Right. But we have to SELL the filing now. Just putting it on paper isn't enough.
If it were, our competition wouldn't be at the FCC on a daily basis :-). marlon ----- Original Message ----- From: Jack Unger To: WISPA General List Cc: WISPA's FCC Committee Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:01 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF/CAF In fact, WISPA has already gone on record AGAINST the current rule that a single company has to provide both voice and data. WISPA asked the FCC to change the rule so that CAF subsidies would be denied in "an area subject to unsubsidized competition". What this means is that if an area is already served with both voice and broadband data, even if these services are provided by two separate companies, then no one else should be able to receive subsidies to serve that area. (Crack! "Base hit!! It's a double to center field!!") jack On 5/29/2012 9:40 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 _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author (2003) - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks" Serving the WISP Community since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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
