have access to a basic telephone line. Today, the program > subsidizes phone service for the poor, funds Internet access in > schools and libraries and pays for high-speed connections for rural > health clinics. But its biggest function is to bring telephone service > to remote, sparsely populated corners of the country, where it is > uneconomical for the private companies to build networks. > > Funding for the $8-billion-a-year program comes from a surcharge that > businesses and consumers pay on their long-distance bills. That > revenue base is shrinking, placing the Universal Service Fund under > mounting pressure even as the FCC seeks to use it to subsidize > broadband. > > The agency's plan will lay out several options to pay for the > proposals it outlined Friday, including one that would require no > additional money from Congress and one that would accelerate the > construction of broadband networks if Congress approves a one-time > injection of $9 billion. > > Either way, Levin stressed, the proposal would not increase the annual > size of the Universal Service Fund, but rather would take money from > subsidies now used for voice services. > > The FCC would also seek to save money by subsidizing no more than one > broadband provider in an areas. Some critics of the program have > complained that wireless companies now overlay landline systems with > new networks considered duplicative. > > Levin said Connect America would not favor one technology over > another, be it cable, DSL or wireless. > > The FCC proposal also envisions revamping the multibillion-dollar > "intercarrier compensation" system, the Byzantine menu of charges that > telecom carriers pay to access each other's networks and connect > calls. Any changes to the Universal Service Fund would also require > changes to intercarrier compensation because rural phone compani
Re: [WISPA] USF Changes
Philip, I don't know if you are being serious or sarcastic with your comment to "vote them out of life" but IMO your comment is both ridiculous and irresponsible. I ask that you try to contribute in a more responsible fashion to this list. jack Philip Dorr wrote: On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Chuck Bartosch wrote: On Mar 6, 2010, at 8:38 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote: And to add, I thought the Broadband Stimulus was to make more broadband available. The telco's have everything already handed to them and have not done it in years. Now the gov't wants to make this available only to one provider in a given area? Who do you think will get that? WTH? I think we need to vote every elected person out of office now! Oh wait, money talks! They just get replaced by someone else who does the same thing for essentially the same reasons (ie, our political system doesn't reward them for taking care of folks like us, essentially). So what's the point of bothering to vote them out of office? Instead we should vote them and the companies that pay them out of life. Chuck Scottie -- Original Message -- From: RickG Reply-To: WISPA General List Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 14:50:17 -0500 As a WISP, I resent the idea that my tax dollars may be used to compete with me. As a taxpayer, at what point will the government realize we cant afford all this? -RickG On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Marco Coelho wrote: FCC to propose revamping Universal Service Fund AP By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology Writer – Fri Mar 5, 5:25 pm ET WASHINGTON – Federal regulators trying to bring high-speed Internet connections to all Americans will propose tapping the government program that now subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural areas. The Federal Communications Commission will include a proposal to revamp the Universal Service Fund as part of a national broadband plan due to Congress on March 17. Although the proposal itself has been expected for months, Friday's announcement offered the first solid details. The FCC said it envisions transforming the Universal Service program over the next decade to pay for high-speed Internet access instead of the traditional voice services that it currently finances. The proposal would create a Connect America fund inside the Universal Service program to subsidize broadband, and a Mobility Fund to expand the reach of so-called 3G, or third-generation, wireless networks. "It's time to migrate this 20th-century program," said Blair Levin, the FCC official overseeing the broadband plan, which was mandated by last year's stimulus bill. "We need to move the current system from the traditional networks to the new networks." The Universal Service Fund was established to ensure that all Americans have access to a basic telephone line. Today, the program subsidizes phone service for the poor, funds Internet access in schools and libraries and pays for high-speed connections for rural health clinics. But its biggest function is to bring telephone service to remote, sparsely populated corners of the country, where it is uneconomical for the private companies to build networks. Funding for the $8-billion-a-year program comes from a surcharge that businesses and consumers pay on their long-distance bills. That revenue base is shrinking, placing the Universal Service Fund under mounting pressure even as the FCC seeks to use it to subsidize broadband. The agency's plan will lay out several options to pay for the proposals it outlined Friday, including one that would require no additional money from Congress and one that would accelerate the construction of broadband networks if Congress approves a one-time injection of $9 billion. Either way, Levin stressed, the proposal would not increase the annual size of the Universal Service Fund, but rather would take money from subsidies now used for voice services. The FCC would also seek to save money by subsidizing no more than one broadband provider in an areas. Some critics of the program have complained that wireless companies now overlay landline systems with new networks considered duplicative. Levin said Connect America would not favor one technology over another, be it cable, DSL or wireless. The FCC proposal also envisions revamping the multibillion-dollar "intercarrier compensation" system, the Byzantine menu of charges that telecom carriers pay to access each other's networks and connect calls. Any changes to the Universal Service Fund would also require changes to intercarrier compensation because rural phone companies tend to rely heavily on both funding sources. The FCC's latest proposals will be part of a sweeping national roadmap for bringing universal, affordable broadband connections to all Americans. Although the plan is due on Ma
Re: [WISPA] USF Changes
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Chuck Bartosch wrote: > > On Mar 6, 2010, at 8:38 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote: > >> >> And to add, I thought the Broadband Stimulus was to make more broadband >> available. The telco's have everything already handed to them and have not >> done it in years. Now the gov't wants to make this available only to one >> provider in a given area? Who do you think will get that? WTH? I think we >> need to vote every elected person out of office now! Oh wait, money talks! > > They just get replaced by someone else who does the same thing for > essentially the same reasons (ie, our political system doesn't reward them > for taking care of folks like us, essentially). So what's the point of > bothering to vote them out of office? Instead we should vote them and the companies that pay them out of life. > > Chuck > > >> >> Scottie >> >> -- Original Message -- >> From: RickG >> Reply-To: WISPA General List >> Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 14:50:17 -0500 >> >>> As a WISP, I resent the idea that my tax dollars may be used to compete >>> with me. >>> As a taxpayer, at what point will the government realize we cant >>> afford all this? >>> -RickG >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Marco Coelho wrote: FCC to propose revamping Universal Service Fund AP By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology Writer – Fri Mar 5, 5:25 pm ET WASHINGTON – Federal regulators trying to bring high-speed Internet connections to all Americans will propose tapping the government program that now subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural areas. The Federal Communications Commission will include a proposal to revamp the Universal Service Fund as part of a national broadband plan due to Congress on March 17. Although the proposal itself has been expected for months, Friday's announcement offered the first solid details. The FCC said it envisions transforming the Universal Service program over the next decade to pay for high-speed Internet access instead of the traditional voice services that it currently finances. The proposal would create a Connect America fund inside the Universal Service program to subsidize broadband, and a Mobility Fund to expand the reach of so-called 3G, or third-generation, wireless networks. "It's time to migrate this 20th-century program," said Blair Levin, the FCC official overseeing the broadband plan, which was mandated by last year's stimulus bill. "We need to move the current system from the traditional networks to the new networks." The Universal Service Fund was established to ensure that all Americans have access to a basic telephone line. Today, the program subsidizes phone service for the poor, funds Internet access in schools and libraries and pays for high-speed connections for rural health clinics. But its biggest function is to bring telephone service to remote, sparsely populated corners of the country, where it is uneconomical for the private companies to build networks. Funding for the $8-billion-a-year program comes from a surcharge that businesses and consumers pay on their long-distance bills. That revenue base is shrinking, placing the Universal Service Fund under mounting pressure even as the FCC seeks to use it to subsidize broadband. The agency's plan will lay out several options to pay for the proposals it outlined Friday, including one that would require no additional money from Congress and one that would accelerate the construction of broadband networks if Congress approves a one-time injection of $9 billion. Either way, Levin stressed, the proposal would not increase the annual size of the Universal Service Fund, but rather would take money from subsidies now used for voice services. The FCC would also seek to save money by subsidizing no more than one broadband provider in an areas. Some critics of the program have complained that wireless companies now overlay landline systems with new networks considered duplicative. Levin said Connect America would not favor one technology over another, be it cable, DSL or wireless. The FCC proposal also envisions revamping the multibillion-dollar "intercarrier compensation" system, the Byzantine menu of charges that telecom carriers pay to access each other's networks and connect calls. Any changes to the Universal Service Fund would also require changes to intercarrier compensation because rural phone companies tend to rely heavily on both funding sources. The FCC's latest proposals will be part of a sweeping national roadmap for bringing universal, affordable broadband connections to all Americans
Re: [WISPA] USF Changes
On Mar 6, 2010, at 8:38 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote: > > And to add, I thought the Broadband Stimulus was to make more broadband > available. The telco's have everything already handed to them and have not > done it in years. Now the gov't wants to make this available only to one > provider in a given area? Who do you think will get that? WTH? I think we > need to vote every elected person out of office now! Oh wait, money talks! They just get replaced by someone else who does the same thing for essentially the same reasons (ie, our political system doesn't reward them for taking care of folks like us, essentially). So what's the point of bothering to vote them out of office? Chuck > > Scottie > > -- Original Message -- > From: RickG > Reply-To: WISPA General List > Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 14:50:17 -0500 > >> As a WISP, I resent the idea that my tax dollars may be used to compete with >> me. >> As a taxpayer, at what point will the government realize we cant >> afford all this? >> -RickG >> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Marco Coelho wrote: >>> FCC to propose revamping Universal Service Fund >>> AP >>> >>> >>> By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology >>> Writer – Fri Mar 5, 5:25 pm ET >>> >>> WASHINGTON – Federal regulators trying to bring high-speed Internet >>> connections to all Americans will propose tapping the government >>> program that now subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural areas. >>> >>> The Federal Communications Commission will include a proposal to >>> revamp the Universal Service Fund as part of a national broadband plan >>> due to Congress on March 17. Although the proposal itself has been >>> expected for months, Friday's announcement offered the first solid >>> details. >>> >>> The FCC said it envisions transforming the Universal Service program >>> over the next decade to pay for high-speed Internet access instead of >>> the traditional voice services that it currently finances. The >>> proposal would create a Connect America fund inside the Universal >>> Service program to subsidize broadband, and a Mobility Fund to expand >>> the reach of so-called 3G, or third-generation, wireless networks. >>> >>> "It's time to migrate this 20th-century program," said Blair Levin, >>> the FCC official overseeing the broadband plan, which was mandated by >>> last year's stimulus bill. "We need to move the current system from >>> the traditional networks to the new networks." >>> >>> The Universal Service Fund was established to ensure that all >>> Americans have access to a basic telephone line. Today, the program >>> subsidizes phone service for the poor, funds Internet access in >>> schools and libraries and pays for high-speed connections for rural >>> health clinics. But its biggest function is to bring telephone service >>> to remote, sparsely populated corners of the country, where it is >>> uneconomical for the private companies to build networks. >>> >>> Funding for the $8-billion-a-year program comes from a surcharge that >>> businesses and consumers pay on their long-distance bills. That >>> revenue base is shrinking, placing the Universal Service Fund under >>> mounting pressure even as the FCC seeks to use it to subsidize >>> broadband. >>> >>> The agency's plan will lay out several options to pay for the >>> proposals it outlined Friday, including one that would require no >>> additional money from Congress and one that would accelerate the >>> construction of broadband networks if Congress approves a one-time >>> injection of $9 billion. >>> >>> Either way, Levin stressed, the proposal would not increase the annual >>> size of the Universal Service Fund, but rather would take money from >>> subsidies now used for voice services. >>> >>> The FCC would also seek to save money by subsidizing no more than one >>> broadband provider in an areas. Some critics of the program have >>> complained that wireless companies now overlay landline systems with >>> new networks considered duplicative. >>> >>> Levin said Connect America would not favor one technology over >>> another, be it cable, DSL or wireless. >>> >>> The FCC proposal also envisions revamping the multibillion-dollar >>> "intercarrier compensation" system, the Byzantine menu of charges that >>> telecom carriers pay to access each other's networks and connect >>> calls. Any changes to the Universal Service Fund would also require >>> changes to intercarrier compensation because rural phone companies >>> tend to rely heavily on both funding sources. >>> >>> The FCC's latest proposals will be part of a sweeping national roadmap >>> for bringing universal, affordable broadband connections to all >>> Americans. >>> >>> Although the plan is due on March 17, the agency has already begun >>> releasing details, including a proposal to make more wireless spectrum >>> available for mobile broadband connections by letting television
Re: [WISPA] USF Changes
But USF comes from the ratepayers of the telecom services, not tax dollars. Brian -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on Behalf Of RickG Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 2:50 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Changes As a WISP, I resent the idea that my tax dollars may be used to compete with me. As a taxpayer, at what point will the government realize we cant afford all this? -RickG On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Marco Coelho wrote: > FCC to propose revamping Universal Service Fund > AP > > > By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology > Writer – Fri Mar 5, 5:25 pm ET > > WASHINGTON – Federal regulators trying to bring high-speed Internet > connections to all Americans will propose tapping the government > program that now subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural areas. > > The Federal Communications Commission will include a proposal to > revamp the Universal Service Fund as part of a national broadband plan > due to Congress on March 17. Although the proposal itself has been > expected for months, Friday's announcement offered the first solid > details. > > The FCC said it envisions transforming the Universal Service program > over the next decade to pay for high-speed Internet access instead of > the traditional voice services that it currently finances. The > proposal would create a Connect America fund inside the Universal > Service program to subsidize broadband, and a Mobility Fund to expand > the reach of so-called 3G, or third-generation, wireless networks. > > "It's time to migrate this 20th-century program," said Blair Levin, > the FCC official overseeing the broadband plan, which was mandated by > last year's stimulus bill. "We need to move the current system from > the traditional networks to the new networks." > > The Universal Service Fund was established to ensure that all > Americans have access to a basic telephone line. Today, the program > subsidizes phone service for the poor, funds Internet access in > schools and libraries and pays for high-speed connections for rural > health clinics. But its biggest function is to bring telephone service > to remote, sparsely populated corners of the country, where it is > uneconomical for the private companies to build networks. > > Funding for the $8-billion-a-year program comes from a surcharge that > businesses and consumers pay on their long-distance bills. That > revenue base is shrinking, placing the Universal Service Fund under > mounting pressure even as the FCC seeks to use it to subsidize > broadband. > > The agency's plan will lay out several options to pay for the > proposals it outlined Friday, including one that would require no > additional money from Congress and one that would accelerate the > construction of broadband networks if Congress approves a one-time > injection of $9 billion. > > Either way, Levin stressed, the proposal would not increase the annual > size of the Universal Service Fund, but rather would take money from > subsidies now used for voice services. > > The FCC would also seek to save money by subsidizing no more than one > broadband provider in an areas. Some critics of the program have > complained that wireless companies now overlay landline systems with > new networks considered duplicative. > > Levin said Connect America would not favor one technology over > another, be it cable, DSL or wireless. > > The FCC proposal also envisions revamping the multibillion-dollar > "intercarrier compensation" system, the Byzantine menu of charges that > telecom carriers pay to access each other's networks and connect > calls. Any changes to the Universal Service Fund would also require > changes to intercarrier compensation because rural phone companies > tend to rely heavily on both funding sources. > > The FCC's latest proposals will be part of a sweeping national roadmap > for bringing universal, affordable broadband connections to all > Americans. > > Although the plan is due on March 17, the agency has already begun > releasing details, including a proposal to make more wireless spectrum > available for mobile broadband connections by letting television > broadcasters and others voluntarily cede some airwaves. > > Some of the proposals will likely require congressional action, while > others might be up to the FCC to implement. > > Yahoo article: > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100305/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_fcc_universal_service ;_ylt=AgSGtpiLKKQbXooR3LKvT.cPLBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTMzNGcwMmcyBGFzc2V0Ay9hcC8yMDEw MDMwNS9hcF9vbl9oaV90ZS91c190ZWNfZmNjX3VuaXZlcnNhbF9zZXJ2a
Re: [WISPA] USF Changes
And to add, I thought the Broadband Stimulus was to make more broadband available. The telco's have everything already handed to them and have not done it in years. Now the gov't wants to make this available only to one provider in a given area? Who do you think will get that? WTH? I think we need to vote every elected person out of office now! Oh wait, money talks! Scottie -- Original Message -- From: RickG Reply-To: WISPA General List Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 14:50:17 -0500 >As a WISP, I resent the idea that my tax dollars may be used to compete with >me. >As a taxpayer, at what point will the government realize we cant >afford all this? >-RickG > >On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Marco Coelho wrote: >> FCC to propose revamping Universal Service Fund >> AP >> >> >> By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology >> Writer Fri Mar 5, 5:25 pm ET >> >> WASHINGTON Federal regulators trying to bring high-speed Internet >> connections to all Americans will propose tapping the government >> program that now subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural areas. >> >> The Federal Communications Commission will include a proposal to >> revamp the Universal Service Fund as part of a national broadband plan >> due to Congress on March 17. Although the proposal itself has been >> expected for months, Friday's announcement offered the first solid >> details. >> >> The FCC said it envisions transforming the Universal Service program >> over the next decade to pay for high-speed Internet access instead of >> the traditional voice services that it currently finances. The >> proposal would create a Connect America fund inside the Universal >> Service program to subsidize broadband, and a Mobility Fund to expand >> the reach of so-called 3G, or third-generation, wireless networks. >> >> "It's time to migrate this 20th-century program," said Blair Levin, >> the FCC official overseeing the broadband plan, which was mandated by >> last year's stimulus bill. "We need to move the current system from >> the traditional networks to the new networks." >> >> The Universal Service Fund was established to ensure that all >> Americans have access to a basic telephone line. Today, the program >> subsidizes phone service for the poor, funds Internet access in >> schools and libraries and pays for high-speed connections for rural >> health clinics. But its biggest function is to bring telephone service >> to remote, sparsely populated corners of the country, where it is >> uneconomical for the private companies to build networks. >> >> Funding for the $8-billion-a-year program comes from a surcharge that >> businesses and consumers pay on their long-distance bills. That >> revenue base is shrinking, placing the Universal Service Fund under >> mounting pressure even as the FCC seeks to use it to subsidize >> broadband. >> >> The agency's plan will lay out several options to pay for the >> proposals it outlined Friday, including one that would require no >> additional money from Congress and one that would accelerate the >> construction of broadband networks if Congress approves a one-time >> injection of $9 billion. >> >> Either way, Levin stressed, the proposal would not increase the annual >> size of the Universal Service Fund, but rather would take money from >> subsidies now used for voice services. >> >> The FCC would also seek to save money by subsidizing no more than one >> broadband provider in an areas. Some critics of the program have >> complained that wireless companies now overlay landline systems with >> new networks considered duplicative. >> >> Levin said Connect America would not favor one technology over >> another, be it cable, DSL or wireless. >> >> The FCC proposal also envisions revamping the multibillion-dollar >> "intercarrier compensation" system, the Byzantine menu of charges that >> telecom carriers pay to access each other's networks and connect >> calls. Any changes to the Universal Service Fund would also require >> changes to intercarrier compensation because rural phone companies >> tend to rely heavily on both funding sources. >> >> The FCC's latest proposals will be part of a sweeping national roadmap >> for bringing universal, affordable broadband connections to all >> Americans. >> >> Although the plan is due on March 17, the agency has already begun >> releasing details, including a proposal to make more wireless spectrum >> available for mobile broadband connections by letting television >> broadcasters and others voluntarily cede some airwaves. >> >> Some of the proposals will likely require congressional action, while >> others might be up to the FCC to implement. >> >> Yahoo article: >> >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100305/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_fcc_universal_service;_ylt=AgSGtpiLKKQbXooR3LKvT.cPLBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTMzNGcwMmcyBGFzc2V0Ay9hcC8yMDEwMDMwNS9hcF9vbl9oaV90ZS91c190ZWNfZmNjX3VuaXZlcnNhbF9zZXJ2aWNlBHBvcwM3BHNlYwN5bl90b21ic3
Re: [WISPA] USF Changes
On Mar 6, 2010, at 2:50 PM, RickG wrote: > As a WISP, I resent the idea that my tax dollars may be used to compete with > me. > As a taxpayer, at what point will the government realize we cant > afford all this? Ah, but we CAN afford it. It doesn't come from general tax funds but from the taxes on telecommunications services. It's got a specific source and a specific destination, basically. There is some hope here though-they've been talking about repurposing the USF for nearly a decade and it's never happened. I do think there is a higher chance of it coming to pass this time around, but it's hit a brick wall before so I would not call it a done deal either. Chuck > -RickG > > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Marco Coelho wrote: >> FCC to propose revamping Universal Service Fund >> AP >> >> >> By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology >> Writer – Fri Mar 5, 5:25 pm ET >> >> WASHINGTON – Federal regulators trying to bring high-speed Internet >> connections to all Americans will propose tapping the government >> program that now subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural areas. >> >> The Federal Communications Commission will include a proposal to >> revamp the Universal Service Fund as part of a national broadband plan >> due to Congress on March 17. Although the proposal itself has been >> expected for months, Friday's announcement offered the first solid >> details. >> >> The FCC said it envisions transforming the Universal Service program >> over the next decade to pay for high-speed Internet access instead of >> the traditional voice services that it currently finances. The >> proposal would create a Connect America fund inside the Universal >> Service program to subsidize broadband, and a Mobility Fund to expand >> the reach of so-called 3G, or third-generation, wireless networks. >> >> "It's time to migrate this 20th-century program," said Blair Levin, >> the FCC official overseeing the broadband plan, which was mandated by >> last year's stimulus bill. "We need to move the current system from >> the traditional networks to the new networks." >> >> The Universal Service Fund was established to ensure that all >> Americans have access to a basic telephone line. Today, the program >> subsidizes phone service for the poor, funds Internet access in >> schools and libraries and pays for high-speed connections for rural >> health clinics. But its biggest function is to bring telephone service >> to remote, sparsely populated corners of the country, where it is >> uneconomical for the private companies to build networks. >> >> Funding for the $8-billion-a-year program comes from a surcharge that >> businesses and consumers pay on their long-distance bills. That >> revenue base is shrinking, placing the Universal Service Fund under >> mounting pressure even as the FCC seeks to use it to subsidize >> broadband. >> >> The agency's plan will lay out several options to pay for the >> proposals it outlined Friday, including one that would require no >> additional money from Congress and one that would accelerate the >> construction of broadband networks if Congress approves a one-time >> injection of $9 billion. >> >> Either way, Levin stressed, the proposal would not increase the annual >> size of the Universal Service Fund, but rather would take money from >> subsidies now used for voice services. >> >> The FCC would also seek to save money by subsidizing no more than one >> broadband provider in an areas. Some critics of the program have >> complained that wireless companies now overlay landline systems with >> new networks considered duplicative. >> >> Levin said Connect America would not favor one technology over >> another, be it cable, DSL or wireless. >> >> The FCC proposal also envisions revamping the multibillion-dollar >> "intercarrier compensation" system, the Byzantine menu of charges that >> telecom carriers pay to access each other's networks and connect >> calls. Any changes to the Universal Service Fund would also require >> changes to intercarrier compensation because rural phone companies >> tend to rely heavily on both funding sources. >> >> The FCC's latest proposals will be part of a sweeping national roadmap >> for bringing universal, affordable broadband connections to all >> Americans. >> >> Although the plan is due on March 17, the agency has already begun >> releasing details, including a proposal to make more wireless spectrum >> available for mobile broadband connections by letting television >> broadcasters and others voluntarily cede some airwaves. >> >> Some of the proposals will likely require congressional action, while >> others might be up to the FCC to implement. >> >> Yahoo article: >> >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100305/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_fcc_universal_service;_ylt=AgSGtpiLKKQbXooR3LKvT.cPLBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTMzNGcwMmcyBGFzc2V0Ay9hcC8yMDEwMDMwNS9hcF9vbl9oaV90ZS91c190ZWNfZmNjX3VuaXZlcnNhbF9zZXJ2aWNlBHBvcwM3BHNlYw
Re: [WISPA] USF Changes
Exactly. -- Original Message -- From: RickG Reply-To: WISPA General List Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 14:50:17 -0500 >As a WISP, I resent the idea that my tax dollars may be used to compete with >me. >As a taxpayer, at what point will the government realize we cant >afford all this? >-RickG > >On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Marco Coelho wrote: >> FCC to propose revamping Universal Service Fund >> AP >> >> >> By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology >> Writer Fri Mar 5, 5:25 pm ET >> >> WASHINGTON Federal regulators trying to bring high-speed Internet >> connections to all Americans will propose tapping the government >> program that now subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural areas. >> >> The Federal Communications Commission will include a proposal to >> revamp the Universal Service Fund as part of a national broadband plan >> due to Congress on March 17. Although the proposal itself has been >> expected for months, Friday's announcement offered the first solid >> details. >> >> The FCC said it envisions transforming the Universal Service program >> over the next decade to pay for high-speed Internet access instead of >> the traditional voice services that it currently finances. The >> proposal would create a Connect America fund inside the Universal >> Service program to subsidize broadband, and a Mobility Fund to expand >> the reach of so-called 3G, or third-generation, wireless networks. >> >> "It's time to migrate this 20th-century program," said Blair Levin, >> the FCC official overseeing the broadband plan, which was mandated by >> last year's stimulus bill. "We need to move the current system from >> the traditional networks to the new networks." >> >> The Universal Service Fund was established to ensure that all >> Americans have access to a basic telephone line. Today, the program >> subsidizes phone service for the poor, funds Internet access in >> schools and libraries and pays for high-speed connections for rural >> health clinics. But its biggest function is to bring telephone service >> to remote, sparsely populated corners of the country, where it is >> uneconomical for the private companies to build networks. >> >> Funding for the $8-billion-a-year program comes from a surcharge that >> businesses and consumers pay on their long-distance bills. That >> revenue base is shrinking, placing the Universal Service Fund under >> mounting pressure even as the FCC seeks to use it to subsidize >> broadband. >> >> The agency's plan will lay out several options to pay for the >> proposals it outlined Friday, including one that would require no >> additional money from Congress and one that would accelerate the >> construction of broadband networks if Congress approves a one-time >> injection of $9 billion. >> >> Either way, Levin stressed, the proposal would not increase the annual >> size of the Universal Service Fund, but rather would take money from >> subsidies now used for voice services. >> >> The FCC would also seek to save money by subsidizing no more than one >> broadband provider in an areas. Some critics of the program have >> complained that wireless companies now overlay landline systems with >> new networks considered duplicative. >> >> Levin said Connect America would not favor one technology over >> another, be it cable, DSL or wireless. >> >> The FCC proposal also envisions revamping the multibillion-dollar >> "intercarrier compensation" system, the Byzantine menu of charges that >> telecom carriers pay to access each other's networks and connect >> calls. Any changes to the Universal Service Fund would also require >> changes to intercarrier compensation because rural phone companies >> tend to rely heavily on both funding sources. >> >> The FCC's latest proposals will be part of a sweeping national roadmap >> for bringing universal, affordable broadband connections to all >> Americans. >> >> Although the plan is due on March 17, the agency has already begun >> releasing details, including a proposal to make more wireless spectrum >> available for mobile broadband connections by letting television >> broadcasters and others voluntarily cede some airwaves. >> >> Some of the proposals will likely require congressional action, while >> others might be up to the FCC to implement. >> >> Yahoo article: >> >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100305/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_fcc_universal_service;_ylt=AgSGtpiLKKQbXooR3LKvT.cPLBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTMzNGcwMmcyBGFzc2V0Ay9hcC8yMDEwMDMwNS9hcF9vbl9oaV90ZS91c190ZWNfZmNjX3VuaXZlcnNhbF9zZXJ2aWNlBHBvcwM3BHNlYwN5bl90b21ic3RvbmUEc2xrA2ZjY3RvcHJvcG9zZQ-- >> >> -- >> Marco C. Coelho >> Argon Technologies Inc. >> POB 875 >> Greenville, TX 75403-0875 >> 903-455-5036 >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> --
Re: [WISPA] USF Changes
As a WISP, I resent the idea that my tax dollars may be used to compete with me. As a taxpayer, at what point will the government realize we cant afford all this? -RickG On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Marco Coelho wrote: > FCC to propose revamping Universal Service Fund > AP > > > By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology > Writer – Fri Mar 5, 5:25 pm ET > > WASHINGTON – Federal regulators trying to bring high-speed Internet > connections to all Americans will propose tapping the government > program that now subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural areas. > > The Federal Communications Commission will include a proposal to > revamp the Universal Service Fund as part of a national broadband plan > due to Congress on March 17. Although the proposal itself has been > expected for months, Friday's announcement offered the first solid > details. > > The FCC said it envisions transforming the Universal Service program > over the next decade to pay for high-speed Internet access instead of > the traditional voice services that it currently finances. The > proposal would create a Connect America fund inside the Universal > Service program to subsidize broadband, and a Mobility Fund to expand > the reach of so-called 3G, or third-generation, wireless networks. > > "It's time to migrate this 20th-century program," said Blair Levin, > the FCC official overseeing the broadband plan, which was mandated by > last year's stimulus bill. "We need to move the current system from > the traditional networks to the new networks." > > The Universal Service Fund was established to ensure that all > Americans have access to a basic telephone line. Today, the program > subsidizes phone service for the poor, funds Internet access in > schools and libraries and pays for high-speed connections for rural > health clinics. But its biggest function is to bring telephone service > to remote, sparsely populated corners of the country, where it is > uneconomical for the private companies to build networks. > > Funding for the $8-billion-a-year program comes from a surcharge that > businesses and consumers pay on their long-distance bills. That > revenue base is shrinking, placing the Universal Service Fund under > mounting pressure even as the FCC seeks to use it to subsidize > broadband. > > The agency's plan will lay out several options to pay for the > proposals it outlined Friday, including one that would require no > additional money from Congress and one that would accelerate the > construction of broadband networks if Congress approves a one-time > injection of $9 billion. > > Either way, Levin stressed, the proposal would not increase the annual > size of the Universal Service Fund, but rather would take money from > subsidies now used for voice services. > > The FCC would also seek to save money by subsidizing no more than one > broadband provider in an areas. Some critics of the program have > complained that wireless companies now overlay landline systems with > new networks considered duplicative. > > Levin said Connect America would not favor one technology over > another, be it cable, DSL or wireless. > > The FCC proposal also envisions revamping the multibillion-dollar > "intercarrier compensation" system, the Byzantine menu of charges that > telecom carriers pay to access each other's networks and connect > calls. Any changes to the Universal Service Fund would also require > changes to intercarrier compensation because rural phone companies > tend to rely heavily on both funding sources. > > The FCC's latest proposals will be part of a sweeping national roadmap > for bringing universal, affordable broadband connections to all > Americans. > > Although the plan is due on March 17, the agency has already begun > releasing details, including a proposal to make more wireless spectrum > available for mobile broadband connections by letting television > broadcasters and others voluntarily cede some airwaves. > > Some of the proposals will likely require congressional action, while > others might be up to the FCC to implement. > > Yahoo article: > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100305/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_fcc_universal_service;_ylt=AgSGtpiLKKQbXooR3LKvT.cPLBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTMzNGcwMmcyBGFzc2V0Ay9hcC8yMDEwMDMwNS9hcF9vbl9oaV90ZS91c190ZWNfZmNjX3VuaXZlcnNhbF9zZXJ2aWNlBHBvcwM3BHNlYwN5bl90b21ic3RvbmUEc2xrA2ZjY3RvcHJvcG9zZQ-- > > -- > Marco C. Coelho > Argon Technologies Inc. > POB 875 > Greenville, TX 75403-0875 > 903-455-5036 > > > > 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] USF Changes
I don't agree. They are saying the new fund would include every type of high-speed service and possibly even allow multiple providers in the same area. Wireless providers have several advantages: Quick deployment: We have put up brand new tower locations (including backhaul, AP's, UPS, etc.) in less than a week. (This is start to finish, including finding the location, installing all equipment, and hooking up new customers). Local service and support: No 800 numbers. No talking to someone across the country (or world). Quick installation for each customer: We can have customers up and going within 1 business day (when required). Typical fiber deployment is 30-60 days. Getting a few extra dollars to pay for each rural connection isn't going to change any of that... the fiber guys will still have to take out a loan to install each customer... while we continue to be profitable on each customer from day 1. Travis Microserv Brian Webster wrote: > When USF reform comes for broadband connections in rural markets, say > goodbye to the competitive advantage WISP's have in sparse population areas. > Going to be hard to compete against fiber speeds and capacity. Rural Telco's > will build fiber to the home everywhere if they get subsidies like they do > with voice lines..makes a huge difference in the business model when you > have a big chunk of additional revenue per user EVERY MONTH, and the fact > that you can count on the fiber infrastructure lasting 20 to 30 > yearshard to compete against that. If they only allow one carrier per > market to receive the USF funds, guess who is going to get that? Certainly > not the WISP's. > > > > Brian > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on > Behalf Of Marco Coelho > Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 10:26 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: [WISPA] USF Changes > > > FCC to propose revamping Universal Service Fund > AP > > > By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology > Writer – Fri Mar 5, 5:25 pm ET > > WASHINGTON – Federal regulators trying to bring high-speed Internet > connections to all Americans will propose tapping the government > program that now subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural areas. > > The Federal Communications Commission will include a proposal to > revamp the Universal Service Fund as part of a national broadband plan > due to Congress on March 17. Although the proposal itself has been > expected for months, Friday's announcement offered the first solid > details. > > The FCC said it envisions transforming the Universal Service program > over the next decade to pay for high-speed Internet access instead of > the traditional voice services that it currently finances. The > proposal would create a Connect America fund inside the Universal > Service program to subsidize broadband, and a Mobility Fund to expand > the reach of so-called 3G, or third-generation, wireless networks. > > "It's time to migrate this 20th-century program," said Blair Levin, > the FCC official overseeing the broadband plan, which was mandated by > last year's stimulus bill. "We need to move the current system from > the traditional networks to the new networks." > > The Universal Service Fund was established to ensure that all > Americans have access to a basic telephone line. Today, the program > subsidizes phone service for the poor, funds Internet access in > schools and libraries and pays for high-speed connections for rural > health clinics. But its biggest function is to bring telephone service > to remote, sparsely populated corners of the country, where it is > uneconomical for the private companies to build networks. > > Funding for the $8-billion-a-year program comes from a surcharge that > businesses and consumers pay on their long-distance bills. That > revenue base is shrinking, placing the Universal Service Fund under > mounting pressure even as the FCC seeks to use it to subsidize > broadband. > > The agency's plan will lay out several options to pay for the > proposals it outlined Friday, including one that would require no > additional money from Congress and one that would accelerate the > construction of broadband networks if Congress approves a one-time > injection of $9 billion. > > Either way, Levin stressed, the proposal would not increase the annual > size of the Universal Service Fund, but rather would take money from > subsidies now used for voice services. > > The FCC would also seek to save money by subsidizing no more than one > broadband provider in an areas. Some critics of the program have > complained that wireless companies now overlay landline systems with > new networks considered duplicative. > > Levin said Connect America would not favor one technology over > another, be it cable, DSL or wireless. > > The FCC proposal also envisions revamping the multibillion-dollar > "intercarrier compensation" system, the Byzantine menu
Re: [WISPA] USF Changes
When USF reform comes for broadband connections in rural markets, say goodbye to the competitive advantage WISP's have in sparse population areas. Going to be hard to compete against fiber speeds and capacity. Rural Telco's will build fiber to the home everywhere if they get subsidies like they do with voice lines..makes a huge difference in the business model when you have a big chunk of additional revenue per user EVERY MONTH, and the fact that you can count on the fiber infrastructure lasting 20 to 30 yearshard to compete against that. If they only allow one carrier per market to receive the USF funds, guess who is going to get that? Certainly not the WISP's. Brian -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on Behalf Of Marco Coelho Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 10:26 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] USF Changes FCC to propose revamping Universal Service Fund AP By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology Writer – Fri Mar 5, 5:25 pm ET WASHINGTON – Federal regulators trying to bring high-speed Internet connections to all Americans will propose tapping the government program that now subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural areas. The Federal Communications Commission will include a proposal to revamp the Universal Service Fund as part of a national broadband plan due to Congress on March 17. Although the proposal itself has been expected for months, Friday's announcement offered the first solid details. The FCC said it envisions transforming the Universal Service program over the next decade to pay for high-speed Internet access instead of the traditional voice services that it currently finances. The proposal would create a Connect America fund inside the Universal Service program to subsidize broadband, and a Mobility Fund to expand the reach of so-called 3G, or third-generation, wireless networks. "It's time to migrate this 20th-century program," said Blair Levin, the FCC official overseeing the broadband plan, which was mandated by last year's stimulus bill. "We need to move the current system from the traditional networks to the new networks." The Universal Service Fund was established to ensure that all Americans have access to a basic telephone line. Today, the program subsidizes phone service for the poor, funds Internet access in schools and libraries and pays for high-speed connections for rural health clinics. But its biggest function is to bring telephone service to remote, sparsely populated corners of the country, where it is uneconomical for the private companies to build networks. Funding for the $8-billion-a-year program comes from a surcharge that businesses and consumers pay on their long-distance bills. That revenue base is shrinking, placing the Universal Service Fund under mounting pressure even as the FCC seeks to use it to subsidize broadband. The agency's plan will lay out several options to pay for the proposals it outlined Friday, including one that would require no additional money from Congress and one that would accelerate the construction of broadband networks if Congress approves a one-time injection of $9 billion. Either way, Levin stressed, the proposal would not increase the annual size of the Universal Service Fund, but rather would take money from subsidies now used for voice services. The FCC would also seek to save money by subsidizing no more than one broadband provider in an areas. Some critics of the program have complained that wireless companies now overlay landline systems with new networks considered duplicative. Levin said Connect America would not favor one technology over another, be it cable, DSL or wireless. The FCC proposal also envisions revamping the multibillion-dollar "intercarrier compensation" system, the Byzantine menu of charges that telecom carriers pay to access each other's networks and connect calls. Any changes to the Universal Service Fund would also require changes to intercarrier compensation because rural phone companies tend to rely heavily on both funding sources. The FCC's latest proposals will be part of a sweeping national roadmap for bringing universal, affordable broadband connections to all Americans. Although the plan is due on March 17, the agency has already begun releasing details, including a proposal to make more wireless spectrum available for mobile broadband connections by letting television broadcasters and others voluntarily cede some airwaves. Some of the proposals will likely require congressional action, while others might be up to the FCC to implement. Yahoo article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100305/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_fcc_universal_service ;_ylt=AgSGtpiLKKQbXooR3LKvT.cPLBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTMzNGcwMmcyBGFzc2V0Ay9hcC8yMDEw MDMwNS9hcF9vbl9oaV90ZS91c190ZWNfZmNjX3VuaXZlcnNhbF9zZXJ2aWNlBHBvcwM3BHNlYwN5 bl90b21ic3RvbmUEc2xrA2ZjY3RvcHJvcG9zZQ-- -- Marco C. Coelho Argon Technologies Inc. POB 875 Gr
Re: [WISPA] USF changes?
Mark, What in the heck are you talking about? NEVER did I say that YOU should take the stimulus money. I didn't say ANYONE should. What I DID say is that it's out there. And if you don't file the 477 you WILL be MORE likely to have to compete against someone that will take the "free money". Sheesh, take a deep breath and read what is written, not what you want to hear before you go postal like this. You're a bright guy, don't let your emotions take over like this. It's NEVER good when the honest, upright local providers like you and I go under. It's ESPECIALLY bad when those that cause us to go under do it with our own money. Make sure that you (or at least someone) can make the case that there is no reason for government interference in your area. I really really don't see where you got your idea that I think the stimulus money is good. Or that I think it's smart to take it (I chose not to even try because of the strings attached). Sheesh Mark. I'll accept that apology any time. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "MDK" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 5:47 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes? >I cannot believe this. > > WISPA has sold it's soul to the devil, and is now preaching the message. > > There is NO SUCH DAMN THING AS FREE MONEY. > > Taking it WILL result in the feds coming and directing your business, > controlling every aspect.Have you seen the news about TARP and other > bailouts? This government is coming for you. It will set your rates, > control your pay, and mandate your operations. Even if no such statutory > obligations exist, we are no longer governed by laws or even any > semblance > of legislation - merely by whatever destroying you can yield in political > benefits to the politicians. And if puts you under, they will dance on > your grave, while they sing songs about the death of the greedy. > > It is IMMORAL to take this money, when we as a nation are so broke. > > Let someone else go to hell. I am neither fighting for it, nor would I > accept it if you came to my door begging me to take a "free" check. I > would rather go hungry and cold. Someday I will meet my Maker and I > intend > to say "I did the right thing even when it was unpopular". > > Stand on principle, people, or be the same as the whores who have caused > the > credit crisis, currency crisis, insurance crisis, and the list goes on and > on.If WISPA cannot stand on that principle, it has exactly the same > qualities and virtues as the damnable souls who have created this economic > mess - that is, NONE WHATSOEVER. Someone, SOMEWHERE has to. The fact > that millions of us in this country did NOT is why we're in this economic > mess.This has to change, and it has to change WITH EVERY INDIVIDUAL > OUT > THERE. Be the solution, or be the cause. There's no other choices. > > Marlon, you and I have now parted ways. I absolutely cannot believe you > would be such a whore for money, as to do immoral crap like this. > > As for anyone else with the same opinion?Take it the same. > > I don't give a flying damn if my competitors get millions.I don't even > care if it results in my business failure. My conscience matters, that > does not, in the overall scheme of life.Where are you going to stand? > I intend to earn any dime I ever have, not by taking it in a most immoral > display of theft. > > > > -- > From: "Marlon K. Schafer" > Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 8:15 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes? > >> Mark, we've been through all of this before. >> >> You are RIGHT in that it's non of the government's business. This is >> also >> NOT their problem. >> >> But the fact that you and I (and probably most people here) think that >> doesn't change the facts. Just because you wish your tire isn't flat or >> think that there's absolutely no reason for it to be flat doesn't make it >> unflat when it is in fact, flat. >> >> We warned you (and others) what, at least 5 or 6 years ago now? File the >> 477 or someday the lack of data on what we're doing will come back to >> bite >> us in the rear ends. Now we have the ARRA with it's billions of dollars >> floating around out there and it looks like much of that money will not >> only >> end up in the hands of our competitors, those competitors will be quasi >> government or flat out government entities! And WE&#
Re: [WISPA] USF changes?
MDK, I welcome and incourage you to speak your mind and opinions. However, as a co-moderator, I must ask you to refrain from swearing and derogatory references in your posts. Its is clearly against List rules and not appropriate for a public list, as well as grounds for immediate list suspension. Consider this Email a final warning. Respectfully, Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "MDK" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 8:47 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes? >I cannot believe this. > > WISPA has sold it's soul to the devil, and is now preaching the message. > > There is NO SUCH DAMN THING AS FREE MONEY. > > Taking it WILL result in the feds coming and directing your business, > controlling every aspect.Have you seen the news about TARP and other > bailouts? This government is coming for you. It will set your rates, > control your pay, and mandate your operations. Even if no such statutory > obligations exist, we are no longer governed by laws or even any > semblance > of legislation - merely by whatever destroying you can yield in political > benefits to the politicians. And if puts you under, they will dance on > your grave, while they sing songs about the death of the greedy. > > It is IMMORAL to take this money, when we as a nation are so broke. > > Let someone else go to hell. I am neither fighting for it, nor would I > accept it if you came to my door begging me to take a "free" check. I > would rather go hungry and cold. Someday I will meet my Maker and I > intend > to say "I did the right thing even when it was unpopular". > > Stand on principle, people, or be the same as the whores who have caused > the > credit crisis, currency crisis, insurance crisis, and the list goes on and > on.If WISPA cannot stand on that principle, it has exactly the same > qualities and virtues as the damnable souls who have created this economic > mess - that is, NONE WHATSOEVER. Someone, SOMEWHERE has to. The fact > that millions of us in this country did NOT is why we're in this economic > mess.This has to change, and it has to change WITH EVERY INDIVIDUAL > OUT > THERE. Be the solution, or be the cause. There's no other choices. > > Marlon, you and I have now parted ways. I absolutely cannot believe you > would be such a whore for money, as to do immoral crap like this. > > As for anyone else with the same opinion?Take it the same. > > I don't give a flying damn if my competitors get millions.I don't even > care if it results in my business failure. My conscience matters, that > does not, in the overall scheme of life.Where are you going to stand? > I intend to earn any dime I ever have, not by taking it in a most immoral > display of theft. > > > > -- > From: "Marlon K. Schafer" > Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 8:15 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes? > >> Mark, we've been through all of this before. >> >> You are RIGHT in that it's non of the government's business. This is >> also >> NOT their problem. >> >> But the fact that you and I (and probably most people here) think that >> doesn't change the facts. Just because you wish your tire isn't flat or >> think that there's absolutely no reason for it to be flat doesn't make it >> unflat when it is in fact, flat. >> >> We warned you (and others) what, at least 5 or 6 years ago now? File the >> 477 or someday the lack of data on what we're doing will come back to >> bite >> us in the rear ends. Now we have the ARRA with it's billions of dollars >> floating around out there and it looks like much of that money will not >> only >> end up in the hands of our competitors, those competitors will be quasi >> government or flat out government entities! And WE'RE helping them by >> sticking our heads in the sand when they ask us for data that anyone with >> any desire at all can figure out anyway. >> >> Wake up already. We are loosing this fight. It's time for a new >> strategy. >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "MDK" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:35 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes? >> >> >>> Yes, they do understand it. You're not understanding the point.The >>> telcos have big bucks to lobby with, and benefi
Re: [WISPA] USF changes?
Use the FCC web site to get the census block (or use Brian's service). punch the numbers into the Excel file. Done. It took me under a minute per customer to do the first one that had census block information. Sure, long ago it was a bit more complicated, but I still filed. They responded with how I messed up and explained how to fix it. I at least tried. No one has an excuse to not try. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Marlon K. Schafer" Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 10:10 AM To: "WISPA General List" Cc: "WISPA Board Members List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes? > Brian could not have said this better. > > We have GOT to file the 477's these days. Yes it's non of the > government's > business. But they WILL act on what they learn. What's better, getting > shot in the foot or getting shot in the head? Either way, the gun WILL go > off. As the Rush song says, "If you choose not to decide, you still have > made a choice!" I choose the foot :-). > > Many of you here will remember some of us telling you that not filing will > hurt us in the long run. Now we've got $7B in "free" money floating > around, > most if it headed for OUR back yards and to our COMPETITORs. > > Like it or not, the government's only real measure of what's going on out > there is the 477. It sucks, but it's reality. > > I'm going to suggest that the board look at hiring someone to help first > time filers figure the process out. If we can get another thousand or two > WISPs to file the 477 it'll do amazing things for our credibility. More > than any lobbying efforts we could possibly put forth otherwise. > > The next filing time line is the July-December 09 period, due sometime > after > Jan 1st. Even flooding the FCC with attempts to file will say a lot. > > Thoughts? > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "Brian Webster" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 11:28 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes? > > >> The problem as I see it is that we are arguing the chicken and the >> egg. >> While I understand why a WISP would not necessarily want to disclose >> their >> network footprint, it has become very obvious that not disclosing the >> information has created more harmful situations (BTOP/BIP funding as one >> example) than would have been lost by letting the information out. The >> legislative climate and the rate of change on broadband policy is so >> rapid >> today, that waiting for some incentive to provide the information, to me >> is >> more risk than disclosing the information. The FCC is indeed in the >> process >> of looking at some of the ideas you mention in your email. It's happening >> TODAY and policy/opinion/legislation is being crafted based on >> information >> they can get their hands on now or in the very near future. I have been >> contacted by the FCC about mapping broadband on a granular level and in >> those conversations, USF reform was mentioned as one of the uses for the >> mapping information. They already have a major data analysis company >> under >> contract doing the modeling and considerations for USF reforms. The >> mapping >> information will be a HUGE input and factor in some of the answers they >> will >> derive from their studies. Many of these answers will be formulated in >> the >> next 6 months or less. Waiting for legislative efforts to create >> incentive >> to provide the information will more than likely be too late for the WISP >> industry. >> >> Creating this data and just giving it away is a huge burden on a WISP >> no doubt, but competing with a rural telco who might be able, under USF >> reforms, to get subsidies for their DSL lines as well as the voice lines >> they get now, will certainly make it much tougher for a WISP to compete >> in >> a >> rural market. Right now wireless enjoys a big advantage in the cost per >> subscriber to deploy compared to others. The FCC knows this. They are >> also >> dealing with a congress who is influenced by strong telco and cable lobby >> groups. The WISP industry has none of that and what is worse, they have >> no >> comprehensive data put together to help the FCC defend any position that >> might give WISP's a stab at USF funding. If they have no hard data they >> have >> a very difficult time rebutting any claims the the cable and telc
Re: [WISPA] USF changes?
I cannot believe this. WISPA has sold it's soul to the devil, and is now preaching the message. There is NO SUCH DAMN THING AS FREE MONEY. Taking it WILL result in the feds coming and directing your business, controlling every aspect.Have you seen the news about TARP and other bailouts? This government is coming for you. It will set your rates, control your pay, and mandate your operations. Even if no such statutory obligations exist, we are no longer governed by laws or even any semblance of legislation - merely by whatever destroying you can yield in political benefits to the politicians. And if puts you under, they will dance on your grave, while they sing songs about the death of the greedy. It is IMMORAL to take this money, when we as a nation are so broke. Let someone else go to hell. I am neither fighting for it, nor would I accept it if you came to my door begging me to take a "free" check. I would rather go hungry and cold. Someday I will meet my Maker and I intend to say "I did the right thing even when it was unpopular". Stand on principle, people, or be the same as the whores who have caused the credit crisis, currency crisis, insurance crisis, and the list goes on and on.If WISPA cannot stand on that principle, it has exactly the same qualities and virtues as the damnable souls who have created this economic mess - that is, NONE WHATSOEVER. Someone, SOMEWHERE has to. The fact that millions of us in this country did NOT is why we're in this economic mess.This has to change, and it has to change WITH EVERY INDIVIDUAL OUT THERE. Be the solution, or be the cause. There's no other choices. Marlon, you and I have now parted ways. I absolutely cannot believe you would be such a whore for money, as to do immoral crap like this. As for anyone else with the same opinion?Take it the same. I don't give a flying damn if my competitors get millions.I don't even care if it results in my business failure. My conscience matters, that does not, in the overall scheme of life.Where are you going to stand? I intend to earn any dime I ever have, not by taking it in a most immoral display of theft. -- From: "Marlon K. Schafer" Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 8:15 AM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes? > Mark, we've been through all of this before. > > You are RIGHT in that it's non of the government's business. This is also > NOT their problem. > > But the fact that you and I (and probably most people here) think that > doesn't change the facts. Just because you wish your tire isn't flat or > think that there's absolutely no reason for it to be flat doesn't make it > unflat when it is in fact, flat. > > We warned you (and others) what, at least 5 or 6 years ago now? File the > 477 or someday the lack of data on what we're doing will come back to bite > us in the rear ends. Now we have the ARRA with it's billions of dollars > floating around out there and it looks like much of that money will not > only > end up in the hands of our competitors, those competitors will be quasi > government or flat out government entities! And WE'RE helping them by > sticking our heads in the sand when they ask us for data that anyone with > any desire at all can figure out anyway. > > Wake up already. We are loosing this fight. It's time for a new > strategy. > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "MDK" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:35 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes? > > >> Yes, they do understand it. You're not understanding the point.The >> telcos have big bucks to lobby with, and benefit the regulators. We do >> not.Thus, we will NEVER be on their "list".We cannot get onto the >> top of the rolodex until we have millions with which to lobby, and can >> legally bribe a bunch of government agencies. >> >> There is no benefit to offering them data, free labor, etc.The >> mandates >> will get larger, deeper, more and more costly, and the benefits promised >> by >> certain individuals will never EVER happen. And, should it ever reach >> the >> point we actually pinch the telcos or cablecos enough for them to get >> concerned, they will call in the favors and have us obliterated. >> Welcome >> to the new generation of thug politics in DC. Just look what's >> happening >> to broadcast industry, the insurance industry, etc."You exist to >> benefit >> our political aspirations. The moment you fail in that reg
Re: [WISPA] USF changes?
I talked to someone at WWL that kind of defended the operating under the radar, not telling anyone anything thinking (government and competitors). *sigh* Hopefully the promotions committee will be able to get the word out via some of the things they're talking about. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Brian Webster" Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 12:42 PM To: ; "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes? > The FCC understands it very well. The problem is that WISP's are not well > known as far as where, how many, and what speeds they serve..ever > wonder > why they have been pushing the Form 477? This yet another example of how > trying to stay under the Radar is going to come back and bite the industry > in the butt. Who knows, if they do a good job of USF reform and a WISP is > in > a very rural area, they may be entitled to RECEIVE USF funds on a monthly > basis. But of course if we cannot quantify the WISP industry and/or show a > good coverage area, the policy makers will have no choice but to make > decisions based on what they have in front of them for > information.maybe > it's time to dust off the National WISP map again and do another push to > improve that. > > > Thank You, > Brian Webster > > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Scottie Arnett > wrote: > >> And they forgot all about the other ISP's out there. They are leaving it >> up >> to the telcos to supply the demand! Do they(The FCC) not understand that >> other companies besides the telcos and cable companies offer Internet >> access? >> >> Scott >> >> -- Original Message -- >> From: RickG >> Reply-To: WISPA General List >> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 23:49:39 -0500 >> >> >Warning: "The bill also drew early praise from AT&T" >> > >> >On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Blair Davis wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3847366/Lawmakers+Float+Bill+to+Boost+Rural+Broadband.htm >> >> >> >> I'm not sure I need any more gov. interference! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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/ >> >--- >> >[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] >> > >> > >> >> Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as >> $30.00/mth. >> Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html for information. >> >> >> >> >> 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] USF changes?
Mark, we've been through all of this before. You are RIGHT in that it's non of the government's business. This is also NOT their problem. But the fact that you and I (and probably most people here) think that doesn't change the facts. Just because you wish your tire isn't flat or think that there's absolutely no reason for it to be flat doesn't make it unflat when it is in fact, flat. We warned you (and others) what, at least 5 or 6 years ago now? File the 477 or someday the lack of data on what we're doing will come back to bite us in the rear ends. Now we have the ARRA with it's billions of dollars floating around out there and it looks like much of that money will not only end up in the hands of our competitors, those competitors will be quasi government or flat out government entities! And WE'RE helping them by sticking our heads in the sand when they ask us for data that anyone with any desire at all can figure out anyway. Wake up already. We are loosing this fight. It's time for a new strategy. marlon - Original Message - From: "MDK" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:35 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes? > Yes, they do understand it. You're not understanding the point.The > telcos have big bucks to lobby with, and benefit the regulators. We do > not.Thus, we will NEVER be on their "list".We cannot get onto the > top of the rolodex until we have millions with which to lobby, and can > legally bribe a bunch of government agencies. > > There is no benefit to offering them data, free labor, etc.The > mandates > will get larger, deeper, more and more costly, and the benefits promised > by > certain individuals will never EVER happen. And, should it ever reach > the > point we actually pinch the telcos or cablecos enough for them to get > concerned, they will call in the favors and have us obliterated. Welcome > to the new generation of thug politics in DC. Just look what's happening > to broadcast industry, the insurance industry, etc."You exist to > benefit > our political aspirations. The moment you fail in that regard, you will > be > shredded, beaten, whipped, ruined, bankrupted and criminalized". Either > you're a political ally, or you're toast. > > This administration has removed all semblances of public service and has > officially made it federal policy to conduct political wars upon the > people, > businesses, enterprises, and even the states, if there is any political > benefit to doing so. It is federal malevolence at the highest level ever > seen before in this country. And it's getting worse by massive leaps and > bounds. Even appointees to the FCC have made this clear, in > demonstrating > they believe in the direction and control of media and industry for the > benefit of the political class. > > I argued years ago that surrendering our sovereignty to the feds was a > recipe for industry disaster. So far, I've been called stupid, extreme, > radical, idiotic, mindless, and a kook for thinking so. Trying being a > health insurance company, doctor, investor, banker or any one of a number > of > recently demonized groups.The White House has decided it can control > your prices, wages, services, products, and policies, if ANY public money > passes to you or even if you just happen to be in an industry that gets > political attention. Even if it just means a bailed out company did > business with you. Or, your service is considered "important" or > "essential". > > They haven't gotten around to us yet, but we're in the crosshairs. After > all, we're in business to make a profit, and anyone making a profit needs > to be slapped down and destroyed.We should have stood for our > independence, instead of lusting after public money, but no, principle is > foolish, and money is all that matters, I was told. Well, you got what > you > wanted. And I'm still around to say "I told you so". The pursuit of > favors, public money, loans, grants... That was just too enticing, wasn't > it? The country's going to hell in a handbasket financially, because > everyone's holding their hand out waiting for someone else's money to flow > their way, courtesy of politicians.And lots of the leadership of WISPA > was arguing and holding out the promise of "getting someone else's money" > for the industry. > > Well, ALL of you, and ALL of the same greedy mentalities all through our > industry and nation have set the situation up that it's all come home to > roost, and the taxpay
Re: [WISPA] USF changes?
Brian could not have said this better. We have GOT to file the 477's these days. Yes it's non of the government's business. But they WILL act on what they learn. What's better, getting shot in the foot or getting shot in the head? Either way, the gun WILL go off. As the Rush song says, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!" I choose the foot :-). Many of you here will remember some of us telling you that not filing will hurt us in the long run. Now we've got $7B in "free" money floating around, most if it headed for OUR back yards and to our COMPETITORs. Like it or not, the government's only real measure of what's going on out there is the 477. It sucks, but it's reality. I'm going to suggest that the board look at hiring someone to help first time filers figure the process out. If we can get another thousand or two WISPs to file the 477 it'll do amazing things for our credibility. More than any lobbying efforts we could possibly put forth otherwise. The next filing time line is the July-December 09 period, due sometime after Jan 1st. Even flooding the FCC with attempts to file will say a lot. Thoughts? marlon - Original Message - From: "Brian Webster" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 11:28 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes? > The problem as I see it is that we are arguing the chicken and the > egg. > While I understand why a WISP would not necessarily want to disclose their > network footprint, it has become very obvious that not disclosing the > information has created more harmful situations (BTOP/BIP funding as one > example) than would have been lost by letting the information out. The > legislative climate and the rate of change on broadband policy is so rapid > today, that waiting for some incentive to provide the information, to me > is > more risk than disclosing the information. The FCC is indeed in the > process > of looking at some of the ideas you mention in your email. It's happening > TODAY and policy/opinion/legislation is being crafted based on information > they can get their hands on now or in the very near future. I have been > contacted by the FCC about mapping broadband on a granular level and in > those conversations, USF reform was mentioned as one of the uses for the > mapping information. They already have a major data analysis company under > contract doing the modeling and considerations for USF reforms. The > mapping > information will be a HUGE input and factor in some of the answers they > will > derive from their studies. Many of these answers will be formulated in the > next 6 months or less. Waiting for legislative efforts to create incentive > to provide the information will more than likely be too late for the WISP > industry. > > Creating this data and just giving it away is a huge burden on a WISP > no doubt, but competing with a rural telco who might be able, under USF > reforms, to get subsidies for their DSL lines as well as the voice lines > they get now, will certainly make it much tougher for a WISP to compete in > a > rural market. Right now wireless enjoys a big advantage in the cost per > subscriber to deploy compared to others. The FCC knows this. They are also > dealing with a congress who is influenced by strong telco and cable lobby > groups. The WISP industry has none of that and what is worse, they have no > comprehensive data put together to help the FCC defend any position that > might give WISP's a stab at USF funding. If they have no hard data they > have > a very difficult time rebutting any claims the the cable and telco > industry > claim. Yet another good reason the WISP industry should be filing the Form > 477 data > > > Thank You, > Brian Webster > > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Tom DeReggi > wrote: > >> Brian, >> >> I argue to push legislation to give benefit to providers to map their >> data, >> so its a no brainer to cooperate. >> A Map is not needed to suggest and conclude USF reform. >> A Map is needed implemen new USF rules, such as tocollect USF funds, and >> block recipients from collecting funds. >> >> I hardly see the benefit in giving away to the coverage information >> without >> first being given the benefit of giving it away. >> >> The first step is get legislation to include broadband as eligible >> recipients. >> And step two is to get legislation to include that USF funds wont be >> given >> to entities that are alread y served by wireless technology. >> And Step3 is to get legislation to include what criteria considers an >> area >&
Re: [WISPA] USF changes?
Arrg, I respectfully disagree. Sitting back idle and watching a bank get robbed or a person get mugged, is it an exceptable answer to say, "I didn't ask for the money for my self" so its OK to sit idle and watch others create crimes? Its just as wrong to sit back and watch 7 billion dollars of public money be spend poorly and given to the wrong people and for wrong purposes without atleast standing up and trying to influence better ways for it to be spent and allocated for the purpose it was intended for. I ask for handouts because I am confident that if I get a handout, I'll spend that money better and more favorably than the other persons that might have gotten the handouts. And I'm sure most people that applied for handouts feel the same way, that they'd spend it better and wiser themselves. We have a responsibilty to ask for it, and influence who gets it, to help guarantee its spent wisely. Ignoring the money will not result in the money being returned, or being well spent. I was very proud of the first half of my adult life, I did it my way, and never asked for a dime from nobody. But there became a period in my life when I learn that accepting help is not a dirty word, and asking for help was an even less dirty word. More good can be accomplished with a team. Will we get help from the government? Is the Government the best team member? I really dont know. What I can tell you is that the chances that I'll ever see a dime of this money is a thousand to one, but that does not stop me from wanting to be involved, and by going into it with that acceptance of the odds, there is nothing to loose by trying. What I can also say is that "its not all about me", or for that matter you, and whether you or I benefit. Maybe it really is about the public benefiting. You can preach your anti-government rhetoric all you want, and there may even be some truth to it, but at the end of the day, I can guarantee you only one thing. That is $7 billion dollars will be spent. Because of that, it is inevitable that there will be a percentage of American and Commuities that will newly gain broadband. And after considering the economic development benefit, regardless of the cost and efficiency of the money spent, there will be an ROI "eventually." At this stage, I'm not confident if any WISPA member will be helped. But at the end of the day, I will be proud of the way I spent my time, because I know that I didn't just sit back and watch, but actually helped increase the chance to get money in the hands of people that I respect and trust to be most worthy to spend the money for the public good, and their own. I'm very interested to see who Round1 winners end up being. And lobby effort for Round2 has now started, and WISPA will continue to lead the effort to influence possitive change, and optimize chances for its members to particpate and gain help. I believe the same applies to USF. We can stand by and watch, or we can attempt to influence. And whether or not we become benefactors is not the only measure of success for our efforts. Sometimes simply influencing possitive change in some capacity is enough to make it all worth it. When it comes to USF, one option is to tell them to drop the program, and stop regulating. But once again, probably not a wise approach. USF is in the hotseat for a change, and Broadband to Rural America is on the top of the legislators' and FCC's list, and looking for a way to pay for it. USF is one way that burdens Tax Payer's less. Its going to be very convenient to extend USF to broadband in my opinion. And I wouldn't be surprised if they try and throw VOIP providers into the list of contributors. If we dont speak up, the only option is we'll get the shaft. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message ----- From: "MDK" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 8:35 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes? > Yes, they do understand it. You're not understanding the point.The > telcos have big bucks to lobby with, and benefit the regulators. We do > not.Thus, we will NEVER be on their "list".We cannot get onto the > top of the rolodex until we have millions with which to lobby, and can > legally bribe a bunch of government agencies. > > There is no benefit to offering them data, free labor, etc.The > mandates > will get larger, deeper, more and more costly, and the benefits promised > by > certain individuals will never EVER happen. And, should it ever reach > the > point we actually pinch the telcos or cablecos enough for them to get > concerned, they will call in the favors and have us obliterated. Welcome > to the new generation of thug politics in DC. Just look
Re: [WISPA] USF changes?
I hate to say this but I agree. MDK wrote: > Yes, they do understand it. You're not understanding the point.The > telcos have big bucks to lobby with, and benefit the regulators. We do > not.Thus, we will NEVER be on their "list".We cannot get onto the > top of the rolodex until we have millions with which to lobby, and can > legally bribe a bunch of government agencies. > > There is no benefit to offering them data, free labor, etc.The mandates > will get larger, deeper, more and more costly, and the benefits promised by > certain individuals will never EVER happen. And, should it ever reach the > point we actually pinch the telcos or cablecos enough for them to get > concerned, they will call in the favors and have us obliterated. Welcome > to the new generation of thug politics in DC. Just look what's happening > to broadcast industry, the insurance industry, etc."You exist to benefit > our political aspirations. The moment you fail in that regard, you will be > shredded, beaten, whipped, ruined, bankrupted and criminalized". Either > you're a political ally, or you're toast. > > This administration has removed all semblances of public service and has > officially made it federal policy to conduct political wars upon the people, > businesses, enterprises, and even the states, if there is any political > benefit to doing so. It is federal malevolence at the highest level ever > seen before in this country. And it's getting worse by massive leaps and > bounds. Even appointees to the FCC have made this clear, in demonstrating > they believe in the direction and control of media and industry for the > benefit of the political class. > > I argued years ago that surrendering our sovereignty to the feds was a > recipe for industry disaster. So far, I've been called stupid, extreme, > radical, idiotic, mindless, and a kook for thinking so. Trying being a > health insurance company, doctor, investor, banker or any one of a number of > recently demonized groups.The White House has decided it can control > your prices, wages, services, products, and policies, if ANY public money > passes to you or even if you just happen to be in an industry that gets > political attention. Even if it just means a bailed out company did > business with you. Or, your service is considered "important" or > "essential". > > They haven't gotten around to us yet, but we're in the crosshairs. After > all, we're in business to make a profit, and anyone making a profit needs > to be slapped down and destroyed.We should have stood for our > independence, instead of lusting after public money, but no, principle is > foolish, and money is all that matters, I was told. Well, you got what you > wanted. And I'm still around to say "I told you so". The pursuit of > favors, public money, loans, grants... That was just too enticing, wasn't > it? The country's going to hell in a handbasket financially, because > everyone's holding their hand out waiting for someone else's money to flow > their way, courtesy of politicians.And lots of the leadership of WISPA > was arguing and holding out the promise of "getting someone else's money" > for the industry. > > Well, ALL of you, and ALL of the same greedy mentalities all through our > industry and nation have set the situation up that it's all come home to > roost, and the taxpayers are... well, paying for it. Unemployment, ruined > retirements, bankruptcy, and so on. > > You should have stood on principle, not on greed.Best never invite me to > an "industry gathering" or I'll tell you what I really think. It would not > be pretty. > > I haven't read this list in months, been busy. But nothing has changed. > We've still got WISPA leadership promoting the lusting after public money. > Damn you for your immorality.The consequences are all around us, the > people have suffered greatly because of that kind of thinking... And you're > STILL DOING IT??? > > I don't want to hear "they're going to give it anyway, might as well get > your share". Hell no.We should put our country first, and the lust for > easy "someone else's money" given the boot.But we've been sold out to > the FCC by former leadership urging the FCC to regulate and mandate stuff on > our part for them. In return, of course, for vague hints something might > "come our way". > > Shame on every one of you who took, is trying to get, or even thinking of > trying to get your hands on someone else's money.It wasn't just a > political matter after all. It was moral, too. And look at the > consequences it wrought. > > Ok, enough. I'm angry now and starting to get worked up. > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/
Re: [WISPA] USF changes?
I, Respectfully, disagree with your assertion that is "is useless". Another industry organization I belong to (ATSI. www.atsi.org ) is working with a well connected firm in DC that has led to MANY favorable reports back from the legislative members on this very issue. When I get back to the office, I'll dig up more detail on the project and forward along. Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with Nextel Direct Connect -Original Message- From: "MDK" Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:35:55 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes? Yes, they do understand it. You're not understanding the point.The telcos have big bucks to lobby with, and benefit the regulators. We do not.Thus, we will NEVER be on their "list".We cannot get onto the top of the rolodex until we have millions with which to lobby, and can legally bribe a bunch of government agencies. There is no benefit to offering them data, free labor, etc.The mandates will get larger, deeper, more and more costly, and the benefits promised by certain individuals will never EVER happen. And, should it ever reach the point we actually pinch the telcos or cablecos enough for them to get concerned, they will call in the favors and have us obliterated. Welcome to the new generation of thug politics in DC. Just look what's happening to broadcast industry, the insurance industry, etc."You exist to benefit our political aspirations. The moment you fail in that regard, you will be shredded, beaten, whipped, ruined, bankrupted and criminalized". Either you're a political ally, or you're toast. This administration has removed all semblances of public service and has officially made it federal policy to conduct political wars upon the people, businesses, enterprises, and even the states, if there is any political benefit to doing so. It is federal malevolence at the highest level ever seen before in this country. And it's getting worse by massive leaps and bounds. Even appointees to the FCC have made this clear, in demonstrating they believe in the direction and control of media and industry for the benefit of the political class. I argued years ago that surrendering our sovereignty to the feds was a recipe for industry disaster. So far, I've been called stupid, extreme, radical, idiotic, mindless, and a kook for thinking so. Trying being a health insurance company, doctor, investor, banker or any one of a number of recently demonized groups.The White House has decided it can control your prices, wages, services, products, and policies, if ANY public money passes to you or even if you just happen to be in an industry that gets political attention. Even if it just means a bailed out company did business with you. Or, your service is considered "important" or "essential". They haven't gotten around to us yet, but we're in the crosshairs. After all, we're in business to make a profit, and anyone making a profit needs to be slapped down and destroyed.We should have stood for our independence, instead of lusting after public money, but no, principle is foolish, and money is all that matters, I was told. Well, you got what you wanted. And I'm still around to say "I told you so". The pursuit of favors, public money, loans, grants... That was just too enticing, wasn't it? The country's going to hell in a handbasket financially, because everyone's holding their hand out waiting for someone else's money to flow their way, courtesy of politicians.And lots of the leadership of WISPA was arguing and holding out the promise of "getting someone else's money" for the industry. Well, ALL of you, and ALL of the same greedy mentalities all through our industry and nation have set the situation up that it's all come home to roost, and the taxpayers are... well, paying for it. Unemployment, ruined retirements, bankruptcy, and so on. You should have stood on principle, not on greed.Best never invite me to an "industry gathering" or I'll tell you what I really think. It would not be pretty. I haven't read this list in months, been busy. But nothing has changed. We've still got WISPA leadership promoting the lusting after public money. Damn you for your immorality.The consequences are all around us, the people have suffered greatly because of that kind of thinking... And you're STILL DOING IT??? I don't want to hear "they're going to give it anyway, might as well get your share". Hell no.We should put our country first, and the lust for easy "someone else's money" given the boot.But we've been sold out to the FCC by former leadership urging the FCC to regulate and mandate stuff on ou
Re: [WISPA] USF changes?
Yes, they do understand it. You're not understanding the point.The telcos have big bucks to lobby with, and benefit the regulators. We do not.Thus, we will NEVER be on their "list".We cannot get onto the top of the rolodex until we have millions with which to lobby, and can legally bribe a bunch of government agencies. There is no benefit to offering them data, free labor, etc.The mandates will get larger, deeper, more and more costly, and the benefits promised by certain individuals will never EVER happen. And, should it ever reach the point we actually pinch the telcos or cablecos enough for them to get concerned, they will call in the favors and have us obliterated. Welcome to the new generation of thug politics in DC. Just look what's happening to broadcast industry, the insurance industry, etc."You exist to benefit our political aspirations. The moment you fail in that regard, you will be shredded, beaten, whipped, ruined, bankrupted and criminalized". Either you're a political ally, or you're toast. This administration has removed all semblances of public service and has officially made it federal policy to conduct political wars upon the people, businesses, enterprises, and even the states, if there is any political benefit to doing so. It is federal malevolence at the highest level ever seen before in this country. And it's getting worse by massive leaps and bounds. Even appointees to the FCC have made this clear, in demonstrating they believe in the direction and control of media and industry for the benefit of the political class. I argued years ago that surrendering our sovereignty to the feds was a recipe for industry disaster. So far, I've been called stupid, extreme, radical, idiotic, mindless, and a kook for thinking so. Trying being a health insurance company, doctor, investor, banker or any one of a number of recently demonized groups.The White House has decided it can control your prices, wages, services, products, and policies, if ANY public money passes to you or even if you just happen to be in an industry that gets political attention. Even if it just means a bailed out company did business with you. Or, your service is considered "important" or "essential". They haven't gotten around to us yet, but we're in the crosshairs. After all, we're in business to make a profit, and anyone making a profit needs to be slapped down and destroyed.We should have stood for our independence, instead of lusting after public money, but no, principle is foolish, and money is all that matters, I was told. Well, you got what you wanted. And I'm still around to say "I told you so". The pursuit of favors, public money, loans, grants... That was just too enticing, wasn't it? The country's going to hell in a handbasket financially, because everyone's holding their hand out waiting for someone else's money to flow their way, courtesy of politicians.And lots of the leadership of WISPA was arguing and holding out the promise of "getting someone else's money" for the industry. Well, ALL of you, and ALL of the same greedy mentalities all through our industry and nation have set the situation up that it's all come home to roost, and the taxpayers are... well, paying for it. Unemployment, ruined retirements, bankruptcy, and so on. You should have stood on principle, not on greed.Best never invite me to an "industry gathering" or I'll tell you what I really think. It would not be pretty. I haven't read this list in months, been busy. But nothing has changed. We've still got WISPA leadership promoting the lusting after public money. Damn you for your immorality.The consequences are all around us, the people have suffered greatly because of that kind of thinking... And you're STILL DOING IT??? I don't want to hear "they're going to give it anyway, might as well get your share". Hell no.We should put our country first, and the lust for easy "someone else's money" given the boot.But we've been sold out to the FCC by former leadership urging the FCC to regulate and mandate stuff on our part for them. In return, of course, for vague hints something might "come our way". Shame on every one of you who took, is trying to get, or even thinking of trying to get your hands on someone else's money.It wasn't just a political matter after all. It was moral, too. And look at the consequences it wrought. Ok, enough. I'm angry now and starting to get worked up. -- From: "Scottie Arnett" Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 8:55 AM To: "WISPA General List" Subjec
Re: [WISPA] USF changes?
Its more like they want to control the chicken that lays the egg. The problem is that our federal government thinks they own everything or at least have control of it. They give no credence to the people including WISP's. So, they will rely on heavy handed tactics to force us to do things whether it is good for our businesses or not. I might be wrong but I see no good in anything they do. Therefore, they can stay in DC, play their games and I'll keep doing what I do until they come pry my radios...well, you know! -RickG On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Brian Webster wrote: > The problem as I see it is that we are arguing the chicken and the egg. > While I understand why a WISP would not necessarily want to disclose their > network footprint, it has become very obvious that not disclosing the > information has created more harmful situations (BTOP/BIP funding as one > example) than would have been lost by letting the information out. The > legislative climate and the rate of change on broadband policy is so rapid > today, that waiting for some incentive to provide the information, to me is > more risk than disclosing the information. The FCC is indeed in the process > of looking at some of the ideas you mention in your email. It's happening > TODAY and policy/opinion/legislation is being crafted based on information > they can get their hands on now or in the very near future. I have been > contacted by the FCC about mapping broadband on a granular level and in > those conversations, USF reform was mentioned as one of the uses for the > mapping information. They already have a major data analysis company under > contract doing the modeling and considerations for USF reforms. The mapping > information will be a HUGE input and factor in some of the answers they > will > derive from their studies. Many of these answers will be formulated in the > next 6 months or less. Waiting for legislative efforts to create incentive > to provide the information will more than likely be too late for the WISP > industry. > > Creating this data and just giving it away is a huge burden on a WISP > no doubt, but competing with a rural telco who might be able, under USF > reforms, to get subsidies for their DSL lines as well as the voice lines > they get now, will certainly make it much tougher for a WISP to compete in > a > rural market. Right now wireless enjoys a big advantage in the cost per > subscriber to deploy compared to others. The FCC knows this. They are also > dealing with a congress who is influenced by strong telco and cable lobby > groups. The WISP industry has none of that and what is worse, they have no > comprehensive data put together to help the FCC defend any position that > might give WISP's a stab at USF funding. If they have no hard data they > have > a very difficult time rebutting any claims the the cable and telco industry > claim. Yet another good reason the WISP industry should be filing the Form > 477 data > > > Thank You, > Brian Webster > > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Tom DeReggi >wrote: > > > Brian, > > > > I argue to push legislation to give benefit to providers to map their > data, > > so its a no brainer to cooperate. > > A Map is not needed to suggest and conclude USF reform. > > A Map is needed implemen new USF rules, such as tocollect USF funds, and > > block recipients from collecting funds. > > > > I hardly see the benefit in giving away to the coverage information > without > > first being given the benefit of giving it away. > > > > The first step is get legislation to include broadband as eligible > > recipients. > > And step two is to get legislation to include that USF funds wont be > given > > to entities that are alread y served by wireless technology. > > And Step3 is to get legislation to include what criteria considers an > area > > adequately served by wireless technology. > > Or Step4 - to create the equivellent of a ILEC, for a wireless provider. > > Shouldn't there be a WiLEC status? :-) > > > > When Feds give us good reason to disclose our coverage, backed by passed > > good legislation, I assure you WISPs will be first in line to give it. > > > > Have the feds tell usthey wont give grants to new entrants where there is > > already a WISP, unless to that pre-existing WISP, and I assure you WISPs > > will flood the info to you. > > But with legislation like, WISP must serve 60% of an areas to disqualify > > others, there is hardly a call to action to provide information. > Providing > > that information just makes it easier for other applicants to serve our > > areas. > > > > Tom
Re: [WISPA] USF changes?
The problem as I see it is that we are arguing the chicken and the egg. While I understand why a WISP would not necessarily want to disclose their network footprint, it has become very obvious that not disclosing the information has created more harmful situations (BTOP/BIP funding as one example) than would have been lost by letting the information out. The legislative climate and the rate of change on broadband policy is so rapid today, that waiting for some incentive to provide the information, to me is more risk than disclosing the information. The FCC is indeed in the process of looking at some of the ideas you mention in your email. It's happening TODAY and policy/opinion/legislation is being crafted based on information they can get their hands on now or in the very near future. I have been contacted by the FCC about mapping broadband on a granular level and in those conversations, USF reform was mentioned as one of the uses for the mapping information. They already have a major data analysis company under contract doing the modeling and considerations for USF reforms. The mapping information will be a HUGE input and factor in some of the answers they will derive from their studies. Many of these answers will be formulated in the next 6 months or less. Waiting for legislative efforts to create incentive to provide the information will more than likely be too late for the WISP industry. Creating this data and just giving it away is a huge burden on a WISP no doubt, but competing with a rural telco who might be able, under USF reforms, to get subsidies for their DSL lines as well as the voice lines they get now, will certainly make it much tougher for a WISP to compete in a rural market. Right now wireless enjoys a big advantage in the cost per subscriber to deploy compared to others. The FCC knows this. They are also dealing with a congress who is influenced by strong telco and cable lobby groups. The WISP industry has none of that and what is worse, they have no comprehensive data put together to help the FCC defend any position that might give WISP's a stab at USF funding. If they have no hard data they have a very difficult time rebutting any claims the the cable and telco industry claim. Yet another good reason the WISP industry should be filing the Form 477 data Thank You, Brian Webster On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: > Brian, > > I argue to push legislation to give benefit to providers to map their data, > so its a no brainer to cooperate. > A Map is not needed to suggest and conclude USF reform. > A Map is needed implemen new USF rules, such as tocollect USF funds, and > block recipients from collecting funds. > > I hardly see the benefit in giving away to the coverage information without > first being given the benefit of giving it away. > > The first step is get legislation to include broadband as eligible > recipients. > And step two is to get legislation to include that USF funds wont be given > to entities that are alread y served by wireless technology. > And Step3 is to get legislation to include what criteria considers an area > adequately served by wireless technology. > Or Step4 - to create the equivellent of a ILEC, for a wireless provider. > Shouldn't there be a WiLEC status? :-) > > When Feds give us good reason to disclose our coverage, backed by passed > good legislation, I assure you WISPs will be first in line to give it. > > Have the feds tell usthey wont give grants to new entrants where there is > already a WISP, unless to that pre-existing WISP, and I assure you WISPs > will flood the info to you. > But with legislation like, WISP must serve 60% of an areas to disqualify > others, there is hardly a call to action to provide information. Providing > that information just makes it easier for other applicants to serve our > areas. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message ----- > From: "Brian Webster" > To: ; "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:42 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes? > > > > The FCC understands it very well. The problem is that WISP's are not well > > known as far as where, how many, and what speeds they serve..ever > > wonder > > why they have been pushing the Form 477? This yet another example of how > > trying to stay under the Radar is going to come back and bite the > industry > > in the butt. Who knows, if they do a good job of USF reform and a WISP is > > in > > a very rural area, they may be entitled to RECEIVE USF funds on a monthly > > basis. But of course if we cannot quantify the WISP industry and/or show > a > > good coverage area, the policy makers will have no
Re: [WISPA] USF changes?
Brian, I argue to push legislation to give benefit to providers to map their data, so its a no brainer to cooperate. A Map is not needed to suggest and conclude USF reform. A Map is needed implemen new USF rules, such as tocollect USF funds, and block recipients from collecting funds. I hardly see the benefit in giving away to the coverage information without first being given the benefit of giving it away. The first step is get legislation to include broadband as eligible recipients. And step two is to get legislation to include that USF funds wont be given to entities that are alread y served by wireless technology. And Step3 is to get legislation to include what criteria considers an area adequately served by wireless technology. Or Step4 - to create the equivellent of a ILEC, for a wireless provider. Shouldn't there be a WiLEC status? :-) When Feds give us good reason to disclose our coverage, backed by passed good legislation, I assure you WISPs will be first in line to give it. Have the feds tell usthey wont give grants to new entrants where there is already a WISP, unless to that pre-existing WISP, and I assure you WISPs will flood the info to you. But with legislation like, WISP must serve 60% of an areas to disqualify others, there is hardly a call to action to provide information. Providing that information just makes it easier for other applicants to serve our areas. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Brian Webster" To: ; "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:42 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes? > The FCC understands it very well. The problem is that WISP's are not well > known as far as where, how many, and what speeds they serve..ever > wonder > why they have been pushing the Form 477? This yet another example of how > trying to stay under the Radar is going to come back and bite the industry > in the butt. Who knows, if they do a good job of USF reform and a WISP is > in > a very rural area, they may be entitled to RECEIVE USF funds on a monthly > basis. But of course if we cannot quantify the WISP industry and/or show a > good coverage area, the policy makers will have no choice but to make > decisions based on what they have in front of them for > information.maybe > it's time to dust off the National WISP map again and do another push to > improve that. > > > Thank You, > Brian Webster > > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Scottie Arnett > wrote: > >> And they forgot all about the other ISP's out there. They are leaving it >> up >> to the telcos to supply the demand! Do they(The FCC) not understand that >> other companies besides the telcos and cable companies offer Internet >> access? >> >> Scott >> >> -- Original Message -- >> From: RickG >> Reply-To: WISPA General List >> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 23:49:39 -0500 >> >> >Warning: "The bill also drew early praise from AT&T" >> > >> >On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Blair Davis wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3847366/Lawmakers+Float+Bill+to+Boost+Rural+Broadband.htm >> >> >> >> I'm not sure I need any more gov. interference! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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/ >> >--- >> >[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] >> > >> > >> >> Wireless High Spee
Re: [WISPA] USF changes?
The FCC understands it very well. The problem is that WISP's are not well known as far as where, how many, and what speeds they serve..ever wonder why they have been pushing the Form 477? This yet another example of how trying to stay under the Radar is going to come back and bite the industry in the butt. Who knows, if they do a good job of USF reform and a WISP is in a very rural area, they may be entitled to RECEIVE USF funds on a monthly basis. But of course if we cannot quantify the WISP industry and/or show a good coverage area, the policy makers will have no choice but to make decisions based on what they have in front of them for information.maybe it's time to dust off the National WISP map again and do another push to improve that. Thank You, Brian Webster On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Scottie Arnett wrote: > And they forgot all about the other ISP's out there. They are leaving it up > to the telcos to supply the demand! Do they(The FCC) not understand that > other companies besides the telcos and cable companies offer Internet > access? > > Scott > > -- Original Message -- > From: RickG > Reply-To: WISPA General List > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 23:49:39 -0500 > > >Warning: "The bill also drew early praise from AT&T" > > > >On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Blair Davis wrote: > > > >> > >> > http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3847366/Lawmakers+Float+Bill+to+Boost+Rural+Broadband.htm > >> > >> I'm not sure I need any more gov. interference! > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> 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/ > >--- > >[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > > > > > > Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as > $30.00/mth. > Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html for information. > > > > > 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] USF changes?
And they forgot all about the other ISP's out there. They are leaving it up to the telcos to supply the demand! Do they(The FCC) not understand that other companies besides the telcos and cable companies offer Internet access? Scott -- Original Message -- From: RickG Reply-To: WISPA General List Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 23:49:39 -0500 >Warning: "The bill also drew early praise from AT&T" > >On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Blair Davis wrote: > >> >> http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3847366/Lawmakers+Float+Bill+to+Boost+Rural+Broadband.htm >> >> I'm not sure I need any more gov. interference! >> >> >> >> >> >> 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/ >--- >[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > > Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $30.00/mth. Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html for information. 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] USF changes?
This is the critical phrase "The measure will expand who pays into the fund" Anyone know the answer? This is good if it makes high volume DSL and Cable Co to continue to pay USF fees. But not so good if it makes suburban WISPs have to start paying into the fund. Its a competitive advantage that WISPs dont have to pay the 5% USF tax currently, and needed advantage in the very competitive served markets, since WISPs are usually under dogs in their market. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "RickG" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 11:49 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes? > Warning: "The bill also drew early praise from AT&T" > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Blair Davis wrote: > >> >> http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3847366/Lawmakers+Float+Bill+to+Boost+Rural+Broadband.htm >> >> I'm not sure I need any more gov. interference! >> >> >> >> >> >> 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] USF changes?
Warning: "The bill also drew early praise from AT&T" On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Blair Davis wrote: > > http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3847366/Lawmakers+Float+Bill+to+Boost+Rural+Broadband.htm > > I'm not sure I need any more gov. interference! > > > > > > 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] USF Changes
A judge ordered the FCC to issue a decision on the intercarrier compensation reform. Not sure the docket number, but they have to issue something in November. There is a date certain. They can decide to not change anything. Or they can decide to radically reform the whole works. If they do too much you will see ripples throughout the whole telecommunications industry. - Original Message - From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 8:20 PM Subject: [WISPA] USF Changes >> So it got broke up and competition was supposed to flourish etc etc. >> They >> are still experimenting. Part of the problem is that the S in USF is >> still >> defined as POTS on copper. Our company is personally sponsoring a bill >> in >> our legislature that expands that to broadband. >> >> Look for an FCC ruling in November that may change the rules for all of >> us. > > Where can we find more info on this? > > Matt > > > > 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/
