Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[RickG]

The first step to breaking the net was form 477.

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:57 PM, MDK  wrote:

>
> The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then
> pretending you can "fix" what you broke by half-baked notions of government
> created markets...
>
> There is NOTHING broke about 'internet' because it hasn't been regulated.
>
> Your issue is nothing but a complaint about the results of what should
> never
> have been done in the first place.
>
>
>
> ++
> Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
> 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
> ++
>
> --
> From: "Fred Goldstein" 
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:56 PM
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
>
> > Well, no, what IS PROFOUNDLY BROKEN is that the ILECs are no longer
> > required to be common carriers.  They built their network using
> > common carrier privileges.  They got their market share using common
> > carrier privileges.  And then they turned  around and got their
> > common carrier obligations lifted by the profoundly corrupt
> > Cheney-Rove FCC.  So now they control the content on their wires, and
> > you can't lease them.  That's just wrong.  And the Genachowski FCC
> > isn't doing squat about that, though they absolutely have the power
> > to do so.  We do need a national common carrier utility.  There is a
> > clear distinction between carriage and content. ISPs are content, not
> > carriage.  And WISPs are self-provisioned ISPs who deliver content
> > over unlicensed facilities without using a carrier, and without being
> one.
> >
> >
> >  --
> >  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
> >  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
> >  +1 617 795 2701
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> > WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> > http://signup.wispa.org/
> >
> 
> >
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



-- 
-RickG



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Fred Goldstein]

At 12/21/2010 05:58 PM, Jeff wrote:

Fred,

You've been advocating splitting the ILECs between their delivery 
and service models…basically making the delivery (last mile/middle 
mile) into common carriers and having the service business stand on 
it's own, for as long as I've been reading your posts (close to 10 
years).  You haven't come out and said that here (that I've seen), 
but isn't that what you are getting at?  Let the monopoly be the 
monopoly (a regulated utility at that point) and make the 
service/content providers compete, right?


Yes.  I've noted two different break points, either of which would 
solve "neutrality".   They are not mutually exclusive.


The common carrier model, which used to apply to the Bells in the US, 
separates the lower layer (delivery) from upper layer (Internet 
service).  The LoopCo model (structural or functional separation) 
goes even lower, putting the dark fiber or copper in one company 
(LoopCo) and letting all carriers (incumbent, competitor) lease it on 
the same terms.  Either way the loop monopoly is broken.





Regards,

Jeff
ImageStream Sales Manager
800-813-5123 x106

--
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein

Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 5:41 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

At 12/21/2010 05:14 PM, MDK wrote:

Fred gave his reasons, which if I were to answer to, I'd have to 
quote him, but the gist of what he said, was that the NEXT operator 
to come along would have to pay MORE to compete than the original.



Yes, to reach the first customer, as well as on a per-customer 
basis, which sets the price.  If Bell has 100% of the market and you 
don't have lines, then you'd have to pull a line to reach your 
customer.  That's a huge cost compared to their being able to use 
existing lines.  If you won a 25% market share and they had 75%, 
then if your cost per mile were the same as theirs, your cost per 
home served would be three times theirs.  If you don't know the 
impact of that, look at RCN's sad history.  Hint:  It's in my 
book.  Five billion dollars lost in four years.



That's about as flawed a premise for technological matters as it is 
possible to have.   Technology gets CHEAPER as it become more 
popular, subsequent competitors pay LESS to provide services than 
the first.   This is WHY telcos and utilities were given monopoly 
status in the first place, so they would be protected from 
competition, thereby ensuring healthy and long term profits from 
their investment.


No.  The telcos did not have monopolies granted by law until 
1934!  Well, they had it for 17 years from 1876, under Bell's patent 
(which turns out to have been fraudulently granted, but 
hey...).  But when it expired, competition sprang up like weeds in 
spring.  LOTS of independent telcos were in business in the 
1890s.  Some were in new turf, some were "CLECs" (in today's 
terms).  But Bell then bought Pupin's patent on the loading coil and 
thus had a monopoly on long-haul (>10 miles or so) calling.  So the 
indies started failing.  Bell (Ted Vail) proposed a regulated 
monopoly.  In 1912, they were required to interconnect with the 
surviving indies, and banned from buying up non-bankrupt 
indies.  The last CLECs petered out and were gone by 1930 or so. 
(Keystone in Philadelphia was the last big one.)  When CA34 was 
written, the monopoly was made de jure.




Fred used the example of roads, as a comparison.   Hardly a valid 
one, since wire takes up minimal real space, and roads take up ALL 
the space we have for them.   Roads are publicly owned, for the most 
part (yes, I know, private toll roads exist, but that's really 
outside of free market business, just the same), and consume the 
only space that exists for them, they live in a 2 dimension 
world.   The two are NOT comparable, not even slightly.


Of course not, but economically, they might as well be.  There is 
negligible provision of mass-market competitive loop plant.  That's 
why WISPs exist; it's the only competitive medium.




What's really at issue here, is that the incumbents were built with 
money extracted from the consumer at usurious rates, and profits 
were protected and guaranteed by both federal and state law.   And, 
incumbents have the historical benefit of having had that guaranteed 
profit from which to build an infrastructure that competitors would 
not have, and would have to start from scratch.


We agree on that.


Ideas of separating the lines from the service are merely responses 
to that fact, and in no way fix the issue.


We disagree on that.  Unbundling works all over the world.  It 
started in the US but was reduced here, so it is not as widely 
available as it once was. But I do have WISP clients who do 
unbundled DSL "in town" while using wireless in the lower-density 
countryside.  You can still get unbundled copper in most places (not 
all) within about

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Jeromie Reeves]

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 2:30 PM, MDK  wrote:
> Jeromie, my socialist (or was that anarchist, I can't ever remember) friend,
> how are ya?   I was thinking about making a run to a wrecking yard up that
> way and stopping by to see how things were going.
>
> Anyway, each time I read this "solution" it reminds me why it won't work.
>
> Let's say I move to Cove.   Buy the biggest building in town, and put in a
> grocery store.

Wrong, the Gov`mnt paid for the store so you would be the first (and
only for a long long time till the population grew) store in town.

>Along come the grocery neutrality advocates and require
> that I set aside space in my store for all the people who want to compete in
> the grocery market.

This is where you now become TWO corporations. One owns the building
and has to rent space to all who want to rent, on a
equal per square foot basis. The job of Corp A is ONLY to own the
building and rent space, build new space as needed and
upgrade the old space.

>If I knew that was going to happen, why would I be so
> brain dead stupid as to invest all my money in the first place?

Not all of that was YOUR money. Much of it was Gov`mnt money (IE we
the people) and now that WE have paid for YOU to
have the only store in town, we want OUR investment back.

> And if it
> happened after the fact, why would I continue to maintain the building and
> keep it open, for the benefit of others?

Yes because now you are TWO companies. Your left hand STILL gets to be
Teclo/ISP ABC and your hand gets to be Realty XYZ.
Your Left hand pays the Right hand for said space, just as I would
then be allowed to.

>
> YOU see this as an opportunity to capitalize on monopoly created investment,
> and getting your share of it.

Only the parts paid for by TAXES, or as a RESULT of taxes. IE, pretty
much the entire COPPER Telco infrastructure.

>
> I look at it and notice that the business model it creates is insanity, and
> no effort will EVER be taken to be market oriented and innovative.

If I had the cash to start it, I would do it. Say XXX cents/foot for
copp, YYY for fiber, and lease it out every month. ALL I would do is
build out.

>
> YOu're just trading one set of problems for a future set of intractables,
> with EVERYONE invested into a system that's broken beyond hope.

We are all invested NOW, and more so every day.

>
> ++
> Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
> 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
> ++
>
>> Right there you prove what many want. The last mile should not be held
>> by someone with stakes in what drives OVER that road.
>> Lets make the last mile open to all ISPs who want to build out to the
>> CO. I would drop in VDSL in my town TODAY if I COULD
>> get access to the CO but the FCC took that away from us.
>>
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Jeromie Reeves]

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 2:30 PM, MDK  wrote:
> Jeromie, my socialist (or was that anarchist, I can't ever remember) friend,
> how are ya?

Hey buddy, I have a lake with your name on it.

>   I was thinking about making a run to a wrecking yard up that
> way and stopping by to see how things were going.

Come on over.

>
> Anyway, each time I read this "solution" it reminds me why it won't work.
>
> Let's say I move to Cove.   Buy the biggest building in town, and put in a
> grocery store.

You did not pay for the store, the gov`mnt paid for it, for you to be
the only store in town.

>   Along come the grocery neutrality advocates and require
> that I set aside space in my store for all the people who want to compete in
> the grocery market.   If I knew that was going to happen, why would I be so
> brain dead stupid as to invest all my money in the first place?    And if it
> happened after the fact, why would I continue to maintain the building and
> keep it open, for the benefit of others?

Nice, but you have it wrong. With your gov

>
> YOU see this as an opportunity to capitalize on monopoly created investment,
> and getting your share of it.
>
> I look at it and notice that the business model it creates is insanity, and
> no effort will EVER be taken to be market oriented and innovative.
>
> YOu're just trading one set of problems for a future set of intractables,
> with EVERYONE invested into a system that's broken beyond hope.
>
> ++
> Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
> 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
> ++
>
>> Right there you prove what many want. The last mile should not be held
>> by someone with stakes in what drives OVER that road.
>> Lets make the last mile open to all ISPs who want to build out to the
>> CO. I would drop in VDSL in my town TODAY if I COULD
>> get access to the CO but the FCC took that away from us.
>>
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[MDK]

++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++


From: Fred Goldstein 
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 2:41 PM
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless


At 12/21/2010 05:14 PM, MDK wrote:

  Fred gave his reasons, which if I were to answer to, I'd have to quote him, 
but the gist of what he said, was that the NEXT operator to come along would 
have to pay MORE to compete than the original.  
   

>Yes, to reach the first customer, as well as on a per-customer basis, which 
>sets the price.  If Bell has 100% of the market and you don't have lines, then 
>you'd have to pull a line to reach your customer.  That's a huge cost compared 
>to their being able to use existing lines.  If you won a 25% market share and 
>they had 75%, then if your cost per mile were the same as theirs, your cost 
>per home served would be three times theirs.  If you don't know the impact of 
>that, look at RCN's sad history.  Hint:  It's in my book.  Five billion 
>dollars lost in four years.

The average cost per customer goes UP as you expand, not down - when discussing 
wires.  And nobody starts a telco based on having ONE customer.  Instead, you 
pull lines and invest in plant to develop a business model that's better priced 
than your ILEC's average and undercut them to gain marketshare where you pass 
the customer.  Yes, I know somewhere you have ONE customer, I had that 
experience a few years back, myself.This is because you have to reach 
farther and to less dense customers as you expand.   Since that lowers your 
cost / customer, it allows you to siphon off the less costly to provision with 
lower prices, and it raises the cost per customer of the incumbent, as they 
lose customers in close (cheap) and their mix becomes more and more costly, as 
yours goes down...

Eventually, the ILEC is a non-viable entity and will either be broken and 
consumed by competitors, or it will divest itself into smaller, lower-cost 
units.   There ARE NO NATURAL MONOPOLIES in this business.There are natural 
sizes of maximum efficiency, and to be above or below will result in you being 
less than fully competitive.   By their nature,  the incumbents are too large 
to be efficient and are, given the proper political environment, fully 
vulnerable to competition.  




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Jeff Broadwick - Lists]

Fred,

 

You've been advocating splitting the ILECs between their delivery and
service models.basically making the delivery (last mile/middle mile) into
common carriers and having the service business stand on it's own, for as
long as I've been reading your posts (close to 10 years).  You haven't come
out and said that here (that I've seen), but isn't that what you are getting
at?  Let the monopoly be the monopoly (a regulated utility at that point)
and make the service/content providers compete, right?

 

Regards,

Jeff
ImageStream Sales Manager
800-813-5123 x106

  _  

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 5:41 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

 

At 12/21/2010 05:14 PM, MDK wrote:



Fred gave his reasons, which if I were to answer to, I'd have to quote him,
but the gist of what he said, was that the NEXT operator to come along would
have to pay MORE to compete than the original.  
 


Yes, to reach the first customer, as well as on a per-customer basis, which
sets the price.  If Bell has 100% of the market and you don't have lines,
then you'd have to pull a line to reach your customer.  That's a huge cost
compared to their being able to use existing lines.  If you won a 25% market
share and they had 75%, then if your cost per mile were the same as theirs,
your cost per home served would be three times theirs.  If you don't know
the impact of that, look at RCN's sad history.  Hint:  It's in my book.
Five billion dollars lost in four years.




That's about as flawed a premise for technological matters as it is possible
to have.   Technology gets CHEAPER as it become more popular, subsequent
competitors pay LESS to provide services than the first.   This is WHY
telcos and utilities were given monopoly status in the first place, so they
would be protected from competition, thereby ensuring healthy and long term
profits from their investment.   


No.  The telcos did not have monopolies granted by law until 1934!  Well,
they had it for 17 years from 1876, under Bell's patent (which turns out to
have been fraudulently granted, but hey...).  But when it expired,
competition sprang up like weeds in spring.  LOTS of independent telcos were
in business in the 1890s.  Some were in new turf, some were "CLECs" (in
today's terms).  But Bell then bought Pupin's patent on the loading coil and
thus had a monopoly on long-haul (>10 miles or so) calling.  So the indies
started failing.  Bell (Ted Vail) proposed a regulated monopoly.  In 1912,
they were required to interconnect with the surviving indies, and banned
from buying up non-bankrupt indies.  The last CLECs petered out and were
gone by 1930 or so. (Keystone in Philadelphia was the last big one.)  When
CA34 was written, the monopoly was made de jure.




 
Fred used the example of roads, as a comparison.   Hardly a valid one, since
wire takes up minimal real space, and roads take up ALL the space we have
for them.   Roads are publicly owned, for the most part (yes, I know,
private toll roads exist, but that's really outside of free market business,
just the same), and consume the only space that exists for them, they live
in a 2 dimension world.   The two are NOT comparable, not even slightly.  


Of course not, but economically, they might as well be.  There is negligible
provision of mass-market competitive loop plant.  That's why WISPs exist;
it's the only competitive medium. 




 
What's really at issue here, is that the incumbents were built with money
extracted from the consumer at usurious rates, and profits were protected
and guaranteed by both federal and state law.   And, incumbents have the
historical benefit of having had that guaranteed profit from which to build
an infrastructure that competitors would not have, and would have to start
from scratch.


We agree on that.




Ideas of separating the lines from the service are merely responses to that
fact, and in no way fix the issue.  


We disagree on that.  Unbundling works all over the world.  It started in
the US but was reduced here, so it is not as widely available as it once
was. But I do have WISP clients who do unbundled DSL "in town" while using
wireless in the lower-density countryside.  You can still get unbundled
copper in most places (not all) within about 2 miles of a wire center.



 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com   
 ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/ 
 +1 617 795 2701

  _  

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3329 - Release Date: 12/21/10




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscrib

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Fred Goldstein]

At 12/21/2010 05:14 PM, MDK wrote:
Fred gave his reasons, which if I were to answer to, I'd have to 
quote him, but the gist of what he said, was that the NEXT operator 
to come along would have to pay MORE to compete than the original.




Yes, to reach the first customer, as well as on a per-customer basis, 
which sets the price.  If Bell has 100% of the market and you don't 
have lines, then you'd have to pull a line to reach your 
customer.  That's a huge cost compared to their being able to use 
existing lines.  If you won a 25% market share and they had 75%, then 
if your cost per mile were the same as theirs, your cost per home 
served would be three times theirs.  If you don't know the impact of 
that, look at RCN's sad history.  Hint:  It's in my book.  Five 
billion dollars lost in four years.


That's about as flawed a premise for technological matters as it is 
possible to have.   Technology gets CHEAPER as it become more 
popular, subsequent competitors pay LESS to provide services than 
the first.   This is WHY telcos and utilities were given monopoly 
status in the first place, so they would be protected from 
competition, thereby ensuring healthy and long term profits from 
their investment.


No.  The telcos did not have monopolies granted by law until 
1934!  Well, they had it for 17 years from 1876, under Bell's patent 
(which turns out to have been fraudulently granted, but hey...).  But 
when it expired, competition sprang up like weeds in spring.  LOTS of 
independent telcos were in business in the 1890s.  Some were in new 
turf, some were "CLECs" (in today's terms).  But Bell then bought 
Pupin's patent on the loading coil and thus had a monopoly on 
long-haul (>10 miles or so) calling.  So the indies started 
failing.  Bell (Ted Vail) proposed a regulated monopoly.  In 1912, 
they were required to interconnect with the surviving indies, and 
banned from buying up non-bankrupt indies.  The last CLECs petered 
out and were gone by 1930 or so. (Keystone in Philadelphia was the 
last big one.)  When CA34 was written, the monopoly was made de jure.




Fred used the example of roads, as a comparison.   Hardly a valid 
one, since wire takes up minimal real space, and roads take up ALL 
the space we have for them.   Roads are publicly owned, for the most 
part (yes, I know, private toll roads exist, but that's really 
outside of free market business, just the same), and consume the 
only space that exists for them, they live in a 2 dimension 
world.   The two are NOT comparable, not even slightly.


Of course not, but economically, they might as well be.  There is 
negligible provision of mass-market competitive loop plant.  That's 
why WISPs exist; it's the only competitive medium.




What's really at issue here, is that the incumbents were built with 
money extracted from the consumer at usurious rates, and profits 
were protected and guaranteed by both federal and state law.   And, 
incumbents have the historical benefit of having had that guaranteed 
profit from which to build an infrastructure that competitors would 
not have, and would have to start from scratch.


We agree on that.

Ideas of separating the lines from the service are merely responses 
to that fact, and in no way fix the issue.


We disagree on that.  Unbundling works all over the world.  It 
started in the US but was reduced here, so it is not as widely 
available as it once was. But I do have WISP clients who do unbundled 
DSL "in town" while using wireless in the lower-density 
countryside.  You can still get unbundled copper in most places (not 
all) within about 2 miles of a wire center.


 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701 


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[MDK]

Jeromie, my socialist (or was that anarchist, I can't ever remember) friend, 
how are ya?   I was thinking about making a run to a wrecking yard up that 
way and stopping by to see how things were going.

Anyway, each time I read this "solution" it reminds me why it won't work.

Let's say I move to Cove.   Buy the biggest building in town, and put in a 
grocery store.   Along come the grocery neutrality advocates and require 
that I set aside space in my store for all the people who want to compete in 
the grocery market.If I knew that was going to happen, why would I be so 
brain dead stupid as to invest all my money in the first place?And if it 
happened after the fact, why would I continue to maintain the building and 
keep it open, for the benefit of others?

YOU see this as an opportunity to capitalize on monopoly created investment, 
and getting your share of it.

I look at it and notice that the business model it creates is insanity, and 
no effort will EVER be taken to be market oriented and innovative.

YOu're just trading one set of problems for a future set of intractables, 
with EVERYONE invested into a system that's broken beyond hope.

++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++

> Right there you prove what many want. The last mile should not be held
> by someone with stakes in what drives OVER that road.
> Lets make the last mile open to all ISPs who want to build out to the
> CO. I would drop in VDSL in my town TODAY if I COULD
> get access to the CO but the FCC took that away from us.
>
 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] From ATT public policy blog- Comcast vs Level3

[John Scrivner]

>
> Start regulating it and all hell (that is, the place where all the
> lawyers are) breaks loose.
>
>  --
>  Fred Goldstein    k1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
>  ionary Consulting              http://www.ionary.com/
>  +1 617 795 2701
>

And when the free market peering / upstream solutions are replaced
with regulation then it is just one more easy step toward taxing all
the traffic per megabyte. Lookout ladies and gentlemen. "They" are
from the government and they are here to "help" us.
John Scrivner



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Jeromie Reeves]

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Fred Goldstein  wrote:
> At 12/21/2010 01:57 PM, MDK wrote:
>
>>The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then
>>pretending you can "fix" what you broke by half-baked notions of government
>>created markets...
>
> Uh, no.  Wireline is a natural monopoly.  That is NOT what it has
> sometimes been taken to mean, an excuse to regulate.  Rather, it's an
> economics concept, which means that the cost of entering the market
> as a new provider is substantially higher than the cost to an
> existing provider of adding incremental capacity.  In other words,
> the incumbent can always underprice the new entrant, so it's
> impossible to compete.
>
> If you don't believe it's the case for wireline loops, think about
> roads.  How much would it cost for a second road company to pull up
> to your front door?  Absurd?  Wire is almost the same thing.  When
> there is a natural monopoly, the holder of that monopoly has the
> potential to abuse its power.

Right there you prove what many want. The last mile should not be held
by someone with stakes in what drives OVER that road.
Lets make the last mile open to all ISPs who want to build out to the
CO. I would drop in VDSL in my town TODAY if I COULD
get access to the CO but the FCC took that away from us.

Hence such companies are normally
> regulated.  That applies to electric distribution, natural gas
> distribution, water, and until recently telecommunications.  These
> are thus regulated "utilities", where being a utility means that the
> company is entitled to make a fair profit, but that the value of the
> product or service is assumed to be greater than its price, so the
> monopoly utility can't charge whatever the market will bear (monopoly rents).
>
> Wireless is not, of course; market entry is regulated based on
> spectrum allocation rules.  That too is now optimized for corporate
> profit, not maximal public utility.  If it were not regulated to
> protect license values, then there would be much more unlicensed
> spectrum, since WISPs make much more efficient use of spectrum than
> many of the licensees.
>
> Telcos have been regulated as utilities since the 19th century;
> telegraph was regulated before then.  And common carrier regulation
> (the old concept of "bailment" translates to "neutrality" when it's
> applied to bits) goes back for several centuries, when it applied to
> horse-wagon and canal-boat carriers, and then to railroads.
>
>>There is NOTHING broke about 'internet' because it hasn't been regulated.
> Information service should not be viewed as a monopoly or utility
> either.  HOWEVER, the FCC has created an untenable monster in which
> ISPs are vertically integrated, from information down to physical
> medium. so the natural break between the information service and the
> telecommunications service (to use the somewhat broken TA96 terms) is
> now gone.  That's the elbow joint in the arm of communications
> policy.  Remove its flexibility, as was done a few years ago, and no
> matter which way you point the arm, it can't do its job.  THAT is
> what's broken.  It creates the *possibiilty* that the wire owner will
> abuse the user's Internet information, with the user not having a
> choice of alternative ISPs.  There was no public call for "network
> neutrality" until after the FCC revoked Computer II in 2005.
>
>>Your issue is nothing but a complaint about the results of what should never
>>have been done in the first place.
>
> What should never have been done is remove the ISPs' open access to
> the telcos' wire.
>
> And what should not be done now is regulate small, non-dominant
> non-telco ISPs the same way as the telcos.
>
>
>
>>++
>>Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
>>541-969-8200  509-386-4589
>>++
>>
>>--
>>From: "Fred Goldstein" 
>>Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:56 PM
>>To: "WISPA General List" 
>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
>>
>> > Well, no, what IS PROFOUNDLY BROKEN is that the ILECs are no longer
>> > required to be common carriers.  They built their network using
>> > common carrier privileges.  They got their market share using common
>> > carrier privileges.  And then they turned  around and got their
>> > common carrier obligations lifted by the profoundly corrupt
>> > Cheney-Rove FCC.  So now they control the content on their wires, and
>> > you can't lease them.  That's just wrong.  And the Genachowski FCC
>> > isn't doing squat about that, though they absolutely have the power
>> > to do so.  We do need a national common carrier utility.  There is a
>> > clear distinction between carriage and content. ISPs are content, not
>> > carriage.  And WISPs are self-provisioned ISPs who deliver content
>> > over unlicensed facilities without using a carrier, and without being one.
>> >
>
>  --
>  Fred Goldstein    k1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.co

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[MDK]

Fred gave his reasons, which if I were to answer to, I'd have to quote him, but 
the gist of what he said, was that the NEXT operator to come along would have 
to pay MORE to compete than the original.  

That's about as flawed a premise for technological matters as it is possible to 
have.   Technology gets CHEAPER as it become more popular, subsequent 
competitors pay LESS to provide services than the first.   This is WHY telcos 
and utilities were given monopoly status in the first place, so they would be 
protected from competition, thereby ensuring healthy and long term profits from 
their investment.   

Fred used the example of roads, as a comparison.   Hardly a valid one, since 
wire takes up minimal real space, and roads take up ALL the space we have for 
them.   Roads are publicly owned, for the most part (yes, I know, private toll 
roads exist, but that's really outside of free market business, just the same), 
and consume the only space that exists for them, they live in a 2 dimension 
world.   The two are NOT comparable, not even slightly.  

What's really at issue here, is that the incumbents were built with money 
extracted from the consumer at usurious rates, and profits were protected and 
guaranteed by both federal and state law.   And, incumbents have the historical 
benefit of having had that guaranteed profit from which to build an 
infrastructure that competitors would not have, and would have to start from 
scratch.Ideas of separating the lines from the service are merely responses 
to that fact, and in no way fix the issue.  

It can't be fixed, but we could undo some of it, if we wanted.  And, that would 
mean, quite simply, the deregulation and non-protected status of "common 
carriers".   Basically, just doing away with it entirely.Sadly, that leaves 
some with a historical advantage, but NOT one that cannot be overcome.   RF 
space could be allocated to overcome the lack of land space that states have 
created by making monopolies out of rights of way, etc.   There's myriad ways 
of putting the "free" back in the market, rather than just trying to rent-seek, 
by trying to divert profits or cash flow from one entity to another.   

States could recognize the validity of the need for free market services and 
stop protecting the incubent by allocation of space adequate for multiple 
competitors.   

I don't know why the idea of "natural monopoly" has such sway on some people.   
For the most part, it's just a dodge against doing the hard thing... Undoing 
historical mistakes.  




++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++


From: David E. Smith 
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 1:17 PM
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless





On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 15:08, MDK  wrote:

  So, I disagree with his premise, and his argument about the premise, that
  wired telephony is a "natural monopoly", and I'm not allowed to say so?



 If you claim telephony isn't a natural monopoly, by the definition of that 
phrase, you have to back up the assertion. By the macroeconomics definition of 
the phrase, telephone wires are pretty much a perfect example; what's your 
counter-argument?


David Smith
MVN.net










WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Fred Goldstein]

At 12/21/2010 04:16 PM, FaisalI wrote:
>I think you mis-reading what Fred Wrote...
>
>Wireline (wires in the ground) are a natural monopoly...

>Wireline  does not automatically equal = Wired Telephony..

That's correct.  I was referring to the medium of wire 
lines.  Telephony is one application of the wire.  The medium is a 
natural monopoly.  It is only a duopoly in many areas because the 
FCC, at one point in the distant past, banned telephone companies 
from owning the local CATV company, except in rural areas.

Telephony the application can make use of different media; it does 
not use much bandwidth, so it can run over wire, coax, glass, or radio.

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting Statements - Preserving the Open Internet: Commissioner's Comments

[Fred Goldstein]

At 12/21/2010 03:50 PM, RickH wrote:

Genachowski:

"Fourth, the rules recognize that broadband providers need 
meaningful flexibility to manage their networks to deal with 
congestion, security, and other issues.  And we also recognize the 
importance and value of business-model experimentation, such as tiered pricing.


These are practical necessities, and will help promote investment 
in, and expansion of, high-speed broadband networks.  So, for 
example, the order rules make clear that broadband providers can 
engage in "reasonable network management"."


I'm not sure "reasonable" will be defined until the actual rules are released.


McDowell's take on "reasonable":

"'Reasonable' is a subjective term. Not only is it perhaps the most 
litigated word in American history, its definition varies radically 
from country to country."


In other words, it's a vague term that is used when they do not want 
to spell out details, but want to leave it to "rule of man" decisions later.




Rick

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
On Behalf Of David E. Smith

Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 3:39 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting Statements - Preserving the Open 
Internet: Commissioner's Comments



On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 14:21, Rick Harnish 
<rharn...@wispa.org> wrote:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/index.do?document=303746

Any analysis yet on whether WISPA got part of what it was asking 
for? I've skimmed those notes, and aside from one brief mention by 
Commissioner McDowell I don't see anything regarding fixed-wireless at all.


David Smith
MVN.net



 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701 


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Blair Davis]

  
  
I am with him!

Blair Davis
West Michigan Wireless ISP

On 12/21/2010 2:50 PM, MDK wrote:

  
  
  The problem we have here, Faisal, is not
  about "constructive" criticism.   I am not arguing the value
  of policy X vs policy Y, but frustrated that the vast majority
  of US, who have the most to lose, speak of these things in
  terms of such inevitability, as if losing the battle against
  overreaching feds has already been lost, and all that's left
  is to try to weasel some kind of benefits for ourselves.  
   
  And thus, my undying anger toward a
  former WISPA leader who went to the FCC and suggested that
  they START poking their nose in our business.  His intention
  was to get us political status, so that we could get our nose
  into the government trough.   That's the kiss of death, and
  somehow, we've managed to avoid the bullet so far, all hope is
  NOT lost. 
   
  And that's where it all has gone awry. 

   
  And I’m not taking this as personal,
  relax.   
   
  The point is, we should not be debating
  the value of regulation X vs the value of regulation Y, but
  instead seeking to make alliances in Congress to FOREVER butt
  the government (fcc, etc) out of our business.  
   
  I wrote about 9 months ago, that the new
  Congress coming would have some very strong allies in that
  regard, and that there's a change coming, one so big that
  it'll change our possible future.   Why should we roll over
  and play dead, failing to ally ourselves with friends in
  Congress who WANT to exempt us entirely from any meddling in
  our business?   Why should we play the FCC's game, when
  there's a much bigger and much better idea - to gain our
  freedom to do business without having an endless worry about
  what the changing faces at the FCC are going to do - and have
  that endless threat and constant looking over our shoulder,
  wondering when the sword will fall, the train will come down
  the tracks, or whatever other metaphor is most meaningful to
  you?  
   
  This means that the money trough from
  Congress will go AWAY and that we have to earn our freaking
  keep from now on, with no subsidy, no grants, no loans, at the
  taxpayer expense.   But I consider that the best business deal
  we could ever negotiate.   The ANGER of many Congressmen have
  right now, as directed toward the FCC is one that makes my
  consternation seem like mild whining.  The FCC is stepping on
  the toes of Congress, giving them the bird, so to speak.   
   
  If you want strategy, then STRATEGY says
  we go to Congress.  We have strong allies in both houses, but
  they need US to give them cover politically, so they can bully
  the rules through they want, and it really DOES mean freedom
  for us.   When was the last time a Congress had a near
  majority in both houses that decided they should BUTT OUT of
  an industry?  Well, we have it.   And it will be messy.   And
  controversial.   And some people are going to get all bent out
  of shape, because they WANT money, more than they want
  freedom. 
   
  I asked this list almost a year ago,
  directed my comments at the leadership of WISPA, and it said
  basically the following:   "How long are you going to try to
  straddle this?"   How long is the leadership going to mouth
  "we need freedom to operate our business" with the
  contradicting premise of "we want to get federal money and
  subsidies"?   The latter never comes with the former.    WISPA
  is going to have to take a stand, either it's going to say "we
  invite and recognize the value of  regulation of ISP business,
  network, and policies" or, it's going to have to say "We
  believe that our industry is best UNREGULATED".    And they
  punted.   Instead, I was told to shut the hell up and not
  bring it up again. 
   
  Instead of sitting down and asking our
  contacts in DC who our friends are, in terms of getting us
  permanent free market status, the leadership chose to continue
  straddling the fence, so as to not rock the boat.    And, I
  will NOT support WISPA, until or unless it actually grows a
  pair and fights, not to encourage and promote us being
  regulated, but the RIGHT thing, which is our
  independence.   Those people who were denigrated and put down,
  those "tea party" types, have suddenly gotten big pull in DC. 

   
  And they

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[David E. Smith]

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 15:08, MDK  wrote:

> So, I disagree with his premise, and his argument about the premise, that
> wired telephony is a "natural monopoly", and I'm not allowed to say so?
>

 If you claim telephony isn't a natural monopoly, by the definition of that
phrase, you have to back up the assertion. By the macroeconomics definition
of the phrase, telephone wires are pretty much a perfect example; what's
your counter-argument?

David Smith
MVN.net



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Cliff LeBoeuf]

Faisal -- "YODA?" hehe


On 12/21/10 3:16 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz"  wrote:

> I think you mis-reading what Fred Wrote...
> 
> Wireline (wires in the ground) are a natural monopoly...
> 
> Wireline  does not automatically equal = Wired Telephony..
> 
> As Yoda Said... "Difficult it is to see where going we are, if we
> understand not how we got here "
> 
> 
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet&  Telecom
> 
> On 12/21/2010 4:08 PM, MDK wrote:
>> So, I disagree with his premise, and his argument about the premise, that
>> wired telephony is a "natural monopoly", and I'm not allowed to say so?
>> What, who speaks first is now the authority and cannot be questioned?
>> 
>> All of what he said is based upon the "natural monopoly" premise, and since
>> we disagree on that premise, we don't have anything to debate about what he
>> said, I disagree with his conclusions.
>> 
>> This is neither disrespectful nor insulting.   And, since it's somewhat off
>> the topic of this thread, I chose to not further pursue it.
>> 
>> Now, can we get on with whatever our conversation will be about the matter
>> of import, at least at this point in time?
>> 
>> 
>> ++
>> Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
>> 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
>> ++
>> 
>> --
>> From: "Faisal Imtiaz"
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:31 PM
>> To: "WISPA General List"
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
>> 
>>> It is tough to have a meaningful discussion when you make comments as
>>> such ..
>>> 
>>> You don't have to agree with Fred, but if you listen to him with and
>>> open mind, at worst you will end up learning about a whole series of
>>> events that got us this point...
>>> 
>>> And it is not due to some individual who went to Washington and Kissed
>>> someone !
>>> 
>>> :)
>>> 
>>> Faisal Imtiaz
>>> Snappy Internet&   Telecom
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12/21/2010 3:06 PM, MDK wrote:
 I wholeheartedly disagree with your premise.
 
>  From that point on, we have little to debate about.
 
 
 
 ++
 Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
 ++
 
 --
 From: "Fred Goldstein"
 Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 11:43 AM
 To: "WISPA General List"
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
 
> At 12/21/2010 01:57 PM, MDK wrote:
> 
>> The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then
>> pretending you can "fix" what you broke by half-baked notions of
>> government
>> created markets...
> Uh, no.  Wireline is a natural monopoly.  That is NOT what it has
> sometimes been taken to mean, an excuse to regulate.  Rather, it's an
> economics concept, which means that the cost of entering the market
> as a new provider is substantially higher than the cost to an
> existing provider of adding incremental capacity.  In other words,
> the incumbent can always underprice the new entrant, so it's
> impossible to compete.
 
 
 
 ---
 -
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 ---
 -
 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>> 
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>> 
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> ---
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> -
>> ---
>> 
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>> 
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> 
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> --
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> --
> --
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 
> 

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Faisal Imtiaz]

I think you mis-reading what Fred Wrote...

Wireline (wires in the ground) are a natural monopoly...

Wireline  does not automatically equal = Wired Telephony..

As Yoda Said... "Difficult it is to see where going we are, if we 
understand not how we got here "


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet&  Telecom

On 12/21/2010 4:08 PM, MDK wrote:
> So, I disagree with his premise, and his argument about the premise, that
> wired telephony is a "natural monopoly", and I'm not allowed to say so?
> What, who speaks first is now the authority and cannot be questioned?
>
> All of what he said is based upon the "natural monopoly" premise, and since
> we disagree on that premise, we don't have anything to debate about what he
> said, I disagree with his conclusions.
>
> This is neither disrespectful nor insulting.   And, since it's somewhat off
> the topic of this thread, I chose to not further pursue it.
>
> Now, can we get on with whatever our conversation will be about the matter
> of import, at least at this point in time?
>
>
> ++
> Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
> 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
> ++
>
> --
> From: "Faisal Imtiaz"
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:31 PM
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
>
>> It is tough to have a meaningful discussion when you make comments as
>> such ..
>>
>> You don't have to agree with Fred, but if you listen to him with and
>> open mind, at worst you will end up learning about a whole series of
>> events that got us this point...
>>
>> And it is not due to some individual who went to Washington and Kissed
>> someone !
>>
>> :)
>>
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet&   Telecom
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/21/2010 3:06 PM, MDK wrote:
>>> I wholeheartedly disagree with your premise.
>>>
  From that point on, we have little to debate about.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ++
>>> Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
>>> 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
>>> ++
>>>
>>> --
>>> From: "Fred Goldstein"
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 11:43 AM
>>> To: "WISPA General List"
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
>>>
 At 12/21/2010 01:57 PM, MDK wrote:

> The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then
> pretending you can "fix" what you broke by half-baked notions of
> government
> created markets...
 Uh, no.  Wireline is a natural monopoly.  That is NOT what it has
 sometimes been taken to mean, an excuse to regulate.  Rather, it's an
 economics concept, which means that the cost of entering the market
 as a new provider is substantially higher than the cost to an
 existing provider of adding incremental capacity.  In other words,
 the incumbent can always underprice the new entrant, so it's
 impossible to compete.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[MDK]

So, I disagree with his premise, and his argument about the premise, that 
wired telephony is a "natural monopoly", and I'm not allowed to say so? 
What, who speaks first is now the authority and cannot be questioned?

All of what he said is based upon the "natural monopoly" premise, and since 
we disagree on that premise, we don't have anything to debate about what he 
said, I disagree with his conclusions.

This is neither disrespectful nor insulting.   And, since it's somewhat off 
the topic of this thread, I chose to not further pursue it.

Now, can we get on with whatever our conversation will be about the matter 
of import, at least at this point in time?


++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++

--
From: "Faisal Imtiaz" 
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:31 PM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

> It is tough to have a meaningful discussion when you make comments as
> such ..
>
> You don't have to agree with Fred, but if you listen to him with and
> open mind, at worst you will end up learning about a whole series of
> events that got us this point...
>
> And it is not due to some individual who went to Washington and Kissed
> someone !
>
> :)
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet&  Telecom
>
>
>
> On 12/21/2010 3:06 PM, MDK wrote:
>> I wholeheartedly disagree with your premise.
>>
>> > From that point on, we have little to debate about.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ++
>> Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
>> 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
>> ++
>>
>> --
>> From: "Fred Goldstein"
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 11:43 AM
>> To: "WISPA General List"
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
>>
>>> At 12/21/2010 01:57 PM, MDK wrote:
>>>
 The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then
 pretending you can "fix" what you broke by half-baked notions of
 government
 created markets...
>>> Uh, no.  Wireline is a natural monopoly.  That is NOT what it has
>>> sometimes been taken to mean, an excuse to regulate.  Rather, it's an
>>> economics concept, which means that the cost of entering the market
>>> as a new provider is substantially higher than the cost to an
>>> existing provider of adding incremental capacity.  In other words,
>>> the incumbent can always underprice the new entrant, so it's
>>> impossible to compete.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] More from the FCC

[Rick Harnish]

Excerpts from FCC Acts
  to
Preserve Internet Freedom and Openness

 

Rule 1: Transparency

 

A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service shall
publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management
practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet
access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding
use of such services and for content, application, service, and device
providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings.

 

Rule 2: No Blocking 

 

A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access
service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful
content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to
reasonable network management.

 

A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet access
service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block consumers
from accessing lawful websites, subject to reasonable network management;
nor shall such person block applications that compete with the provider's
voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network 

 

Rule 3: No Unreasonable Discrimination

 

A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access
service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably
discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer's
broadband Internet access service.  Reasonable network management shall not
constitute unreasonable discrimination.

 

 

 

Reasonable network management.  A network management practice is reasonable
if it is appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network
management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture
and technology of the broadband Internet access service. Legitimate network
management purposes include: ensuring network security and integrity,
including by addressing traffic that is harmful to the network; addressing
traffic that is unwanted by users (including by premise operators), such as
by providing services or capabilities consistent with a user's choices
regarding parental controls or security capabilities; and by reducing or
mitigating the effects of congestion on the network.  

 

 

Pay for Priority Unlikely to Satisfy "No Unreasonable Discrimination" Rule

 

A commercial arrangement between a broadband provider and a third party to
directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic in the
connection to a subscriber of the broadband provider (i.e., "pay for
priority") would raise significant cause for concern.  First, pay for
priority would represent a significant departure from historical and current
practice.  Since the beginning of the Internet, Internet access providers
have typically not charged particular content or application providers fees
to reach the providers' consumer retail service subscribers or struck
pay-for-priority deals, and the record does not contain evidence that U.S.
broadband providers currently engage in such arrangements.  Second this
departure from longstanding norms could cause great harm to innovation and
investment in and on the Internet.  As discussed above, pay-for-priority
arrangements could raise barriers to entry on the Internet by requiring fees
from edge providers, as well as transaction costs arising from the need to
reach agreements with one or more broadband providers to access a critical
mass of potential users.  Fees imposed on edge providers may be excessive
because few edge providers have the ability to bargain for lesser fees, and
because no broadband provider internalizes the full costs of reduced
innovation and the exit of edge providers from the market.  Third,
pay-for-priority arrangements may particularly harm non-commercial end
users, including individual bloggers, libraries, schools, advocacy
organizations, and other speakers, especially those who communicate through
video or other content sensitive to network congestion.  Even open Internet
skeptics acknowledge that pay for priority may disadvantage non-commercial
uses of the network, which are typically less able to pay for priority, and
for which the Internet is a uniquely important platform.  Fourth, broadband
providers that sought to offer pay-for-priority services would have an
incentive to limit the quality of service provided to non-prioritized
traffic.  In light of each of these concerns, as a general matter, it is
unlikely that pay for priority would satisfy the "no unreasonable
discrimination" standard.  The practice of a broadband Internet access
service provider prioritizing its own content, applications, or services, or
those of its affiliates, would raise the same significant concerns and would
be subject to the same standards and considerations in evaluating
reasonableness as third-party pay-for-priority arrangements.

 

I would think the ISP market should counter this order ba

Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting Statements - Preserving the Open Internet: Commissioner's Comments

[Rick Harnish]

Genachowski:

 

"Fourth, the rules recognize that broadband providers need meaningful
flexibility to manage their networks to deal with congestion, security, and
other issues.  And we also recognize the importance and value of
business-model experimentation, such as tiered pricing.

 

These are practical necessities, and will help promote investment in, and
expansion of, high-speed broadband networks.  So, for example, the order
rules make clear that broadband providers can engage in "reasonable network
management"."  

 

I'm not sure "reasonable" will be defined until the actual rules are
released.

 

Rick

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of David E. Smith
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 3:39 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting Statements - Preserving the Open Internet:
Commissioner's Comments

 

 

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 14:21, Rick Harnish  wrote:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/index.do?document=303746

 

Any analysis yet on whether WISPA got part of what it was asking for? I've
skimmed those notes, and aside from one brief mention by Commissioner
McDowell I don't see anything regarding fixed-wireless at all.

 

David Smith

MVN.net

 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting Statements - Preserving the Open Internet: Commissioner's Comments

[David E. Smith]

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 14:21, Rick Harnish  wrote:

>  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/index.do?document=303746
>

Any analysis yet on whether WISPA got part of what it was asking for? I've
skimmed those notes, and aside from one brief mention by Commissioner
McDowell I don't see anything regarding fixed-wireless at all.

David Smith
MVN.net



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Faisal Imtiaz]

It is tough to have a meaningful discussion when you make comments as 
such ..

You don't have to agree with Fred, but if you listen to him with and 
open mind, at worst you will end up learning about a whole series of 
events that got us this point...

And it is not due to some individual who went to Washington and Kissed 
someone !

:)

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet&  Telecom



On 12/21/2010 3:06 PM, MDK wrote:
> I wholeheartedly disagree with your premise.
>
> > From that point on, we have little to debate about.
>
>
>
>
> ++
> Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
> 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
> ++
>
> --
> From: "Fred Goldstein"
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 11:43 AM
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
>
>> At 12/21/2010 01:57 PM, MDK wrote:
>>
>>> The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then
>>> pretending you can "fix" what you broke by half-baked notions of
>>> government
>>> created markets...
>> Uh, no.  Wireline is a natural monopoly.  That is NOT what it has
>> sometimes been taken to mean, an excuse to regulate.  Rather, it's an
>> economics concept, which means that the cost of entering the market
>> as a new provider is substantially higher than the cost to an
>> existing provider of adding incremental capacity.  In other words,
>> the incumbent can always underprice the new entrant, so it's
>> impossible to compete.
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Faisal Imtiaz]

What you now written is rational and worthy of discussion. I am by no 
means an expert at policy or legislation / regulation.. however was 
thrown into this heap because we built a what can be called a successful 
DSL ISP business after 2000. and in 2005 we saw the rug pulled out 
from under us, with the deregulation of DSL Services (a chain of events 
which were were started a long before you an I ).


Because of our participation in trying to derail those efforts, did a 
lot of research / digging ...etc.
I can tell you for a fact that Regulation for Internet Service Providers 
has been a long time into the making. Partly because of how the Internet 
has evolved, and greatly because of the trend that goes back 20-30 years 
now Regulated Telecom Services of yesterday are now carried / 
transported over Un-Regulated Communication Servicesand as such were 
getting treated as un-regulated...


So, I can rest assured tell you that.. there is no way Regulation was 
Invited by any WISPA person, frankly I wish anyone at WISPA had this 
kind of power This is a chess game of with very powerful currents, 
in which you and I, including WISPA are less than ants...


And I can also tell you that, when such policies are made there are 
casualties... (In the DSL deregulation, we heard the following from a 
few sources.. "It has been decided and agreed that ISP's are irrelevant 
from all angles, and as such do not need any kind of protection carved 
out for them, they can disappear in a few years on their own."


With what WISPA is currently doing, seems to indicate that while ISP's 
have been written off (by all sides, and law makers & policy makers)... 
WISP's are possibly getting some protection from being trampled on .


Both sides of the law makers are simply friends of those who pay them 
big bucks...and that ain't us
There a very very few who may be sympathetic to our cause, but that only 
goes as far as the next 'deal' making they have to do...


Regards

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet&  Telecom



On 12/21/2010 2:50 PM, MDK wrote:
The problem we have here, Faisal, is not about "constructive" 
criticism.   I am not arguing the value of policy X vs policy Y, but 
frustrated that the vast majority of US, who have the most to lose, 
speak of these things in terms of such inevitability, as if losing the 
battle against overreaching feds has already been lost, and all that's 
left is to try to weasel some kind of benefits for ourselves.
And thus, my undying anger toward a former WISPA leader who went to 
the FCC and suggested that they START poking their nose in our 
business.  His intention was to get us political status, so that we 
could get our nose into the government trough.   That's the kiss of 
death, and somehow, we've managed to avoid the bullet so far, all hope 
is NOT lost.

And that's where it all has gone awry.
And I’m not taking this as personal, relax.
The point is, we should not be debating the value of regulation X vs 
the value of regulation Y, but instead seeking to make alliances in 
Congress to FOREVER butt the government (fcc, etc) out of our business.
I wrote about 9 months ago, that the new Congress coming would have 
some very strong allies in that regard, and that there's a change 
coming, one so big that it'll change our possible future.   Why should 
we roll over and play dead, failing to ally ourselves with friends in 
Congress who WANT to exempt us entirely from any meddling in our 
business?   Why should we play the FCC's game, when there's a much 
bigger and much better idea - to gain our freedom to do business 
without having an endless worry about what the changing faces at the 
FCC are going to do - and have that endless threat and constant 
looking over our shoulder, wondering when the sword will fall, the 
train will come down the tracks, or whatever other metaphor is most 
meaningful to you?
This means that the money trough from Congress will go AWAY and that 
we have to earn our freaking keep from now on, with no subsidy, no 
grants, no loans, at the taxpayer expense.   But I consider that the 
best business deal we could ever negotiate.   The ANGER of many 
Congressmen have right now, as directed toward the FCC is one that 
makes my consternation seem like mild whining.  The FCC is stepping on 
the toes of Congress, giving them the bird, so to speak.
If you want strategy, then STRATEGY says we go to Congress.  We have 
strong allies in both houses, but they need US to give them cover 
politically, so they can bully the rules through they want, and it 
really DOES mean freedom for us.   When was the last time a Congress 
had a near majority in both houses that decided they should BUTT OUT 
of an industry?  Well, we have it.   And it will be messy.   And 
controversial.   And some people are going to get all bent out of 
shape, because they WANT money, more than they want freedom.
I asked this list almost a year ago, directed my comments at the 
leadership of WI

[WISPA] Open Meeting Statements - Preserving the Open Internet: Commissioner's Comments

[Rick Harnish]

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/index.do?document=303746

 

Respectfully,

 

Rick Harnish

Executive Director

WISPA

260-307-4000 cell

866-317-2851 WISPA Office

Skype: rick.harnish.

rharn...@wispa.org

 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[St. Louis Broadband]

Very nice explanation, thanks Fred.

Victoria Proffer - President/CEO
www.ShowMeBroadband.com
www.StLouisBroadband.com
314-974-5600



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 1:43 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

At 12/21/2010 01:57 PM, MDK wrote:

>The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then
>pretending you can "fix" what you broke by half-baked notions of government
>created markets...

Uh, no.  Wireline is a natural monopoly.  That is NOT what it has 
sometimes been taken to mean, an excuse to regulate.  Rather, it's an 
economics concept, which means that the cost of entering the market 
as a new provider is substantially higher than the cost to an 
existing provider of adding incremental capacity.  In other words, 
the incumbent can always underprice the new entrant, so it's 
impossible to compete.

If you don't believe it's the case for wireline loops, think about 
roads.  How much would it cost for a second road company to pull up 
to your front door?  Absurd?  Wire is almost the same thing.  When 
there is a natural monopoly, the holder of that monopoly has the 
potential to abuse its power.  Hence such companies are normally 
regulated.  That applies to electric distribution, natural gas 
distribution, water, and until recently telecommunications.  These 
are thus regulated "utilities", where being a utility means that the 
company is entitled to make a fair profit, but that the value of the 
product or service is assumed to be greater than its price, so the 
monopoly utility can't charge whatever the market will bear (monopoly
rents).

Wireless is not, of course; market entry is regulated based on 
spectrum allocation rules.  That too is now optimized for corporate 
profit, not maximal public utility.  If it were not regulated to 
protect license values, then there would be much more unlicensed 
spectrum, since WISPs make much more efficient use of spectrum than 
many of the licensees.

Telcos have been regulated as utilities since the 19th century; 
telegraph was regulated before then.  And common carrier regulation 
(the old concept of "bailment" translates to "neutrality" when it's 
applied to bits) goes back for several centuries, when it applied to 
horse-wagon and canal-boat carriers, and then to railroads.

>There is NOTHING broke about 'internet' because it hasn't been regulated.
Information service should not be viewed as a monopoly or utility 
either.  HOWEVER, the FCC has created an untenable monster in which 
ISPs are vertically integrated, from information down to physical 
medium. so the natural break between the information service and the 
telecommunications service (to use the somewhat broken TA96 terms) is 
now gone.  That's the elbow joint in the arm of communications 
policy.  Remove its flexibility, as was done a few years ago, and no 
matter which way you point the arm, it can't do its job.  THAT is 
what's broken.  It creates the *possibiilty* that the wire owner will 
abuse the user's Internet information, with the user not having a 
choice of alternative ISPs.  There was no public call for "network 
neutrality" until after the FCC revoked Computer II in 2005.

>Your issue is nothing but a complaint about the results of what should
never
>have been done in the first place.

What should never have been done is remove the ISPs' open access to 
the telcos' wire.

And what should not be done now is regulate small, non-dominant 
non-telco ISPs the same way as the telcos.



>++
>Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
>541-969-8200  509-386-4589
>++
>
>--
>From: "Fred Goldstein" 
>Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:56 PM
>To: "WISPA General List" 
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
>
> > Well, no, what IS PROFOUNDLY BROKEN is that the ILECs are no longer
> > required to be common carriers.  They built their network using
> > common carrier privileges.  They got their market share using common
> > carrier privileges.  And then they turned  around and got their
> > common carrier obligations lifted by the profoundly corrupt
> > Cheney-Rove FCC.  So now they control the content on their wires, and
> > you can't lease them.  That's just wrong.  And the Genachowski FCC
> > isn't doing squat about that, though they absolutely have the power
> > to do so.  We do need a national common carrier utility.  There is a
> > clear distinction between carriage and content. ISPs are content, not
> > carriage.  And WISPs are self-provisioned ISPs who deliver content
> > over unlicensed facilities without using a carrier, and without being
one.
> >

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[MDK]

I wholeheartedly disagree with your premise.

>From that point on, we have little to debate about.




++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++

--
From: "Fred Goldstein" 
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 11:43 AM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

> At 12/21/2010 01:57 PM, MDK wrote:
>
>>The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then
>>pretending you can "fix" what you broke by half-baked notions of 
>>government
>>created markets...
>
> Uh, no.  Wireline is a natural monopoly.  That is NOT what it has
> sometimes been taken to mean, an excuse to regulate.  Rather, it's an
> economics concept, which means that the cost of entering the market
> as a new provider is substantially higher than the cost to an
> existing provider of adding incremental capacity.  In other words,
> the incumbent can always underprice the new entrant, so it's
> impossible to compete.
 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Fred Goldstein]

At 12/21/2010 01:57 PM, MDK wrote:

>The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then
>pretending you can "fix" what you broke by half-baked notions of government
>created markets...

Uh, no.  Wireline is a natural monopoly.  That is NOT what it has 
sometimes been taken to mean, an excuse to regulate.  Rather, it's an 
economics concept, which means that the cost of entering the market 
as a new provider is substantially higher than the cost to an 
existing provider of adding incremental capacity.  In other words, 
the incumbent can always underprice the new entrant, so it's 
impossible to compete.

If you don't believe it's the case for wireline loops, think about 
roads.  How much would it cost for a second road company to pull up 
to your front door?  Absurd?  Wire is almost the same thing.  When 
there is a natural monopoly, the holder of that monopoly has the 
potential to abuse its power.  Hence such companies are normally 
regulated.  That applies to electric distribution, natural gas 
distribution, water, and until recently telecommunications.  These 
are thus regulated "utilities", where being a utility means that the 
company is entitled to make a fair profit, but that the value of the 
product or service is assumed to be greater than its price, so the 
monopoly utility can't charge whatever the market will bear (monopoly rents).

Wireless is not, of course; market entry is regulated based on 
spectrum allocation rules.  That too is now optimized for corporate 
profit, not maximal public utility.  If it were not regulated to 
protect license values, then there would be much more unlicensed 
spectrum, since WISPs make much more efficient use of spectrum than 
many of the licensees.

Telcos have been regulated as utilities since the 19th century; 
telegraph was regulated before then.  And common carrier regulation 
(the old concept of "bailment" translates to "neutrality" when it's 
applied to bits) goes back for several centuries, when it applied to 
horse-wagon and canal-boat carriers, and then to railroads.

>There is NOTHING broke about 'internet' because it hasn't been regulated.
Information service should not be viewed as a monopoly or utility 
either.  HOWEVER, the FCC has created an untenable monster in which 
ISPs are vertically integrated, from information down to physical 
medium. so the natural break between the information service and the 
telecommunications service (to use the somewhat broken TA96 terms) is 
now gone.  That's the elbow joint in the arm of communications 
policy.  Remove its flexibility, as was done a few years ago, and no 
matter which way you point the arm, it can't do its job.  THAT is 
what's broken.  It creates the *possibiilty* that the wire owner will 
abuse the user's Internet information, with the user not having a 
choice of alternative ISPs.  There was no public call for "network 
neutrality" until after the FCC revoked Computer II in 2005.

>Your issue is nothing but a complaint about the results of what should never
>have been done in the first place.

What should never have been done is remove the ISPs' open access to 
the telcos' wire.

And what should not be done now is regulate small, non-dominant 
non-telco ISPs the same way as the telcos.



>++
>Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
>541-969-8200  509-386-4589
>++
>
>--
>From: "Fred Goldstein" 
>Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:56 PM
>To: "WISPA General List" 
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
>
> > Well, no, what IS PROFOUNDLY BROKEN is that the ILECs are no longer
> > required to be common carriers.  They built their network using
> > common carrier privileges.  They got their market share using common
> > carrier privileges.  And then they turned  around and got their
> > common carrier obligations lifted by the profoundly corrupt
> > Cheney-Rove FCC.  So now they control the content on their wires, and
> > you can't lease them.  That's just wrong.  And the Genachowski FCC
> > isn't doing squat about that, though they absolutely have the power
> > to do so.  We do need a national common carrier utility.  There is a
> > clear distinction between carriage and content. ISPs are content, not
> > carriage.  And WISPs are self-provisioned ISPs who deliver content
> > over unlicensed facilities without using a carrier, and without being one.
> >

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireles

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[MDK]

The problem we have here, Faisal, is not about "constructive" criticism.   I am 
not arguing the value of policy X vs policy Y, but frustrated that the vast 
majority of US, who have the most to lose, speak of these things in terms of 
such inevitability, as if losing the battle against overreaching feds has 
already been lost, and all that's left is to try to weasel some kind of 
benefits for ourselves.  

And thus, my undying anger toward a former WISPA leader who went to the FCC and 
suggested that they START poking their nose in our business.  His intention was 
to get us political status, so that we could get our nose into the government 
trough.   That's the kiss of death, and somehow, we've managed to avoid the 
bullet so far, all hope is NOT lost. 

And that's where it all has gone awry.  

And I’m not taking this as personal, relax.   

The point is, we should not be debating the value of regulation X vs the value 
of regulation Y, but instead seeking to make alliances in Congress to FOREVER 
butt the government (fcc, etc) out of our business.  

I wrote about 9 months ago, that the new Congress coming would have some very 
strong allies in that regard, and that there's a change coming, one so big that 
it'll change our possible future.   Why should we roll over and play dead, 
failing to ally ourselves with friends in Congress who WANT to exempt us 
entirely from any meddling in our business?   Why should we play the FCC's 
game, when there's a much bigger and much better idea - to gain our freedom to 
do business without having an endless worry about what the changing faces at 
the FCC are going to do - and have that endless threat and constant looking 
over our shoulder, wondering when the sword will fall, the train will come down 
the tracks, or whatever other metaphor is most meaningful to you?  

This means that the money trough from Congress will go AWAY and that we have to 
earn our freaking keep from now on, with no subsidy, no grants, no loans, at 
the taxpayer expense.   But I consider that the best business deal we could 
ever negotiate.   The ANGER of many Congressmen have right now, as directed 
toward the FCC is one that makes my consternation seem like mild whining.  The 
FCC is stepping on the toes of Congress, giving them the bird, so to speak.   

If you want strategy, then STRATEGY says we go to Congress.  We have strong 
allies in both houses, but they need US to give them cover politically, so they 
can bully the rules through they want, and it really DOES mean freedom for us.  
 When was the last time a Congress had a near majority in both houses that 
decided they should BUTT OUT of an industry?  Well, we have it.   And it will 
be messy.   And controversial.   And some people are going to get all bent out 
of shape, because they WANT money, more than they want freedom. 

I asked this list almost a year ago, directed my comments at the leadership of 
WISPA, and it said basically the following:   "How long are you going to try to 
straddle this?"   How long is the leadership going to mouth "we need freedom to 
operate our business" with the contradicting premise of "we want to get federal 
money and subsidies"?   The latter never comes with the former.WISPA is 
going to have to take a stand, either it's going to say "we invite and 
recognize the value of  regulation of ISP business, network, and policies" or, 
it's going to have to say "We believe that our industry is best UNREGULATED".   
 And they punted.   Instead, I was told to shut the hell up and not bring it up 
again. 

Instead of sitting down and asking our contacts in DC who our friends are, in 
terms of getting us permanent free market status, the leadership chose to 
continue straddling the fence, so as to not rock the boat.And, I will NOT 
support WISPA, until or unless it actually grows a pair and fights, not to 
encourage and promote us being regulated, but the RIGHT thing, which is our 
independence.   Those people who were denigrated and put down, those "tea 
party" types, have suddenly gotten big pull in DC.  

And they want every ally they can get.  And WE should be one of them.   EVERY 
DAY OF THE WEEK for the last month, major opinion writers, congressmen, 
senators, and so on, have ARGUED for our NON regulated status all over the 
news, tv shows, cable, internet sites, newspapers, magazines, you name it.  
Where the hell are we?   Afraid to say the word, all hunkered down and have 
already given up and declared dead - that being heavily regulated status being 
a foregone conclusion and our free market status lost.   There's basically TWO 
organizations, the White House, and Genachowski himself that are pushing it, 
THAT IS IT.   And they're a tiny, but loud minority, and they have the sympathy 
of Democrats.   Both of the organizations pushing it, are well funded and are 
basically socialists, who push an agenda of extreme government power, over all 
things.  

In this is case, it is not us agai

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[MDK]

Bob, that's about the truest comments on the matter...  



++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++


From: Bob Moldashel 
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 6:34 AM
To: li...@stlbroadband.com ; WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless


Excuse me but is your signature big enough on this e-mail??   

:-)

regarding this FCC thing...

Some how, some way this thing will bite us in the butt and reward the big guys.

-B-





On 12/20/2010 8:05 PM, St. Louis Broadband wrote: 
  Yes it is!

   

  Victoria Proffer - President/CEO

  www.ShowMeBroadband.com

  www.StLouisBroadband.com

  314-974-5600

   

   

   

  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Joe Fiero
  Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:12 PM
  To: 'WISPA General List'
  Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

   

  It's good to see all our efforts pay off.

   

   

   

  REUTERS  updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55 

  WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt 
Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful 
content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks, 
senior agency officials said Monday. 

  Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with 
the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month, but 
senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are expected to 
vote in favor of the rules. 

  Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing 
Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based on 
Internet usage.

  The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband, Genachowski said in 
a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of 
development than terrestrial Internet service.

   

   

   





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/









WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[MDK]

I'm sure you mean well, but I'm not even stirred up yet.   



++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++

--
From: "Faisal Imtiaz" 
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:27 PM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

>  'Dude'... get a grip.. get out of this business, get some sanity into 
> your life... this kind of stress is not good...
> 
 



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[MDK]

The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then 
pretending you can "fix" what you broke by half-baked notions of government 
created markets...

There is NOTHING broke about 'internet' because it hasn't been regulated.

Your issue is nothing but a complaint about the results of what should never 
have been done in the first place.



++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++

--
From: "Fred Goldstein" 
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:56 PM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

> Well, no, what IS PROFOUNDLY BROKEN is that the ILECs are no longer
> required to be common carriers.  They built their network using
> common carrier privileges.  They got their market share using common
> carrier privileges.  And then they turned  around and got their
> common carrier obligations lifted by the profoundly corrupt
> Cheney-Rove FCC.  So now they control the content on their wires, and
> you can't lease them.  That's just wrong.  And the Genachowski FCC
> isn't doing squat about that, though they absolutely have the power
> to do so.  We do need a national common carrier utility.  There is a
> clear distinction between carriage and content. ISPs are content, not
> carriage.  And WISPs are self-provisioned ISPs who deliver content
> over unlicensed facilities without using a carrier, and without being one.
>
>
>  --
>  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
>  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
>  +1 617 795 2701
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[RickG]

Faisal, Nothing personal taken. I understand what you are saying but let me
rephrase my thoughts. Why is it that government has to get into every aspect
of our lives and business? Just because the big guys flex some muscle doesnt
meant we should be included in their regulations. And thats my point, we
shouldnt even be part of the question. Someday, they'll ask - whatever
happened to the USA? We'll say "Government run amuck!"
I realize discussing this here wont do any good so I'm going to drop it.
Just some food for thought.

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Faisal Imtiaz  wrote:

>  Nothing personal here...
>
> I have yet to see some 'constructive' discussion from Mark about how to
> influence the outcome of such regulations... I am not in favor of the
> regulation... but ours would not be the first Independent Business to be
> 'Regulated' in some form or another.. (Food business is regulated, Medial
> Business is regulated, Fuel Business is regulated etc. etc. etc..)
>
> On one side when larger companies in an industry start to flex their
> muscles, and start playing arrogant,  that simply invites Regulation... but
> then again we all behave similar in our own play pens as well... but it is
> just that we are small and thus don't hit the regulators radar screen..
>
> You have to actively Participate in the rule making process, otherwise live
> be the rules made by others. A boycott, or total anti gov. attitude is
> simply going to increase your stress level and accomplish nothing.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>
> On 12/21/2010 12:42 AM, RickG wrote:
>
> Faisal, with all due respect, (and you know I do) - Mark is right. We are
> not phone companys. We are PRIVATE, independent companys
> with volunteer subscribers. Are you saying we have already lost? The fact
> that we are even having to have this conversation in "the land of the free"
> is sad.
> BTW: I dont read Mark's post as a tantrum. It's hard for anyone to comment
> on negative news in a positive light.
> P.S. It looks like Bell fared well against governmetn lawsuits:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Graham_Bell
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>
>>  'Dude'... get a grip.. get out of this business, get some sanity into
>> your life... this kind of stress is not good...
>>
>> Just imagine how Alexander Graham Bell felt when the Gov. decided to
>> regulate the Phone Company !
>>
>> Fact of life... when a service starts to become a crucial / critical for
>> the general population... the Gov. (anywhere in the world) will start to
>> regulate it...
>>
>> Don't be surprised if tomorrow's Internet, gets to be like a utility !
>> (Electricity ?) ...
>>
>> Get a grip, you don't have to like the rules, but realize you are not in
>> position to make the rules, just play by them...or not !
>>
>> Don't like it.. go do something else... Throwing tantrums will not make
>> a difference...
>>
>> :)
>>
>>
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet&  Telecom
>>
>> On 12/20/2010 8:36 PM, MDK wrote:
>> > I am opposed to ALL aspects, period.   Nothing is broken such that it
>> needs
>> > the atomic bomb of government to fix it.
>> >
>> > This is a fix in desperate search of a "broken" and the closest thing to
>> a
>> > "broken" they can find is a hypothetical that isn't a disaster in the
>> first
>> > place.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ++
>> > Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
>> > 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
>> > ++
>> >
>> > --
>> > From: "Jeromie Reeves"
>> > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:56 PM
>> > To: "WISPA General List"
>> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
>>
>> >
>> >> While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed)
>> >> wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would
>> >> like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue
>> >> with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be
>> >> forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must
>> >> have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for
>> >> everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network)
>> >> with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer
>> >> 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed
>> >> not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that
>> >> is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to
>> >> wake up and go pickup the kids.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDK  wrote:
>> >>> No, we LOST.   You see, once they have the power, they have the power.
>> >>> It
>> >>> is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get "partial
>> >>> exemption".
>> >>>
>> >>> I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for
>> this.
>> >>>
>> >>> As far as I’m concerned it's "come and ar

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Yes, I am in agreement the point I was trying to make was, channel 
your energy into something productive that can make a difference.. 
venting it out on the list may make you feel better, but will not 
accomplish anything else.


:)

Jeff, I am curious about the background on the 'camel' analogy... there 
are no camels to be found in the US, and tents are even more rare...  
cats / dogs / Uncle Bob etc etc are more common 


heheheh...


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet&  Telecom

On 12/21/2010 11:11 AM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists wrote:


Mark may state his case strongly, but he isn't wrong.  Fred stated it 
better than I could.  Even though this particular set of regs may not 
be particularly onerous...you've just invited the camel under the tent.


Regards,

Jeff
ImageStream Sales Manager
800-813-5123 x106



*From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
*On Behalf Of *Faisal Imtiaz

*Sent:* Monday, December 20, 2010 9:27 PM
*To:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

  'Dude'... get a grip.. get out of this business, get some sanity into
your life... this kind of stress is not good...

Just imagine how Alexander Graham Bell felt when the Gov. decided to
regulate the Phone Company !

Fact of life... when a service starts to become a crucial / critical for
the general population... the Gov. (anywhere in the world) will start to
regulate it...

Don't be surprised if tomorrow's Internet, gets to be like a utility !
(Electricity ?) ...

Get a grip, you don't have to like the rules, but realize you are not in
position to make the rules, just play by them...or not !

Don't like it.. go do something else... Throwing tantrums will not make
a difference...

:)


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet&  Telecom

On 12/20/2010 8:36 PM, MDK wrote:
> I am opposed to ALL aspects, period.   Nothing is broken such that it 
needs

> the atomic bomb of government to fix it.
>
> This is a fix in desperate search of a "broken" and the closest thing 
to a
> "broken" they can find is a hypothetical that isn't a disaster in the 
first

> place.
>
>
>
>
> ++
> Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
> 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
> ++
>
> --
> From: "Jeromie Reeves"
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:56 PM
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
>
>> While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed)
>> wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would
>> like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue
>> with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be
>> forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must
>> have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for
>> everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network)
>> with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer
>> 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed
>> not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that
>> is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to
>> wake up and go pickup the kids.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDK  wrote:
>>> No, we LOST.   You see, once they have the power, they have the power.
>>> It
>>> is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get "partial
>>> exemption".
>>>
>>> I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for 
this.

>>>
>>> As far as I'm concerned it's "come and arrest me, coppers" and I will
>>> damn
>>> well NOT comply.
>>>
>>> And if we all did that.  They'd just give up.   But we're too 
chicken to
>>> stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently.   I 
don't know

>>> when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the
>>> government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ++
>>> Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
>>> 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
>>> ++
>>> From: Joe Fiero
>>> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM
>>> To: 'WISPA General List'
>>> Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
>>>
>>> It's good to see all our efforts pay off.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> REUTERS  updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55
>>>
>>> WASHINGTON --- The Federal Communications Commission is expected to 
adopt

>>> Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful
>>> content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their
>>> networks,
>>> senior agency officials said Monday.
>>>
>>> Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns
>>> with
>>> the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this
>>> month,
>>> but senior FCC 

[WISPA] Your response

[Jeremy Rodgers]

  
  
Often the question from both businesses and residential customers
comes up about the future viability of wireless broadband.  I am
curious on two levels.  First, what is your personally opinion and
second, how do you communicate this to your customers when asked.

Any thoughts are appreciated.
 
-- 
  Jeremy J. Rodgers
  Sales Manager
  OnlyInternet Broadband and Wireless
  O: 260.827.2234
  O: 800.363.0989
  F: 260.824.9624
  
  Merry CHRIST-mas <><

  




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] FCC to Vote on Internet Regulation Plan

[Nick]

Watch live:
http://reboot.fcc.gov/live


On 12/20/2010 3:04 PM, Cliff LeBoeuf wrote:

I know everyone here monitors FOX... ;-)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/20/fcc-vote-internet-regulation-plan-despite-economic-warnings/





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Jeff Broadwick - Lists]

Mark may state his case strongly, but he isn't wrong.  Fred stated it better
than I could.  Even though this particular set of regs may not be
particularly onerous.you've just invited the camel under the tent.

 

Regards,

Jeff
ImageStream Sales Manager
800-813-5123 x106

  _  

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 9:27 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

 

  'Dude'... get a grip.. get out of this business, get some sanity into
your life... this kind of stress is not good...

Just imagine how Alexander Graham Bell felt when the Gov. decided to
regulate the Phone Company !

Fact of life... when a service starts to become a crucial / critical for
the general population... the Gov. (anywhere in the world) will start to
regulate it...

Don't be surprised if tomorrow's Internet, gets to be like a utility !
(Electricity ?) ...

Get a grip, you don't have to like the rules, but realize you are not in
position to make the rules, just play by them...or not !

Don't like it.. go do something else... Throwing tantrums will not make
a difference...

:)


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet&  Telecom

On 12/20/2010 8:36 PM, MDK wrote:
> I am opposed to ALL aspects, period.   Nothing is broken such that it
needs
> the atomic bomb of government to fix it.
>
> This is a fix in desperate search of a "broken" and the closest thing to a
> "broken" they can find is a hypothetical that isn't a disaster in the
first
> place.
>
>
>
>
> ++
> Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
> 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
> ++
>
> --
> From: "Jeromie Reeves"
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:56 PM
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
>
>> While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed)
>> wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would
>> like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue
>> with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be
>> forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must
>> have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for
>> everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network)
>> with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer
>> 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed
>> not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that
>> is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to
>> wake up and go pickup the kids.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDK  wrote:
>>> No, we LOST.   You see, once they have the power, they have the power.
>>> It
>>> is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get "partial
>>> exemption".
>>>
>>> I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this.
>>>
>>> As far as I'm concerned it's "come and arrest me, coppers" and I will
>>> damn
>>> well NOT comply.
>>>
>>> And if we all did that.  They'd just give up.   But we're too chicken to
>>> stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently.   I don't
know
>>> when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the
>>> government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ++
>>> Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
>>> 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
>>> ++
>>> From: Joe Fiero
>>> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM
>>> To: 'WISPA General List'
>>> Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
>>>
>>> It's good to see all our efforts pay off.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> REUTERS  updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55
>>>
>>> WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt
>>> Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful
>>> content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their
>>> networks,
>>> senior agency officials said Monday.
>>>
>>> Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns
>>> with
>>> the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this
>>> month,
>>> but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are
>>> expected
>>> to vote in favor of the rules.
>>>
>>> Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing
>>> Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers
>>> based
>>> on Internet usage.
>>>
>>> The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband, Genachowski
said
>>> in
>>> a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of
>>> development than terrestrial Internet service.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
-

Re: [WISPA] DSLAM troubleshooting

[Blake Covarrubias]

Hi,

What type of assistance do you need? I have some experience with DSL 
technology, and may be able to help.

--
Blake Covarrubias

On Dec 21, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Justin Wilson wrote:

> I need to run some ideas by a consultant who is versed in DSLAM 
> troubleshooting.  Any recommendations of someone that is available today?
> 
> Thanks,
> Justin
> 
> -- 
> Justin Wilson  
> Aol & Yahoo IM: j2sw
> http://www.mtin.net/blog – xISP News
> http://www.twitter.com/j2sw – Follow me on Twitter
> Wisp Consulting – Tower Climbing – Network Support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] DSLAM troubleshooting

[Josh Luthman]

We have a vdsl dslam.  Literally just plug and play.  I don't know if there
is a cli/gui interface.

Do you have something more elaborate?
On Dec 21, 2010 10:41 AM, "Justin Wilson"  wrote:
> I need to run some ideas by a consultant who is versed in DSLAM
> troubleshooting. Any recommendations of someone that is available today?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> --
> Justin Wilson 
> Aol & Yahoo IM: j2sw
> http://www.mtin.net/blog ­ xISP News
> http://www.twitter.com/j2sw ­ Follow me on Twitter
> Wisp Consulting ­ Tower Climbing ­ Network Support
>
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] DSLAM troubleshooting

[Justin Wilson]

 I need to run some ideas by a consultant who is versed in DSLAM
troubleshooting.  Any recommendations of someone that is available today?

Thanks,
Justin

-- 
Justin Wilson 
Aol & Yahoo IM: j2sw
http://www.mtin.net/blog ­ xISP News
http://www.twitter.com/j2sw ­ Follow me on Twitter
Wisp Consulting ­ Tower Climbing ­ Network Support





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] From ATT public policy blog- Comcast vs Level3

[Fred Goldstein]

At 12/21/2010 09:51 AM, canopy wrote:
>I guess what I don't understand about this whole thing is how much
>traffic one ISP is sending another.  So, if you send me too much
>traffic, you must pay.  I think nearly every WISP on this list is
>receiving more traffic than we are sending AND we are paying for it.
>Why are they not paying us?
>

As a rhetorical question, sure.

But for the record, the way the Internet really works is that it's a 
free market, and you're allowed to buy your upstream/peering/transit 
from anyone, at the best deal you can make.  If nobody wants to give 
it to you for free, you pay.  If your content looks important enough 
to another provider, they might peer for free.  It's all a mutual 
exchange of value, where money and content are both representations 
of value, and value is totally in the eye of the beholder ("that 
horse is lame!").

Start regulating it and all hell (that is, the place where all the 
lawyers are) breaks loose.

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] From ATT public policy blog- Comcast vs Level3

[can...@believewireless.net]

I guess what I don't understand about this whole thing is how much
traffic one ISP is sending another.  So, if you send me too much
traffic, you must pay.  I think nearly every WISP on this list is
receiving more traffic than we are sending AND we are paying for it.
Why are they not paying us?



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] From ATT public policy blog- Comcast vs Level3

[Tom DeReggi]

A bit after the fact, but thought I'd pass this article on that clearly quotes 
the Hippocracy and Spin from Level3..

http://attpublicpolicy.com/

It's Not Really Louder Just Because it Goes to Eleven.

Posted by: Bob Quinn on December 2, 2010 at 11:40 am
When I read earlier this week that Level 3 was trying to elevate its peering 
dispute with Comcast into some kind of a major net neutrality gaffe, I 
immediately typed into my search engine the names Cogent Communications and 
Level 3 to see if I hadn't somehow slipped into an alternative universe over 
the long Thanksgiving weekend.  I was relieved to learn that I was merely back 
in Washington, D.C. where spin is both King and Queen.  Here is what I found:

Level 3's Shifting Positions on Peering -

As a Backbone Provider in 2005, Level 3 Said:

"There are a number of factors that determine whether a peering relationship is 
mutually beneficial. For example, Cogent was sending far more traffic to the 
Level 3 network than Level 3 was sending to Cogent's network. It is important 
to keep in mind that traffic received by Level 3 in a peering relationship must 
be moved across Level 3's network at considerable expense. Simply put, this 
means that, without paying, Cogent was using far more of Level 3's network, far 
more of the time, than the reverse. Following our review, we decided that it 
was unfair for us to be subsidizing Cogent's business." Level 3 Press Release, 
Oct. 7, 2005 

As a Content Delivery Network Operator in 2010, Level 3 Said:

"It is regrettable that Comcast has sought to portray this simply as a 
commercial disagreement or a peering dispute. They miss the point and are 
attempting to distract from the fundamental issue..The fundamental issue is not 
whether Comcast sends more traffic to Level 3 or whether Level 3 sends more 
traffic to Comcast. Both Level 3 and Comcast are responding to the requests of 
Comcast's subscribers, who want to be free to see and use the full suite of 
content and applications that are available on the Internet today and in the 
future. Level 3 wants to assure that freedom is preserved." Level 3 Press 
Release, November 29, 2010

Despite all the spin from Level 3 and political organizations like "Free 
Press," and at the risk of contradicting one of my old Spinal Tap heroes Nigel 
Tufnel, I have to conclude that it's not, in fact, louder just because it "goes 
to eleven".this is just a peering dispute no matter how loudly Level 3 and Free 
Press shout "net neutrality violation."

In 2005, Level 3 created quite a stir in the Internet infrastructure community 
when it unilaterally "de-peered" Cogent Communications (i.e., disconnected 
Cogent from significant parts of the Internet), regrettably without informing 
any of Level 3's or Cogent's customers.

In the interests of understanding this issue (and why it is a classic peering 
dispute and not a net neutrality issue), let's spend a minute on peering.  
Level 3 and Cogent had a Settlement-Free Peering arrangement that Level 3 felt 
Cogent was violating. Those types of agreements are generally based on a set of 
criteria that may include provisions like each party agreeing to maintain a 
network that is roughly equivalent in size and scope (a party may require a 
certain number international and/or domestic interconnection points), a 
commitment to interconnect at a specified bandwidth (AT&T requires OC192), and 
a commitment to exchange roughly the same volume of traffic (AT&T's current 
settlement-free peering ratio is 2:1). There may be other criteria, but those 
are the big hitters. (I apologize in advance to all the peering geeks out there 
for the 10,000 foot level characterization that lacks the technical minutiae 
that you folks adore).

The basic concept behind those requirements is simply that the relationship has 
to be mutually beneficial to both parties, since no money is exchanging hands.  
Companies that do not meet the settlement free peering criteria will generally 
enter into an agreement for some form of paid peering or transiting 
arrangement.  AT AT&T, we have a relatively small number of providers with whom 
we have settlement-free arrangements but many more agreements that are for some 
form of paid peering/transiting.

Back in 2005, Level 3 explained its actions with Cogent by arguing that Cogent 
was utilizing "far more of Level 3's network, far more of the time." Because 
Cogent was delivering far more traffic to Level 3 than it was receiving from 
Level 3, Level 3 asserted that settlement free peering was not appropriate - 
the arrangement was not mutually beneficial and Level 3 was therefore being 
asked to "subsidize" Cogent's business. Thus, Level 3 wanted Cogent to enter 
into a paid arrangement.  And despite the fact that Level 3, in its own peering 
policy, continues to adhere to the concept of commercial negotiation of 
mutually beneficial agreements (their current policy reads: "Like any 
commercially negotiated arrangement

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Nothing personal here...

I have yet to see some 'constructive' discussion from Mark about how to 
influence the outcome of such regulations... I am not in favor of the 
regulation... but ours would not be the first Independent Business to be 
'Regulated' in some form or another.. (Food business is regulated, 
Medial Business is regulated, Fuel Business is regulated etc. etc. etc..)


On one side when larger companies in an industry start to flex their 
muscles, and start playing arrogant,  that simply invites Regulation... 
but then again we all behave similar in our own play pens as well... but 
it is just that we are small and thus don't hit the regulators radar 
screen..


You have to actively Participate in the rule making process, otherwise 
live be the rules made by others. A boycott, or total anti gov. attitude 
is  simply going to increase your stress level and accomplish nothing.


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet&  Telecom

On 12/21/2010 12:42 AM, RickG wrote:
Faisal, with all due respect, (and you know I do) - Mark is right. We 
are not phone companys. We are PRIVATE, independent companys 
with volunteer subscribers. Are you saying we have already lost? The 
fact that we are even having to have this conversation in "the land of 
the free" is sad.
BTW: I dont read Mark's post as a tantrum. It's hard for anyone to 
comment on negative news in a positive light.
P.S. It looks like Bell fared well against governmetn lawsuits: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Graham_Bell


On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Faisal Imtiaz > wrote:


 'Dude'... get a grip.. get out of this business, get some sanity into
your life... this kind of stress is not good...

Just imagine how Alexander Graham Bell felt when the Gov. decided to
regulate the Phone Company !

Fact of life... when a service starts to become a crucial /
critical for
the general population... the Gov. (anywhere in the world) will
start to
regulate it...

Don't be surprised if tomorrow's Internet, gets to be like a utility !
(Electricity ?) ...

Get a grip, you don't have to like the rules, but realize you are
not in
position to make the rules, just play by them...or not !

Don't like it.. go do something else... Throwing tantrums will not
make
a difference...

:)


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet&  Telecom

On 12/20/2010 8:36 PM, MDK wrote:
> I am opposed to ALL aspects, period.   Nothing is broken such
that it needs
> the atomic bomb of government to fix it.
>
> This is a fix in desperate search of a "broken" and the closest
thing to a
> "broken" they can find is a hypothetical that isn't a disaster
in the first
> place.
>
>
>
>
> ++
> Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
> 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
> ++
>
> --
> From: "Jeromie Reeves"mailto:jree...@18-30chat.net>>
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:56 PM
> To: "WISPA General List"mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
>
>> While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of
(fixed)
>> wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I
would
>> like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a
issue
>> with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be
>> forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC,
you must
>> have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for
>> everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network)
>> with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to
layer
>> 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some
licensed
>> not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum
(that
>> is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us.
Time to
>> wake up and go pickup the kids.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDKmailto:rea...@muddyfrogwater.us>>  wrote:
>>> No, we LOST.   You see, once they have the power, they have
the power.
>>> It
>>> is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get "partial
>>> exemption".
>>>
>>> I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead
for this.
>>>
>>> As far as I’m concerned it's "come and arrest me, coppers" and
I will
>>> damn
>>> well NOT comply.
>>>
>>> And if we all did that.  They'd just give up.   But we're too
chicken to
>>> stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently.   I
don't know
>>> when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the
>>> government what to do and where to get off, not the other way
around.
 

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Jeromie Reeves]

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Charles N Wyble
 wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/20/2010 04:56 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
>> While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed)
>> wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would
>> like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue
>> with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be
>> forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must
>> have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for
>> everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network)
>> with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer
>> 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed
>> not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that
>> is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to
>> wake up and go pickup the kids.
>
>
> Um.
>
> so you want the big guys to have to play by certain rules (be dumb
> pipes) but you wouldn't have to play by those rules as a small player?
>
> Why shouldn't that regulation be applied to wisps as well? Why shouldn't
> you have to share spectrum?
>
> Let's realize we are all in this together and come up with workable
> solutions. Let's be partners with the ISPs and not make it us vs them.

You did not read my post well at all. I DID say wireless should play
by the same rules, just not ALL wireless.
900,2.4,5.x and such unlicensed bands . I said NEW
bands should be found and licensed . The
rules also should be a little different
for wireless, since it is a more over subscribed pipe then
cable/dsl/fiber. Still, a NEW band WITH the sharing
rules I would be all for. It needs to be LICENSED as such.

>
> .
>
> I have been doing a lot of thinking about how to make packet movement
> (in particular backhaul) somewhat more fair. I already discussed peering
> on the list in recent days.
>
> Have folks been following the NBN rollout in Australlia? It leaves a
> certain amount of rough edges on the implementation specifics (see the
> AUSNOG mailing list archives for several very detailed discussions).
> However it's a national l2 network. Pretty cool stuff.
>
> See I'm a layer3 and above guy, and have targeted very specific areas
> for my wireless deployment (currently in 4 locations in the greater
> la/oc area). I'm deploying an advertising network and giving internet
> access away. I'm going into areas that don't have a lot of existing
> wifi, running heavily localized advertising driven hotspots. So I don't
> have spectrum issues.

This is what I am doing also, cept I am targeting areas that both have
and do not have a lot of
existing wifi. One of the good things since everyone jumped on the
WPA/2 bandwagon is no more
open wifi! =)

>
> However I face the same problems as many wisps at layer3 and above
> (namely getting bandwidth at a good price where I need it).
>
> So what would folks like to see? Would you like to see a layer1/2
> "natural monopolie" run as a municipal utility, that would run an open
> access/co-op fiber network?

No. For ILECs to be ran as a layer1 corp, and everyone layer 2+ to be
ran as a separate one.
That would mean that I could do layer2+ where I wanted to on tax payer
funded lines, and my
other corp could do layer1, with or with out tax payer monies. Corp1
has to lease from Corp2 and
Corp2 has to lease to  under the same schedule. No
sweetheart deals for my self
cause I am both Corp 1 and Corp 2. Take Qw's $15 DSL. It costs ME
$40/mo for that same loop
with NO IP on it. It was paid for by tax payers, it should be
available. And do you think Qw will
let ME into the local CO or the RT's to offer better services?

>
> How many here participated in the broadband forum meetings that were
> held prior to the Obama election? How many people here reached out to
> those folks and requested exactly this? I know I did (I went to the Los
> Angeles meeting).
>
> Don't get mad, get even!!!
>
> Hmmm... the above was a bit rambling... looks like rough pieces of a
> mind map for a blog post. :)
>
> Things to think about anyway.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDK  wrote:
>>> No, we LOST.   You see, once they have the power, they have the power.    It
>>> is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get "partial exemption".
>>>
>>> I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this.
>>>
>>> As far as I’m concerned it's "come and arrest me, coppers" and I will damn
>>> well NOT comply.
>>>
>>> And if we all did that.  They'd just give up.   But we're too chicken to
>>> stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently.   I don't know
>>> when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the
>>> government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around.
>>>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Bob Moldashel]

Excuse me but is your signature big enough on this e-mail??

:-)

regarding this FCC thing...

Some how, some way this thing will bite us in the butt and reward the 
big guys.


-B-





On 12/20/2010 8:05 PM, St. Louis Broadband wrote:


Yes it is!

*Victoria Proffer - President/CEO*

www.ShowMeBroadband.com

www.StLouisBroadband.com

314-974-5600

*From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
*On Behalf Of *Joe Fiero

*Sent:* Monday, December 20, 2010 4:12 PM
*To:* 'WISPA General List'
*Subject:* [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

It's good to see all our efforts pay off.

REUTERS  updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55

WASHINGTON --- The Federal Communications Commission is expected to 
adopt Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of 
lawful content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage 
their networks, senior agency officials said Monday.


Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns 
with the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early 
this month, but senior FCC officials said they had come to an 
agreement and are expected to vote in favor of the rules.


Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but 
allowing Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge 
consumers based on Internet usage.


The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband 
, 
Genachowski said in a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is 
at an earlier stage of development than terrestrial Internet service.






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/