Well, in most Bell territories you can get service from a CLEC. In most RLEC cases, there are many things they don't have to do, including port numbers.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 2/12/2011 4:35 PM, Jeremie Chism wrote: > With competition the ILEC's would have to actually take care of their > customers instead of treating them like they don't have a choice. I remember > the day I cut the cord from bell. It was a memorable moment. > > Sent from my iPhone4 > > On Feb 12, 2011, at 4:28 PM, Mike Hammett<wispawirel...@ics-il.net> wrote: > >> It's too bad they're axing competition instead of embracing it. >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> On 2/12/2011 12:48 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: >>> First off, this last thread's title was offensive, so I changed >>> it. The current Administration is not doing much that previous ones >>> didn't do, and that's the problem. The FCC sees the spectrum as a >>> source of revenue (auctions), and Congress sees the FCC as a source >>> of subsidy money to rural states. >>> >>> USF exists because the Telecom Act requires it. USF replaced an even >>> uglier system wherein rural telcos charged really really high >>> switched access per minute rates to LD carriers at either end of the >>> call. VoIP would have killed that anyway... so now there are >>> explicit cash subsidies. >>> >>> Let's set aside the smaller parts of USF (Schools& Libraries, Rural >>> Health Care, and Low Income) and focus on the one on the table now, >>> High Cost Support. This is the one that gets the bulk of the tax >>> money anyway. The statutory requirement is that rural telephone >>> rates be comparable (not identical) to urban ones. So if it really >>> costs $100/month to provide telephone service in East Overshoe, then >>> the East Overshoe Telephone Cooperative is entitled to USF to let >>> them hold down the rate. >>> >>> But it's a lot more complicated than that. Cost is averaged across a >>> "study area", which is in general the operating territory of one >>> (historic, pre-merger) telephone company in one state. So South >>> Central Bell- Mississippi is one study area, and South Central Bell- >>> Tennessee is another. Verizon has at least two study areas in >>> California, though, one ex-Contel and one ex-GTE. CenturyTel has a >>> heap of them all over the place, as does TDS. >>> >>> The point of averaging across a study area is that low-cost urban >>> areas cross-subsidize high-cost rural ones. So Qwest in Omaha is >>> supposed to subsidize Qwest in the rural parts of Nebraska. Thus the >>> big recipients are the small telephone companies who do not have >>> urban areas. That would be bad enough, but a small telephone company >>> typically has a separate corporate structure, including IT, CS, etc., >>> which supports very few subscribers. So the OpEx per subscriber can >>> be really high too, because small telcos are inefficient. If TDS or >>> CenturyTel buys them, they often keep the study areas separate... >>> cost goes down but the money still flows! (The pending NPRM does >>> however at least open the issue of merging study areas.) And the >>> Bells, especially Qwest/USWest, have sold off a lot of rural >>> areas. So they have lowered their average cost. This doesn't lower >>> their rate, though, because they don't get USF anyway, and they are >>> on price caps, not rate of return, so they keep their rates and raise >>> their margins. The rural chains that buy the rural turf eventually >>> (this takes a couple of years, though again the pending NPRM may >>> reduce this interval, which the FCC cutely calls "The Parent Trap") >>> get new subsidy flows for them. So we're screwed both ways. >>> >>> When TA96 passed, the FCC at the time was pro-competition (Hundt, >>> Kennard) and they wanted to make USF pro-competition too. So they >>> created the "Equal Support Rule". This is a tiny bit like Jeremie's >>> suggested voucher system. A USF-eligible carrier is called an ETC >>> (eligible telecommunications carrier). A Competitive ETC (CETC) could >>> move into an area whose ILEC got USF. The CETC would then get the >>> same amount *per line* as the ILEC-ETC. So if East Overshoe >>> Telephone got $80/month/line, then Northern Wireless could get >>> $80/month/line for selling a fixed-wireless telephone line (using >>> their cellular network and a POTS-phone adapter). Northern Wireless >>> (I made that name up but it alludes to a once-huge CETC) would not >>> need to show its own costs, as competitors don't fit the ILEC accounting >>> model. >>> >>> Now you'd think that this was a great idea, like a voucher, but it >>> had a big problem. The ILEC-ETC is usually under Rate of Return >>> regulation. So their profit margin is fixed. Most of their costs >>> are fixed too. So if the CETC takes lines away, the ILEC-ETC is >>> still entitled to keep the subsidy level needed to maintain their >>> rate of return and the same low prices. So they keep their subsidy, >>> and USF ends up paying twice! This is the FCC's justification for >>> wanting to do away with competitive ETCs entirely -- they could have >>> simply removed Equal Support, but they're killing CETC in toto, >>> regardless of what the law actually says. A few years ago, they >>> capped CETC support. If a new CETC comes into an area, their subsidy >>> comes out of other CETCs, no longer equal support. The total is >>> supposed to phase down to 0 over five years. >>> >>> BTW the biggest CETCs were cellular carriers, including Sprint, AT&T >>> Mobility and its predecessors, and some Verizon Wireless >>> acquisitions. VZ and I think Sprint agreed to phase out their CETC >>> support as merger conditions. CLECs got a rather small share of the >>> pie. WISPS need not apply, since they're not carriers, and the >>> support was technically for voice. >>> >>> Oh, voice? Well, the real scandal of USF is that the ILEC-ETC is >>> allowed to do practically anything so long as it's useful for >>> voice. They can build Fiber to the Ranch, for $20,000+/home (CapEx) >>> or more, or $1000/month per sub (though they propose making it harder >>> to get>$250/line/mo), if it also delivers voice, *even if* they >>> already have copper to the ranch *and* an unlicensed WISP. Check out >>> Border to Border in Texas. So USF does fund broadband; it just does >>> it indirectly, by letting them build a broadband-ready network with >>> subsidy money. The ISP they run across it is then "incidental", not >>> *directly* subsidized, but if the wire or fiber is already there, how >>> much does more it cost to drop on broadband Internet? Thanks to this >>> policy, many rural ILECs have better broadband coverage than >>> unsubsidized Bells. >>> >>> We pay for this. USF is funded by a tax on "interstate >>> telecommunications". That includes long distance calls, circuits, and >>> interconnected VoIP (assumed 64.9% interstate, IIRC, but I'm typing >>> this off-line on my laptop in a rural location -- I haven't paid VZW >>> for tethering and for some reason it no longer works on my cell phone >>> ;-] ). This is technically a "fee" rather than "tax" because it >>> doesn't go to the Treasury's General Fund, but it is enforced like a >>> tax (big fines if you don't pay). It goes to USAC, who runs >>> USF. It's a self-adjusting tax. Every quarter, they compute a new >>> rate, and it takes effect automatically. It started out around 3% >>> and is now around 15.5%. >>> >>> The FCC's new set of proposals has a couple of major impacts. It >>> continues the phase-out of CETC support. It also creates a new fund, >>> "Connect America", which explicitly covers "broadband", as if that >>> were a noun. (Broadband what? It's an adjective.) This will be >>> distibuted by reverse auction; the ETC who asks the least to serve a >>> given area gets the exclusive support. If may be the ILEC. Whether >>> or not it's the ILEC, the ILEC-ETC *continues* to get their current >>> support. Connect America is incremental. So the ILECs can get even more. >>> >>> BTW there's a separate pending proposal to create a new USF to fund >>> mobile wireless -- licensed CMRS, not WISP. This may be related to >>> the recently announced 98% goal, though it seem to me that Verizon >>> had planned that for its LTE network anyway! BTW the Frontline >>> Wireless plan that almost happened in 2007 was required to have 99.3% >>> population coverage, though (speaking as one of their network >>> designers) that was sort of optimistic, and a sane proposal (that >>> might have happened) would have needed a lower number. >>> >>> -- >>> 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: 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/
