> smaller potential competitors who can't deal with
Ok, you've got my attention
> extra taxes to fund rural deployment
Well, no, the small guys don't have extra (federal) taxes imposed on them, unless they're interstate.
"Every telecommunications carrier that provides interstate telecommunications services shall contribute, on an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis, to the specific, predictable, and sufficient mechanisms established by the Commission to preserve and advance universal service." S.254(d)
On the other hand, even if they are interstate,
"The Commission may exempt a carrier or class of carriers from this requirement if the carrier's telecommunications activities are limited to such an extent that the level of such carrier's contribution to the preservation and advancement of universal service would be de minimis." S.254(d) continued
They may, however, have extra (state) taxes imposed on them:
"Every telecommunications carrier that provides intrastate telecommunications services shall contribute, on an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis, in a manner determined by the State to the preservation and advancement of universal service in that State." S.254(f)
But that same section limits what kind of additional regulations states can impose:
"A State may adopt regulations to provide for additional definitions and standards to preserve and advance universal service within that State only to the extent that such regulations adopt additional specific, predictable, and sufficient mechanisms to support such definitions or standards that do not rely on or burden Federal universal service support mechanisms."
> having to build out to neighborhoods too poor to subscribe to fiber service
Well, yes.
That's kind of what the universal service fund is _for_.
> having to petition rate authorities to set their prices.
That's what that whole forebearance thing is about. Nobody wants to put that kind of rate control on ISPs. (I'd be all for putting that kind of rate control on backbone-tier ISPs, though)
I don't get your point. Are you saying that small carriers should be exempt from a tax big carriers have to pay? And that this solution is better than just getting rid of the stupid tax in the first place?
> That's kind of what the universal service fund is _for_.
No, USF is mostly for rural areas. I'm talking about build-out requirements in franchise agreements, which makes building in poor neighborhoods a prerequisite for building anywhere in the city. We'd see a lot more small fiber companies if they were allowed to operate only in expensive neighborhoods where they could sell a premium service at a premium price.
Who said it was in title II? I said it was the result of well-meaning "pro-consumer" types who have created a thicket of requirements that makes going into the telecom business highly undesirable.
See, e.g., Google's blanket rejection of such requirements as a pre-condition for deploying Google Fiber.
Ok, you've got my attention
> extra taxes to fund rural deployment
Well, no, the small guys don't have extra (federal) taxes imposed on them, unless they're interstate.
"Every telecommunications carrier that provides interstate telecommunications services shall contribute, on an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis, to the specific, predictable, and sufficient mechanisms established by the Commission to preserve and advance universal service." S.254(d)
On the other hand, even if they are interstate,
"The Commission may exempt a carrier or class of carriers from this requirement if the carrier's telecommunications activities are limited to such an extent that the level of such carrier's contribution to the preservation and advancement of universal service would be de minimis." S.254(d) continued
They may, however, have extra (state) taxes imposed on them:
"Every telecommunications carrier that provides intrastate telecommunications services shall contribute, on an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis, in a manner determined by the State to the preservation and advancement of universal service in that State." S.254(f)
But that same section limits what kind of additional regulations states can impose:
"A State may adopt regulations to provide for additional definitions and standards to preserve and advance universal service within that State only to the extent that such regulations adopt additional specific, predictable, and sufficient mechanisms to support such definitions or standards that do not rely on or burden Federal universal service support mechanisms."
> having to build out to neighborhoods too poor to subscribe to fiber service
Well, yes.
That's kind of what the universal service fund is _for_.
> having to petition rate authorities to set their prices.
That's what that whole forebearance thing is about. Nobody wants to put that kind of rate control on ISPs. (I'd be all for putting that kind of rate control on backbone-tier ISPs, though)