Right. And that's why we still have to fight they current rules as proposed.
We've made the statement that if any company offers un subsidized service then no one should get a tax payer funded leg up in the market. Under the current rules a SINGLE company has to provide both *facilities based *voice and broadband without subsidies before the faucet is shut off to the USF/CAF recipient. We're in the bottom of the 9th inning and we're down by a couple of runs, 2 out full count and Casey is at bat. Are we going to swing at the ball or just stand there and watch it fly by? marlon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Goldstein" <fgoldst...@ionary.com> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:16 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF/CAF > At 5/25/2012 01:03 PM, Matt wrote: >>Perhaps anyone accepting money from these funds should be required to >>wholesale there services at a discount such as dry loop dsl? They >>should also not be allowed to price under cut wholesalers for that to >>work? > > In fact, that *was* the rule. Or at least they had to wholesale the > DSL, even if it was bundled with cheap POTS. When the FCC detariffed > DSL in 2005, it was permissive, so the Bells could detariff while the > subsidized rural ILECs stayed on tariff in order to maximize their USF. > > The new Connect America Fund rules make one major change -- they > allow the ILEC to detariff DSL, offer it only as a retail information > service, and still get subsidized. That's how they want to "improve" > broadband availability. Gee, do you think any telco lobbyists were > active in getting that passed? ;-) > > -- > Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com > ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ > +1 617 795 2701 > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
