dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
17
share rss forum feed


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 edit
reply to NormanS

Re: Since I swtiched from ATT I don't go over 150gb

said by NormanS:

said by jxsilicon9:

None of them should be capping anything because their lines are subsidized by taxpayers ...

Citation?

USF The grand Mother of slush funds. 0 Transparency and vast amounts of cash that just evaporate into thin air, with nothing but aging semi-functional lines to show for it.

DSL rides over these lines, thus defacto subsidy that really isn't ( ? go figure ? )

But here's the catch. Providing and maintaining copper telco infrastructure is very costly, but pushing more bits per month isn't really that costly ( if at all ).

Telco's should simple charge more up front and give unlimited instead of deceptive style low prices with a bunch of gotcha's


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by DataRiker:

USF ...

Not since 2003, or so, on my old AT&T bill. Not on my latest Sonic.net, LLC bill, either.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
reply to DataRiker
You do realize the money telco's collect for USF never leaves their hands, right?

Providing copper... yes, that stuff is expensive. Maintaining it, however, is an almost zero cost item (on average... telcos in hurricane prone areas aside.) While people do dig it up and pull it off poles, they charge those people for repairs. How much is it costing you to maintain the wiring (phone, power, data, etc.) in your house? Zero, or pretty close to it. It doesn't wear out or "go bad" unless it's been physically damaged.

Dampier
Phillip M Dampier

join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY
said by cramer:

You do realize the money telco's collect for USF never leaves their hands, right?

Providing copper... yes, that stuff is expensive. Maintaining it, however, is an almost zero cost item (on average... telcos in hurricane prone areas aside.) While people do dig it up and pull it off poles, they charge those people for repairs. How much is it costing you to maintain the wiring (phone, power, data, etc.) in your house? Zero, or pretty close to it. It doesn't wear out or "go bad" unless it's been physically damaged.

Actually this isn't really true. Verizon and AT&T allowed their landline networks to go to pot in a lot of states and we're dealing with the results. Those two companies in particular are a real mess in non-FiOS/U-verse areas. WV was a decrepit disaster when Frontier bought it (not that they are going to spend a ton of money to fix it all). What keeps things going are the number of customers leaving. Customers on bad pairs can be moved to an ex-landline customer's line until the cable completely falls apart.

USF funding -is- wasted in places, partly on inflated administrative costs and restrictive language that keeps companies using it inefficiently.

Companies won't spend the money to trash the outdated copper network in favor of fiber because of the lengthy return on investment and the dwindling number of wired landline customers left. They'd have to win them back.
--
Phillip M. Dampier
Editor, Stop the Cap!
»stopthecap.com


ANONDOG

@rr.com
reply to NormanS
Norman,

Telcos got enough money before you stopped paying USF to last a lifetime.

Don't really see your justification here.

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
reply to Dampier
I'm not saying it isn't a waste -- it clearly is. What the carrier collects, the carrier keeps. ATT isn't sending checks to some .gov office managing "the USF money". In that sense, it's not a "fund"; it's merely a rule allowing carriers to change their customers a fee to recover the costs of providing Universal Service(tm). While I applaud the idea, every part of it's execution is flawed.

[FCC regulatory cost fee -- "line access fee", etc. -- is another example. As is the "regulatory cost recovery fee". Yet more BS to raise the price of services without changing the advertised price or having to get approval for changing a regulated price.]


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to ANONDOG
said by ANONDOG :

Norman,

Telcos got enough money before you stopped paying USF to last a lifetime.

Don't really see your justification here.

Not trying to "justify" anything. Just trying to understand:

A:) Why people make claims as if they were factual without factual support.

B:) What any of this has to do with caps.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

4 edits
The USF was a slush fund until 2011 and will continue to be that probably forever under a different name.

The FCC being completely incompetent has relegated decision making about worthiness of USF funds for particular areas up to the Telco's themselves.

This has resulted in time after time the telco's using this money for well to do suburban areas. ( or to millionaire subdivisions )

And on the front page today the article reads "AT&T Mulls Upgrading Rural Lines Instead Of Selling Them"

Poor rural areas is specifically what USF was designed for.

And for CAPS, the last time I checked DSL was served over phone lines and in some ( many?) cases phone lines payed for completely by tax payers.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by DataRiker:

And for CAPS, the last time I checked DSL was served over phone lines and in some ( many?) cases phone lines payed for completely by tax payers.

No, they were not.

In any case, DSL does not impose any additional requirements for the "Last Mile" of copper in any manner that requires data caps.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

4 edits
As someone who spends a lot of time in poor rural areas I can tell you DSL is a major player in rural broadband. ( As in the only type south of where I live and west too )

Getting lines subsidized then offering capped and extremely slow broadband services over those lines is a little irksome.

Its a very simple principle.

There is not a rural telco in the US during the 90s-2000s that didn't take USF funds.