kdandaoc
join:2003-10-13
608052427
| Your Kidding , right?
"The USF program, the piece offers, currently does more harm than good."
The USF program hasn't been anything but a slushfund for decades. To add insult to injury, this was supposed to have been remedied with the telecom act of 96. This is f***** typical, taxation beyond explanation! |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| Daniel Berninger - conflict of interest?
Daniel Berninger joined Tier1 Research in August 2004 as Senior Analyst covering telecom. Daniel has over a decade of experience that includes helping to launch three prominent VoIP startups - ITXC, Vonage, and Free World Dialup. Sounds to me like astroturfing by a VOIP bought and paid for consultant who is lobbying Congress on behalf of Vonage. That makes some of his assumptions subject to doubt.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | No Doubt. But are you contending that the USF actually accomplishes what it is supposed to? |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by Ahrenl  :No Doubt. But are you contending that the USF actually accomplishes what it is supposed to? No. I think the whole USF should be dropped completely. It is just another unneeded tax accomplishing nothing. But if the tax exists, then VOIP companies shouldn't be left off the hook either.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL | reply to TKJunkMail
Nice try but not quite accurate. Astroturfers try to hide where their funding is coming from and pretend to be grassroots.
Pulver's blog tells you exactly who Berninger works for and his history with voip. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to TKJunkMail
Agreed, but new entrants into the industry shouldn't be forced to pay into it until the power to disperse the funds are taken away from their entrenched competitors. They should have equal access to the funds; or service providers should be separated from infrastructure owners, as it should be. Then it would just be service providers collecting funds for the pipeline servicers, who would build improvement for everyone. This is just another problem created by the lack of free market. Unreproducible assets can't be used in competition if you want it to be free and fair. |
|
thegoldwater
Thegoldwater
join:2002-03-10
Parkton, MD
| reply to TKJunkMail
Why shouldn't ANY *service* companies be left off the hook. When you read the enabling legislation for the USF-- it is about providing access through infrastructure to rural areas, not necessarily *services*. The original intent of the legislation was to make sure that telcos were actually wiring rural areas in the same manner they wire urban areas.
Why should services subsidize hardware infrastructure?
By that argument, Google should be taxed to help pay to run copper down the road. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| Google doesn't provide voice communications. If they did, that part of their business should have to collect USF fees. Just like companies providing full time multi-channel video services should either ALL be subject to local franchise agreements, or none of them should. There shouldn't' be a double standard. But it works the other way too. The large incumbents should be in charge of how/where the money is spent either. If you're going to have government intervention, it needs to be as equal as possible or you eventually end up with market imbalances. (like say large service duopolies) |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Qwest.net
| reply to Zoder
Re-election grease the palm fund (RGTPF)
Here is how the RGTPF moneys where used on one project at a school here in Cheyenne. This school used the money to wire the whole building to cable TV to the tune of several 100 thousand dollars. This is great except for the fact, the local cable company had already wired the building for this same thing a couple of years before as part of the CableCo's educational TV in the schools program. A great program where the cable industry wired school for free. Said cable company got the contract to re-wire the school. So in a since they where paid back for what they did a few years earlier. Nothing wrong with this of course from the point of view of the CableCo they would have been foolish to not bid for the contract. But the money was wasted it could have been used else where in another school out in in Laramie county that had not been wired up yet.
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Daniel Berninger - conflict of interest?
said by TKJunkMail :Daniel Berninger joined Tier1 Research in August 2004 as Senior Analyst covering telecom. Daniel has over a decade of experience that includes helping to launch three prominent VoIP startups - ITXC, Vonage, and Free World Dialup. Sounds to me like astroturfing by a VOIP bought and paid for consultant who is lobbying Congress on behalf of Vonage. That makes some of his assumptions subject to doubt. And exactly how is it astroturfing? Let me give you an example: astroturfing is when you defend cable co's and big businesses and the Mgihty Freak's interests at all costs while you never reveal your close ties to these businesses, posing as 'independent' voice - this is astrotufing.
However this guy shows his ties clearly - it's called "full disclosure" in journalism and I guess you haven't heard it 'cause it's a very unlikely act in Red circles... |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by Ahrenl :No Doubt. But are you contending that the USF actually accomplishes what it is supposed to? No. I think the whole USF should be dropped completely. It is just another unneeded tax accomplishing nothing. But if the tax exists, then VOIP companies shouldn't be left off the hook either. Let's drop it entirely.
I propose to slash the Iraqi budget of Pentagon entirely as well and use it for telecommunication purposes. It's a win-win: grunts will be home, contributing to the domestic production and within very short time we will be the #1 broadband nation of the world. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | reply to TKJunkMail
regardless of his motives, he lays out a fairly damning case for reforming the USF, BEFORE IT WASTES ANY MORE MONEY.
and zoder is right: if someone is honest about their association with an issue, it's not astroturfing. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | reply to TKJunkMail
No "company" is on the hook for USF...CONSUMERS are. Consumers are the ones paying the bills. |
|
R4M0N
Brazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA | reply to kamm
Keep proposing it. One day someone will care to pay attention. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to kamm
Slashing the budget won't bring anyone home or solve anything. It needed to be stopped before it started. But since the congress is spineless, and we've got a cowboy in the executive branch, with a bunch of 3rd termers (1st was Bush senior for most of those guys) as his cabinet; we're there. If we just pull out all it once it would be civil war, followed by an invasion by Iran. You want Iran to control more of our oil supply, AND share a border with Saudi Arabia, where we get MOST of our oil? Bad Idea.
Back on topic, we can slash the USF without making any budget cuts, because the money it collects isn't doing anything anyway. |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| USF and E-rate
My $.02
I'm sure there are plenty of horror storys out there, but I would just point out that there are plenty of rural school districts who depend on E-rate to help provide the small amount of telecom services they do have. I currently live in an area where the entire school district uses 1 t-1 for internet, and shares that among the different schools in the district, including outlying areas. They also have a minimal amount of pots service. You know why they aren't gaming the system? Because they can barely afford the 10% that they pay for what they have, much less order new or advanced infrastructure and services.
As far as being an ILEC slush fund, my understanding is that 3 state, Alabama, Mississippi and West Virginia recieve over 80% of the money for rural telecom deployment. I'm sure that much of that goes to Independant telcos, as opposed to RBOCs. I know that an Independant I worked for in Utah got a good chunk of their money from USF, and they have grown to depend on it. However, they do have pretty good rural service (they run fiber to RTs all over the place). If things were as many advocate here, meaning market based unregulated competition and no USF, Joe Farmer out in the hinterland would have to pay hundreds of dollars month for telecom services, while taking all the risk in his fields in order to put food on the nations tables. Anyone who thinks RELIABLE telecom services in rural areas can be provided inexpensively has never worked telecom (or cable, for that matter) in a truly rural area. And Joe Farmer can't move into town.
So before more people start screaming because the pay an extra $.50 a month to USF, tell me how to fix these issues, and I'll listen. If the USF and E-rate distrubution method needs fixing and oversight, fine. But just wholesale dismantling isn't the way to go. |
|
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| reply to kamm
Re: Daniel Berninger - conflict of interest?
said by kamm :Let's drop it entirely. I propose to slash the Iraqi budget of Pentagon entirely as well and use it for telecommunication purposes. It's a win-win: grunts will be home, contributing to the domestic production and within very short time we will be the #1 broadband nation of the world. fixed it for you
I say double it. This way the DOD, can send more ammo & armor, to our Troops, so they can kick more azz, complete the mission objectives earlier than projected, and America can hold a big "Welcome back home Boys" celebration in honor of their heroic service to our Country.
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. |
|
scrummie02
Bentley
Premium
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA | reply to TKJunkMail
screw that....until the government fixes it's problems then they get no more money. Tax VOIP providers when you've figured out where the rest of the money you extort from us is going. |
|
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26 | reply to kamm
Kamm, buddy! I just knew you'd have to get in a political bash the war post in a totally unrelated thread. You've re inforced my faith in you, my friend. |
|
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
1 edit | reply to viperlmw
My question is
Why should everyone in the country subsidize joe farmers phone service?
Why not just the consumers in Joes own state. OH! That would make too much sense and the telcos wouldn't have all that money sloshing around in their bank accounts.
That way, those poor rural (There's probably reasons no one wants to live there) school districts could soak the rest of the state and not have to depend on a lowly T1, poor them, and not the rest of us.
And, Joe farmer works his farm as a business and does business in town as far as selling his products. Joe never had a problem before all this communications infrastructure (Never mind that, if he has a large farm, he likely uses 2 way radio of some kind) so, why does he suddenly have problems now?
No, the USF is nothing but another tax dreamed up by congress to feed their masters unending greed for cash for the stockholders at our expense. Follow the money and one usually finds truth. |
|
