[opendtv] Re: Sinclair's TV deal would be good for Trump. And his new FCC is clearing the way.
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 10:06:20 -0400
On May 22, 2017, at 10:00 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
Why do we need local caps Bert?
What are local caps for, Craig. Tell us, so I don't have to state the obvious.
Answer the question Bert.
You have been outspoken about the need for localism for years...
What do "local caps" have to do with "localism," Craig? Anything at all? It's
almost the exact opposite. Explain, Craig.
Exactly. So answer the first question, then tell us why you now support local
caps after opposing them for decades.
Follow the thread, Craig. Pay attention, and don't just respond with the
first random thought that comes to mind.
You started the thread Bert. The article is about the pending FCC actions to
deal with broadcast ownership rules. It has NOTHING to do with the Universal
Service Fund and rural telephony.
These are examples of the new phoniness we get from the FCC. Say one thing,
using politically correct language to placate those who aren't paying
attention, but mean the exact opposite.
No. Just another example of your pathetic pandering to those who want the
government to regulate everything...
You are behaving like the mass media,
Not at all. I am explaining exactly why the new FCC rhetoric is disingenuous
and phony. I'm using their own words, their own blogs and news releases.
You do not need to agree with what the FCC is doing, but it might be worthwhile
at least tying to understand both sides of this debate. Each time you use these
meaningless "debating" techniques you expose your lack of knowledge and
understanding of the issues, while promoting a purely political agenda.
Rural telephone service is not going to suffer Bert.
Because Craig has proclaimed it so. Explain the simple math, Craig. The rate
floor goes down or is abolished, the USF? Goes down too? Goes up? What?
I cannot answer these questions Bert, because these are questions the FCC is
looking at as part of the Rate Floor NPRM.
If you want to get a better idea of what is really in play here, please read
Commissioner O'Reilley's comments on the NPRM:
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0519/FCC-17-61A4.pdf
You might also want to read Commissioner Clyburn's comments which discuss why
the rate floor was implemented in the first place:
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0519/FCC-17-61A3.pdf
Reading both of these comments tells me that the rate floor was created to
prevent the telcos from offering very low rates to USF qualified customers,
then making up the difference with USF funds. In many cases these customers
were paying less for POTS service than I pay just in taxes on my POTS service.
The REASON I say rural telephone service will not suffer is simple Bert:
It is a legacy service that was built-out decades ago using a combination of
telcom and USF funds; like POTS service in urban areas, consumers are moving on
to more attractive alternatives. For the past decade the primary reason for the
existence and GROWTH of the USF has been to make broadband available in rural
areas.
Explain what has to happen for rural service not to suffer, if the rate floor
goes down. Unlike you, the FCC does acknowledge that providing rural service
*is* expensive. So explain, Craig. Do not proclaim.
No the FCC does not say that providing rural POTS service is expensive. In fact
the rate floor was created to prevent the telcos from using USF funds to
subsidize rates compared to those urban customers pay.
The High Cost program was created to build out the rural infrastructure -
something it accomplished LONG AGO. There is very little difference in the cost
to operate a POTS service in a rural versus urban area. The cost for
electricity is about the same. The cost for real estate and related taxes is
significantly lower. The cost to maintain the infrastructure "may" be higher in
rural areas, but this is not a huge issue after the infrastructure has been
built.
The reality is that the USF is a slush fund that the regulators and the
regulated use to shift costs from one group of users to another, and in some
cases to increase profits for the telco. While the USF has played a significant
role in bringing communications services to rural areas, it has also been
broadly abused.
Then there is the reality that the Universal Service Fee that consumers pay has
increased from less than 6% in 2000 to 18% today.
By the way, the old High Cost subsidy program - now the Connect America Fund -
is set to phase out in 2018. Apparently the FCC understand that there is no
longer a need to subsidize rural POTs services.
As O'Reilley points out, the subsidies are unwarranted for a large percentage
of rural consumers who are fully capable of paying for their POTS and broadband
services.
Funny that you did not take the bait and talk about the FACT that
Magic Jack can avoid the FCC regulatory morass, and the taxes,
simply by offering a internet based VOIP service,
Am way ahead of you, Craig. For one, rural service now includes (or soon
will) Internet broadband service, not just telephone. For another, VoIP
requires Internet service. Only you, Craig, have to have this explained to
you. So tell us, Craig, do you expect that deploying Internet broadband in
rural areas will cost less or more, than deploying just POTS in these rural
communities?
The USF has been used to subsidize rural broadband and to connect schools,
libraries and rural health care facilities for almost two decades Bert. The
High Cost program, now known as the Connect America Fund has been used to fund
"Obama phones" for almost a decade.The Wheeler FCC expanded the Lifeline
program to include broadband in 201 This is from the FCC site about the USF:
https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded the traditional goal of universal
service to include increased access to both telecommunications and advanced
services – such as high-speed Internet – for all consumers at just,
reasonable and affordable rates. The Act established principles for universal
service that specifically focused on increasing access to evolving services
for consumers living in rural and insular areas, and for consumers with
low-incomes. Additional principles called for increased access to high-speed
Internet in the nation’s schools, libraries and rural health care facilities.
The FCC established four programs within the Universal Service Fund to
implement the statute. The four programs are:
Connect America Fund (formally known as High-Cost Support) for rural areas
Lifeline (for low-income consumers), including initiatives to expand phone
service for residents of Tribal lands
Schools and Libraries (E-rate)
Rural Health Care
The Universal Service Fund is paid for by contributions from providers of
telecommunications based of an assessment on their interstate and internation
end-user revenues. Examples of entities that contribute to the Fund are
telecommunications carriers, including wireline and wireless companies, and
interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers, including cable
companies that provide voice service. The Universal Service Administrative
Company, or USAC, administers the four programs and collects monies for the
Universal Service Fund under the direction of the FCC. The FCC’s annual
monitoring report tracks contributions and disbursements.
The FCC is reforming, streamlining, and modernizing all of its universal
service programs to drive further investment in and access to 21st century
broadband and voice services. These efforts are focused on targeting support
for broadband expansion and adoption as well as improving efficiency and
eliminating waste in the programs.
The description of funding above is misleading. The carrier collect the USF
fees from subscribers and pass them along to the USF, much like the way that
MVPDs collect subscriber fees for the content congloms.
How about telling us why we still need a USF fund at all.
Why indeed, Craig? Why doesn't the FCC "explain" the simple arithmetic to
everyone, instead of attempting to appease with politically correct
formula-speak?? Do I have to repeat that Chairman Pai thinks the rate floor
is too high? Do I have to show you again where Chairman Pai thinks that rural
customers are charged too much, and often have less income than urban
customers?
Once again you fail to answer the question, instead launching a political
attack...
The arithmetic is very simple. Take away the rate floor, take away the USF,
and then? Rural service will cost less than it does now, and no more than
urban service? You are totally out to lunch, Craig. Give it up.
Why was the rate floor created in the first place?
Clue - read Commissioner Clyburn's comments. The issue is not the rate that the
telco charges a rural customer. The issue is that the telcos are using USF
funds to enable these below market rates.
And then there's the minor issue that urban consumers are ALSO paying high
taxes and the USF fees that subsidize rural customers.
This is classic government redistribution of wealth. It's easy to say that
subsidies are needed for lifeline service. Much more difficult to say that a
rural farmer that makes $100,000 a year (or more) should have their phone
service subsidized.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
