[IP] more on Von Mag: Funding USF through Broadband
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19-0501@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: July 6, 2005 11:05:35 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx, 'Ip ip' <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "'Frank A. Coluccio'" <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, 'Doug Mohney'
<dmohney@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [IP] Von Mag: Funding USF through Broadband
I keep comparing these proposals with taxing yellow paint to help
corn farmers. It’s just a scam to avoid transparent funding.
The growth of wireless ISPs is already ahead of "schedule". As Ben
Campaine has pointed out, "rural" is not the same as "impoverished".
Providing access to those in cities is often more of a problem and
it’s as much about awareness as cost.
I’ve suggested to one highly visible advocate that the rural users
who want connectivity should seize their phone wires and repurpose
them as high speed data paths by simply putting up cheap DSL
regenerators every mile or so – a picture of them charging the poles
with pitch forks or maybe shotguns would be a wonderful photo-op.
It’s the robber barons all over again. Why tolerate wasting copper
pairs which can support gigabits (when aggregated and regenerated) to
be wasted carrying phone calls. It’s a DIY problem and the USF only
guarantees that everyone is gouged – the taxed and those who get the
funds that are only allowed to be used to buy overpriced services
with low capacity.
I keep thinking of who should be sharing a room with Bernie Ebbers …
As I pointed out in my VON column http://www.frankston.com/?
Name=VONConnectivityUtility costs can be reduced by sharing access
but that takes understanding and the USF locks myths into legislation
and thwarts progress. Why “punish” broadband users?
If you follow the shared access model the real problem is that we
still treating the Internet as if it were television channel with
billable services. It’s really a utility.
I have to keep emphasizing that this is same municipal cable TV – it
is just access with anyone allowed to provide services. Early
municipal electric companies were formed as light companies but
people soon realized they just wanted electricity and not depend on
the city for light bulbs.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of David Farber
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 10:04
To: Ip ip
Subject: [IP] Von Mag: Funding USF through Broadband
Begin forwarded message:
From: "John K. Friedman" <john@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: July 6, 2005 8:18:05 AM EDT
To: CYBERTELECOM-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Von Mag: Funding USF through Broadband
Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet <CYBERTELECOM-
L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
This would simply allow those who've opted out of the PSTN -- using
cable modem service, particularly w/ VoIP riding on it -- to be gouged
by the ILECs indirectly. How's this for a title of the proposed bill:
"The Rural LEC and Qwest Revenue Assurance Act?"
Frank Coluccio wrote:
> Funding USF through Broadband
> 07.04.05 | Doug Mohney
>
> http://www.vonmag.com/webexclusives/
> 2005/07/4_Funding_USF_through_Broadband.htm
>
> Representatives of Rural America are rallying behind the idea of
> taxing
> broadband customers to support the Universal Service Fund (USF),
> according to a report from News.com A group of 62 Congressmen
> submitted
> a letter to the U.S. House of Energy and Commerce Committee on June
> 28th
> calling for the base of USF contributors to be expanded to everyone
> who
> uses the infrastructure including "all providers of two-way
> communications, regardless of technology used, to insure competitive
> neutrality."
>
> Wireless carriers are happy about the proposed change since they feel
> wireless consumers already pay too much into USF and intercarrier
> compensation systems. Free market think tanks are skeptical about
more
> funding for USF, claiming that broadband access is getting cheaper
and
> more widely available, but rural and economically disadvantaged
> municipalities can successfully argue that ILECs have failed to
> provide
> affordable and timely access to broadband services.
>
> Rural legislators have always had a soft spot for USF regardless of
> party affiliation and the June 28th letter wasn't the first and
> won't be
> the last time that they continue to lobby for clear and unambiguous
> support of telecommunications subsidies to underserved areas of the
> country.
>
> ------
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
John Friedman
Law Office of John K. Friedman
165 West Fourth Street
New York, NY 10014 USA
john@xxxxxxxxxx
tel: +212.366.1324
fax: +646.201.5485
mobile: +917.213.8307
This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and may
contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are
not the intended recipient, printing, copying, reading and
dissemination of this communication is prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the
message and its attachments and notify sender immediately by replying
to this message.
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as BobIP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/