As I write, is it 1:40 AM, I'm tired as heck, but have been mulling this question for days, and have finally taken the time to do this. First, to my self-motivated "enemies" who can't stand anything I say "Nuts!", I'm right and I know it. Now, for the rest, who are interested in more than just shallow mockery, here's serious conversation on serious topics, and the excuse to dismiss me for those who can't bring themselves to be serious.
Some comments on the strategy for opposing FCC intervention. As is highlighted below - and has been discussed at considerable length in other venues... The NBP, the regulation of internet services, and "net neutrality" all hinge upon a couple of rather firm anchors. As we know, the FCC lost in the courts when it attempted to simply re-write the intent of current law. The first "anchor" for implementation of anything is to surmount the law as it sits right now. Either by Congressional action, or by administratively bypassing it. The current administration has demonstrated in several other areas they are willing to coordinate completely bypassing the legislative process, and regulate via "administrative rule". IE, agencies simply write new rules that force the intent of the administration, even if it conflicts with current law, or has no basis in law. There's considerable example and evidence of this, by the EPA and other agencies. It would be my estimate that this is the approach the FCC will try - and it is coordinated directly, but unofficially, from the White House. This approach has mixed support and resistance in Congress. Some of the Democrats would prefer this, rather than Congress taking up a controversial topic. However, it is legally "iffy". And, there's a majority in Congress which is mostly Republicans and some Democrats who actually oppose the FCC attempting to simply rule by fiat. It's a "turf" thing, actually. Few in Congress are strongly supportive of enterprise, and the resistance is mostly about Congress objecting to the FCC usurping their role. Thus, it would seem to be a poor strategy to rely on Congressional efforts or even lobbying Congress to proactively act - though it should be done - to oppose the FCC, perhaps by proactive legislation, to block the FCC from doing any of this. It's a poor strategy to depend on it happening, but that happening would be probably the best possible outcome - assuming the law passed would protect our freedom to be in business and STAY unregulated. As I said above, there are some key pins on which this whole thing revolves, and it has been pointed out, that USF funding - and a re-write of that tax and spending is key. It's the "carrot and stick" approach. Not quite the traditional meaning, but the carrot used to get you closer or to agree, so you'll get close enough to beat with the stick. So, MONEY is the key. If there is no MONEY to buy your acceptance with, there is near universal industry opposition to regulation. In that situation, we could be political allies with, and benefit from the lobbying warchests of a wide array of players in the telecom and internet industries, as well as a wide array of both ideological and even some "progressive" institutions. As long as there is money on the table - as long as any administration or agency or even Congress has the means to buy off resistance - there is no reliable massive block of resistance. As was pointed out in other emails, an alliance with small and rural CLEC's and others is going to be shaky, because if the regulators put money on the table for them, they abandon the "common defense" and we're on our own. For that matter, WISPA's membership and even just the readership of this list is extremely and deeply divided. There are those who see the purpose of WISPA as one to lobby to repurpose or redirect the flow of that money to them. Yet, as pointed out later in the discussions on this list, that very funding means is going to be extremely anti-competitive, and result in near monopolies by area, region, etc. Support for USF funding to ISP's is 100% at cross purposes to the best interests of our industry's many individual members. WISPA has finally reached that point where it is no longer able to bridge this gap. The gap is wide enough, the fence tall enough, or whatever metaphor you wish to choose, so that the choice literally has to be made. WISPA leadership has attempted diplomatically to attempt to tread both paths, but now they diverge. Either WISPA advocates for a patently anti-competitive industry subsidy, or else it become against such subsidy altogether. There is no future point where this straddling again narrows and the leadership can advocate both for USF money subsidy and still claim to be for ALL WISP's, and for the interests of all us in a free and competitive market. At this point, since WISPA is "representative" of its members, it's time to ask the members which way they wish to go, and ADOPT IT OFFICIALLY. Stop dissembling between completely opposing ideas - advocacy for the permanent subsidy USF funding has become as opposed to the free market, free enterprise competitive marketplace we MUST HAVE TO THRIVE. I would be remiss in not at least attempting to advocate for an alternative - as we know, Congress likes "reform", but HATES "ending" anything. So, we advocate for - and this advocacy can and would gain near universal support from almost all players, as most are rational enough to see the wisdom in it. It is also self extinguishing - meaning it is both responsible and attractive politically. I'm not going to broach the "POTS" element of USF, only the conceptual notion of subsidizing broadband deployment - presuming this a mix of congressional funding, USF funding, or other, or any or even none of those. First, we need to recognize that both middle and final mile are at issue, in terms of broadband for areas which currently lack it, or have uncompetitive or excessively priced services. Second, that "satellite" is fully outside the realm of any of this, that satellite is not eligible for, nor qualifiable for, solid infrastructurally sound broadband delivery. Next, we need to address fundamental questions - Ideas must be sellable to Congress, they must obtain at least a modicum of support, and they should be equitable to all - putting free market principles to work. It must not institute permanent subsidy, which discourages the establishment of business models which are fundamentally sound WITHOUT public money. I would suggest the following approach, that is two-pronged. One, is to implore Congress to block the FCC from implementing regulation of ISP's. Although it's ideologically tepid support, the idea has, at the moment, considerable appeal to probably a large enough majority to make it veto-proof. Especially, if it is combined with a proposal to "reform" something and prevent yet another permanent subsidy of poor business practices. It would have widespread public support - including the TEA Party movement, and a huge array of think tanks, conservative activists groups, and industry lobbying groups outside of even our industry. So, should WISPA officially adopt the idea that direct and permanent subsidy be opposed, period, this can go forward, with support from probably every member and definitely gain widespread WISP support, since it is sensible and at the same time, defends our long term interests. 1. That USF funding in the form and concept in which it exists now never apply to ANY internet service. 2. That any "national broadband plan" never include any similar approach, which has proven to create long-term intractable monopolies built on inefficient business models and deep and permanent taxpayer subsidy. 3. That internet services be permanently left as private and unregulated businesses - except for those which exist by state, federal, or other franchise or legal establishment. For instance, no company with a "cable tv" franchise in a town could ever be eligible for any subsidy of any kind, in any place, ever. It's already a monopoly. It, too, would not be protected from regulation, as it concerns rates, net neutrality, etc. 4. No ILEC is ever eligible for any subsidy within the boundaries of it's incumbency, whether it is expanding broadband to unserved portions of its incumbency or not. Whether or not CLEC status should be included should be a subject of debate. 5. That any financial incentive consist solely as a refundable tax rebate per consumer serviced per month, with the consumers being defined as those who reside in an area currently without broadband, or in an area where infrastructure does not currently exist to serve at least 95% of all residences within that area. Area definition should be tied to local trade areas. Consumers would be defined as customers of the ISP, be it residential, business, or organization - like schools, businesses, or even other ISP's. 6. Rebate eligibility expires upon: 2 years after a 3rd provider or 2nd "different" technology covers at least 95% of all consumers within the defined areas. ( example, DSL access is limited to a smallish rural area, so the 1st and 2nd WISP can both claim rebates per consumer, but the DSL provider cannot unless it expands to reach 95% of the people. WISP's cannot qualify EITHER, unless or until they can cover 95%. Even if 2 WISP's fully cover, rebates continue until a third joins - then the trigger allows that WISP subsidy for 2 years,, or the telco rolls out universal DSL, at which the telco and WISP's continue for 2 years and then expires. Even if one/any/all go out of business after this threshold is crossed, the expiration is permanent,) 7. No ISP which opts out of eligibility or competes in any market without eligibility can have its services regulated. "net neutrality" and other such schemes can only apply to subsidized, uncompetitive markets. When the market is competitive by being served by at least 2 technologies and 3 providers, at near "universal" coverage, then no provider regulation is needed. 8. Middle mile providers who serve ISP's who qualify for incentive rebates are also eligible for rebate per consumer serviced by qualified ISP's who participate. Up to two middle mile providers per ISP can claim subsidy. Middle mile providers would be defined as non-ILEC providers of bandwidth who do not sell connections to residential or otherwise retail individual customers. "Net neutrality" and other regulation can apply to middle mile providers, too- if they claim any eligible rebates. 9. ISP's who build their own "middle mile" by moving data more than 30 statute miles (not path, but just distance) to get to a non-ILEC connection could also qualify for tax rebates, but would be required to provide minimal markup interconnection or bandwidth to other ISP's in the same trade area, subject to how much capacity exists vs use. (distance should be debated) 10. That ALL infrastructure investment be fully expensable -as in 100% write-off in year one, as it concerns taxes. Basically, that puts every ISP in the position of being able to write off and not be taxed on growing or expansion. This should be permanent tax policy for EVERYONE, everywhere. This conceptual idea is technology agnostic. It recognizes that UNIVERSAL coverage is really a phantom, because we do live in a country with totally isolated pockets of humanity. It recognizes that permanent subsidy is both unwise and unworkable. It encourages competitive behavior, rational business plans based on other than subsidized revenues. It preserves a very small level of subsidy for the truly isolated, even promotes competition within it. This idea recognizes and codifies that subsidy = threat of regulation and that free markets with a competitive environment do NOT need any regulation to provide workable services to consumers. This expires the vast amount of subsidy all by itself, with built in incentives to reach the point where it expires. It allows operators to opt out and be unregulated, even if they're in a qualified area, and their coverage has no impact on the subsidy qualifications. No pay, no pain. It gives Congress an additional incentive to permanently block the FCC's ideas, and yet at the same time, address specific concerns as it relates to net neutrality. I believe this idea to be sellable to a wide array of interests - both political and industry. It is sellable to the public - who is currently very mindful of where the government's money is being "blown". There is no incentive to game the system. Providers are not encouraged to get the money up front and provide mediocre services. There is no risk, it does not put public money at risk, it does not indebt providers. It provides incentive to build more middle mile, even competitive middle mile, with at least a couple of years of enhanced revenue to pay down the capital costs, maybe more. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -------------------------------------------------- From: "Rick Harnish" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:41 AM To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "'WISPA General List'" <[email protected]> Subject: [WISPA] How the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband > * FCC Proposes a THIRD WAY to Regulate Broadband > > * Appeal Comcast decision > > * Not likely to succeed as the vote was 3-0 in favor of Comcast > > * Go to Congress and get specific authority > > * Too long of a process > > * 1. Reinforce its ancillary authority argument > > * Suggested by the Court but not considered by the FCC because of > scope issues. > > * 2. Reclassify Internet communications as telecommunications service > to restore direct authority over Broadband communication networks > * 3. THIRD WAY - Move all Broadband Internet access service to Title > II and lightly regulate this service > > * Who is the Target? > > * Rural Carriers offer Broadband Internet access service as a Title II > telecommunications service (no effect) > * RBOC's, wireless, cable and Broadband over powerline providers offer > Broadband Internet access Service as Title 1. > > * These are the providers that will be subject to Title II regulations > * These entities can and will push back very hard > > * Purpose of the THIRD WAY > > * The Third Way isn't about Network Neutrality. > > * The proposed Title II regulation of Broadband Internet access > service does not regulate or control the entire transport to the Internet > cloud > > * The Third Way IS about regulation of last mile Broadband for other > purposes. > > * "At the outset, it must be made absolutely clear that the issue of > reclassification goes far beyond our open Internet proceeding. It > involves > some of the most important parts of our National Broadband Plan - > universal > service, privacy, transparency, and cyber security. Without > reclassification, the road to achieving each of those issues is laden with > land mines and likely to fail." Commissioner Mignon Clyburn - May 11, > 2010 > > * Propsed Regulations > > * Section 201 > > * Requires Internet providers to interconnect and charge reasonable > rates > > * Section 202 > > * Prevents price and service discrimination > > * Section 208 > > * Sets up FCC Complaint processes > > * Section 222 > > * Protects customer privacy and proprietary commercial information > > * Section 254 > > * Allows use of Universal Service Fund for Broadband > > * Section 255 > > * Ensures disability access > > * Problems with the Third Way > > * Major push back on this approach by the target providers (not Title > II presently) > * Problem achieving the goal of the reform - The Third Way doesn't > deliver Network Neutrality for example. > > * Effective regulation of Broadband has to include "customer-to-cloud" > transmission. This approach only addresses the last mile and ignores the > middle mile transmission. > * Avoids regulation of any services provided over the transmission. > * Effort is initiated to ensure Net Neutral principles. However, the > management of the pipe does not need to be with the pipe provider, instead > it can be with the ISP managing and controlling the middle mile to the > Internet > * The effort includes USF reform > > * Section 254 requires that USF be used for telecom service. If > Broadband isn't a telecom service, the whole notion of USF reform can't > happen easily under the NBP. > > * Next Steps for Title "I.V" > > * FCC will issue a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) on the matter. > * FCC has announced that it will move straight to a Declaratory Ruling > after the NOI. > * FCC has to create a record that allows the reversal of numerous > prior decisions. > * This will be a very complicated process > > > > > > Respectfully, > > > > Rick Harnish > > President > > WISPA > > 260-307-4000 cell > > 866-317-2851 WISPA Office > > Skype: rick.harnish. > > [email protected] > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > 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: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
