An article in Information Week (Qwest Wants Rural Subsidies to Carriers Slashed) caught my eye today. Qwest is a big provider in Minnesota. I’m an advocate for promoting broadband in rural areas.
Qwest has sent a proposal to the FCC to reform the Universal Service Fund. As I read it they propose the following:
- Get state PUCs to manage the fund locally
- Award funding based on households served not users served. (So houses with multiple wireless phone services would only count as one.)
Their compliant is that the wireless guys seem to be getting more money to serve areas that the wireless guys would have already served – partially because more than one provider can get subsidies in any given area. So their thought is that the state PUCs could instead award single contracts in particular areas.
Well at least that’s what I got from it. My question is – if we’re going to give subsidies by household rather than user – perhaps we could charge by household instead of user. (That would save me money.) I’m not necessarily advocating, that just wondering.
The article also mentions Frontline Wireless LLC. They are working to acquire spectrum in the upcoming 700MHz auction to build a nationwide wireless broadband network. They say that the Qwest proposal would solve a problem that would not exist if the U.S. had one national provider of wireless broadband.
I think that Qwest would be OK with one provider, so long as it was them – in fact I assume that they would like to be the provider selected by the state PUCs and that spurred the proposal. And I think that Frontline is OK with one provider too, so long it is them. I don’t mean to be uncharitable – I’d feel the same way if I was either of them.
I guess my second question is – why are we looking to businesses to make proposals to the government about their own industry? It seems a little bit like me asking my kids for parenting tips.
Matt Rezac at Blandin just sent me an article (