What they really need to do is just add WISPs as logical beneficiaries to
USF funds, and the problem would be fixed. Then who cares who would pay into
it. It will never be possible to add VOIP providers as USPF fund recipients
for Rural area, because its near impossible to control where the VOIP
service purchased will be used geographically.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Forbes Mercy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 2:05 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] USF fund issues
I thought I'd take a few minutes to comment on the USF and other
attempts to tax VoIP as if it were a fresh new source of tax revenue for
Democrats everywhere. Of course just like the last draft from a
congressional staffer re-writing the Telecom act of 1996 (over 300
pages) this FCC document is 30 pages. More light reading over a long
beer tonight, why do these lawyers continue to get paid by the word so
they produce ridiculously long documents that say the same thing over
and over but leave ambiguity so they don't have to define a clear role.
My USF comments will summarize that this fund being used for so much
more than rural deployment should be cut back to it's original use but
if we have to fund it then we get a piece of it when we deploy into the
Rural Areas ourselves.
Beyond that concession we should be receiving credits for moving
broadband into rural areas including exemption from the USF for saving
their ridiculous subsidizing as we bring VoIP into those previously
funded areas. This would save the need for them to subsidize anything.
Forbes Mercy
Washington Broadband, Inc.
Ps. I keep getting the moderator must approve, I'm not a member. Gee
really?
-----Original Message-----
From: Marlon K. Schafer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 7:16 PM
To: Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] USF fund issues
Did anyone ever take this issue on? We have only about 2 more weeks to
make
comments.
marlon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization"
<[email protected]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 9:17 AM
Subject: [WISPA FCC] USF fund issues
Hi All,
I assume we'll want to file on this issue....
http://www.broadbandwirelessreports.com/pressreleases/files/DOC-262639A1
.pdf
Here's the actual nprm
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-205A1.pdf
If anyone really understands the ins and outs of this, please speak
up.
I'd ask Kris Twoomey but I don't have his addy on my laptop. Can
someone
please forward?
thanks,
marlon
_______________________________________________
FCC mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/fcc
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
