At 5/29/2012 01:05 PM, Randy Cosby wrote: >"Facilities Based" excludes all fixed wireless, is that correct?
No. The "unsubsidized competitor" rule includes fixed wireless. >Would VoIP - properly reported, taxed, etc. - qualify as voice? Yes. It has to meet reasonable quality standards, provide E911 access, and have a local number, but the multiplexing header is not a disqualifier. So if you can find a VoIP provider with local numbers in your area and can get say an MPLS pipe to them, it would do. In some extreme cases you may need to fimd a CLEC willing to add service in your area, or create your own CLEC. >Randy > >On 5/29/2012 10:40 AM, Marlon K. Schafer (509-982-2181) wrote: > > 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
