Search This Blog

Tuesday, April 09, 2013

USAC wants you

Another notice that slipped out unnoticed during the filing window frenzy: the FCC released the amount of the cap increase for funding year 2013.  It's only 1.8%, even less than last year's 2.1%.  So there's an extra $41,527,908 in the fund.

Last year, we needed a $1.05 billion rollover just to fund Priority Two for 90% applicants.  This increase almost takes care of the $.05 billion, so now we just need to find an even billion.  Unless demand goes up by 20%, like it did last year, in which case we'll need to scrape together $1.7 billion or so.  And that's just to cover P2 for the 90-percenters.

I'm guessing USAC got all the change out from under the couch cushions last year, so I'll be curious to see what happens this year.  I learned my lesson last year, though: after I predicted no P2 funding until the end of the funding year, USAC and the FCC proved me wrong.

Maybe the FCC will start selling E-Rate Bonds to cover the increases.  How can you turn down this poor fellow?  Looks like he sustained an injury beating his head against the Unbundled Warranty rules.  Or maybe he was blindsided by the VoIP handset rules.

Today's grammar question:  I noticed that, for me at least, USAC is anarthrous, but the FCC and the E-Rate are not.  Why is that?

1 comment:

  1. Hey, here's an article on why USAC is anarthrous, but the FCC is not:
    Turns out acronyms, where you pronounce the abbreviation as a word, don't take an article, but initialisms, where you pronounce the letters, do take an article. Since we say "you-sack," it's an acronym. But "ef-see-see" is an initialism.