Slashdot Mirror
FCC Moves To Convert Phone Fund To Broadband Fund
medv4380 writes "The Federal Communications Commission is expected to change the Universal Service Fund so that the funds are directed toward broadband infrastructure instead of rural phone infrastructure. '... while the world has changed around it, USF – in too many ways – has stood still, and even moved backwards. The program is still designed to support traditional telephone service. It’s a 20th century program poorly suited for the challenges of a 21st century world.' You can see a transcript of what was presented to the FCC (PDF) online."
USF is used to provide phone service at the same price for everyone anywhere even if it costs the phone company to provide the service. Anyone anywhere in rural area can get phone service at the same price. Does this mean the same will happen to broadband?
Most telcos (Cable or DSL) already collect these fees now. We don't have to charge for USF as a broadband (WISP) provider. They may force all broadband providers to collect these fess now. Won't have much effect on the vast majority of users.
They've been collecting the fee since 1934 on telephones.
Until now it was going towards telephones in rural areas, now it'll go to internet infrastructure.
Giving funds to telecom companies always turns out productively, right?
Just like your gas tax goes god knows where these days too.
I have mixed feelings about this.
Propping up POTS is probably a bad idea. There seems to be little future there.
I suspect it costs no more to string fiber to small towns and then put up a cell tower.
Or maybe buy small sat dishes and a a cell tower in small towns.
Or put in the broadband and offer a free femtocells in really rural places.
Still I expect the fund just got ripped off for some other use. Perhaps it should just
be repealed and they can sell us a whole new solution with new legislation.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
The federal fund, known as the Universal Service Fund, comes from a line-item charge for phone customers, usually about $2 a month. That money goes toward building and maintaining copper-wire phone connections to remote areas that would be too costly to serve otherwise. The subsidy was created by the 1934 Communications Act, and regulators today say the fund needs to be used for high-speed Internet connections as people increasingly rely on the Web to gather information and communicate.
So, instead of paying $2 a month, so that yokels in the boonies can call each other and gossip, all them them city folks will now pay $20 a month, to subsidize broadband for folks who live on in the boonies can download porn to their ranches!?!?
[Checks Slashdot name] . . . Oh, wait, maybe it is a good idea to subsidize folks who live on ranches in the boonies.
Although, I read an article in The Economist about UNESCO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNESCO#Controversy_and_reform . The article said that half of the UNESCO budget never made in out of Paris, France, where the headquarters are located. I thought that was pretty amusing, until I was on a business trip in Geneva. Then we went out for lunch and waiter asked us if we worked for the UN (which was just down the road). When we said no, he treated us like unwanted, unwashed infidels. We noticed that the UN folks there were chowing down on kings' portions of food, and just got a bill for their meals, which the UN would pay for. Well, who pays the budget for the UN . . . ?
This is another trick in politics: Get someone else to pay for what you consume. When this FCC "reform" passes into law, I would be interested to see where all those dollars were being spent. But, alas, politicians do their best to avoid transparency . . .
Oh, well.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Hopefully this will mean a rollout of DSL in remote locations. DSL actually is the best way to bring internet to rural areas, as most of the cable is already laid, all that needs to be done is to install some signal regeneration/loop extender equipment. Fiber optics can also be brought to a node part of the way, but the amount of cable that needs to be replaced is still less. It is amazing the bandwidh that can be seen with newer DSL modems, its enough to even carry video. Its amazing what can be squeezed out of a twisted pair.
Agreed. Are they going to have rural people subsidize my higher housing costs in the city? What about my higher car insurance rates?
There is already "Universal Access" via satellite. It may be comparatively slow and expensive -- too bad. If you want a lovely night sky and lots of trees - go live in the country. If you want fast internet and Thai food delivered to your front door - live in the city.
Live where you want to live - but don't make me pay for its shortfalls.
They are directing Federal funding to broadband services. Federal funding is a fun thing. It comes with all sorts of stipulations.
Try reading harder. They want to change what the money can be officially allotted towards. There is no new fee being added, just the destination of the current one. No new tax is being levied against you.
"We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
Not only that but with control of the last mile in the hands of a couple of corps and cherry picking many rural places get no choice or outrageous prices.
A friend tried to service his area by talking his boss into going in on a T-1 and subletting use, but the local teleco (who only offers $60 a month dialup to those not in town) found out and pulled his access to the backbone, with a "just try and sue us" nasty letter to boot. His lawyer said "sure you'll win, but it'll cost a million and a half and a decade in court and they KNOW you can't afford it" so now those folks are still stuck on dialup because the teleco refuses to upgrade their lines or add any DSLAMs and they and the local cableco haven't moved an inch in ANY direction in nearly 20 years here.
So I'm ALL for it. Use that money to lay broadband from coast to coast, and then let the monopolies compete. If they want to be the only provider in an area? Well then they better lay down 50Mbps fiber before we get there and offer fair prices. Because as it is in rural areas like I'm in there is very little service, the service offered is crazy priced, which keeps the poor from having any access, and it is just gouging all around. i mean $67 for DSL, and $103 for basic cable (which they won't unbundle so you HAVE to take it) with Internet? Talk about price gouging!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Why is it my problem that they aren't willing to pay the market price for broadband?
They help provide food for you and your friends.
One of the reasons why a civilization becomes "wealthy" is when one farmer can feed hundreds or even thousands.
That means those hundreds or thousands can do other things (make phones, be hair stylists, write Internet RFCs etc). Otherwise they'd all be fishing/hunting/farming to put enough food on the table.
You could of course outsource food supply to other countries. But from a big picture POV that's just sweeping it under someone else's carpet.
Of course the flip side is with all this specialization, civilization becomes a lot more fragile in some ways.