I've actually ran into some centurytel areas that you can't port numbers. The customers hate the service and if they could port their numbers they would be gone.
Sent from my iPhone4 On Feb 12, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Mike Hammett <wispawirel...@ics-il.net> wrote: > 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/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
