dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
11
share rss forum feed
« Broadband PlanGovernment panacea »
This is a sub-selection from Dump It


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to Duramax08

Re: Anything but VZW

said by Duramax08:

get real..............
Is my math off?
quote:
it could raise your monthly broadband bill from anywhere from $1 to $5 a month.
quote:
the plan could actually wind up with American families paying $5-$10 more a month
So we're looking at a tax hike of $1 to $10 a month per subscription. The original poster paid $275 in one month, simple math tells us that under this plan the poster would have paid between $276 and $285 instead.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.


Duramax08
To The Moon
Premium
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX
Reviews:
·Millenicom

so on average it would be like $60 plus a small tax. That was a one time charge since the user went of there limit. atleast they are telling us now of a small fee. If they didnt, I bet you wouldnt notice the few cents extra on your bill if you auto bill.
--
Would like a landline but wireless will work for now.



pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

said by Duramax08:

so on average it would be like $60 plus a small tax.
Heh. We have lots of small taxes and fees tacked onto our bills. What's the harm in one more?
said by Duramax08:

That was a one time charge since the user went of there limit. atleast they are telling us now of a small fee. If they didnt, I bet you wouldnt notice the few cents extra on your bill if you auto bill.
Except it is not a few cents, it is between $1 to $10.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.


Duramax08
To The Moon
Premium
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX
Reviews:
·Millenicom

"The plan annoyingly omits how much this fee could be, but once the details are hashed out, it could raise your monthly broadband bill from anywhere from $1 to $5 a month."

....
--
Would like a landline but wireless will work for now.



pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

said by Duramax08:

"The plan annoyingly omits how much this fee could be, but once the details are hashed out, it could raise your monthly broadband bill from anywhere from $1 to $5 a month."

....
You missed this:

quote:
the plan could actually wind up with American families paying $5-$10 more a month
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

cmaenginsb1
Premium
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA

said by pnh102:

said by Duramax08:

"The plan annoyingly omits how much this fee could be, but once the details are hashed out, it could raise your monthly broadband bill from anywhere from $1 to $5 a month."

....
You missed this:

quote:
the plan could actually wind up with American families paying $5-$10 more a month
except that in theory by using money from the USF, instead of paying $275 for 3G he would be paying $60 + up to $10 for another carrier. Saving him $215 a month.
Of course it doesn't work out so well for those already covered.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber


Duramax08
To The Moon
Premium
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX
Reviews:
·Millenicom
reply to pnh102

$5-$10 is alot. If this fee gets put into place, Not to many people will like it. 1 cent to maybe $3 is ok but only if it expands broadband to other areas. I would also be fine if it works on existing broadband service. Like I said on another thread, Im paying for 6/1 and only getting 500/100. Dont know who is at fault since im further away from the tower but they send ads saying its available at your location. They even call me asking if I want a usb modem for $10 more. Uh, why would I need that since I only get 1-2 bars and its crappy service. ISP: Clear.
--
Would like a landline but wireless will work for now.



Bill Dollar

join:2009-02-20
New York, NY
reply to pnh102

While I think the plan sucks and "expanding the contribution base" for USF to include consumer broadband is a terrible idea, Burstein frankly doesn't understand what he is talking about on this specific issue. He's a IP telecom guy, not a POTS one, and it shows in his 3:29 am analysis here.

What is being floated, is that sometime after the year 2017, intercarrier compensation fees paid by interstate long distance carriers to local ILECs will be phased down (they are essentially a hidden cross-subsidy now for rural carriers). After 2020 the system will move to bill and keep.

What the plan suggests, that in some cases, (under a completely new cost allocation system, where all revenues (voice, video, data) and all network costs are taken into account, unlike today), local Incumbent Exchange carriers will be able, in some states, to raise the Subscriber Line Charge, which is currently $6.50, by a couple of bucks at most if they can demonstrate that this is needed to recover costs.

The plan also talks about "rate-rebalancing" in a few states where state regulators have kept the price for basic local service artificially low compared to the national average.

But what is important to note here, and what Burstein fails to understand:

1) These potential increases will only ever apply to customers of traditional phone service -- Cable VoIP and Wireless are not permitted to charge SLCs, rates are not regulated by any entity, and are not permitted to bill long-distance carriers at the inflated interstate access fee.

2) This is not even going to happen until 2017;

3) When it does happen, it is unlikely to impact anyone, because the entire subsidy formula will have changed, accounting for currently-off-the-books data and video revenues (when all costs are billed for recovery). i.e. the rural guys who are feeding at the subsidy trough will find themselves unable to raise the SLC.

I appreciate Dave Burstein's work, and he's dead on about how the NBP doesn't address affordability, but in this case, his analysis suffers from lack of complete understanding about the USF/ICC debate.