This is in no way way to put your responses down JP...but in almost all your responses you have responded as a WISP that is making money....
> Yes, I expect USF money to be used as bait in how this plays out. > <SNIP> > > I see no reason to have permanent USF subsidy. It is money down the toilet > over the long > run and a tax that seriously hinders people's ability to afford > communications services. > A big part of current USF money goes to "switching" which I see as an > antiquated > hierarchy where small rural towns have their own switch, with all it's > maintenance and > support. With the advent of cheap high capacity fiber created by ARRA > projects and > private upgrades, smaller digital switches, wholesale access to switch > partitions, and > VOIP, there is no technical reason to permanently subsidize modern > distributed > switching. If permanent support for "switching" were tapered off, the > rural phone > companies could find cheaper ways to do voice switching. The cellcos > almost all have > some sort of architecture where all their sites in the state go back to > single > state-wide switches. When not used for switching, permanent USF pays for > monopoly > infrastructure that discourages rural competition by irrationally priced > services. > The current USF charges are a "tax" as you put it in high density areas on telco charges. That is used to give rural telcos money to build out and sustain telephone coverage to very under served(remote areas...like 10-20 houses per square mile). The current plan on USF is to only let one entity have access to this. If you have any competitor that is an ILEC or CLEC, you can pretty much kiss your luck of getting this good by! It would put too much work on an already understaffed FCC, and they already favor telcos over anything else. > A tax rebate would be highly preferable to USF, as it would be a reduction > in taxation > rather than an increase in taxation. Either way, non-permanent support is > the only thing > I can advocate. > > I like the idea of non-permanent support for unserved/underserved areas. > My state's > ConnectME fund is looking at a one-time ISP payment (per customer) to > support high-cost > installations to unserved locations. The details of how much and under > what conditions > are undecided, but it would address the high CPE/installation costs that > plague > broadband expansion and would not cause long term dependence on > government. This would > be an alternative to the present system of government funded > infrastructure projects. > This would be less apt to stir a hornets nest of capitalism versus > government funded > project overbuilding, which is more and more apt to happen. > Considering past tax rebates, or credits, to take full advantage would require that you are way in the black. This would help newer WISP somewhat, but most are in the red from the beginning. It would definitely help sustained WISP's that have been at it for a few years. Scottie > -- > /* > Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL > KB1IOJ | Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting > http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Maine http://www.midcoast.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 Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
