Re: Net Neutrality...
At 05:06 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service Fund, as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ?
It's a major threat to rural WISPs and all competitive ISPs. Here's why. The FCC is demanding that ISPs become "Eligible Telecommunications Carriers," or ETCs, before they can receive money from it. An ETC is a telephone company which is regulated under the mountain of regulations, requirements, and red tape of Title II of the Telecomm Act. It has to report to both state regulatory agencies AND the FCC. It's a classification that doesn't fit ISPs at all, but they would have to subject themselves to this heavy-handed regulation before they could get a dime from the fund. The FCC just announced a "rural broadband experiment" in which it will fund ETCs, but not pure-play ISPs, to build out rural broadband; see http://www.fcc.gov/document/rural-broadband-experiments-order As part of this experiment, the FCC will pay telephone companies to overbuild us, even though the residents of the areas in question already have service. This is because, as far as the regulators are concerned, if they do not have their regulatory hooks in us, we don't exist and any service we provide does not count. The "experiment" also requires participants to tie up large amounts of money in escrow accounts so that they can obtain "letters of credit" guaranteeing performance. All of this is, alas, the regulators' way of attempting to destroy those whom they cannot regulate. IMHO, the USF is outmoded and should be disbanded. --Brett Glass
I have stayed out of much of this, but can't help myself. Along with everything else, you are seriously misinformed about the process of becoming an ETC. It is not onerous. Please stop. You are giving rural ISPs a bad reputation. On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Brett Glass <nanog@brettglass.com> wrote:
At 05:06 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service Fund,
as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ?
It's a major threat to rural WISPs and all competitive ISPs. Here's why. The FCC is demanding that ISPs become "Eligible Telecommunications Carriers," or ETCs, before they can receive money from it. An ETC is a telephone company which is regulated under the mountain of regulations, requirements, and red tape of Title II of the Telecomm Act. It has to report to both state regulatory agencies AND the FCC. It's a classification that doesn't fit ISPs at all, but they would have to subject themselves to this heavy-handed regulation before they could get a dime from the fund.
The FCC just announced a "rural broadband experiment" in which it will fund ETCs, but not pure-play ISPs, to build out rural broadband; see
http://www.fcc.gov/document/rural-broadband-experiments-order
As part of this experiment, the FCC will pay telephone companies to overbuild us, even though the residents of the areas in question already have service. This is because, as far as the regulators are concerned, if they do not have their regulatory hooks in us, we don't exist and any service we provide does not count. The "experiment" also requires participants to tie up large amounts of money in escrow accounts so that they can obtain "letters of credit" guaranteeing performance.
All of this is, alas, the regulators' way of attempting to destroy those whom they cannot regulate.
IMHO, the USF is outmoded and should be disbanded.
--Brett Glass
-- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for internet services...pretty much just for LECs. Thank You Bob Evans CTO
I have stayed out of much of this, but can't help myself. Along with everything else, you are seriously misinformed about the process of becoming an ETC. It is not onerous. Please stop. You are giving rural ISPs a bad reputation.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Brett Glass <nanog@brettglass.com> wrote:
At 05:06 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service Fund,
as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ?
It's a major threat to rural WISPs and all competitive ISPs. Here's why. The FCC is demanding that ISPs become "Eligible Telecommunications Carriers," or ETCs, before they can receive money from it. An ETC is a telephone company which is regulated under the mountain of regulations, requirements, and red tape of Title II of the Telecomm Act. It has to report to both state regulatory agencies AND the FCC. It's a classification that doesn't fit ISPs at all, but they would have to subject themselves to this heavy-handed regulation before they could get a dime from the fund.
The FCC just announced a "rural broadband experiment" in which it will fund ETCs, but not pure-play ISPs, to build out rural broadband; see
http://www.fcc.gov/document/rural-broadband-experiments-order
As part of this experiment, the FCC will pay telephone companies to overbuild us, even though the residents of the areas in question already have service. This is because, as far as the regulators are concerned, if they do not have their regulatory hooks in us, we don't exist and any service we provide does not count. The "experiment" also requires participants to tie up large amounts of money in escrow accounts so that they can obtain "letters of credit" guaranteeing performance.
All of this is, alas, the regulators' way of attempting to destroy those whom they cannot regulate.
IMHO, the USF is outmoded and should be disbanded.
--Brett Glass
-- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
Any ISP can tap into Erate funding. We are a WISP and lots of our school customers get Erate funding/discounts. On 7/15/2014 8:53 PM, Bob Evans wrote:
I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for internet services...pretty much just for LECs. Thank You Bob Evans CTO
I have stayed out of much of this, but can't help myself. Along with everything else, you are seriously misinformed about the process of becoming an ETC. It is not onerous. Please stop. You are giving rural ISPs a bad reputation.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Brett Glass <nanog@brettglass.com> wrote:
At 05:06 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service Fund,
as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ?
It's a major threat to rural WISPs and all competitive ISPs. Here's why. The FCC is demanding that ISPs become "Eligible Telecommunications Carriers," or ETCs, before they can receive money from it. An ETC is a telephone company which is regulated under the mountain of regulations, requirements, and red tape of Title II of the Telecomm Act. It has to report to both state regulatory agencies AND the FCC. It's a classification that doesn't fit ISPs at all, but they would have to subject themselves to this heavy-handed regulation before they could get a dime from the fund.
The FCC just announced a "rural broadband experiment" in which it will fund ETCs, but not pure-play ISPs, to build out rural broadband; see
http://www.fcc.gov/document/rural-broadband-experiments-order
As part of this experiment, the FCC will pay telephone companies to overbuild us, even though the residents of the areas in question already have service. This is because, as far as the regulators are concerned, if they do not have their regulatory hooks in us, we don't exist and any service we provide does not count. The "experiment" also requires participants to tie up large amounts of money in escrow accounts so that they can obtain "letters of credit" guaranteeing performance.
All of this is, alas, the regulators' way of attempting to destroy those whom they cannot regulate.
IMHO, the USF is outmoded and should be disbanded.
--Brett Glass
-- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
I'll just say that we've consulted legal counsel about what it would take to become an ETC, and it's simply too burdensome for us to consider. We'd need to become a telephone company, at the very time when old fashioned telephone service is becoming a thing of the past. (We enthusiastically support "over the top" VoIP so that we can help our customers get inexpensive telephone service without ourselves having to be a telephone company.) --Brett Glass At 07:53 PM 7/15/2014, Bob Evans wrote:
I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for internet services...pretty much just for LECs. Thank You Bob Evans CTO
Oh I agree Brett. My point was for flecher. We lost business once the government school discount happened. Its an example to what you speak of....all the time red tape overhead designed to give to LEcs business. And one of my companies is a CLEC. Thank You Bob Evans CTO
I'll just say that we've consulted legal counsel about what it would take to become an ETC, and it's simply too burdensome for us to consider. We'd need to become a telephone company, at the very time when old fashioned telephone service is becoming a thing of the past. (We enthusiastically support "over the top" VoIP so that we can help our customers get inexpensive telephone service without ourselves having to be a telephone company.)
--Brett Glass
At 07:53 PM 7/15/2014, Bob Evans wrote:
I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for internet services...pretty much just for LECs. Thank You Bob Evans CTO
Page 9-10 from the Connect America Fund (CAF) Report and Order on Rural Broadband Experiments. I don't think this needs translation, but please read carefully. *2.* We concluded in the Tech Transitions Order that we would encourage participation in the rural broadband experiments from a wide range of entities—including competitive local exchange carriers, electric utilities, fixed and mobile wireless providers, WISPs, State and regional authorities, Tribal governments, and partnerships among interested entities.49 We were encouraged to see the diversity in the expressions of interest submitted by interested parties. Of the more than 1,000 expressions of interest filed, almost half were from entities that are not currently ETCs, including electric utilities, WISPS, and agencies of state, county or local governments. *22.* We remind entities that they need not be ETCs at the time they initially submit their formal proposals for funding through the rural broadband experiments, but that they must obtain ETC designation after being identified as winning bidders for the funding award. As stated in the Tech Transitions Order, we expect entities to confirm their ETC status within 90 days of the public notice announcing the winning bidders selected to receive funding.51 Any winning bidder that fails to notify the Bureau that it has obtained ETC designation within the 90 day timeframe will be considered in default and will not be eligible to receive funding for its proposed rural broadband experiment. Any funding that is forfeited in such a manner will not be redistributed to other applicants. We conclude this is necessary so that we can move forward with the experiments in a timely manner. However, a waiver of this deadline may be appropriate if a winning bidder is able to demonstrate that it has engaged in good faith to obtain ETC designation, but has not received approval within the 90-day timeframe.[52] *23.* We sought comment in the Tech Transitions FNPRM on whether to adopt a presumption that if a state fails to act on an ETC application from a selected participant within a specified period of time, the state lacks jurisdiction over the applicant, and the Commission will address the ETC application. Multiple commenters supported this proposal.54 We now conclude that, for purposes of this experiment, if after 90 days a state has failed to act on a pending ETC application, an entity may request that the Commission designate it as an ETC, pursuant to section 214(e)(6).55 Although we are confident that states share our desire to work cooperatively to advance broadband, and we expect states to expeditiously designate qualified entities that have expressed an interest in providing voice and broadband to consumers in price cap areas within their states, we also recognize the need to adopt measures that will provide a pathway to obtaining ETC designation in situations where there is a lack of action by the state. ====== 52 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.3. We expect entities selected for funding to submit their ETC applications to the relevant jurisdiction as soon as possible after release of the public notice announcing winning bids, and will presume an entity to have shown good faith if it files its ETC application within 15 days of release of the public notice. A waiver of the 90-day deadline would be appropriate if, for example, if an entity has an ETC application pending with a state, and the state’s next meeting at which it would consider the ETC application will occur after the 90-day window. On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Brett Glass <nanog@brettglass.com> wrote:
I'll just say that we've consulted legal counsel about what it would take to become an ETC, and it's simply too burdensome for us to consider. We'd need to become a telephone company, at the very time when old fashioned telephone service is becoming a thing of the past. (We enthusiastically support "over the top" VoIP so that we can help our customers get inexpensive telephone service without ourselves having to be a telephone company.)
--Brett Glass
At 07:53 PM 7/15/2014, Bob Evans wrote:
I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is
riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for internet services...pretty much just for LECs. Thank You Bob Evans CTO
-- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
Wow, first time I ever saw this line.... so thanks for the text. partnerships among interested entities...that leaves it open to all. Unless, a bureaucrat wants to pull out this some other supporting documents....something additional that is all encompassing like our equal opportunity, filed and registered bla-blah-blah, on the government list...and now you have to do this and this and this. Sometimes it's even referred to on page 681...723...it often becomes a battle of words. That cost money and demands time. Do you know how difficult it is to teach a lawyer somethings a simple as what an IP address is. Seen that happen before a lot ! Just saying.....however, you did prove your point that it's possible. Well done. Thank You Bob Evans CTO
Page 9-10 from the Connect America Fund (CAF) Report and Order on Rural Broadband Experiments. I don't think this needs translation, but please read carefully.
*2.* We concluded in the Tech Transitions Order that we would encourage participation in
the rural broadband experiments from a wide range of entitiesâincluding competitive local exchange carriers, electric utilities, fixed and mobile wireless providers, WISPs, State and regional authorities, Tribal governments, and partnerships among interested entities.49 We were encouraged to see the diversity in the expressions of interest submitted by interested parties. Of the more than 1,000 expressions of interest filed, almost half were from entities that are not currently ETCs, including electric utilities, WISPS, and agencies of state, county or local governments. *22.* We remind entities that they need not be ETCs at the time they initially submit their formal proposals for funding through the rural broadband experiments, but that they must obtain ETC designation after being identified as winning bidders for the funding award. As stated in the Tech Transitions Order, we expect entities to confirm their ETC status within 90 days of the public notice announcing the winning bidders selected to receive funding.51 Any winning bidder that fails to notify the Bureau that it has obtained ETC designation within the 90 day timeframe will be considered in default and will not be eligible to receive funding for its proposed rural broadband experiment. Any funding that is forfeited in such a manner will not be redistributed to other applicants. We conclude this is necessary so that we can move forward with the experiments in a timely manner. However, a waiver of this deadline may be appropriate if a winning bidder is able to demonstrate that it has engaged in good faith to obtain ETC designation, but has not received approval within the 90-day timeframe.[52] *23.* We sought comment in the Tech Transitions FNPRM on whether to adopt a presumption that if a state fails to act on an ETC application from a selected participant within a specified period of time, the state lacks jurisdiction over the applicant, and the Commission will address the ETC application. Multiple commenters supported this proposal.54 We now conclude that, for purposes of this experiment, if after 90 days a state has failed to act on a pending ETC application, an entity may request that the Commission designate it as an ETC, pursuant to section 214(e)(6).55 Although we are confident that states share our desire to work cooperatively to advance broadband, and we expect states to expeditiously designate qualified entities that have expressed an interest in providing voice and broadband to consumers in price cap areas within their states, we also recognize the need to adopt measures that will provide a pathway to obtaining ETC designation in situations where there is a lack of action by the state. ====== 52 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.3. We expect entities selected for funding to submit their ETC applications to the relevant jurisdiction as soon as possible after release of the public notice announcing winning bids, and will presume an entity to have shown good faith if it files its ETC application within 15 days of release of the public notice. A waiver of the 90-day deadline would be appropriate if, for example, if an entity has an ETC application pending with a state, and the stateâs next meeting at which it would consider the ETC application will occur after the 90-day window.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Brett Glass <nanog@brettglass.com> wrote:
I'll just say that we've consulted legal counsel about what it would take to become an ETC, and it's simply too burdensome for us to consider. We'd need to become a telephone company, at the very time when old fashioned telephone service is becoming a thing of the past. (We enthusiastically support "over the top" VoIP so that we can help our customers get inexpensive telephone service without ourselves having to be a telephone company.)
--Brett Glass
At 07:53 PM 7/15/2014, Bob Evans wrote:
I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is
riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for internet services...pretty much just for LECs. Thank You Bob Evans CTO
-- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
Here is the actual document for defining what the federal government considers to be an ETC. Keep in mind that state level boards actually make the designation based on these, and potentially state level regulations, so there is some variation based on the state(s) you operate in. Having said, that the requirements have not seemed overly onerous to us where we have considered them, which certainly isn't all 50 states. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-46A1.pdf "20. As described above, ETC applicants must meet statutorily prescribed requirements before we can approve their designation as an ETC.46 Based on the record before us, we find that an ETC applicant must demonstrate: (1) a commitment and ability to provide services, including providing service to all customers within its proposed service area; (2) how it will remain functional in emergency situations; (3) that it will satisfy consumer protection and service quality standards; (4) that it offers local usage comparable to that offered by the incumbent LEC; and (5) an understanding that it may be required to provide equal access if all other ETCs in the designated service area relinquish their designations pursuant to section 214(e)(4) of the Act.47 As noted above, these requirements are mandatory for all ETCs designated by the Commission. ETCs designated by the Commission prior to this Report and Order will be required to make such showings when they submit their annual certification filing on October 1, 2006. We also encourage state commissions to apply these requirements to all ETC applicants over which they exercise jurisdiction. We do not believe that different ETCs should be subject to different obligations, going forward, because of when they happened to first obtain ETC designation from the Commission or the state. These are responsibilities associated with receiving universal service support that apply to all ETCs, regardless of the date of initial designation." Its also worth noting that you do _not_ have to offer voice or life line services according the federal guidelines. "3947 U.S.C. § 214(e)(1)(A). The services that are supported by the federal universal service support mechanisms are: (1) voice grade access to the public switched network; (2) local usage; (3) Dual Tone Multifrequency (DTMF) signaling or its functional equivalent; (4) single-party service or its functional equivalent; (5) access to emergency services, including 911 and enhanced 911; (6) access to operator services; (7) access to interexchange services; (8) access to directory assistance; and (9) toll limitation for qualifying low-income customers. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.101. While section 214(e)(1) requires an ETC to “offer” the services supported by the federal universal service support mechanisms, the Commission has determined that this does not require a competitive carrier to actually provide the supported services throughout the designated service area before designation as an ETC. Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Western Wireless Corporation Petition for Preemption of an Order of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, Declaratory Ruling, CC Docket No. 96-45, 15 FCC Rcd 15168, 15172-75, paras. 10- 18 (2000), recon. pending (Section 214(e) Declaratory Ruling)." That was once a requirement that kept most WISPs from being able to participate, but is no longer. I don't personally see a large hurdle for WISPs in the federal language and I work with 4 I know of that have ETC status in 3 different states. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Bob Evans <bob@fiberinternetcenter.com> wrote:
I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for internet services...pretty much just for LECs. Thank You Bob Evans CTO
I have stayed out of much of this, but can't help myself. Along with everything else, you are seriously misinformed about the process of becoming an ETC. It is not onerous. Please stop. You are giving rural ISPs a bad reputation.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Brett Glass <nanog@brettglass.com> wrote:
At 05:06 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service Fund,
as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ?
It's a major threat to rural WISPs and all competitive ISPs. Here's why. The FCC is demanding that ISPs become "Eligible Telecommunications Carriers," or ETCs, before they can receive money from it. An ETC is a telephone company which is regulated under the mountain of regulations, requirements, and red tape of Title II of the Telecomm Act. It has to report to both state regulatory agencies AND the FCC. It's a classification that doesn't fit ISPs at all, but they would have to subject themselves to this heavy-handed regulation before they could get a dime from the fund.
The FCC just announced a "rural broadband experiment" in which it will fund ETCs, but not pure-play ISPs, to build out rural broadband; see
http://www.fcc.gov/document/rural-broadband-experiments-order
As part of this experiment, the FCC will pay telephone companies to overbuild us, even though the residents of the areas in question already have service. This is because, as far as the regulators are concerned, if they do not have their regulatory hooks in us, we don't exist and any service we provide does not count. The "experiment" also requires participants to tie up large amounts of money in escrow accounts so that they can obtain "letters of credit" guaranteeing performance.
All of this is, alas, the regulators' way of attempting to destroy those whom they cannot regulate.
IMHO, the USF is outmoded and should be disbanded.
--Brett Glass
-- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
ETCs aside for a moment, the NTIA used to give out an awful lot of money for rural electrification, then for telecom - a lot of it going to small players, coops, and municipalities. A Probably still does - though I haven't followed the program in recent years. Yes, writing and selling a grant proposal can be tedious, but then again, so is a venture capital proposal, or dealing with banks. Or, for that matter, selling to large customers public or private. Miles Fidelman On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Bob Evans <bob@fiberinternetcenter.com> wrote:
I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for internet services...pretty much just for LECs. Thank You Bob Evans CTO
I have stayed out of much of this, but can't help myself. Along with everything else, you are seriously misinformed about the process of becoming an ETC. It is not onerous. Please stop. You are giving rural ISPs a bad reputation.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Brett Glass <nanog@brettglass.com> wrote:
At 05:06 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service Fund,
as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ?
It's a major threat to rural WISPs and all competitive ISPs. Here's why. The FCC is demanding that ISPs become "Eligible Telecommunications Carriers," or ETCs, before they can receive money from it. An ETC is a telephone company which is regulated under the mountain of regulations, requirements, and red tape of Title II of the Telecomm Act. It has to report to both state regulatory agencies AND the FCC. It's a classification that doesn't fit ISPs at all, but they would have to subject themselves to this heavy-handed regulation before they could get a dime from the fund.
The FCC just announced a "rural broadband experiment" in which it will fund ETCs, but not pure-play ISPs, to build out rural broadband; see
http://www.fcc.gov/document/rural-broadband-experiments-order
As part of this experiment, the FCC will pay telephone companies to overbuild us, even though the residents of the areas in question already have service. This is because, as far as the regulators are concerned, if they do not have their regulatory hooks in us, we don't exist and any service we provide does not count. The "experiment" also requires participants to tie up large amounts of money in escrow accounts so that they can obtain "letters of credit" guaranteeing performance.
All of this is, alas, the regulators' way of attempting to destroy those whom they cannot regulate.
IMHO, the USF is outmoded and should be disbanded.
--Brett Glass
-- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
participants (6)
-
Bob Evans -
Brett Glass -
Fletcher Kittredge -
Keefe John -
Miles Fidelman -
Scott Helms