At 6/1/2012 12:38 PM, MarlonS wrote: >I'm not sure that any sort of CLEC that you are piped into would count Fred. >That's not facilities based. They are, but the company providing service >isn't. And the rules specifically state that the voice provider has to be >facilities based.
>It may be fuzzy though. I know our voice circuits here in Odessa are >switched in another town unless the fiber gets cut. Then an old local >switch kicks in or some such thing. Go figure. The rule is flexible. The "unsubsidized competitor" has to provide voice service but it doesn't say how they get it. They do not have to be a CLEC. So they could buy wholesale facilities from a CLEC and use VoIP to mux it onto the wireless. I don't think they could resell the ILEC voice though. Using any CLEC switch is "facilities based". >Either way, we need to keep pushing just like our competitors are. > >Fred, what are your long term thoughts of voip? I think it's going to go >down the drain just like all other land lines are starting to do. I think >there will be business lines and a few home phones. But in the next 10 or >20 years I'll bet less than half the land lines out there will exist. >(Unless they are required for data services also.) I don't think mobile phones will replace land lines for the big users. Frankly the sound quality sucks, and the newer smartphones are worse than the old ones to use as phones. Voice is an afterthought on them. So you end up needing a wire-type handset or a headset to do any talking, and the headset is still on the crappy mobile network. Good quality voice will retain a market, though wireline will decline somewhat, and VoIP as a product (vs. an internal technology) may be peaking. >marlon > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Fred Goldstein" <fgoldst...@ionary.com> >To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:40 AM >Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF/CAF > > > > 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 > >_______________________________________________ >Wireless mailing list >Wireless@wispa.org >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- 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
