Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever
Scottie, There just weren't enough of us to stop things like that from happening. It's a chicken and egg thing. It takes members to get things done. Some don't want to join until we can point to positive results. I guess it's a matter of how far in the future do you want to look? If you don't look past the end of your nose you are right, WISPA is a waste of time. We do have an impact but it's still hard to quantify much of the time. If you can look years or decades down the road WISPA is a no brainer. After all, who else is speaking for you? Who else is working to make the complicated understandable? Not picking on your Scottie, you just happen to be the guy that brought this up this time Also, there IS a value in WISPA already. How much have you learned from the lists? What's it worth to be able to ask questions of the best experts in the industry, and have them answer you? Who pays for the servers and bandwidth so you can do that? Who pays for people's time so you can get your answers? If we all give a little of our time and a little of our money much good gets done. Since WISPA has been functional (around 2004) we've gotten Whitespaces, 3650, 255mhz of new 5 gig spectrum, relaxed antenna certification rules and more. WISPA was very involved in all of those items at an FCC level. We've also worked with the FBI for CALEA (believe me, if you knew all of the back story you'd be REALLY glad we did this), the UTC for some items and we've helped people reach out to their congress people. WISPA has gained a good reputation with many other organizations and with the FCC. Oh sure, some think of us as cowboys or clod hoppers from time to time. But we're always the most knowledgeable and most educated when it comes to unlicensed operations servicing real world customers in real world situations. I can't possibly find the words to sufficiently urge you to join. Look back at the dial-up and DSL portions of our industry if you'd like to see where WISPs will be in another 10 years without an effective and strong voice in DC. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Scottie Arnett sarn...@info-ed.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 9:20 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever I agree with Fred on this. I have read many of his statements on cybertelecom's email list. If you are an ISP, I strongly recommend that you join it off of http://www.cybertelecom.org/ Since around 2002, maybe a little earlier, at the time of The Tauzin-Dingell Telecom Bill, the Congress, and the FCC pretty much did away with line sharing or the ability for us(ISP's) to use any lines provided by Ilec's( http://www.manymedia.com/futures/tauzding.html ). After this it lead to the Triennial Review. All this finally leads to the fact that the ILEC's do not even have to share their fiber. Fred may not agree with me on this, but as far as I can see it, the FCC and Congress have been out to do away with the small ISP's since around 2000. They have one agenda, that makes it even more sound is that in the last few months, the FCC has now classified broadband as 4 meg down/1 meg up. That not only has DE-classified many of the WISP as providing broadband, but also the satellite providers, and many DSL systems. I recently had an awakening, on the 2nd round BIP, that even though my company had coverage in the same area as a Rural Telco(Twin Lakes Telephone Cooperative) they could apply for BIP, but I could not because they already had USDA funding as a Telco. Guess what? They received 16 million in grants and also received 16 million in low cost loans to provide FTTH in my coverage area. Call me what you will, but the FCC and everything behind them only want the duopoly of cable and telco to deal with. We are just pissing in the wind and it is why I have not joined WISPA yet. I may be missing the boat, but I am waiting for WISPA to prove me wrong. I have seen beyond and experienced beyond the norm. Show me something that I can have faith(and provide financial incentives) in or I will stay exactly where I am at and look for other income. Scottie Arnett Info-Ed, Inc. At 7/29/2010 08:01 AM, Brian wrote: Hit me off list and I can offer some suggestions. As I mentioned, the 75% rule only applies to wireline providers (i.e., cable), so mapping WISP coverage buys nothing. The Boucher-Terry bill has nothing in it to help WISPs and plenty to hurt them, including a rather high tax to support your competitors. Brian -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever I'd like to
Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever
Hit me off list and I can offer some suggestions. Brian -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever I'd like to but I dont know where to begin and with my limited time I cant even try to figure it out. On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com wrote: Steve Coran just posted the message below to the WISPA FCC committee list. I took particular note to the following statement: - would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive provider that does not receive support Now the way I read the above statement is that if a WISP covers 75% of a current USF recipients service area, there will no longer be eligibility to receive USF funds. Remember if they have broadband they also have access to many VOIP providers even if you do not provide VOIP services. Vonage and Skype come to mind, not to mention cellular coverage. This would be a huge factor in leveling the playing field for WISPs in rural markets! I cannot see a more compelling reason to document and map your networks than this. Not only will it prevent yet another subsidized competitor from coming in to your service area, but it will also erode funding for any Telco who currently receives USF in your markets. This would bring wireless as a delivery method to the forefront because there are then no artificial revenue streams subsidizing the cost to deliver last mile service. We all know that wireless has the least cost per household passed in low density markets. There are many ways to document and map your coverage areas. First and foremost though is that you should file the Form 477 as required. Next one should map their network with an accurate service area where you would confidently offer service. This can be done many ways (including paying me to do it). This also shows a very important reason to be participating in your state broadband mapping efforts. I would expect that those state maps will become one of the major verification sources to establish the 75% coverage. The FCC 477 database will probably become another verification source. If you are listed in both of them it would be very hard for someone to say you dont exist and dont offer coverage in their areas. One of the downsides to this bill is that all broadband providers will be required to contribute to the fund. My gut feeling though is that if WISPs were accurately mapped and documented it would show so much less of the US is unserved by broadband and thus the required funding through USF to get it there will be much less. Brian -- Last week, Reps. Boucher (D-VA) and Terry (R-NE) introduced legislation that would reform the Universal Service Fund. The Press Release, Overview, Section by Section summary and text of the bill are available at this link: http://www.boucher.house.gov/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=1579; Itemid=122 I have not read these documents, but plan to do so soon. A few highlights that the trade press has noted: - would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive provider that does not receive support - FCC would create cost model that includes broadband in figuring support models - competitive bidding among wireless carriers for USF support - no more than two wireless CETCs could get support in the same area - carriers would have 5 years to provide broadband throughout their service areas, or would lose support - all broadband providers would pay into USF to expand contribution base - FCC to decide appropriate speed for broadband Rep. Boucher has said that the bill is on his front burner and that he wants to get the legislation passed this Fall. Please feel free to comment on-list AFTER you've reviewed the documents so that you can promote education of the WISPA membership and help shape whatever position WISPA may wish to take as the bill works its way through Congress. Thanks. Stephen E. Coran Rini Coran, PC 1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 202.463.4310 - voice 202.669.3288 - cell 202.296.2014 - fax sco...@rinicoran.com - e-mail www.rinicoran.com www.telecommunicationslaw.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever
At 7/29/2010 08:01 AM, Brian wrote: Hit me off list and I can offer some suggestions. As I mentioned, the 75% rule only applies to wireline providers (i.e., cable), so mapping WISP coverage buys nothing. The Boucher-Terry bill has nothing in it to help WISPs and plenty to hurt them, including a rather high tax to support your competitors. Brian -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever I'd like to but I dont know where to begin and with my limited time I cant even try to figure it out. On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com wrote: Steve Coran just posted the message below to the WISPA FCC committee list. I took particular note to the following statement: - would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive provider that does not receive support Now the way I read the above statement is that if a WISP covers 75% of a current USF recipients service area, there will no longer be eligibility to receive USF funds. Remember if they have broadband they also have access to many VOIP providers even if you do not provide VOIP services. Vonage and Skype come to mind, not to mention cellular coverage. This would be a huge factor in leveling the playing field for WISP's in rural markets! I cannot see a more compelling reason to document and map your networks than this. Not only will it prevent yet another subsidized competitor from coming in to your service area, but it will also erode funding for any Telco who currently receives USF in your markets. This would bring wireless as a delivery method to the forefront because there are then no artificial revenue streams subsidizing the cost to deliver last mile service. We all know that wireless has the least cost per household passed in low density markets. There are many ways to document and map your coverage areas. First and foremost though is that you should file the Form 477 as required. Next one should map their network with an accurate service area where you would confidently offer service. This can be done many ways (including paying me to do it). This also shows a very important reason to be participating in your state broadband mapping efforts. I would expect that those state maps will become one of the major verification sources to establish the 75% coverage. The FCC 477 database will probably become another verification source. If you are listed in both of them it would be very hard for someone to say you don't exist and don't offer coverage in their areas. One of the downsides to this bill is that all broadband providers will be required to contribute to the fund. My gut feeling though is that if WISP's were accurately mapped and documented it would show so much less of the US is unserved by broadband and thus the required funding through USF to get it there will be much less. Brian -- Last week, Reps. Boucher (D-VA) and Terry (R-NE) introduced legislation that would reform the Universal Service Fund. The Press Release, Overview, Section by Section summary and text of the bill are available at this link: http://www.boucher.house.gov/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=1579; Itemid=122 I have not read these documents, but plan to do so soon. A few highlights that the trade press has noted: - would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive provider that does not receive support - FCC would create cost model that includes broadband in figuring support models - competitive bidding among wireless carriers for USF support - no more than two wireless CETCs could get support in the same area - carriers would have 5 years to provide broadband throughout their service areas, or would lose support - all broadband providers would pay into USF to expand contribution base - FCC to decide appropriate speed for broadband Rep. Boucher has said that the bill is on his front burner and that he wants to get the legislation passed this Fall. Please feel free to comment on-list AFTER you've reviewed the documents so that you can promote education of the WISPA membership and help shape whatever position WISPA may wish to take as the bill works its way through Congress. Thanks. Stephen E. Coran Rini Coran, PC 1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 202.463.4310 - voice 202.669.3288 - cell 202.296.2014 -
Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever
Fred, That is understood, however I think that WISPA may try to lobby to have the term wireline removed such that any technology that delivers the defined broadband and voice services should be qualified to meet the 75% requirement. This is still a bill and not a law so there are opportunities to change this although I don't expect that one to go through without a fight. In this case we might be able to ally ourselves with the cable industry. I am sure they would love to see Telco's lose their USF subsidies in markets that are served by cable. Brian -Original Message- From: Fred Goldstein [mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 9:42 AM To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever At 7/29/2010 08:01 AM, Brian wrote: Hit me off list and I can offer some suggestions. As I mentioned, the 75% rule only applies to wireline providers (i.e., cable), so mapping WISP coverage buys nothing. The Boucher-Terry bill has nothing in it to help WISPs and plenty to hurt them, including a rather high tax to support your competitors. Brian -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever I'd like to but I dont know where to begin and with my limited time I cant even try to figure it out. On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com wrote: Steve Coran just posted the message below to the WISPA FCC committee list. I took particular note to the following statement: - would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive provider that does not receive support Now the way I read the above statement is that if a WISP covers 75% of a current USF recipients service area, there will no longer be eligibility to receive USF funds. Remember if they have broadband they also have access to many VOIP providers even if you do not provide VOIP services. Vonage and Skype come to mind, not to mention cellular coverage. This would be a huge factor in leveling the playing field for WISP's in rural markets! I cannot see a more compelling reason to document and map your networks than this. Not only will it prevent yet another subsidized competitor from coming in to your service area, but it will also erode funding for any Telco who currently receives USF in your markets. This would bring wireless as a delivery method to the forefront because there are then no artificial revenue streams subsidizing the cost to deliver last mile service. We all know that wireless has the least cost per household passed in low density markets. There are many ways to document and map your coverage areas. First and foremost though is that you should file the Form 477 as required. Next one should map their network with an accurate service area where you would confidently offer service. This can be done many ways (including paying me to do it). This also shows a very important reason to be participating in your state broadband mapping efforts. I would expect that those state maps will become one of the major verification sources to establish the 75% coverage. The FCC 477 database will probably become another verification source. If you are listed in both of them it would be very hard for someone to say you don't exist and don't offer coverage in their areas. One of the downsides to this bill is that all broadband providers will be required to contribute to the fund. My gut feeling though is that if WISP's were accurately mapped and documented it would show so much less of the US is unserved by broadband and thus the required funding through USF to get it there will be much less. Brian -- Last week, Reps. Boucher (D-VA) and Terry (R-NE) introduced legislation that would reform the Universal Service Fund. The Press Release, Overview, Section by Section summary and text of the bill are available at this link: http://www.boucher.house.gov/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=1579 Itemid=122 I have not read these documents, but plan to do so soon. A few highlights that the trade press has noted: - would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive provider that does not receive support - FCC would create cost model that includes broadband in figuring support models - competitive bidding among wireless carriers for USF support - no
Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever
Yes but if the cable companies could also ally with wireless carriers to get other areas excluded from USF subsidies, the field would be a more level one should the cable companies try to compete in other markets. We might also get Clearwire and the cellular carriers to support the position although most of their deployments will probably be in areas that would never have qualified for USF to begin with. If the terms wireline are kept in the bill it would appear that wireless services might also be excluded from receiving any USF funds which basically keeps USF funds in the exclusive hands of the Telco's as it has been. Personally I think that if we don't out and out oppose the bill for USF reform, but rather do something like this as a minor change, the WISP industry can make out better. USF reform will happen and USF funds will be spent on deploying broadband to unserved areas no matter what. What we need to do is make sure the law does not fund builds in areas already served by WISP's and other technologies. If the battle could also be fought and won to allow WISP's access to the funds for broadband deployments then great. When going up against the cable and Telco lobbies, one has to be wise about picking their battles as the funding to fight this will be limited. Brian -Original Message- From: Jeff Broadwick [mailto:jeffl...@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 10:07 AM To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compellingreason to document and map your network coverage ever Is cable not considered a wireline service? Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 10:02 AM To: 'Fred Goldstein'; 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compellingreason to document and map your network coverage ever Fred, That is understood, however I think that WISPA may try to lobby to have the term wireline removed such that any technology that delivers the defined broadband and voice services should be qualified to meet the 75% requirement. This is still a bill and not a law so there are opportunities to change this although I don't expect that one to go through without a fight. In this case we might be able to ally ourselves with the cable industry. I am sure they would love to see Telco's lose their USF subsidies in markets that are served by cable. Brian -Original Message- From: Fred Goldstein [mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 9:42 AM To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever At 7/29/2010 08:01 AM, Brian wrote: Hit me off list and I can offer some suggestions. As I mentioned, the 75% rule only applies to wireline providers (i.e., cable), so mapping WISP coverage buys nothing. The Boucher-Terry bill has nothing in it to help WISPs and plenty to hurt them, including a rather high tax to support your competitors. Brian -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever I'd like to but I dont know where to begin and with my limited time I cant even try to figure it out. On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com wrote: Steve Coran just posted the message below to the WISPA FCC committee list. I took particular note to the following statement: - would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive provider that does not receive support Now the way I read the above statement is that if a WISP covers 75% of a current USF recipients service area, there will no longer be eligibility to receive USF funds. Remember if they have broadband they also have access to many VOIP providers even if you do not provide VOIP services. Vonage and Skype come to mind, not to mention cellular coverage. This would be a huge factor in leveling the playing field for WISP's in rural markets! I cannot see a more compelling reason to document and map your networks than this. Not only will it prevent yet another subsidized competitor from coming in to your service area, but it will also erode funding for any Telco who currently receives USF in your markets. This would bring wireless as a delivery method to the forefront because there are then no artificial revenue streams subsidizing the cost to
Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever
Yes Patrick I agree with you but remember who is lobbying this bill. They will play to win even though the government is not supposed to be picking winners.. Brian -Original Message- From: Patrick Leary [mailto:ple...@apertonet.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 10:37 AM To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; WISPA General List; Fred Goldstein Subject: RE: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compellingreason to document and map your network coverage ever You'd think there would be an excellent legal argument to fight that. Seems it'd be difficult to enact a law that in effect discriminates against certain classes of providers, especially since WISPs are the only pure play broadband providers out there. Theorectically the re-configured USF is meant to propel broadband...so how could the feds exclude the only entity that provides broadband first, other services second. All other providers have broadband as a secondary play. Patrick Leary Aperto Networks 813.426.4230 mobile -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:02 AM To: 'Fred Goldstein'; 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compellingreason to document and map your network coverage ever Fred, That is understood, however I think that WISPA may try to lobby to have the term wireline removed such that any technology that delivers the defined broadband and voice services should be qualified to meet the 75% requirement. This is still a bill and not a law so there are opportunities to change this although I don't expect that one to go through without a fight. In this case we might be able to ally ourselves with the cable industry. I am sure they would love to see Telco's lose their USF subsidies in markets that are served by cable. Brian -Original Message- From: Fred Goldstein [mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 9:42 AM To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever At 7/29/2010 08:01 AM, Brian wrote: Hit me off list and I can offer some suggestions. As I mentioned, the 75% rule only applies to wireline providers (i.e., cable), so mapping WISP coverage buys nothing. The Boucher-Terry bill has nothing in it to help WISPs and plenty to hurt them, including a rather high tax to support your competitors. Brian -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever I'd like to but I dont know where to begin and with my limited time I cant even try to figure it out. On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com wrote: Steve Coran just posted the message below to the WISPA FCC committee list. I took particular note to the following statement: - would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive provider that does not receive support Now the way I read the above statement is that if a WISP covers 75% of a current USF recipients service area, there will no longer be eligibility to receive USF funds. Remember if they have broadband they also have access to many VOIP providers even if you do not provide VOIP services. Vonage and Skype come to mind, not to mention cellular coverage. This would be a huge factor in leveling the playing field for WISP's in rural markets! I cannot see a more compelling reason to document and map your networks than this. Not only will it prevent yet another subsidized competitor from coming in to your service area, but it will also erode funding for any Telco who currently receives USF in your markets. This would bring wireless as a delivery method to the forefront because there are then no artificial revenue streams subsidizing the cost to deliver last mile service. We all know that wireless has the least cost per household passed in low density markets. There are many ways to document and map your coverage areas. First and foremost though is that you should file the Form 477 as required. Next one should map their network with an accurate service area where you would confidently offer service. This can be done many ways (including paying me to do it). This also shows a very important reason to be participating in your state broadband mapping efforts. I would expect that those state maps will become one of the major verification sources to establish the 75% coverage. The FCC 477 database will probably become another verification source. If
Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever
At 7/29/2010 10:34 AM, Brian Webster wrote: Yes but if the cable companies could also ally with wireless carriers to get other areas excluded from USF subsidies, the field would be a more level one should the cable companies try to compete in other markets. We might also get Clearwire and the cellular carriers to support the position although most of their deployments will probably be in areas that would never have qualified for USF to begin with. If the terms wireline are kept in the bill it would appear that wireless services might also be excluded from receiving any USF funds which basically keeps USF funds in the exclusive hands of the Telco's as it has been. Personally I think that if we don't out and out oppose the bill for USF reform, but rather do something like this as a minor change, the WISP industry can make out better. USF reform will happen and USF funds will be spent on deploying broadband to unserved areas no matter what. What we need to do is make sure the law does not fund builds in areas already served by WISP's and other technologies. If the battle could also be fought and won to allow WISP's access to the funds for broadband deployments then great. When going up against the cable and Telco lobbies, one has to be wise about picking their battles as the funding to fight this will be limited. And on a related note, Patrick Leary wrote, You'd think there would be an excellent legal argument to fight that. Seems it'd be difficult to enact a law that in effect discriminates against certain classes of providers, especially since WISPs are the only pure play broadband providers out there. Theorectically the re-configured USF is meant to propel broadband...so how could the feds exclude the only entity that provides broadband first, other services second. All other providers have broadband as a secondary play. Patrick's first... We're talking about a new law, so the legal argument boils down to whatever the law says is legal, is legal, unless it's a flagrant constitutional violation. Which I don't see, since the main issue here is simply who gets government handouts, and handing out money (and taxing) is sort of the normal role of government. The problem is that the system is so corrupt by now that the handouts appear to be irrational. In practice they're not; they just aren't done for the public good. Back to Brian's point... You first have to think about whose bill this is. Boucher doesn't make this stuff up himself. Nor does his staff, though they know more about it than most congressional staffers. Boucher's job in Washington is, and has always been, to carry Verizon's water. When he puts a bill in the hopper, it comes from them. Tom Tauke's staff probably drafted most of the bill. So what is Verizon asking for? You again have to look at what USF is all about. It was created as part of intercarrier compensation reform. Before USF, toll settlements to rural carriers were high enough to pay the subsidies. Make a 30 cent call and the rural carrier gets 50 cents for terminating it. This worked because Long Distance was a huge luxury and thus could be milked. As the cost of delivering LD went down, the amount that could be diverted to supporting the ILECs went up. But the system broke down under competition, especially from VoIP, but also from something called reality -- you can't perpetuate a rotten system like that forever. It was hugely inefficient. So intercarrier payments from IXCs to LECs no longer pay the whole freight, and explicit USF makes up the difference. The IXCs, however, are the main payers of USF. They count the cards differently but the kitty still goes the same way. In the 1980s, Verizon (then called Bell Atlantic) was a LEC and on the receiving end of IXC switched access charges. But now the Bells get much lower switched access rates, so it's not a big revenue source for them. Instead, you have Verizon owning the former MCI and Worldcom assets and Southwestern Bell owning the former ATT Corp. assets, so the two mega-Bells are probably net payers, not recipients, of subsidies to the rurals, both via USF and access charges. Sprint, of course, no longer has any affiliated LECs, so it's a big net loser too. Those three companies thus want to lower the bill. The rural carriers, from the few remaining mom-and-pops to the coops up to big CenturyTel and Citizens/Frontier, want even more. So they are using broadband as an excuse. Give them more USF money and they'll extend DSL out further, even FTTH. Hey, it's not *their* money! They don't build gold-plated networks. It's solid 14k gold. (Not 24k. They're too modest for that, and besides 14k is harder.) So what the Boucher bill does is push the FCC along the path it was considering anyway, with some tweaks. The 75% clause is there to cut off support to ILECs that have been almost fully overbuilt by cable, not because cable cares (they don't get USF), but
Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever
I am so glad you moved over to the Wispa list Fred! I don't always agree with you, but I REALLY appreciate how much thought and detail you put into your responses. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:20 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever At 7/29/2010 10:34 AM, Brian Webster wrote: Yes but if the cable companies could also ally with wireless carriers to get other areas excluded from USF subsidies, the field would be a more level one should the cable companies try to compete in other markets. We might also get Clearwire and the cellular carriers to support the position although most of their deployments will probably be in areas that would never have qualified for USF to begin with. If the terms wireline are kept in the bill it would appear that wireless services might also be excluded from receiving any USF funds which basically keeps USF funds in the exclusive hands of the Telco's as it has been. Personally I think that if we don't out and out oppose the bill for USF reform, but rather do something like this as a minor change, the WISP industry can make out better. USF reform will happen and USF funds will be spent on deploying broadband to unserved areas no matter what. What we need to do is make sure the law does not fund builds in areas already served by WISP's and other technologies. If the battle could also be fought and won to allow WISP's access to the funds for broadband deployments then great. When going up against the cable and Telco lobbies, one has to be wise about picking their battles as the funding to fight this will be limited. And on a related note, Patrick Leary wrote, You'd think there would be an excellent legal argument to fight that. Seems it'd be difficult to enact a law that in effect discriminates against certain classes of providers, especially since WISPs are the only pure play broadband providers out there. Theorectically the re-configured USF is meant to propel broadband...so how could the feds exclude the only entity that provides broadband first, other services second. All other providers have broadband as a secondary play. Patrick's first... We're talking about a new law, so the legal argument boils down to whatever the law says is legal, is legal, unless it's a flagrant constitutional violation. Which I don't see, since the main issue here is simply who gets government handouts, and handing out money (and taxing) is sort of the normal role of government. The problem is that the system is so corrupt by now that the handouts appear to be irrational. In practice they're not; they just aren't done for the public good. Back to Brian's point... You first have to think about whose bill this is. Boucher doesn't make this stuff up himself. Nor does his staff, though they know more about it than most congressional staffers. Boucher's job in Washington is, and has always been, to carry Verizon's water. When he puts a bill in the hopper, it comes from them. Tom Tauke's staff probably drafted most of the bill. So what is Verizon asking for? You again have to look at what USF is all about. It was created as part of intercarrier compensation reform. Before USF, toll settlements to rural carriers were high enough to pay the subsidies. Make a 30 cent call and the rural carrier gets 50 cents for terminating it. This worked because Long Distance was a huge luxury and thus could be milked. As the cost of delivering LD went down, the amount that could be diverted to supporting the ILECs went up. But the system broke down under competition, especially from VoIP, but also from something called reality -- you can't perpetuate a rotten system like that forever. It was hugely inefficient. So intercarrier payments from IXCs to LECs no longer pay the whole freight, and explicit USF makes up the difference. The IXCs, however, are the main payers of USF. They count the cards differently but the kitty still goes the same way. In the 1980s, Verizon (then called Bell Atlantic) was a LEC and on the receiving end of IXC switched access charges. But now the Bells get much lower switched access rates, so it's not a big revenue source for them. Instead, you have Verizon owning the former MCI and Worldcom assets and Southwestern Bell owning the former ATT Corp. assets, so the two mega-Bells are probably net payers, not recipients, of subsidies to the rurals, both via USF and access charges. Sprint, of course, no longer has any affiliated LECs, so it's a big net loser too. Those three companies thus want to lower the bill. The rural carriers, from the few remaining mom-and-pops to the coops up to big CenturyTel and
Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever
Fred, Does the bill state that the voice and data service have to be provided by the SAME carrier or just that the consumer has access to them? Would cellular service qualify in that case? Thought is that is there is cell or CLEC service and a WISP also covers the same area with only broadband, it could be considered served. The issue of QOS and all the other call reliability standards would be addressed by others and not the WISP. I get and understand every point you made on the bill and the players. It all makes sense and pretty much what one would expect. Changes to allow WISP's or wireless to be considered part of the 75% coverage would really hurt the rurals that are trying to save their revenue stream and will meet with a massive fight. USF reform was expected to have spurred a big fight from those who stand to lose. There have been a lot of votes and campaign contributions bought with that money over the years. Brian -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:20 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever At 7/29/2010 10:34 AM, Brian Webster wrote: Yes but if the cable companies could also ally with wireless carriers to get other areas excluded from USF subsidies, the field would be a more level one should the cable companies try to compete in other markets. We might also get Clearwire and the cellular carriers to support the position although most of their deployments will probably be in areas that would never have qualified for USF to begin with. If the terms wireline are kept in the bill it would appear that wireless services might also be excluded from receiving any USF funds which basically keeps USF funds in the exclusive hands of the Telco's as it has been. Personally I think that if we don't out and out oppose the bill for USF reform, but rather do something like this as a minor change, the WISP industry can make out better. USF reform will happen and USF funds will be spent on deploying broadband to unserved areas no matter what. What we need to do is make sure the law does not fund builds in areas already served by WISP's and other technologies. If the battle could also be fought and won to allow WISP's access to the funds for broadband deployments then great. When going up against the cable and Telco lobbies, one has to be wise about picking their battles as the funding to fight this will be limited. And on a related note, Patrick Leary wrote, You'd think there would be an excellent legal argument to fight that. Seems it'd be difficult to enact a law that in effect discriminates against certain classes of providers, especially since WISPs are the only pure play broadband providers out there. Theorectically the re-configured USF is meant to propel broadband...so how could the feds exclude the only entity that provides broadband first, other services second. All other providers have broadband as a secondary play. Patrick's first... We're talking about a new law, so the legal argument boils down to whatever the law says is legal, is legal, unless it's a flagrant constitutional violation. Which I don't see, since the main issue here is simply who gets government handouts, and handing out money (and taxing) is sort of the normal role of government. The problem is that the system is so corrupt by now that the handouts appear to be irrational. In practice they're not; they just aren't done for the public good. Back to Brian's point... You first have to think about whose bill this is. Boucher doesn't make this stuff up himself. Nor does his staff, though they know more about it than most congressional staffers. Boucher's job in Washington is, and has always been, to carry Verizon's water. When he puts a bill in the hopper, it comes from them. Tom Tauke's staff probably drafted most of the bill. So what is Verizon asking for? You again have to look at what USF is all about. It was created as part of intercarrier compensation reform. Before USF, toll settlements to rural carriers were high enough to pay the subsidies. Make a 30 cent call and the rural carrier gets 50 cents for terminating it. This worked because Long Distance was a huge luxury and thus could be milked. As the cost of delivering LD went down, the amount that could be diverted to supporting the ILECs went up. But the system broke down under competition, especially from VoIP, but also from something called reality -- you can't perpetuate a rotten system like that forever. It was hugely inefficient. So intercarrier payments from IXCs to LECs no longer pay the whole freight, and explicit USF makes up the difference. The IXCs, however, are the main payers of USF. They count the cards differently but the kitty still goes the same way. In the 1980s,
Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever
Yes, he is very informative! Thanks Fred. Always helps for everyone to know the other side of the fence and get a reality check of the world we play in. Brian -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:41 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever I am so glad you moved over to the Wispa list Fred! I don't always agree with you, but I REALLY appreciate how much thought and detail you put into your responses. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:20 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever At 7/29/2010 10:34 AM, Brian Webster wrote: Yes but if the cable companies could also ally with wireless carriers to get other areas excluded from USF subsidies, the field would be a more level one should the cable companies try to compete in other markets. We might also get Clearwire and the cellular carriers to support the position although most of their deployments will probably be in areas that would never have qualified for USF to begin with. If the terms wireline are kept in the bill it would appear that wireless services might also be excluded from receiving any USF funds which basically keeps USF funds in the exclusive hands of the Telco's as it has been. Personally I think that if we don't out and out oppose the bill for USF reform, but rather do something like this as a minor change, the WISP industry can make out better. USF reform will happen and USF funds will be spent on deploying broadband to unserved areas no matter what. What we need to do is make sure the law does not fund builds in areas already served by WISP's and other technologies. If the battle could also be fought and won to allow WISP's access to the funds for broadband deployments then great. When going up against the cable and Telco lobbies, one has to be wise about picking their battles as the funding to fight this will be limited. And on a related note, Patrick Leary wrote, You'd think there would be an excellent legal argument to fight that. Seems it'd be difficult to enact a law that in effect discriminates against certain classes of providers, especially since WISPs are the only pure play broadband providers out there. Theorectically the re-configured USF is meant to propel broadband...so how could the feds exclude the only entity that provides broadband first, other services second. All other providers have broadband as a secondary play. Patrick's first... We're talking about a new law, so the legal argument boils down to whatever the law says is legal, is legal, unless it's a flagrant constitutional violation. Which I don't see, since the main issue here is simply who gets government handouts, and handing out money (and taxing) is sort of the normal role of government. The problem is that the system is so corrupt by now that the handouts appear to be irrational. In practice they're not; they just aren't done for the public good. Back to Brian's point... You first have to think about whose bill this is. Boucher doesn't make this stuff up himself. Nor does his staff, though they know more about it than most congressional staffers. Boucher's job in Washington is, and has always been, to carry Verizon's water. When he puts a bill in the hopper, it comes from them. Tom Tauke's staff probably drafted most of the bill. So what is Verizon asking for? You again have to look at what USF is all about. It was created as part of intercarrier compensation reform. Before USF, toll settlements to rural carriers were high enough to pay the subsidies. Make a 30 cent call and the rural carrier gets 50 cents for terminating it. This worked because Long Distance was a huge luxury and thus could be milked. As the cost of delivering LD went down, the amount that could be diverted to supporting the ILECs went up. But the system broke down under competition, especially from VoIP, but also from something called reality -- you can't perpetuate a rotten system like that forever. It was hugely inefficient. So intercarrier payments from IXCs to LECs no longer pay the whole freight, and explicit USF makes up the difference. The IXCs, however, are the main payers of USF. They count the cards differently but the kitty still goes the same way. In the 1980s, Verizon (then called Bell Atlantic) was a LEC and on the receiving end of IXC switched access charges. But now the Bells get much lower switched access rates, so it's not a big revenue source for them. Instead, you
Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever
At 7/29/2010 11:51 AM, Brian Webster wrote: Fred, Does the bill state that the voice and data service have to be provided by the SAME carrier or just that the consumer has access to them? It says that they purchase it from the unsupported non-incumbent provider. So that implies at least a resale relationship. Bear in mind that many cable companies who provide voice service do not have their own voice networks; Sprint, for instance, is the wholesale CLEC supplier to much of Suddenlink and TW Cable. The bill does not specify that the seller be a CLEC per se. It does require a stand-alone voice service (bundles only don't count), toll restriction option, E911, etc. And there can be just and reasonable charges for extending the line outside of the normal service range, again resembling telco practice for houses set back too far, etc. Would cellular service qualify in that case? No; it's written for wireline, and standard POTS parameters. The bill allows up to two CMRS carriers to get USF too. If there are at least three CMRS carriers in an area, they bid for the right to receive USF. If there aren't three, but one already gets USF, it keeps it, without bidding, at current levels. This latter clause might end up giving VZ and ATT a lot of extra money vs. current FCC plans to reduce USF support to them, which shows you how the bill is not really one to reduce USF so much as to direct it certain ways! Thought is that is there is cell or CLEC service and a WISP also covers the same area with only broadband, it could be considered served. The issue of QOS and all the other call reliability standards would be addressed by others and not the WISP. No, because mobile standards are counted differently, towards the separate mobile USF entitlement. WISPs are left out. (Time to crack out the lobbyists!) I get and understand every point you made on the bill and the players. It all makes sense and pretty much what one would expect. Changes to allow WISP's or wireless to be considered part of the 75% coverage would really hurt the rurals that are trying to save their revenue stream and will meet with a massive fight. USF reform was expected to have spurred a big fight from those who stand to lose. There have been a lot of votes and campaign contributions bought with that money over the years. Yes, I expect that this bill will receive a fair amount of opposition from the subsidy-suckers too. Brian -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:20 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever At 7/29/2010 10:34 AM, Brian Webster wrote: Yes but if the cable companies could also ally with wireless carriers to get other areas excluded from USF subsidies, the field would be a more level one should the cable companies try to compete in other markets. We might also get Clearwire and the cellular carriers to support the position although most of their deployments will probably be in areas that would never have qualified for USF to begin with. If the terms wireline are kept in the bill it would appear that wireless services might also be excluded from receiving any USF funds which basically keeps USF funds in the exclusive hands of the Telco's as it has been. Personally I think that if we don't out and out oppose the bill for USF reform, but rather do something like this as a minor change, the WISP industry can make out better. USF reform will happen and USF funds will be spent on deploying broadband to unserved areas no matter what. What we need to do is make sure the law does not fund builds in areas already served by WISP's and other technologies. If the battle could also be fought and won to allow WISP's access to the funds for broadband deployments then great. When going up against the cable and Telco lobbies, one has to be wise about picking their battles as the funding to fight this will be limited. And on a related note, Patrick Leary wrote, You'd think there would be an excellent legal argument to fight that. Seems it'd be difficult to enact a law that in effect discriminates against certain classes of providers, especially since WISPs are the only pure play broadband providers out there. Theorectically the re-configured USF is meant to propel broadband...so how could the feds exclude the only entity that provides broadband first, other services second. All other providers have broadband as a secondary play. Patrick's first... We're talking about a new law, so the legal argument boils down to whatever the law says is legal, is legal, unless it's a flagrant constitutional violation. Which I don't see, since the main issue here is simply who gets government handouts, and handing out money (and taxing) is sort of the normal
Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever
Agreed, very much so! - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 7/29/2010 10:41 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: I am so glad you moved over to the Wispa list Fred! I don't always agree with you, but I REALLY appreciate how much thought and detail you put into your responses. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:20 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever At 7/29/2010 10:34 AM, Brian Webster wrote: Yes but if the cable companies could also ally with wireless carriers to get other areas excluded from USF subsidies, the field would be a more level one should the cable companies try to compete in other markets. We might also get Clearwire and the cellular carriers to support the position although most of their deployments will probably be in areas that would never have qualified for USF to begin with. If the terms wireline are kept in the bill it would appear that wireless services might also be excluded from receiving any USF funds which basically keeps USF funds in the exclusive hands of the Telco's as it has been. Personally I think that if we don't out and out oppose the bill for USF reform, but rather do something like this as a minor change, the WISP industry can make out better. USF reform will happen and USF funds will be spent on deploying broadband to unserved areas no matter what. What we need to do is make sure the law does not fund builds in areas already served by WISP's and other technologies. If the battle could also be fought and won to allow WISP's access to the funds for broadband deployments then great. When going up against the cable and Telco lobbies, one has to be wise about picking their battles as the funding to fight this will be limited. And on a related note, Patrick Leary wrote, You'd think there would be an excellent legal argument to fight that. Seems it'd be difficult to enact a law that in effect discriminates against certain classes of providers, especially since WISPs are the only pure play broadband providers out there. Theorectically the re-configured USF is meant to propel broadband...so how could the feds exclude the only entity that provides broadband first, other services second. All other providers have broadband as a secondary play. Patrick's first... We're talking about a new law, so the legal argument boils down to whatever the law says is legal, is legal, unless it's a flagrant constitutional violation. Which I don't see, since the main issue here is simply who gets government handouts, and handing out money (and taxing) is sort of the normal role of government. The problem is that the system is so corrupt by now that the handouts appear to be irrational. In practice they're not; they just aren't done for the public good. Back to Brian's point... You first have to think about whose bill this is. Boucher doesn't make this stuff up himself. Nor does his staff, though they know more about it than most congressional staffers. Boucher's job in Washington is, and has always been, to carry Verizon's water. When he puts a bill in the hopper, it comes from them. Tom Tauke's staff probably drafted most of the bill. So what is Verizon asking for? You again have to look at what USF is all about. It was created as part of intercarrier compensation reform. Before USF, toll settlements to rural carriers were high enough to pay the subsidies. Make a 30 cent call and the rural carrier gets 50 cents for terminating it. This worked because Long Distance was a huge luxury and thus could be milked. As the cost of delivering LD went down, the amount that could be diverted to supporting the ILECs went up. But the system broke down under competition, especially from VoIP, but also from something called reality -- you can't perpetuate a rotten system like that forever. It was hugely inefficient. So intercarrier payments from IXCs to LECs no longer pay the whole freight, and explicit USF makes up the difference. The IXCs, however, are the main payers of USF. They count the cards differently but the kitty still goes the same way. In the 1980s, Verizon (then called Bell Atlantic) was a LEC and on the receiving end of IXC switched access charges. But now the Bells get much lower switched access rates, so it's not a big revenue source for them. Instead, you have Verizon owning the former MCI and Worldcom assets and Southwestern Bell owning the former ATT Corp. assets, so the two mega-Bells are probably net payers, not recipients, of subsidies to the rurals, both via USF and access charges. Sprint, of course, no longer has any
Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever
At 7/29/2010 04:32 PM, you wrote: Agreed, very much so! Thanks guys! And I do appreciate the help I get from you on all of my silly little equipment questions. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 7/29/2010 10:41 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: I am so glad you moved over to the Wispa list Fred! I don't always agree with you, but I REALLY appreciate how much thought and detail you put into your responses. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:20 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever At 7/29/2010 10:34 AM, Brian Webster wrote: Yes but if the cable companies could also ally with wireless carriers to get other areas excluded from USF subsidies, the field would be a more level one should the cable companies try to compete in other markets. We might also get Clearwire and the cellular carriers to support the position although most of their deployments will probably be in areas that would never have qualified for USF to begin with. If the terms wireline are kept in the bill it would appear that wireless services might also be excluded from receiving any USF funds which basically keeps USF funds in the exclusive hands of the Telco's as it has been. Personally I think that if we don't out and out oppose the bill for USF reform, but rather do something like this as a minor change, the WISP industry can make out better. USF reform will happen and USF funds will be spent on deploying broadband to unserved areas no matter what. What we need to do is make sure the law does not fund builds in areas already served by WISP's and other technologies. If the battle could also be fought and won to allow WISP's access to the funds for broadband deployments then great. When going up against the cable and Telco lobbies, one has to be wise about picking their battles as the funding to fight this will be limited. And on a related note, Patrick Leary wrote, You'd think there would be an excellent legal argument to fight that. Seems it'd be difficult to enact a law that in effect discriminates against certain classes of providers, especially since WISPs are the only pure play broadband providers out there. Theorectically the re-configured USF is meant to propel broadband...so how could the feds exclude the only entity that provides broadband first, other services second. All other providers have broadband as a secondary play. Patrick's first... We're talking about a new law, so the legal argument boils down to whatever the law says is legal, is legal, unless it's a flagrant constitutional violation. Which I don't see, since the main issue here is simply who gets government handouts, and handing out money (and taxing) is sort of the normal role of government. The problem is that the system is so corrupt by now that the handouts appear to be irrational. In practice they're not; they just aren't done for the public good. Back to Brian's point... You first have to think about whose bill this is. Boucher doesn't make this stuff up himself. Nor does his staff, though they know more about it than most congressional staffers. Boucher's job in Washington is, and has always been, to carry Verizon's water. When he puts a bill in the hopper, it comes from them. Tom Tauke's staff probably drafted most of the bill. So what is Verizon asking for? You again have to look at what USF is all about. It was created as part of intercarrier compensation reform. Before USF, toll settlements to rural carriers were high enough to pay the subsidies. Make a 30 cent call and the rural carrier gets 50 cents for terminating it. This worked because Long Distance was a huge luxury and thus could be milked. As the cost of delivering LD went down, the amount that could be diverted to supporting the ILECs went up. But the system broke down under competition, especially from VoIP, but also from something called reality -- you can't perpetuate a rotten system like that forever. It was hugely inefficient. So intercarrier payments from IXCs to LECs no longer pay the whole freight, and explicit USF makes up the difference. The IXCs, however, are the main payers of USF. They count the cards differently but the kitty still goes the same way. In the 1980s, Verizon (then called Bell Atlantic) was a LEC and on the receiving end of IXC switched access charges. But now the Bells get much lower switched access rates, so it's not a big revenue source for them. Instead, you have Verizon owning the former MCI and
Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever
He reminds me of Tom! On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net wrote: I am so glad you moved over to the Wispa list Fred! I don't always agree with you, but I REALLY appreciate how much thought and detail you put into your responses. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:20 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever At 7/29/2010 10:34 AM, Brian Webster wrote: Yes but if the cable companies could also ally with wireless carriers to get other areas excluded from USF subsidies, the field would be a more level one should the cable companies try to compete in other markets. We might also get Clearwire and the cellular carriers to support the position although most of their deployments will probably be in areas that would never have qualified for USF to begin with. If the terms wireline are kept in the bill it would appear that wireless services might also be excluded from receiving any USF funds which basically keeps USF funds in the exclusive hands of the Telco's as it has been. Personally I think that if we don't out and out oppose the bill for USF reform, but rather do something like this as a minor change, the WISP industry can make out better. USF reform will happen and USF funds will be spent on deploying broadband to unserved areas no matter what. What we need to do is make sure the law does not fund builds in areas already served by WISP's and other technologies. If the battle could also be fought and won to allow WISP's access to the funds for broadband deployments then great. When going up against the cable and Telco lobbies, one has to be wise about picking their battles as the funding to fight this will be limited. And on a related note, Patrick Leary wrote, You'd think there would be an excellent legal argument to fight that. Seems it'd be difficult to enact a law that in effect discriminates against certain classes of providers, especially since WISPs are the only pure play broadband providers out there. Theorectically the re-configured USF is meant to propel broadband...so how could the feds exclude the only entity that provides broadband first, other services second. All other providers have broadband as a secondary play. Patrick's first... We're talking about a new law, so the legal argument boils down to whatever the law says is legal, is legal, unless it's a flagrant constitutional violation. Which I don't see, since the main issue here is simply who gets government handouts, and handing out money (and taxing) is sort of the normal role of government. The problem is that the system is so corrupt by now that the handouts appear to be irrational. In practice they're not; they just aren't done for the public good. Back to Brian's point... You first have to think about whose bill this is. Boucher doesn't make this stuff up himself. Nor does his staff, though they know more about it than most congressional staffers. Boucher's job in Washington is, and has always been, to carry Verizon's water. When he puts a bill in the hopper, it comes from them. Tom Tauke's staff probably drafted most of the bill. So what is Verizon asking for? You again have to look at what USF is all about. It was created as part of intercarrier compensation reform. Before USF, toll settlements to rural carriers were high enough to pay the subsidies. Make a 30 cent call and the rural carrier gets 50 cents for terminating it. This worked because Long Distance was a huge luxury and thus could be milked. As the cost of delivering LD went down, the amount that could be diverted to supporting the ILECs went up. But the system broke down under competition, especially from VoIP, but also from something called reality -- you can't perpetuate a rotten system like that forever. It was hugely inefficient. So intercarrier payments from IXCs to LECs no longer pay the whole freight, and explicit USF makes up the difference. The IXCs, however, are the main payers of USF. They count the cards differently but the kitty still goes the same way. In the 1980s, Verizon (then called Bell Atlantic) was a LEC and on the receiving end of IXC switched access charges. But now the Bells get much lower switched access rates, so it's not a big revenue source for them. Instead, you have Verizon owning the former MCI and Worldcom assets and Southwestern Bell owning the former ATT Corp. assets, so the two mega-Bells are probably net payers, not recipients, of subsidies to the rurals, both via USF and access charges. Sprint, of course, no longer has any affiliated LECs, so it's a big net loser too. Those three companies
Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever
I agree with Fred on this. I have read many of his statements on cybertelecom's email list. If you are an ISP, I strongly recommend that you join it off of http://www.cybertelecom.org/ Since around 2002, maybe a little earlier, at the time of The Tauzin-Dingell Telecom Bill, the Congress, and the FCC pretty much did away with line sharing or the ability for us(ISP's) to use any lines provided by Ilec's( http://www.manymedia.com/futures/tauzding.html ). After this it lead to the Triennial Review. All this finally leads to the fact that the ILEC's do not even have to share their fiber. Fred may not agree with me on this, but as far as I can see it, the FCC and Congress have been out to do away with the small ISP's since around 2000. They have one agenda, that makes it even more sound is that in the last few months, the FCC has now classified broadband as 4 meg down/1 meg up. That not only has DE-classified many of the WISP as providing broadband, but also the satellite providers, and many DSL systems. I recently had an awakening, on the 2nd round BIP, that even though my company had coverage in the same area as a Rural Telco(Twin Lakes Telephone Cooperative) they could apply for BIP, but I could not because they already had USDA funding as a Telco. Guess what? They received 16 million in grants and also received 16 million in low cost loans to provide FTTH in my coverage area. Call me what you will, but the FCC and everything behind them only want the duopoly of cable and telco to deal with. We are just pissing in the wind and it is why I have not joined WISPA yet. I may be missing the boat, but I am waiting for WISPA to prove me wrong. I have seen beyond and experienced beyond the norm. Show me something that I can have faith(and provide financial incentives) in or I will stay exactly where I am at and look for other income. Scottie Arnett Info-Ed, Inc. At 7/29/2010 08:01 AM, Brian wrote: Hit me off list and I can offer some suggestions. As I mentioned, the 75% rule only applies to wireline providers (i.e., cable), so mapping WISP coverage buys nothing. The Boucher-Terry bill has nothing in it to help WISPs and plenty to hurt them, including a rather high tax to support your competitors. Brian -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever I'd like to but I dont know where to begin and with my limited time I cant even try to figure it out. On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com wrote: Steve Coran just posted the message below to the WISPA FCC committee list. I took particular note to the following statement: - would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive provider that does not receive support Now the way I read the above statement is that if a WISP covers 75% of a current USF recipients service area, there will no longer be eligibility to receive USF funds. Remember if they have broadband they also have access to many VOIP providers even if you do not provide VOIP services. Vonage and Skype come to mind, not to mention cellular coverage. This would be a huge factor in leveling the playing field for WISP's in rural markets! I cannot see a more compelling reason to document and map your networks than this. Not only will it prevent yet another subsidized competitor from coming in to your service area, but it will also erode funding for any Telco who currently receives USF in your markets. This would bring wireless as a delivery method to the forefront because there are then no artificial revenue streams subsidizing the cost to deliver last mile service. We all know that wireless has the least cost per household passed in low density markets. There are many ways to document and map your coverage areas. First and foremost though is that you should file the Form 477 as required. Next one should map their network with an accurate service area where you would confidently offer service. This can be done many ways (including paying me to do it). This also shows a very important reason to be participating in your state broadband mapping efforts. I would expect that those state maps will become one of the major verification sources to establish the 75% coverage. The FCC 477 database will probably become another verification source. If you are listed in both of them it would be very hard for someone to say you don't exist and don't offer coverage in their areas. One of the downsides to this bill is that all broadband providers will be required to contribute to the fund. My gut feeling though is that if
Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever
- would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive provider that does not receive support Ø Now the way I read the above statement is that if a WISP covers 75% of a current USF recipients service area, there will no longer be eligibility to receive USF funds. Remember if they have broadband they also have access to many VOIP providers even if you do not provide VOIP services. Vonage and Skype come to mind, not to mention cellular coverage. This would be a huge factor in leveling the playing field for WISPs in rural markets! That is the way I see it too! Victoria Proffer www.ShowMeBroadband.com www.StLouisBroadband.com 314-974-5600 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:37 AM To: memb...@wispa.org; 'WISPA General List'; motor...@afmug.com Subject: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever Importance: High Steve Coran just posted the message below to the WISPA FCC committee list. I took particular note to the following statement: - would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive provider that does not receive support Now the way I read the above statement is that if a WISP covers 75% of a current USF recipients service area, there will no longer be eligibility to receive USF funds. Remember if they have broadband they also have access to many VOIP providers even if you do not provide VOIP services. Vonage and Skype come to mind, not to mention cellular coverage. This would be a huge factor in leveling the playing field for WISPs in rural markets! I cannot see a more compelling reason to document and map your networks than this. Not only will it prevent yet another subsidized competitor from coming in to your service area, but it will also erode funding for any Telco who currently receives USF in your markets. This would bring wireless as a delivery method to the forefront because there are then no artificial revenue streams subsidizing the cost to deliver last mile service. We all know that wireless has the least cost per household passed in low density markets. There are many ways to document and map your coverage areas. First and foremost though is that you should file the Form 477 as required. Next one should map their network with an accurate service area where you would confidently offer service. This can be done many ways (including paying me to do it). This also shows a very important reason to be participating in your state broadband mapping efforts. I would expect that those state maps will become one of the major verification sources to establish the 75% coverage. The FCC 477 database will probably become another verification source. If you are listed in both of them it would be very hard for someone to say you dont exist and dont offer coverage in their areas. One of the downsides to this bill is that all broadband providers will be required to contribute to the fund. My gut feeling though is that if WISPs were accurately mapped and documented it would show so much less of the US is unserved by broadband and thus the required funding through USF to get it there will be much less. Brian -- Last week, Reps. Boucher (D-VA) and Terry (R-NE) introduced legislation that would reform the Universal Service Fund. The Press Release, Overview, Section by Section summary and text of the bill are available at this link: http://www.boucher.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content http://www.boucher.house.gov/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=1579 Itemid=122 task=viewid=1579Itemid=122 I have not read these documents, but plan to do so soon. A few highlights that the trade press has noted: - would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive provider that does not receive support - FCC would create cost model that includes broadband in figuring support models - competitive bidding among wireless carriers for USF support - no more than two wireless CETCs could get support in the same area - carriers would have 5 years to provide broadband throughout their service areas, or would lose support - all broadband providers would pay into USF to expand contribution base - FCC to decide appropriate speed for broadband Rep. Boucher has said that the bill is on his front burner and that he wants to get the legislation passed this Fall. Please feel free to comment on-list AFTER you've reviewed the documents so that you can promote education of the WISPA membership and help shape whatever position WISPA may wish to take as the bill works its way
Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever
At 7/28/2010 12:59 PM, you wrote: - would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive provider that does not receive support Ø Now the way I read the above statement is that if a WISP covers 75% of a current USF recipients service area, there will no longer be eligibility to receive USF funds. Remember if they have broadband they also have access to many VOIP providers even if you do not provide VOIP services. Vonage and Skype come to mind, not to mention cellular coverage. This would be a huge factor in leveling the playing field for WISP's in rural markets! That is the way I see it too! I don't. See page 22 of the bill (scanned version only on line, alas; emphasis added): ...the Commission determines that at least 75% of the households can purchase **wireline** voice service and **wired** high-speed broadband service from an unsupported, facilities-based, non-incumbent provider... There's also a reference further down (p24) to voice service of standard quality. That rules out Skype or any non-QoS-enabled VoIP platform, or any non-PSTN non-E.164 service. If this were the only issue though, it would be easy enough to provide a technical fix. The rule appears aimed at cable. If there is unsubsidized PacketCable telephony, then why should the FCC subsidize ILECs? There's also support in the bill for mobile wireless providers. Over the past decade, CMRS carriers have been the largest (by far) competitive ETCs. Current FCC plans phase this out. The largest recipients are ATT and Verizon, the latter via its Alltel / Western Wireless purchase. The Boucher (D-Verizon) bill instead allows CMRSs to bid to become the supported mobile carrier in a given area. There are various other goodies (if you're Verizon) in the bill, including an order that the FCC complete intercarrier compensation reform within a year (it has been an open docket since April, 2001, and each Commission seems to want to pass the ball to its successor rather than do anything). And section 303 apparently bans access revenue sharing, so the free conference call industry goes out of business. I guess we'll all have to move our conference calls to the Internet. This is a real pain, but VZ, ATT and Sprint don't want to pay the teensy bit that it costs them (though it helps encourage the sale of overpriced flat-rate usage plans). The bill adds USF taxes to WISPs and basically prohibits them from receiving anything. This is consistent with the FCC's current pay for the bullet proposal. Such a deal! -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever
Also, Keep in mind that we offer free 477 data prep in a program on our web site. Go to www.wispmon.com and click on the FCC 477 Util.. You can even download a free desktop geocoder to pre-geocode your data (makes things go a little faster in the form prep). No proprietary info has to be given. We don't share data with anyone, ever. There is some prep work involved on your end, but it would have to be done regardless of how you chose to get the data. Instructions for use are on the page. Regards, Cameron On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.comwrote: At 7/28/2010 12:59 PM, you wrote: *- would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive provider that does not receive support * Ø Now the way I read the above statement is that if a WISP covers 75% of a current USF recipients service area, there will no longer be eligibility to receive USF funds. Remember if they have broadband they also have access to many VOIP providers even if you do not provide VOIP services. Vonage and Skype come to mind, not to mention cellular coverage. *This would be a huge factor in leveling the playing field for WISP’s in rural markets! * That is the way I see it too! I don't. See page 22 of the bill (scanned version only on line, alas; emphasis added): ...the Commission determines that at least 75% of the households can purchase **wireline** voice service and **wired** high-speed broadband service from an unsupported, facilities-based, non-incumbent provider... There's also a reference further down (p24) to voice service of standard quality. That rules out Skype or any non-QoS-enabled VoIP platform, or any non-PSTN non-E.164 service. If this were the only issue though, it would be easy enough to provide a technical fix. The rule appears aimed at cable. If there is unsubsidized PacketCable telephony, then why should the FCC subsidize ILECs? There's also support in the bill for mobile wireless providers. Over the past decade, CMRS carriers have been the largest (by far) competitive ETCs. Current FCC plans phase this out. The largest recipients are ATT and Verizon, the latter via its Alltel / Western Wireless purchase. The Boucher (D-Verizon) bill instead allows CMRSs to bid to become the supported mobile carrier in a given area. There are various other goodies (if you're Verizon) in the bill, including an order that the FCC complete intercarrier compensation reform within a year (it has been an open docket since April, 2001, and each Commission seems to want to pass the ball to its successor rather than do anything). And section 303 apparently bans access revenue sharing, so the free conference call industry goes out of business. I guess we'll all have to move our conference calls to the Internet. This is a real pain, but VZ, ATT and Sprint don't want to pay the teensy bit that it costs them (though it helps encourage the sale of overpriced flat-rate usage plans). The bill adds USF taxes to WISPs and basically prohibits them from receiving anything. This is consistent with the FCC's current pay for the bullet proposal. Such a deal! -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] USF Reform Bill Introduced - The most compelling reason to document and map your network coverage ever
I'd like to but I dont know where to begin and with my limited time I cant even try to figure it out. On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com wrote: Steve Coran just posted the message below to the WISPA FCC committee list. I took particular note to the following statement: - would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive provider that does not receive support Now the way I read the above statement is that if a WISP covers 75% of a current USF recipients service area, there will no longer be eligibility to receive USF funds. Remember if they have broadband they also have access to many VOIP providers even if you do not provide VOIP services. Vonage and Skype come to mind, not to mention cellular coverage. This would be a huge factor in leveling the playing field for WISP’s in rural markets! I cannot see a more compelling reason to document and map your networks than this. Not only will it prevent yet another subsidized competitor from coming in to your service area, but it will also erode funding for any Telco who currently receives USF in your markets. This would bring wireless as a delivery method to the forefront because there are then no artificial revenue streams subsidizing the cost to deliver last mile service. We all know that wireless has the least cost per household passed in low density markets. There are many ways to document and map your coverage areas. First and foremost though is that you should file the Form 477 as required. Next one should map their network with an accurate service area where you would confidently offer service. This can be done many ways (including paying me to do it). This also shows a very important reason to be participating in your state broadband mapping efforts. I would expect that those state maps will become one of the major verification sources to establish the 75% coverage. The FCC 477 database will probably become another verification source. If you are listed in both of them it would be very hard for someone to say you don’t exist and don’t offer coverage in their areas. One of the downsides to this bill is that all broadband providers will be required to contribute to the fund. My gut feeling though is that if WISP’s were accurately mapped and documented it would show so much less of the US is unserved by broadband and thus the required funding through USF to get it there will be much less. Brian -- Last week, Reps. Boucher (D-VA) and Terry (R-NE) introduced legislation that would reform the Universal Service Fund. The Press Release, Overview, Section by Section summary and text of the bill are available at this link: http://www.boucher.house.gov/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=1579Itemid=122 I have not read these documents, but plan to do so soon. A few highlights that the trade press has noted: - would reduce or deny support to wireline incumbents in areas where at least 75% of households can receive voice and broadband from a competitive provider that does not receive support - FCC would create cost model that includes broadband in figuring support models - competitive bidding among wireless carriers for USF support - no more than two wireless CETCs could get support in the same area - carriers would have 5 years to provide broadband throughout their service areas, or would lose support - all broadband providers would pay into USF to expand contribution base - FCC to decide appropriate speed for broadband Rep. Boucher has said that the bill is on his front burner and that he wants to get the legislation passed this Fall. Please feel free to comment on-list AFTER you've reviewed the documents so that you can promote education of the WISPA membership and help shape whatever position WISPA may wish to take as the bill works its way through Congress. Thanks. Stephen E. Coran Rini Coran, PC 1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 202.463.4310 - voice 202.669.3288 - cell 202.296.2014 - fax sco...@rinicoran.com - e-mail www.rinicoran.com www.telecommunicationslaw.com 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
