When your filing is done correctly you'll be directed to a page with info
similar to this:
ECFS Filing Receipt - Confirmation number: 2011422924356 Proceedings
Name Subject
10-90 In the Matter of Connect America Fund A National Brooadband Plan
for Our Future High-Cost Universal Service Support. .
09-51 In the matter of a National Broadband Plan for Our Future.
07-135 In the Matter of Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for
Local Exchange Carriers. .
05-337 In the Matter of Federal -State Joint Board on Universal
Service High-Cost Universal Service Support. .. .
01-92 Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime.
96-45 FEDERAL-STATE JOINT BOARD ON UNIVERSAL SERVICE
03-109 In the Matter of Lifeline and Link-Up
Contact Info
Name of Filer: Marlon K. Schafer
Email Address: [email protected] Address
Address Line 1: box 489
City: Odessa
State: WASHINGTON
Zip: 99159 Details
Type of Filing: COMMENT
Document(s)File Name Custom Description Size
USF reform platform.doc Resending wtih proceeding's indluded on the
doccument. 155 KB
Disclaimer
This confirmation verifies that ECFS has received and accepted your filing.
However, your filing will be rejected by ECFS if it contains macros,
passwords, redlining, read-only formatting, a virus, or automated links to
other documents.
Filings are generally processed and made available for online viewing within
one business day of receipt. You may use the link below to check on the
status of your filing:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/confirm?confirmation=2011422924356
For any problems please contact the Help Desk at 202-418-0193.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509-982-2181)" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 10:07 AM
Subject: [WISPA] USF comment deadline is near
> Hi All,
>
> I finally got my USF comments filed in the right spots (I hope, things are
> different than the last time I filed directly :-).
>
> Your comments will apply to multiple FCC documents. Here's the list:
> WC Docket No. 10-90
> GN Docket No. 09-51
> WC Docket No. 07-135
> WC Docket No. 05-337
> CC Docket No. 01-92
> CC Docket No. 96-45
> WC Docket No. 03-109
>
> You'll go here to file them:
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=7t6a4
>
> Notice the proceeding box. You'll put one of the above numbers into that
> box then fill out the rest of the form. There is a spot you can click
> that
> will let you put more than one proceeding into your filing. That'll save
> you a lot of time.
>
> The easiest way to do this is to include the above numbers into a document
> that you write then attach the document at the bottom of the filing form.
>
> Here's mine:
> *********************************
>
> Friday, March 18, 2011
>
>
>
> Comments on USF.
>
> WC Docket No. 10-90
>
> GN Docket No. 09-51
> WC Docket No. 07-135
> WC Docket No. 05-337
> CC Docket No. 01-92
> CC Docket No. 96-45
> WC Docket No. 03-109
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
>
>
> I have been reading the current NPRM on USF and have gone
> from excited to frustrated to outright petrified, all in the first 20
> pages
> or so.
>
>
>
> At this point I think my life as an ISP is pretty well
> over.
> It's just a matter of time before I join the ranks of the buggy whip
> industry.
>
>
>
> You site example upon example of creative rule
> interpretations, shady practices and out right misappropriations. Yet
> there
> is not one word dedicated to enforcement. Nothing about removal of
> companies from the program when they clearly abuse the current programs.
>
>
>
> What good is an overhaul of the USF system and all of it's
> side bar programs into a new CAF or any other program if the same ol'
> companies are still going to have access to it? They cheated the system
> before, they'll do it again!
>
>
>
> I'd always wondered how it happened that PTI bought out the
> US West system here in Odessa. Then PTI was bought out by Century Tel.
> Then Century Tel bought out Embarq. Next they bought Quest, not an area
> Quest covered, but Quest. Quest, the renamed US West!
>
>
>
> Where in the world does a small rural telco get the money
> to
> buy out a huge company like US West/Quest? Now I know. They game a
> system
> that no one cares is being scammed.
>
>
>
> I had a "temp" cable run to my house for 3 years. On a
> short drive last week I spotted 2 more "temp" runs, one of which I know
> has
> been there for more than a year. Just cable strung across the ground
> along
> side the ditch. There is one main trunk, just outside of town, that's
> been
> ground laid for 7 years now! They can afford to buy out Quest but they
> can't
> afford to maintain the network that they already have?
>
>
>
> So, take USF funds for a "high cost" area, don't fix things
> in the "high cost" area and instead buy out your competition. Nice gig.
>
>
>
> Why is there ANY talk of expanding subsidies to companies
> that act this way? Why do I even have to worry about what I'm going to do
> to try to compete with a company that gets it's money from what amounts to
> a
> tax on communications?
>
>
>
> What needs to happen here is to just stop the funding.
> It's
> clearly not needed in MOST cases these days. The "high cost" areas are
> high
> cost due in too large a part to fraud, waste and abuse, not to the costs
> associated with improving the networks. These guys had their chance, they
> blew it by playing the part of the stereotypical corporate greedmonger.
> It's
> time to turn off the spigot. Those that can really run a business will be
> fine, those that can't can, should and will fail and be replaced by better
> companies with better practices and probably better equipment.
>
>
>
> If you insist upon trying to "fix" the problem by creating
> a
> new and expanded program please, in God's name, make it a simple program!
> Heck, even the question you asked required nearly 300 single spaced type
> written pages. Don't create something that will require a staff of people
> to
> understand and or comply with. Don't make a program that's so convoluted
> that it's easily abused due to people's inability to fully understand it.
> Please do not, again, create a program that's only understood by those
> with
> a vested financial interest in the program. Make sure it's understandable
> by anyone that is interested in using it OR keeping the participants
> honest.
>
>
>
> There is quite a bit of talk in the industry about consumer
> vouchers, pay the customer and let all of us fight over the customer. I
> don't
> think that's a good option for the entrepreneur. It will take money to
> build the networks that the consumer will be expected to draw service
> from.
> That means that the network must first be built and it'll be paid for only
> after it's in place, if we get the customer. My biggest fear here is that
> companies will basically give services away just so that the customer will
> use them because they are the cheapest one. Also, think of how many
> consumers you already likely know that are gaming Workers Comp. systems
> and
> other programs like them. Who's going to make sure that the consumer is
> really paying what they claim they are or even have any service? It'll
> take
> a lot more inspectors to monitor the consumer than the providers.
>
>
>
> In my case we can maintain the network just fine. We can't
> quickly cash flow the construction of it. We can, and do, sell at a
> competitive rate. Our speeds are very competitive with DSL and cable. I
> just did a couple of installations on two farms roughly 15 miles from town
> and the customers got speeds around 12 mbps both download and upload. Not
> to my main router, but to http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest, the Seattle
> site. Monthly rate for these customers? $40.00 Once the infrastructure
> is
> paid for keeping it running and upgraded is relatively easy and
> affordable.
>
>
>
> How should this be done? Set a 10 year sunset on ALL
> subsidies. Expand the current programs into broadband. Require all
> companies to pay in or draw out based upon what is being done today. If
> the
> telco in an area pays into USF then all broadband companies in the area
> will
> also pay in. If the local telco draws out then all broadband providers
> will
> also draw out.
>
>
>
> There needs to be competition and alternative technologies
> in all areas. We should have competitors, not just government chosen
> winners that happen to be good at the paperwork game. Don't add new
> competitors though, encouraging companies to start up just because they
> see
> "free government money" would be bad for everyone. Help the companies
> that
> are ALREADY working to fulfill the public demand.
>
>
>
> Keep all of the dollar amounts where they are today, don't
> play favorites, involve all current operators. Base all payments, either
> in
> or out, on what the current telco does, just expand the system to include
> all broadband providers.
>
>
>
> This will allow entrepreneurs to put their time, effort and
> man hours into network improvements and expansion rather than government
> paperwork.
>
>
>
> By doing this you'll create several layers of competition
> in
> nearly all rural areas of the country. Often with different hardware and
> business models. Then, in 10 years cut off the funds. In a couple of
> additional years those that build out good networks that are self
> sustainable will still be in business, the wasteful or inefficient ones
> will
> weed themselves from the market. The customer will have choices and
> competition to drive costs down and services up. As importantly the
> government will be out of the telecom corporate welfare business and can
> devote it's time and resources to the real hardship cases that remain.
>
>
>
> If this is also not an option, then whatever programs you
> do
> create need to be non exclusive in nature. Don't make the paperwork
> overhead so high that the average mom and pop shop can't participate.
> Don't
> pick favorites, programs need to benefit all operators or none of them.
> Don't
> create complicated programs that only a lawyer can understand. I know
> I've
> said this before but it bares repeating many times.
>
>
>
> The market will adjust to the needs of the consumer if
> there
> is a fair and level playing field. DSL systems were first created in the
> sixties. Yet we didn't see their wide spread use until the '96 telecom
> act
> forced competition into the telecom industry. Don't screw up the
> broadband
> industry by removing real, effective, innovative competition with a new
> government funded welfare program for the good ol' boys telecom club.
>
>
>
> Also, I think there needs to be some talk about
> expectations. What do people need certain speeds and capacities for and
> who
> should pay for those activities?
>
>
>
> The capacity needs for email are one thing, eBay is
> another.
> Watching a few Youtube videos is easy enough to do. But when we start
> talking about watching TV or movies via the internet an entirely new level
> of technology and capacity are needed. And for what? Primarily
> entertainment. Is it right to take money from one person and give it to
> another just so that the consumer can watch the latest Batman movie over
> the
> internet instead of waiting a couple of days for a movie to show up in the
> mail?
>
>
>
> Is it also fair to expect the transport operators to pay for all of this
> entertainment's requirements on the system. Should companies like Netflix
> with network loads not pay anything to those that actually deliver their
> services? Nearly 6 months ago they were already 20% of the peak demand on
> the internet.
>
> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/netflix_streaming_accounts_for_20_of_peak_internet.php
>
> This means that every single internet provider out there had what amounts
> to
> a 20% increase in their upstream costs with NO increase in revenue to
> support it. Who will pay for this once things like Netflix and Hulu
> really
> get popular?
>
>
>
> The consumer is really the one that should pay those costs.
> Yet the national broadband plan, most press and certainly most consumers
> think that internet costs should come down even further! Can you just
> imagine everyone in the country switching to a nice shiny new Suburban and
> then expecting Texaco to pay for the extra gas they need? Why is the
> internet industry thought of any differently?
>
>
>
> Perhaps Netflix will make some real strides in compression
> technology or display capabilities.
>
> http://imgur.com/gallery/NvGso
>
> It would sure be nice if the whole discussion of how much capacity Netflix
> needs became more of a non issue.
>
>
>
> Thank you for your time,
>
> Marlon K. Schafer
>
> Owner
>
> Odessa Office Equipment
>
> (509) 982-2181
>
> ****************************************
>
>
>
> If you worry about your competition getting funded and you not getting
> funded then you need to weigh in on this filing. This is, in my opinion,
> the biggest thing that the FCC has done since I've been a WISP. This will
> make my business or kill it. Nothing in between.
>
>
>
> Take care,
>
> marlon
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
