I'll be there. But if we keep getting all this good feedback from everyone, there wont be much left to debate :-)
Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message ----- From: "Forbes Mercy" <forbes.me...@wabroadband.com> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 4:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] How the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband >I nominate Matt Larsen to serve on the panel for USF at the Regional > Meeting! Wouldn't it be interesting if Tom was on there to? I'd go just > for the debate! > > On 5/28/2010 12:39 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: >> Tom, >> >> Thank you for asking your questions - I have some awesome answers for >> you..... >> >> 1) Alaska. Alaska does indeed have an infrastructure problem. >> Alaska also receives an enormous amount of federal support already along >> with substantial revenues from their natural resources, mainly oil and >> gas. These Americans would not be left out in the cold - communication >> wise - if they took some of their massive piles of money and built out >> their infrastructure. Right now, the Alaska Permanent Fund - >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund - has 28 Billion >> dollars in it, and is primarily used to pay an annual dividend to Alaska >> residents. I'm pretty sure that money would go to better use if Alaska >> used that to pay for their communications infrastructure needs instead >> of expecting the residents of the lower-48 to pay for it. >> >> 2) Rural Telco Failure. I have a really hard time believing that a >> rural telco could fail, but I guess it could happen. In that scenario, >> I would suggest that the government set up some kind of a trustee >> operation that maintained the operation of the telco until a buyer could >> be found. I live in a very rural area, and the majority of the rural >> ILECs here are swimming in money from USF, and have very successful >> "unregulated" subsidiaries that operate outside of the normal regulatory >> environment. With all of the recent advances in voice switching and >> remote broadband deployment, the residents of a community with a >> failling telco would be better off in the long run if the telco was >> allowed to fail and someone else was able to come in and rebuild with >> more modern equipment. This is a little tricky, but could be addressed >> in a more efficient manner than what we are seeing now. >> >> 3) Mobile Phone Coverage. There is a really simple answer to this >> one. There are buildout requirements in cellular licenses that the >> federal government grants to mobile carriers. They have been >> effectively lobbbying to get USF money to build out and meet those >> requirements. Even so, rural cellular coverage is awful. USF has >> been the carrot to incentivize rural wireless buildouts - now it is time >> to try the stick. Rural carriers that don't build out, or only build >> out the areas with with Interstates and highways (for roaming traffic) >> without building out to the sparsely populated rural locations lose >> their licenses. This will lower the value of the licenses in rural >> areas to the point where smaller competitors could feasibly buy licenses >> and compete. It would also substantially reduce the amount of spectrum >> warehousing that goes on in rural areas. No need to throw money at >> this problem, just enforce the existing laws and modify the requirements >> so that there is less "redlining" of the more profitable portions of >> their license area. >> >> I think that the idea of pitting the New Jersey delegation against the >> Alaska delegation is fantastic. Why should people in NJ be paying for >> phone services in Alaska? >> >> I would like to close with an illustration of what goes on with USF. >> USF is attached to every access line, and looks pretty innocuous on a >> single line phone bill. However, when I was running a dialup ISP and >> we had several hundred lines coming into our system, that USF cost was >> in the $3000/$4000 range every month. Especially frustrating was that >> one of my main competitors was the "unregulated" subsidiary of a nearby >> rural ILEC that was receiving a ton of USF money, had access to low >> interest capital from USDA and was receiving reciprocal compensation for >> terminating phone calls to their ISP system. In my mind, that >> $4000/month was going right to them to compete with me. Their >> subsidiary did not receive the money directly, but it paid the salaries >> of their staff and generated traffic into their system to generate more >> money. It also allowed them to either buy or bid up the price on >> 700mhz spectrum for a big chunk of the state of Nebraska - and they are >> only deploying service in part of it. Also paid the salaries of the >> people on their staff that do nothing but fill out government forms and >> apply for grants from federal and state sources, and that money was used >> to compete with multiple private operators. I had to file about 40 or >> so broadband stimulus protests against one of the wireless carriers in >> our area that receives USF money because they wanted to get MORE >> government money to upgrade their network. >> >> That is what USF money goes to. Kill. It. Now. >> >> Matt Larsen >> vistabeam.com >> >> >> >> On 5/28/2010 10:36 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: >> >>> Matt, >>> >>> Although I agree with most of what you say, specifically there are huge >>> risks that USF will just go straight to the Cellular carriers to build >>> out >>> more mobile phone towers to deliver broadband. In order to win a battle >>> to >>> dispand USF, we have to effectively combat other's objections to that. >>> >>> What would you propose we respond to the following common objections.... >>> >>> 1) Alaska - Full of Icy sub-zero weather, surrounded by frozen water, >>> very >>> rural. Without USF subsidee not only would communications providers >>> fail, >>> but the people that are served would be at severe risk. These >>> communicatiosn >>> are absolutely necessary for healtch care and public safety. The >>> alternative >>> optiosn to communbicate jsut dont exist. This territory can be the most >>> expensive and challenging to serve. Without USF, these Americans will be >>> left out in the cold. Alaska has some very influencial >>> senators/legislators >>> protecting USF. >>> >>> 2) If a Rural Telco fails, consumers will be left without >>> communications. >>> Shouldn't competitive provider options be available to all homes, before >>> the >>> solution in place that works is dispanded. How can we be certain that >>> Rural >>> Telcos will be able to survive without their subsidees? To get their >>> subsidees in the first place they likely had to prove their need, in >>> order >>> to qualify. Other than just self-perception, what evidence do we have to >>> support our claim, that Rural USF recipients can survive without the >>> continued subsidees? >>> >>> 3) Rural America needs better mobile phone coverage. Subsidees are >>> needed, >>> thats why coveratge is not there now. If USF got disbanded would it >>> reduce >>> the subsidees to Mobile carriers, or would it indirectly steal future >>> funding sources WISPs? If mobile expansion funding is not gotten from >>> USF, a >>> fund that already exists and does not come from WISP's pcoket, where >>> will it >>> come from. If mobile is needed, something needs to pay for it. Will >>> future >>> funding opportunities and programs get redirected to mobile instead? >>> Lets >>> specifically look at West Virgina and BTOP/BIP. West Virginia got >>> probably >>> the largest grant of any ARRA recipient of about $130 million. I >>> Personally >>> thought it was an outrage. Most of the funds will go to pay Frontier to >>> build fiber backbones, and Verizon to build out Mobile cellular towers >>> and >>> LTE. Making Verizon,the wealthiest RBOC one of the largest recipients >>> of >>> ARRA funds. Ironically, Verizon plled out of West Virginia as the ILEC, >>> not >>> to long ago. And now instead West Virginia pays them to come back to >>> deploy >>> mobile. This was the recommendation of the State officials, and strongly >>> pushed from West Virginia Congressman, involved in congressional >>> Broadband >>> committee. The arguement was that mobile coverage in West Virgina was >>> horrid and desperately needed. Many will argue mobile phones are more >>> important than Broadband. Cell phones are a success stories, with 3-5 >>> phones >>> per household now adays. If the cellular phone tower needs to be build >>> anyway, isn't it a better use of funds to take advantage of that >>> infrastructure to also colocate a form of broadbnd wireless? Saying we >>> dont >>> want subsidees to go to mobile carriers may not get support by rural >>> consumers nor policy makers, considering that mobile carriers also own >>> license spectrum to deliver more sustainable operations, so they will >>> argue. >>> >>> Now there is nothing more than I'd like to see is to stop subsidees to >>> mobile phone carriers. They have more than enough revenue in urban and >>> suburban America to self fund rural America mobility. That is something >>> that >>> is proveable, jsut by looking at public stock info, and the huge rate of >>> growth the industry has had. It doesn;t need help. >>> >>> If the goal is to disband USF, it may be worth reaching out to >>> NewJersey's >>> congressmen. They are one of the largest payers into the fund, and their >>> congressman have been very vocal about disbanding USF, and stopping the >>> financial burden put on NewJersey residents. Any New Jersey WISP >>> constituents on-list? >>> >>> >>> What I'd like to see is tax credits go to third party investors that >>> contribute to equalizing the industry. For example, tax credits to >>> investors >>> that invest in companies doing less than $10million a year in revenue. >>> Tax >>> credits to tower companies that colocate/lease to atleast one local WISP >>> (such as one doing less than $10million a year with a local office). >>> In >>> otherwords give help to those that help companies that are looked at as >>> higher risk. I'd like to see fed help grow an industry of competitors, >>> not >>> just cater to consumer demands through monopolies. What we really need >>> to >>> do is get Congress involved and convinced that they need to mandate >>> "support >>> for small business", and "prevent funding of any monopoly behavior", >>> before >>> any future funding or subsidee programs get reformed or formed. >>> >>> >>> Tom DeReggi >>> RapidDSL& Wireless, Inc >>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Matt Larsen - Lists"<li...@manageisp.com> >>> To: "WISPA General List"<wireless@wispa.org> >>> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 3:53 AM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] How the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Mark, I would like to thank you for your interesting and obivously well >>>> thought out post. >>>> >>>> I am firmly of the camp that USF should be completely discontinued, and >>>> my efforts going forward will be to encourage its disbandment. The >>>> major goals of the original USF program have been completed for some >>>> time now, and the program is no longer needed. USF is providing >>>> unneeded subsidization of wireless cellular carriers, some very large >>>> corporations (CenturyLink) and many rural ILECs that take USF money and >>>> use it to warehouse spectrum and compete with WISPs. >>>> >>>> The politically correct thing to do would be to find allies for our >>>> other positions and offer to support USF reform that will be inclusive >>>> of WISPs. I have had enough experience with the paperwork, legal >>>> wrangling and political skullduggery at the state and federal levels >>>> involved in getting USF to recognize that it is almost totally >>>> incompatible with WISPs. USF is HURTING the deployment of broadband >>>> in >>>> the US by supporting the entities that have either failed to deliver >>>> broadband to many of their rural service areas (CenturyLink), have >>>> delivered broadband but are now using the funds to subsidize other >>>> activities such as spectrum warehousing (many small ILECs) or are using >>>> it to fund the buildout of cellular networks (cellphone companies) that >>>> provide awful coverage in rural areas. >>>> >>>> From a philosophical and practical standpoint, USF should be >>>> abolished. The funds left in their coffers can be used to establish a >>>> smaller, tightly focused program for schools and libraries - entities >>>> that are legitimately benefitting from USF. >>>> >>>> USF has strong support from telcos and they are great at focusing on >>>> the >>>> tiny parts of the program that are beneficial and the threat that some >>>> telcos will "go under" without USF support - while the vast majority of >>>> the money that comes out of USF goes to the bottom line of profitable >>>> companies with ties to the original monopoly players. >>>> >>>> It is time for a quick lesson about the economic concept of "Fast >>>> Failure". One of the very best features of capitalism and the >>>> entrepeneurial environment of the United States is that a business can >>>> and should fail if it turns out to not be economically feasible. When >>>> that business fails, its resources are redistributed and another >>>> business can step in. Subsidizing a business that doesn't need >>>> subsidization, or creating a monopolistic situation through >>>> subsidization or regulation leads to inefficiencies in the system. >>>> USF >>>> is being used to support businesses that don't need the support and it >>>> creates an anti-competitive environment. >>>> >>>> I would really like to see USF disappear. It just doesn't make sense >>>> to me to try and work with a system that is hopelessly flawed and >>>> unrepairable. >>>> >>>> Matt Larsen >>>> vistabeam.com >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/27/2010 3:55 AM, MDK wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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"<rharn...@wispa.org> >>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:41 AM >>>>> To:<memb...@wispa.org>;<motor...@afmug.com>; "'WISPA General List'" >>>>> <wireless@wispa.org> >>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> rharn...@wispa.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> 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/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> 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/ >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
