At 2/11/2011 01:06 AM, JohnS wrote: > The FCC is looking for comments, so we all need to make > > it quite clear that the funds should be available for any and all > > broadband providers! > > > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20110207/tc_nf/77213 > > > > Bret > > > > >We should comment. The comment should be that we do not support any >form of broadband subsidies and that USF should be eliminated. It is a >New Internet Tax. We should all call it that and get people riled up >about it.
The FCC can't eliminate USF entirely. It is statutory: The Telecom Act of 1996 established USF and called for it to keep rural telephone rates comparable to urban rates. Because rural states get two senators just like big states, they have undue influence on subsidy legislation. Ted Stevens of Alaska was a leader here; he later wanted the FCC to outlaw VoIP, since it threatened the costly toll minutes that paid into USF. The new proposal makes matters worse, though, since it keeps existing USF intact and adds yet another fund to allow one provider per place to provide subsidized Internet access. I expect that it will usually be the ILEC, getting more money to compete with WISPs. -- 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/
