Are you willing to put up a tower to serve 2 customers? Only if you think you 
can get your money back.....

John


>-----Original Message-----
>From: KyWiFi LLC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 01:11 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform
>
>I agree, I would think that 12 months is plenty long enough,
>definitely not more than 36 months. Take our company for
>example, we deployed 7 broadcast sites in our first 12 months
>of operation and we were profitable by month number 8 or 9
>and this was WITHOUT any "free" money. If a company in
>this line of work cannot achieve a profit in their first year or
>two of operation, I don't see them being around long term.
>
>
>Sincerely,
>Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder
>KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky
>http://www.KyWiFi.com
>http://www.KyWiFiVoice.com
>Phone: 859.274.4033
>A Broadband Phone & Internet Provider
>
>==============================
>Wireless Broadband, Local Calling and
>UNLIMITED Long Distance only $69!
>
>No Taxes, No Regulatory Fees, No Hassles
>
>FREE Site Survey: http://www.KyWiFi.com
>==============================
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Jeromie Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 3:30 PM
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform
>
>
>10 to 20 year time line? I would like to see 1 to 5 years. I do not see 
>how a network can not be profitable
>in that time frame with "free" monies.
>
>Jeromie
>
>Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Here's what WISPA is prepared to submit to the commerce committee.  
>> Thought you guys would like a peek at it first.
>>
>>
>>
>> WISPA USF Reform Position Paper
>>
>>
>>
>>            WISPA is a the WISP industry's only industry owned and 
>> operated trade association.  We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 
>> person, membership elected board.
>>
>>
>>
>>            The goals for USF should be clarified.  Are laptops for 
>> kids part of the program goals?  Was it the original intent that USF 
>> exclude small local entrepreneurs and give preferential treatment to 
>> the incumbent? As USF changes, do the changes have a clear goal?  Is 
>> this just a mechanism to try to put more funds into the program 
>> otherwise leave it as is?  Or does Congress want to see substantial 
>> changes in the program that do more to foster rather than stifle 
>> innovation?
>>
>>
>>
>>            WISPA believes that market forces should mostly be left to 
>> their own.  Without government tweaking.  USF should be canceled 
>> completely.  If a real need for outside funding in regions or small 
>> pockets turns out to be needed, address those issues on a case by case 
>> basis.  At the very least the USF program needs major reform as its 
>> cost based fee structure encourages abuse.
>>
>>
>>
>>            An example of artificially high costs would be in Odessa, 
>> Washington.  In the early 2000 time frame the local telco replaced an 
>> 8 T-1 microwave link with a fiber optic line at a cost (or so we've 
>> been told) of $600,000.  Even at the time, the cost of a microwave 
>> replacement with more capacity would have been half or less.  This is 
>> for a town of 1000 that's not on the way to anywhere.  The telco is 
>> now in the process of adding more fiber to complete a fiber loop to 
>> other areas.  This next 30 mile stretch is through many solid rock 
>> canyons and the costs are expected to be even higher.
>>
>>
>>
>>            This same telco has installed $60,000 DSL systems in rural 
>> areas that have fewer than 15 houses within 18,000 feet of the hut.  
>> Clearly these are cost raising mechanisms.
>>
>>
>>
>>            We understand that USF is not likely to go away at this 
>> time. The above telco gets 2/3rds of its income via subsidies and 
>> would not likely survive without them.  Leaving such business 
>> practices in place permanently is not good public policy though.
>>
>>
>>
>>            WISPA proposes that a time limit on the USF program be 
>> instituted.  Expand the program to include all communications 
>> companies and use USF to help them build an infrastructure.  Once that 
>> system is built, it needs to stand on its own two legs though.  If it 
>> doesn't, then that's the company's fault and they can live with the 
>> results of the network they built.  Somewhere between 10 and 20 years 
>> should allow plenty of time for efficient network upgrades or 
>> construction.  The program should not be viewed as a permanent profit 
>> line item for companies but rather be a short term 
>> capitalization/construction fund that will end and leave the company 
>> standing (or not) on its own  two feet at a set specific date.
>>
>>
>>
>> We believe that opening up USF to all operators would likely cause 
>> multiple networks to be built at the same time and the most efficient 
>> ones would survive.  If, after USF was discontinued some areas were 
>> left with no viable options for service those specific cases could be 
>> addressed under some more targeted program.  Funds should be collected 
>> and distributed based on customers serviced.  This would help prevent 
>> speculation with the funds, rather the funds would reward those that 
>> have already stepped up to the plate.  Tying fund distribution with 
>> the FCC form 477 would also likely help lead to more accurate market 
>> data availability.
>>
>>
>>
>> WISPA also believes that USF's goals should be readdressed.  We don't 
>> believe that using USF funds to provide laptop computers to 68,000 7th 
>> and 8th graders in Massachusetts is a proper use of the program.
>>
>>
>>
>> We would also like to see some changes in the way that USF is 
>> distributed. The E-Rate program excludes almost all entrepreneurial 
>> providers.  In some areas the local WISP offers greater service levels 
>> for less cost than the local hospital or school is paying via the 
>> E-Rate programs.  We're not allowed to service those portions of the 
>> account that we could take care of because we don't have CLEC status 
>> or can't offer all services.
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems to us that a complicated mechanism to compute pay in and pay 
>> out isn't needed or wanted at this time.  We propose that the current 
>> contributions simply be expanded to any broadband provider in any area 
>> that the incumbent currently contributes.  And in any area where USF 
>> funds are distributed all providers be given equal shares based on 
>> customer base.  And one customer equals one share.  No company should 
>> get more money for more services.  This would slow down the 
>> convergence of services into increasingly efficient networks in rural 
>> markets.
>>
>>
>>
>> This model should encourage both competition and a shift from high 
>> cost to low cost network design.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Marlon K. Schafer
>>
>> Founding Board Member
>>
>> FCC Committee Chairman
>>
>> WISPA
>>
>> (509) 982-2181
>>
>> (509) 988-0260 cell
>>
>>
>> laters,
>> Marlon
>> (509) 982-2181                                   Equipment sales
>> (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)                    Consulting services
>> 42846865 (icq)                                    And I run my own wisp!
>> 64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
>> www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
>> www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to