Slashdot Mirror
Wireless Providers to Pay Universal Service Fees?
andyo writes "Mailing lists are abuzz with the news that
wireless Internet providers may have to pay fees to support plain old telephone service.
My own perspective is at the O'Reilly Network." The Universal Service Fees are taxes set up long ago to assure that telephone service was provided to everyone, even people who it would normally be uneconomical to serve. The theory is a good one, the execution maybe not. (Maybe if the fees went towards Universal Broadband?)
Unfortunately, this seems to be an old regulation that did its job and then was never updated for how the telco's work now. Nothing new -- we have seen these examples for years now. Update the regulations and make them work for what goes on today and possible tomorrow....
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
I was reading the other day that during disasters email tends to work a lot better than the phone. In Bellevue Washington, they're talking about deploying wireless devices to disaster workers. Here's the article:
http://www.komotv.com/news/story_m.asp?ID=17879
I can't help but think that this would be a better service to keep running than POTS with the money. Text messages are so much easier to get through than voice.
"Derp de derp."
Depends on where they are. Some towns are so small that simply running the wire, or even setting up high speed wireless access points, would be uneconomical unless you charged thousands of dollars for the hookup, and a hundred a month for maintenance. And satellite has latency issues.
Best Slashdot Co
The 10th Amendment was effectively nonexistant by the 19th century, IIRC. Jefferson proposed threatening chairmen of the U.S. bank with hanging (as they were committing treason against their states by aiding a "foreign government": the U.S.!). Of course, no one took him seriously, and by the time he took office we were already done for, and he sure didn't help.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
I don't think it's too much about the money that would be raised, since most small wireless operators are not making very much (if anything, some are free).....I see this really as a way of bringing groups like "Seattle Wireless" and others under governmental control.
By making every group subject to audits, federal fees and filings, every group can be identified and investigated as needed. That's their hook into you. Kinda like the IRS, where even if you don't make any money, you have to provide them with all of your information and "allow" them to verify it. There's no "opting-out" of the information game.
I've thought that it was just a matter of time before the government stepped in to regulate this....John Ashcroft can't have people communicating OUTSIDE the system!....How can he get Carnivore around this "wireless thing" if he can't force everyone to fill out forms and obey our regulations?
The RIAA & MPAA also can't have people communicating outside of ATT and AOL either, who would they sue in a distributed wireless city-net? They couldn't force anyone off the air through their DCMA takedown suits! Although, if you had to have a liscense.....they could take that!...and then force you off the air.....
The very idea that they would try to do this on an "unregulated" band shows what their intent is. I'd look for further attempts to limit power of WAP's, force a band change (making current units illegal by "out of band") and forcing some type of identification of base-stations. I could imagine some type of system where people would have to "activate" their base-stations by logging into the manufacturer site and giving some personal information or something like that.
The government's intent is to limit annonymous speech and communication between individuals....they can't do that if we keep jumping out of the cattle chutes that they've errected at all of the big ISP's....