Comments on: Yesterday's taxes stalk tomorrow's telephones

George Pieler says a change in Washington's telecommunications tax climate is long overdue.

[Noah Rafalko]

You hit the nail on the head

I have been a Telecommunications Consultant who donates services in helping Municipalities, Non-Profits and School Systems who could not afford such services reconfigure their core infrastructure. I have seen it all regarding the fraud and political not broken don't fix mindset.

In fact some School Systems like the City of Boston snub at the system and make bold statements such as "We pay pennies on the dollar for our services so we don't care how much we pay."

This is the reason for the abuse and ability for these E-Rate consultants who also happen to be equipment resellers to jack up the price of materials knowing full well they can explain it away to the schools system as a necessary price point. In other words there are still $75 dollar hammers being sold to our most crucial asset...our kids...our future.

I donate my companies time and resources to help keep books on the desks and lab kits in the classroom while the crooks of the industry find yet another way to fleece our tax dollars and misuse them.

The real kicker is that the USAC doesn't allow for technology improvements that could seriously impact the Schools ability to take advantage of the real internet and it's free applications for telecommunications.

The bottom line is that if in the right hands the program could reap benefits beyond the comprehension of the politicians and general public but reform is needed and hopefully by someone who knows the industry not a paper lion.

Noah E. Rafalko
CEO
www.tsgglobal.com

[adlyb1]

Yes and No

I despise the USF, but...
I live in a fairly rural area and the ONLY reason, we got DSL was because of a grant from the USF. Heck, we didn't even get Caller ID until just a couple years earlier.

So, I am a little conflicted on this.

The problem with letting the market fix this, is the market isn't interested in providing service unless there is a strong return on investment and rural areas just don't make the numbers.

Competition?

The local cable company only provides service outside of town where the government makes them. Cellular? Only two local providers, only one offers data, and the coverage is spotty, expensive and slow.

So, until someone proposes a solution that deals with both issues, I'll gladly give my bucks to the fund.

[ddc1234]

Universal Service means Universal Service For All

Mr. Pieler's analysis seems to miss the point on many levels. First, the USF mechanisms support a number of different programs that are not "fraught" with fraud but continue important social goals. These programs include the schools and libraries program, the rural health care programs, low income programs, as well as high cost support programs. Without these programs many rural areas would be without basic services let alone services such as DSL, telemedicine, and connections at libraries for consumers that do not have the advantages of computers.

Furthermore, these funds go to support networks that provide many of the services that Mr. Pieler would advocate as lower cost replacements. I have not yet heard anyone explain how Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) can exist or be provided without some underlying network connection to the customer. VoIP assumes the customer has a DSL network in order to provide service at all. This connection to the customer must be in place and must be affordable before any of these alternatives can be provided. In fact, in many rural areas, these networks provide the infrastructure for competitive alternatives. Wireless towers need underlying cable infrastructure to transport calls between towers and to wireless company switches. These networks provide emergency services to 911 operators, and an all over network for national security. When some of the cellular companies claim they have the most network coverage or the fewest dropped calls, they don't mean that they cover the rural areas and they don't reach the kind of reliability that many of the rural companies do.

Contribution to these programs (fees) for companies that take the network providers revenues, impose costs on the network provider, but do not pay anything for that network are indeed appropriate. This should apply to VoIP, internet and cellular service as all benefit from this network. In addition, there are many benefits to the consumers paying the "fees" associated with telephone services. Rural customers have a strong economic base in nearby urban communities, supporting their business and buying their products. In addition, government seats, schools, and healthcare are in these nearby communities necessitating communications.

Yes, there are problems with this system as there are with almost any system. Scrapping the system is not the answer. And promoting usage of a network without any form of compensations will only lead to an inferior network. New applications such as VoIP won?t run without networks.

[ddc1234]

Universal Service means Universal Service For All

Mr. Pieler's analysis seems to miss the point on many levels. First, the USF mechanisms support a number of different programs that are not "fraught" with fraud but continue important social goals. These programs include the schools and libraries program, the rural health care programs, low income programs, as well as high cost support programs. Without these programs many rural areas would be without basic services let alone services such as DSL, telemedicine, and connections at libraries for consumers that do not have the advantages of computers.

Furthermore, these funds go to support networks that provide many of the services that Mr. Pieler would advocate as lower cost replacements. I have not yet heard anyone explain how Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) can exist or be provided without some underlying network connection to the customer. VoIP assumes the customer has a DSL network in order to provide service at all. This connection to the customer must be in place and must be affordable before any of these alternatives can be provided. In fact, in many rural areas, these networks provide the infrastructure for competitive alternatives. Wireless towers need underlying cable infrastructure to transport calls between towers and to wireless company switches. These networks provide emergency services to 911 operators, and an all over network for national security. When some of the cellular companies claim they have the most network coverage or the fewest dropped calls, they don't mean that they cover the rural areas and they don't reach the kind of reliability that many of the rural companies do.

Contribution to these programs (fees) for companies that take the network providers revenues, impose costs on the network provider, but do not pay anything for that network are indeed appropriate. This should apply to VoIP, internet and cellular service as all benefit from this network. In addition, there are many benefits to the consumers paying the "fees" associated with telephone services. Rural customers have a strong economic base in nearby urban communities, supporting their business and buying their products. In addition, government seats, schools, and healthcare are in these nearby communities necessitating communications.

Yes, there are problems with this system as there are with almost any system. Scrapping the system is not the answer. And promoting usage of a network without any form of compensations will only lead to an inferior network. New applications such as VoIP won?t run without networks.

[Chad Miles]

Universal Service is Critical to Our Nation's Advance in Telecommunications

Railing against the Universal Service Fund is not the way to help our nation advance in telecommunications.

We all dislike taxes, and I agree that telecommunciations taxes are sometimes outrageous. However, attacking the highly successful Universal Service Fund is the wrong approach. In fact, the USF is more important today than ever.

Every American has the right to access communications services at affordable prices no matter where they live. Because of the Universal Service Fund, millions of Americans are able to enjoy the many benefits of a high speed network.

Just think about it. Because America has one of the best communications systems in the world, grandmothers can now watch videos of their grandkids? first steps even through they may be thousands of miles away; patients are able to have medical procedures without having to drive hundreds of miles to the nearest medical facility; mothers and wives are able to see and talk to their husbands, brothers and sisters in Iraq and Afghanistan. All this is possible because our nation believes that all Americans ? no matter where they live or how much money they have ? should have the right to a robust communications network. By attacking the USF or suggesting that it should be eliminated, we are jeopardizing the very program that makes all this possible.

Again, we are all tired of paying excessive taxes, but Americans understand that if a program is worth it, then we should support it. The Universal Service Fund is one of those programs. We should not eliminate the Universal Service Fund at a time when telecommunications advances are bringing Americans closer together and providing important educational and information resources to millions of rural Americans. Instead, we should be thankful for a system that provides us the opportunity to communicate with anyone anywhere in the world.

Signed,

Chad A. Miles
President & CEO
Enhanced Telecommunications Corp.
Sunman, Indiana