Yeah - Imagine that.    $17,763 per line!    I wish I had their grant writer on 
staff !

Via:  
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/rural-telco-serves-17-people-rakes-in-300k-of-your-money.ars
 



AT&T was insanely profitable in 2009, with $34.4 billion in revenue and $12.5 
billion in net income. The company even returned most of this cash ($9.7 
billion) to investors as dividends. So why did the US government direct $435 
million into the company's coffers?

Thank (or blame) the Universal Service Fund, which last year collected $7.2 
billion dollars from phone companies—charges that are passed on to consumers, 
often as a separate line item on their bills. The money amounts to a 14 percent 
tax on phone service. It pays for four things: telephone service to 
expensive-to-wire places, subsidies for low-income users, computers and 
Internet access for schools, and telecommunications services for rural health 
care providers.

Most of the money goes to install and maintain "high-cost" phone service, 
usually in rural areas. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is 
investigating the USF, a notorious pit of inefficiency and error—for instance, 
half the high-cost money paid out in 2009, a full $2 billion, went to "rate of 
return" telcos who are allowed to make an 11.25 percent profit. If they don't, 
the government makes up the difference.

The FCC has now supplied more detailed USF data to Congress. Among the 
revelations: AT&T has pulled down more than $1.3 billion in USF money over the 
last three years, while Verizon got $1.2 billion and CenturyTel picked up $930 
million. In return, the companies must provide phone service to anyone in their 
service area who wants it.

Outrageous? Possibly. The program has been a useful one, making telephone 
service in the US truly ubiquitous, but critics have always charged that telcos 
get far too much cash, or got cash for projects they would have done anyway. 
Cecilia Kang at the Washington Post pointed out some of these complaints last 
week.

And the new FCC documents certainly provide fodder for critics.

$17,763 per line

There's the case of Weavtel, a tiny Washington state telco that raked in 
$301,966 in USF money in 2009—all in order to support 17 copper telephone 
lines. That's an average of $17,763 per line.

In 2008, the company was paid $188,382 for the 15 phones lines that it 
serviced, for an average of $12,559 per line.


In 2007, Weavtel supported 14 lines at an average of $16,621 per line.

Ponder these numbers for a moment. The company had already built the local 
exchange infrastructure needed to handle phone calls in 2007, but it still 
received almost $500,000 over the next two years—and it added service to a 
grand total of three lines in that time.

In three years, the $700,000 spent on phone service for these 17 residents 
could have been used instead to simply buy sat phones and satellite 
Internet—and pay for service—for the remote community of Stehekin, a place so 
remote that it is bordered by a national forest and is accessible only by boat.

In 2005, Weavtel tried to begin the project and ran into local opposition from 
Stehekin residents (the Seattle Times ran a nice profile of the town at the 
time, explaining the controversy over the phones). In a letter to residents 
(PDF), Weavtel noted "that there is a difference of opinion concerning the 
number of people who want telephone service. It is also clear that some people 
do want service. We have made a business decision that the number of people who 
do want service makes this a viable business opportunity."

Seventeen people paying monthly phone bills isn't much of a "business 
opportunity"... not unless the government directs a few hundred thousand 
dollars a year toward the project (and lets you run your towers and lines over 
federal parkland, as the company requested). Weavtel, in fact, collected the 
most money per line of any telco in the entire US in 2009.


But still, a case might be made for service to Stehekin, which has never had a 
local exchange. The FCC numbers show, however, that plenty of USF money is also 
being paid out to local telcos in areas that already have plenty of cell phone 
coverage. It's a policy that makes increasingly little sense for a program 
whose basic goal is mere voice connectivity.

Terral Telephone Company serves rural Oklahoma, and in 2009 it took home $1.6 
million in USF money to provide service to 246 lines. That's $6,563 per line, 
per year, one of the highest rates in the country.

Unlike Weavtel, though, Terral's customers have a choice. The FCC points out 
that the company's service area is 100 percent covered by AT&T, Sprint, and 
Verizon. T-Mobile has 95 percent coverage. None of these carriers received USF 
"high-cost" support for this area in 2009.



Reform a-comin'

The FCC hopes to (finally) reform many of the worst elements of the USF system. 
In its National Broadband Plan, the agency argued that "rate of return" 
carriers should be eliminated and switched to an incentive-based scheme 
instead. "Rate-of-return regulation was not designed to promote efficiency or 
innovation," says the plan, noting that it was product of the 1960s and a world 
with a single monopoly telco.

It also wants Sprint and Verizon to "reduce the High-Cost funding they receive 
as competitive ETCs to zero over a five-year period as a condition of earlier 
merger decisions." (Both companies have already agreed to this, which could 
save $500 million a year.)

Just as importantly, these huge amounts of money won't be used to install 
archaic technology. Instead, the FCC wants to transition USF funding to support 
broadband and fully converged IP networks instead of simple POTS service. These 
proposals have been controversial with just about everyone, since they propose 
only modest speeds of 4Mbps and could also reduce money to existing telcos like 
Weavtel and Terral.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/

Reply via email to