footnote:
WISPA maintains that "any enforcement advisories should not be created in a vacuum and must be based on a public record following an opportunity for interested consumers and industry parties to submit comments." WISPA Comments at 34. We disagree with the contention that public notice and comment should be a prerequisite for the Commission to issue an enforcement advisory. The Commission uses its rulemaking procedures when we are adopting rule changes that require notice and comment. Conversely, enforcement advisories are used to remind parties of existing legal standards. ----- Original Message ----- From: CBB - Jay Fuller To: [email protected] ; [email protected] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 9:22 PM Subject: so nice of them to call us out.... 238. The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) opposes the adoption of an advisory opinion process "because it assumes an inherent uncertainty in the rules and creates a 'mother may I' regime -essentially creating a system where a broadband provider must ask the Commission for permission when making business decisions."615 According to WISPA, "[t]his system would increase regulatory uncertainty and stifle broadband providers from innovating new technologies or business methods. It also would be expensive for a small provider to implement, requiring legal and professional expertise. 239. We find that WISPA's concerns are misguided. Because requests for advisory opinions will be entirely voluntary, we disagree with the contention that their use would force broadband providers to seek permission before implementing new policies or technologies and thereby stifle innovation.617 In addition, we agree with other commenters that advisory opinions would provide more, not less, certainty regarding the legality of proposed business practices.
