Ed’s Telecom Alert

Folks..

Basically the main issue of the article is:

"Wireless firms are worried about being left out of the FCC's plan to reform a federal fund that subsidizes telecom services to rural areas"

Wireless

Wireless is conveying that the amount set aside for telecomm and wireless "..was out of step with the rising popularity of wireless devices."

Mainly wireless objected to $4.2 billion for wireline, and only $300 million for wireless.  Wireless claims that:

"At this time, when smart phones now place enormous computing power in an average person's hands, when tablets are on the verge of revolutionizing industry and education, and when demand for mobile broadband is exploding in our urban centers, this is not an investment mix that will provide rural Americans with the opportunities they need to compete."

-On the political side:

"Chairman Jay Rockfeller said he spoke with officials from the FCC that were "not thrilled" about the committee holding a hearing on USF reform.  The commission officials, according to Rockefeller, were concerned about the GOP-controlled House deciding to hold its own issue on the hearing.  The FCC is capable of moving forward on USF reform without legislation, but the size of the fund – along with the current budgetary and political climate on the Hill – all but assures the issue will draw substantial interest from lawmakers on the relevant committees."

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

Long LInk: 

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/187155-wireless-firms-want-in-on-usf-reform

Folks..

By now I imagine many of you got this email below as well.

Self explanatory so no comment from me other than that is simply a great idea to see how emergency broadcast works out.

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

*************************************************************

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are planning the first EAS nationwide test, which will take place at 2:00 PM (EST), on Wednesday, November 9, 2011.  The test will last approximately three (3) minutes.  Normal programming will return following the test.

• The November 9 test will utilize what is called a “live” national alert code, i.e., a coded message that will present itself to viewers as an actual emergency announcement, not a test.  This is necessary in order to allow FCC and FEMA to test the reliability of EAS equipment and the state of readiness of EAS operators and participants.  
• As a consequence, however, while an audio message will announce that the exercise is a “Test Only,” there may not always be a corresponding visual message alerting viewers that this is only a test.
• FCC and FEMA are conducting a public relations campaign utilizing print, broadcast, and other media to prepare the public for the test.
• We kindly request that you assist us in getting word out about the Nov. 9^th test to your constituents and communities, so that they know that the November 9^th event is only a test.  
• The FCC is also working with broadcasters and other television distributors to ensure that audio and video public service announcements will air during the weeks before November 9.  
• Attached is a brief explanation about the test, that you may use in your group’s newsletters, telephone trees, blogs, meeting announcements, or any other way your group uses to communicate important information.   
• Additional information about the test is available at the FCC’s website (www.fcc.gov/nationwideeastest ).

We will send you a reminder about the test 2 weeks before the Nov. 9^th test, 2 days before the test and the day of the test.  We appreciate your consideration of this request. 

Best Regards,

Karen Peltz Strauss                  Gregory Hlibok                        Cheryl King

Folks,

As I get ready to go to Ark for a 50 year high school class reunion, noticed a letter to the FCC and thought I'll post that before the trip. 

It is a letter to the FCC from TDI, NAD, ALDA and, CCASDHH on following up on a meeting with the FCC expressing caution to the FCC to make the right decision on VRS reimbursement.

LETTER

Quotable quotes:

"..to discuss a likely Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) that may include proposed changes to the per-minute rate of compensation mechanism for Video Relay Service (“VRS”)."

"..For example, the Commission’s NPRM should include questions about how to provide incentives for VRS providers to engage further in technological innovation, research and development, outreach and education, etc. Whatever compensation methodology the Commission adopts for VRS should support these incentives in a substantial way."

"The Consumer Groups expressed concerns that a per-user system would create incentives for providers to avoid high volume customers, that providers may game the system to reduce the number or length of calls from customers (i.e. longer answer times), and that consumers need the ability to change service providers if service quality deteriorates, just as hearing users have the ability to switch telephone providers (e.g., wireline to cable)."

It is good that the Consumer Group and the FCC are communicating on this very important issue.   Remember this is a letter reporting on a meeting that the Consumer Group had with the FCC so not everything is reported in the letter.  If you want to understand this more, contact the FCC or the Consumer Group.  

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

Long Link: 

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021712351

Folks,

A combined telephone representatives expressed a concern in their letter that I agree.

USF DEBT

I know Congress is desperate to find additional funds to pay off the debt, but this quote scares me.

"Our concern first materialized upon seeing the flawed recommendation in the December 1, 2010 report of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform that identified the private Universal Service Fund (USF) as a source of public debt reduction."

"And in recent days our unease has grown as we have learned that the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction may also be focusing on this ill-advised proposal."

Basically this is saying why not use USF to pay off federal debt.   

"Throughout its long history, the USF has always been maintained outside the U. S. Treasury and managed by a non-governmental entity."

The above quote, I agree.   The sticky problem is whether the USF is a public fund or private fund?   This group responded to this with the following quote:

"..legal precedents and guidance definitively confirm that the USF monies do not constitute “public monies” that are received for the use of the United States, but rather are private funds that are merely derived and distributed at the direction of federal statute. "

Now I admit I am at dilemma.  In this very edsalert, I have maintained that TRS Fund is a public fund.  What I believe is that any private funds contributed into a "public" service now becomes public fund.  However, I am of the opinion that even though TRS Fund is public fund, it is used only for TRS alone and cannot be used for other.  I see the same thing for the USF.   However, I see that this group is concerned that Congress looks for loopholes to use "public fund" to pay off the federal debt.   Their worrisome concern is valid, I think.  

Let me know what you think?  

eyes open & thumbs up..

Ed Bosson

Long Link: https://prodnet.www.neca.org/publicationsdocs/wwpdf/92611ntca.pdf