how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
1336 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Fund USF by the pipe, not the application I just came across this blog entry and thought it was an idea worth passing along, IF we assume that the FCC simply will not do the right thing and abolish the USF altogether. The author of this blog entry and I obviously disagree on that point - he apparently feels the USF still serves a useful purpose, whereas I see it as very unnecessary corporate welfare that should go away ASAP. But for those of you that may believe that the USF still serves some useful purpose, this is for you:
»www.phoneboy.com/blog/archives/2···uni.html
March 19, 2005
Funding the Universal Service Fund
The Universal Service Fund (USF) was something cooked up by the US Government to make telecommunications affordable to everyone. This is a fine goal that I am all for. There are a couple of different problems with the USF today: it primarily funds voice over copper wire, and the funding sources are drying up. As more and more "voice" communication doesn't occur over copper wires (including VoIP), there's talk about getting the VoIP providers to start paying into the USF.
I think the USF should be funded by the pipes you have, not by the application. It's the only rational way to fund it.
Voice is an application. Even when you run it over a conventional PSTN line, its still an application. That same twisted pair "pipe" can run data over it, either with an analog modem, or using something like DSL. Since VoIP providers are merely an application that runs over an IP network, they should not be required to fund the USF.
On the other hand, cable companies offer a pipe. They provide a means to, among other things, communicate with one another in a similar mannter to a pair of copper wires. Since they are providing a pipe, they should be obligated to pay into the USF, just like the telcos are obligated to do. And they will likely pass that cost onto us, the consumers.
The same goes with the mobile phone carriers. They provide a pipe as well. Though it is wireless, it is a pipe none the less. Each telephone number you have in this case is a pipe, since each phone or SIM is tied to a single instance of a pipe. I'm not sure if the mobile phonec carriers already pay into the USF, but they should.
The USF should be funded per paid pipe. Each pair of live copper wires from your phone company is a pipe. Got Cable Internet? That's a pipe. I'd argue that even normal Cable TV is a pipe. Got a mobile phone? That's a pipe too. Pay in.
Posted by PhoneBoy at March 19, 2005 12:21 AM
To the above I would only add that if our government really is too beholden to the special interests to abolish the USF, then at the very least, all those companies that are required to collect the USF fee should also be able to draw out of it when they do in fact provide service in areas with a density too low to make deployment profitable. And I think they should have to prove that. In other words, if you have a phone, broadband, or wireless company and 60% of your customers are in cities or suburbs where the number of homes passed makes it profitable to offer service, and 40% are in rural areas where the homes are so far apart that you could never recover the cost of the wire or fiber or towers, then you only get to collect USF subsidies on the 40% (I believe that today, many rural phone companies claim their entire systems as USF eligible).
But as I say, the very best reform possible would be to abolish the USF, and I feel that way because I simply don't believe that there are any places where it's not profitable to offer service using some form of technology. I have read some opinions that if it were not for the USF, the phone companies wouldn't even be running wire in some very sparsely populated areas, but instead would use digital radio to serve those backwoods customers. This is like regular phone service as far as the customer is concerned (except that if the receiver is mounted on the customer's home rather than a power pole, then the customer must provide a local power source, as with VoIP). The technology is already available and is being used today, even in third-world countries, but the USF makes it more profitable for a company to run miles of wire through the woods and swamps to serve a handful of customers. Some rural phone companies are in better financial shape than the baby Bells (if you go by their stock price) and it is solely because they are feeding at the USF trough.
And in any case, if this trough is to be maintained, then certainly the broadband providers ought to be able to feed from it when they provide broadband service out in the sticks, but I would certainly attach a few strings, one being that they don't get any USF subsidies if they engage in any sort of blocking or application filtering, or in giving a higher priority to packets associated with services that generate additional funds for them (while possibly degrading competing services). Any company that attempts those kinds of tricks should be barred from receiving ANY government subsidies whatsoever! | |
 PhoneBoyI Am
join:2002-01-02
Gig Harbor, WA | I probably should have also said that the USF should also be used to fund pipes, not applications, with a stronger preference for fatter pipes (i.e. Lots of bandwidth). This means changes in who funds it and who gets funding.
Either way, something's gotta change...
--
See my blog at »blog.phoneboy.comThe views expressed herein are not necessarily those of anyone else, including the poster. | |
|
