At 7/13/2010 12:31 AM, Chuck Hogg wrote: >That's a double edged sword... You don't pay into USF currently as >WISP's are not classified as such. Then if we are, we'd have a hard >time at it, but we'd be eligible for those funds.
Try again, Chuck. The pending FCC proposal is a bit worse, where "bit" is roughly the size of the Grand Canyon. It basically says that USF taxation, now at 15%, will be extended to ISPs. BUT it also says that eligibility to collect USF will be limited to one company in a given geographic area, rather than the competitive situation now allowed. This is how they will control costs, without limiting how much an ILEC can get. (It is almost literally a blank check. I have an article about this on my web site and TMCnet column.) So if you are not the ILEC, you can't become Eligible. But you may still be taxed in order to pay the (Eligible) ILEC to operate as an ISP, without its offering even common carrier DSL (which they have to today in order to be Eligible). They in turn will be subsidized to the extent required to make their prices as low as urban rates. In other words, you are taxed to pay them to compete with you. I am finishing up editing my Comment in the current FCC Broadband Internet NOI. My comment on USF, which I won't actually include in the final submission, is that their treatment of WISPs is tantamount to the Chinese policy of billing the families of executed prisoners for the bullet. -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
