You guys need to focus your efforts on getting a piece of the pie. USF and CAF and other pork is out there. It should be portable to the service provider. Don’t kick against socialism when it benefits your pocketbook.
From: Rory Conaway Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 3:27 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The first candidate to come out against Net Neutrality Yea, I’ve been there. The real problem starts with the idea that the FCC should be collecting all this data and getting in between a company and it’s customers. What possible reason do they have even to get in the middle of it other than control and to justify the existence of these bureaucracies. Then there is the use of the agencies to funnel tax dollars to preferred companies or to create rules that dissuade competition. It’s one of the reasons I was cheering for Uber from the day I heard of them. They destroyed the monopolies that taxicabs had created. I believe that with the right technology, and we have that today, we can destroy the fiber story and the need for taxpayer subsidies. Rory From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of James Howard Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 2:10 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The first candidate to come out against Net Neutrality Stick your head up, get it kicked off! From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 4:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The first candidate to come out against Net Neutrality Under penalty of perjury no less... From: Ken Hohhof Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 2:59 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The first candidate to come out against Net Neutrality I really wish he had left my company out of it. And the regulatory burden on a small ISP has nothing to do with not being allowed to charge content providers. But I do think he is correct this is about the power balance between content providers and ISPs, and not really about protecting retail consumers. Yes, the FCC may refer all consumer complaints to the ISPs and force them to respond in 30 days, but I suspect that’s the extent of it unless some content provider cries foul. Government folks are good at naming their pet projects so that you can’t object to them. If you disagree with the Patriot Act, you are not a patriot. If you find the Open Internet Order a burden, you must be against an Open Internet. If you claim there are Trojan soldiers inside the giant horse, you must be against horses. From: Rory Conaway Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 3:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [AFMUG] The first candidate to come out against Net Neutrality To be fair, he lists a lot of regulations but at least Net Neutrality is getting some attention. “The Federal Communications Commission’s Net Neutrality rule classifies all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as “public utilities,” subjecting them to antiquated “common carrier” regulation. Rather than enhancing consumer welfare, these rules prohibit one group of companies (ISPs) from charging another group of companies (content companies) the full cost for using their services. Small broadband operators—like KWISP (475 customers in rural Illinois) and Wisper ISP (8,000 customers near St. Louis, Mo)—have declared under penalty of perjury that the Net Neutrality rule has caused them to cut back on investments to upgrade and expand their networks.” Here is the full text. https://jeb2016.com/the-regulatory-crisis-in-washington/ Rory Conaway • Triad Wireless • CEO 4226 S. 37th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040 602-426-0542 [email protected] www.triadwireless.net “There are two theories on catching the knuckleball... unfortunately, neither of the theories work. - Charlie Lau:" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Control Panel Login To: [email protected] From: 00000150012a28bd-c2015a96-ae1b-4b1f-b613-8344b88de52f-000...@amazonses.com Remove amazonses.com from my allow list You received this message because the domain amazonses.com is on your allow list.
