more on Von Mag: Funding USF through Broadband

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
Date: July 6, 2005 11:05:35 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net, 'Ip ip' <ip () v2 listbox com>
Cc: "'Frank A. Coluccio'" <frank () coluccio net>, 'Doug Mohney'  
<dmohney () vonmag com>
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 () v2 listbox com [mailto:owner-ip () v2 listbox com] 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 () JKFLAW COM>

Date: July 6, 2005 8:18:05 AM EDT

To: CYBERTELECOM-L () LISTSERV AOL COM

Subject: Re: Von Mag: Funding USF through Broadband

Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet <CYBERTELECOM-

L () LISTSERV AOL COM>





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 () jkflaw com



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 () Bobf Frankston com

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 lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/