At 2/13/2011 11:26 AM, Charles Wu wrote: >It looks like a success-based "voucher" technologically neutral >system for USF Reform/CAF is what's being proposed by the RCA (Rural >Cellular Association) > >http://rca-usa.org/press/rca-press-releases/five-things-the-fcc-can-do-to-accelerate-broadband-deployment/914048 > > > >Perhaps WISPA should/could partner up with them for a stronger voice?
It would not do WISPs much good. Very, very few would qualify as ETC, or even want to be ETCs. RCA is trying to stave off a proposal to get rid of competitive ETC support entirely, most of which goes to cellular carriers for their fixed-wireless deployments. Supporting RCA seems pointless too, since they would be trying to get the exclusive CAF designations in their turf. Given the anti-competitive bent of the pending NPRM, expecting to move it towards more competition and subsidies to smaller providers seems unrealistic. WISP participation might, however, be useful in letting the FCC know just how messed up the system is. WISPs provide service for a much lower cost than ETCs, with no subsidies, and don't need subsidized competitors putting them otu of business. And just raising the idea of subsidizing low-cost WISPs, as an alternative to the fat RLECs, might help push the Overton Window just a little bit more away from the monopoly side. >-Charles > >-----Original Message----- >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >On Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves >Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 11:49 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband > >We need to have the USF turned into a voucher credit system that the >end user can apply to what ever supplier they chose. Maybe its not >the best idea, but I do not feel I have heard of a better one. Better >for /the users/ not better for the I/CLECs and other >very vested interests. > > >On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Fred Goldstein <fgoldst...@ionary.com> wrote: > > 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: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
