Rick, I thought that we did this task, but please tell me how I can confirm. - Cliff
On 11/28/12 4:45 PM, "Rick Harnish" <rharn...@wispa.org> wrote: >Fred, > >I assure you the WISPA FCC Committee is indeed on this. You make great >points and we appreciate your review. You are definitely correct, that >WISPs >NEED to get on the National Broadband Map NOW! Those that don't will be >suffering from subsidized competition. Anyone who does not know who to >contact, drop me a line. I have contacts now for all states. Maybe, I >can >get that list up on the WISPA website under WISP Resources. There is one >now, but it is not complete. I now have 4-5 names per state I believe. > >The guys at towercoverage.com are making it easy and inexpensive to make >your maps and get them uploaded to the National/State Maps as well. > >Where there is a Wisp, there is a way! > >Respectfully, > >Rick Harnish >Executive Director >WISPA >260-307-4000 cell >866-317-2851 Option 2 WISPA Office >Skype: rick.harnish. >rharn...@wispa.org >adm...@wispa.org (Trina and Rick) > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Fred Goldstein >> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 5:17 PM >> To: wireless@wispa.org >> Subject: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk! >> >> The FCC's home page ( transition.fcc.gov ) has an item about Connect >America >> Fund, posted with no description. This turns out to be a further NPRM >about >> Phase I funding. >> >> As you may recall, CAF Phase I was the short-term (2012) step that >>offered >> $775 per line to price-cap ILECs (the Bells and other big >> ones) to bring "broadband" to "unserved" areas that they otherwise >wouldn't. It >> was budgeted for $300M but only about $115M was claimed, mostly by >> Frontier. The Bells didn't take much. CenturyLink however whined that >the >> definition of "served" should be changed to specifically exclude areas >WISPs, so >> they could get subsidy money to overbuild existing WISPs. The FCC >>turned >that >> one down, though CenturyLink did take money for some other areas. >> >> The new Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: >> >http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC-12 >- >> 138A1.pdf >> asks what to do about the remaining Phase I money. While they could of >> course just not spend it, lowering the USF tax (now around 17%!), that's >not one >> of the two options they are proposing to select from. One option is to >simply >> add this funding to Phase II, which begins in 2013. Phase II allows for >> competition in the awarding of funds; there will be a reverse auction, >>and >the >> bidder who asks for the least subsidy money gets it. >> >> Most of the FNPRM, however, is devoted to the other option, essentially >>a >> second round of Phase I. They propose changing Phase I rules to >>encourage >the >> ILECs to take more money. There are a lot of questions about details, >>but >the >> basic ideas are along these lines: >> >> 1) Redefine "unserved" to be anywhere that doesn't have 4/1 service, >>vs. >> 768k/200k in the first round. This would be based on the National >Broadband >> Map, using 3M/768k as a surrogate for 4/1. (The agencies apparently >hadn't >> agreed on speed tiers.) So an area served by a WISP at 2M/500k, or by >Canopy >> 100s, would be deemed "unserved", since it's not 4/1. >> >> 2) Allow challenges to the national map. So if an ILEC thinks an area >>is >> unserved even if a WISP claims it's served, they can argue the matter to >the >> FCC. This works both ways, so I suppose an ISP could claim that the map >> omitted them by mistake. But it points out that a WISP SHOULD MAKE SURE >> ITS COVERAGE AREAS ARE ON THE MAP! (Just a little shouting in case >>anyone >> didn't hear it.) >> >> They are supposed to come out with a list of unserved areas (census >> blocks0 next month. >> >> There are some other interesting details. Phase I awards are $775 per >>new >> customer. That number may be adjusted in this second round. Also, in >areas >> served by (rural, subsidized) Rate of Return Carriers, the subsidy >>number >comes >> from the FCC's High Cost Proxy Model. In Phase 2, these areas get >subsidized >> according to a more elaborate cost model now being debated. >> >> There is also the possibility that the Phase I recipient may have to >>build >a >> certain amount of "second mile" (basically, exchange feeder >> fiber) as well as "last mile" distribution. But there's no clear >obligation to make >> this available at wholesale, which would be nice. >> They also ask about how to handle builds that have to go through served >areas >> in order to reach unserved ones. So even if you're on the map, you >>could >get >> overbuilt by the ILEC. >> >> Note that a Phase I awardee must apply to serve specific unserved areas >and >> applies to serve a certain number of unserved subscribers, >> *but* they do not actually have to use it where they said they would. >>The >> applications are merely suggestions of where they might >> find their unserved customers. They can actually spend it >> elsewhere, so long as they get at least one customer added per $775. >> >> An open question is that several awardees said that their proposed >>service >> areas are confidential. The FCC has not decided if this is acceptable, >>so >it's an >> open question now. I'd think that a WISP should be allowed to know if >>the >ILEC >> plans to build subsidized service to an area they're thinking of >>building >to, so >> this should be public information, not confidential. So tell the FCC! >> >> I am hoping the FCC Committee and others interested will take note of >this. It >> probably won't reach the Federal Register for a while, and then the 30 >>day >> Comment period begins. >> >> -- >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
