Interesting.<p>Many WISPs like to exaggerate their coverage area to look bigger than they are (I don&#x27;t get why it seems to be the goal of every small company to appear larger than they are...but that&#x27;s another topic). I wonder how much damage this is doing by preventing CAF funding for areas a WISP claims but can&#x27;t actually provide service to?<p>IMO a WISP will always be a temporary solution. They serve as a good filler until it is financially feasible for a wireline(this includes fiber) provider to service the area. A WISP can put $15,000 in equipment on a tower they pay $750&#x2F;month for and cover 300 square miles of land. Add a 1GB connection to a Tier1 provider and you&#x27;re still well under what it would cost for a wireline provider to even do the paperwork for the same area.<p>After the wireline provider comes into the area, the WISP can serve as a check to keep the prices reasonable, but the RF spectrum just isn&#x27;t there to serve large amounts of data.<p>WISP coverage shouldn&#x27;t preclude CAF funding, IMO. Most WISPs would probably say otherwise as it is not in their best financial interest to promote legislation that would fund their competition.