[WISPA] Results from the Title II survey
Survey Says: Total of 20 votes. 2 say it's a good thing. 18 say it's a bad thing. Figured as much, but just wanted to see. Totally appreciate your input! Thanks everyone and have a great weekend! -drew ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
So here's what sparked the question. I was trying to get some point-counterpoint going on with a friend of mine and found some pretty good arguments on each. This article made me think about it all a little differently: ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
So here's what sparked the question. I was trying to get some point-counterpoint going on with a friend of mine and found some pretty good arguments on each. This article made me think about it all a little differently: http://www.netcompetition.org/congress/the-multi-billion-dollar-impact-of-fcc-title-ii-broadband-for-google-entire-internet-ecosystem To Fred's point, the article mentions: That’s because of the way the law and the forbearance provision are written; they apparently do not allow for any immaculate ruling where the FCC somehow rules the service and carrier of Internet traffic are regulated, but not the Internet traffic itself that is precisely what defines the service and carrier. Anyhow, not trying to beat a dead horse, but this got me questioning things :) Have a great weekend y'all! -drew On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Drew Lentz d...@drewlentz.com wrote: So here's what sparked the question. I was trying to get some point-counterpoint going on with a friend of mine and found some pretty good arguments on each. This article made me think about it all a little differently: ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
On 11/21/2014 5:47 PM, Drew Lentz wrote: So here's what sparked the question. I was trying to get some point-counterpoint going on with a friend of mine and found some pretty good arguments on each. This article made me think about it all a little differently: http://www.netcompetition.org/congress/the-multi-billion-dollar-impact-of-fcc-title-ii-broadband-for-google-entire-internet-ecosystem To Fred's point, the article mentions: That's because of the way the law and the forbearance provision are written; they apparently do not allow for any immaculate ruling where the FCC somehow rules the service and carrier of Internet traffic are regulated, but not the Internet traffic itself that is precisely what defines the service and carrier. The article is pure garbage. Read the January ruling of the DC Circuit. It was quite clear that the Computer II framework was legal. And the Telecom Act was meant to memorialize that, not overturn it. The Computer II framework very explicitly held that the basic carrier function was regulated while the higher-layer enhanced traffic was not. The reason the FCC keeps getting in trouble is that they don't want restore that working model, since it would hurt some carriers' fee-fees. The idea that Title II requires metered pricing makes less sense than the average diarrhea that comes from Louis Gohmerts' tuchus. The .0007 rate is for termination of local telephone calls; it has nothing to do with bits or data services. Whoever wrote the article is either a) an utter ignoramus; b) an utterly contemptible liar, or c) both. There are all sorts of reasons why Title II would break the Internet. But applied to the access layer, it would simply mean that ISPs could lease DSL for a certain price per line per month, and perhaps a certain number of cents per gigabit, but that price would have to be just and reasonable in light of its actual cost to provision. Oh, and Scott Cleland is now a lobbyist for the Bells, a professional liar who used to pretend to be an industry analyst for the Wall Street crowd, but who always shilled for the Bells. Anyhow, not trying to beat a dead horse, but this got me questioning things :) Have a great weekend y'all! -drew On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Drew Lentz d...@drewlentz.com mailto:d...@drewlentz.com wrote: So here's what sparked the question. I was trying to get some point-counterpoint going on with a friend of mine and found some pretty good arguments on each. This article made me think about it all a little differently: ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Fred R. Goldstein k1iofred at interisle.net Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
Just and reasonable... Give me a break. There is a reason the carriers let the POTS network decay... My wife, before she died, spent 28 years with Michigan Bell... From before Judge Greene, thru Ameritec and then SBC. She saw this from the inside. Because they were forced to allow others to use their wired plant at prices below the cost of maintenance, let alone upgrades. Do you want to be forced to allow other to use your wireless network? And have your costs and reimbursements determined by bureaucrats? Title II, if forced on the small wisps, will kill us. -- On 11/21/2014 6:19 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: On 11/21/2014 5:47 PM, Drew Lentz wrote: So here's what sparked the question. I was trying to get some point-counterpoint going on with a friend of mine and found some pretty good arguments on each. This article made me think about it all a little differently: http://www.netcompetition.org/congress/the-multi-billion-dollar-impact-of-fcc-title-ii-broadband-for-google-entire-internet-ecosystem To Fred's point, the article mentions: That's because of the way the law and the forbearance provision are written; they apparently do not allow for any immaculate ruling where the FCC somehow rules the service and carrier of Internet traffic are regulated, but not the Internet traffic itself that is precisely what defines the service and carrier. The article is pure garbage. Read the January ruling of the DC Circuit. It was quite clear that the Computer II framework was legal. And the Telecom Act was meant to memorialize that, not overturn it. The Computer II framework very explicitly held that the basic carrier function was regulated while the higher-layer enhanced traffic was not. The reason the FCC keeps getting in trouble is that they don't want restore that working model, since it would hurt some carriers' fee-fees. The idea that Title II requires metered pricing makes less sense than the average diarrhea that comes from Louis Gohmerts' tuchus. The .0007 rate is for termination of local telephone calls; it has nothing to do with bits or data services. Whoever wrote the article is either a) an utter ignoramus; b) an utterly contemptible liar, or c) both. There are all sorts of reasons why Title II would break the Internet. But applied to the access layer, it would simply mean that ISPs could lease DSL for a certain price per line per month, and perhaps a certain number of cents per gigabit, but that price would have to be just and reasonable in light of its actual cost to provision. Oh, and Scott Cleland is now a lobbyist for the Bells, a professional liar who used to pretend to be an industry analyst for the Wall Street crowd, but who always shilled for the Bells. Anyhow, not trying to beat a dead horse, but this got me questioning things :) Have a great weekend y'all! -drew On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Drew Lentz d...@drewlentz.com mailto:d...@drewlentz.com wrote: So here's what sparked the question. I was trying to get some point-counterpoint going on with a friend of mine and found some pretty good arguments on each. This article made me think about it all a little differently: ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Fred R. Goldstein k1iofred at interisle.net Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- West Michigan Wireless ISP Allegan, Michigan 49010 269-686-8648 A Division of: Camp Communication Services, INC ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for service
Half my family is from Tracy. Fond memories from there. On Friday, November 14, 2014, Kristian Hoffmann kh...@fire2wire.com wrote: Yerp... http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/california -Kristian On 11/14/2014 03:51 PM, Brian Wilson wrote: There's a California list? On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Kristian Hoffmann kh...@fire2wire.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kh...@fire2wire.com'); wrote: Cool. I'll set something up. Are you guys all on the California list? -Kristian On 11/14/2014 11:55 AM, Mike Lyon wrote: Totally should! On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Kristian Hoffmann kh...@fire2wire.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kh...@fire2wire.com'); wrote: We should have a mini-meet at the black bear, since we all seem to be close enough to smell the same stink. ;-) -Kristian On 11/14/2014 11:37 AM, Mike Lyon wrote: Yes, it actually is because of a particular stockyard right at that intersection next to the sugar factory and train tracks. Moo. -Mike On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Tim Kerns t...@cv-access.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','t...@cv-access.com'); wrote: Manteca in the early 80’s had stockyards The smell is most likely residual... *From:* Mike Lyon javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mike.l...@gmail.com'); *Sent:* Friday, November 14, 2014 11:07 AM *To:* WISPA General List javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','wireless@wispa.org'); *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Looking for service Which is odd, because Manteca at 205 and 99 DOES smell like a bathroom. Think they accidentally swapped the names... On Nov 14, 2014 10:46 AM, Kristian Hoffmann kh...@fire2wire.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kh...@fire2wire.com'); wrote: A stones throw from our office in Salida (Exit) which sits on the county line, and about an hour from Los Banos (the bathrooms). I'm sure I'm missing some, buts omeone sure had a sense of humor. -Kristian On 11/14/2014 09:54 AM, Gino Villarini wrote: Manteca! Wow that translate to Lard in spanish… Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr From: John Thomas jtho...@quarnet.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jtho...@quarnet.com'); Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','wireless@wispa.org'); Date: Friday, November 14, 2014 at 1:48 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','wireless@wispa.org'); Subject: [WISPA] Looking for service Looking for 10 meg 1640 West Yosemite Blvd. Manteca, CA 95337 *Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID* ___ Wireless mailing listwirel...@wispa.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Wireless@wispa.org');http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Wireless@wispa.org'); http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Wireless@wispa.org'); http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Wireless@wispa.org'); http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.l...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mike.l...@gmail.com'); http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon ___ Wireless mailing listwirel...@wispa.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Wireless@wispa.org');http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Wireless@wispa.org'); http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.l...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mike.l...@gmail.com'); http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon ___ Wireless mailing listwirel...@wispa.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Wireless@wispa.org');http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Wireless@wispa.org'); http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Brian Wilson currently in Gold Beach, OR ___ Wireless mailing listwirel...@wispa.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Wireless@wispa.org');http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
On 11/21/2014 7:39 PM, Blair Davis wrote: Just and reasonable... Give me a break. There is a reason the carriers let the POTS network decay... My wife, before she died, spent 28 years with Michigan Bell... From before Judge Greene, thru Ameritec and then SBC. She saw this from the inside. Because they were forced to allow others to use their wired plant at prices below the cost of maintenance, let alone upgrades. That was the Bell party line, for public consumption, but it wasn't true. Section 251 (sections of the Communications Act, 47 USC, beginning with 2 are in Title II) has the rules for demonopolization of PSTN carriers. They had a de jure monopoly; they still have a natural monopoly on mass-market services. So they have facilities that are a necessary inpu to competitive providers. They built their networks using rate of return regulation and de jure monopoly status (essentially a guarantee of profit) and that put them at the 24 mile line in the competitive marathon. Section 251 says that ILECs specifically and uniquely have to provide unbundled network elements at forward-looking cost. Just what cost is is not a simple answer. Cost is not price. Cost can be embedded direct cost, fully distributed (various methods), long-run incremental, total service long-run incremental, total element long-run incremental, etc. Lots of room to argue cost, and that was a lot of fun back in the rate case days, to do cost studies and argue over details. Non-ILECs have fewer obligations than ILECs. There is a separate fundamental right of common carriage if a company is deemed a common carrier, but the just and reasonable standard is generally enforced only to what I call a shocks the conscience level. No formulas, just don't horribly offend the Commission. It is very rarely invoked. The Bells stopped maintaining their plant because in 1992-1993, they transitioned from rate of return regulation to price cap (alternate form of) regulation. Under rate of return, their total profit was a percentage (11.25% return was the last number, still in use) of their rate base (undepreciated capital plant). So the investment was to invest heavily; investing in rural areas paid really well because the high cost would be recoverable from urban monopoly ratepayers. Under AFOR, though, some basic service prices are capped but not profits, so they could increase profits by reducing costs. And they sure did! AFOR was met by massive layoffs and a general decline in maintenance. Accountants running companies devalue the future, so disinvestment look good to short term profits, and CEOs live for quarterly bonuses, which are not based on how they position the company for 10 years out. Well, 20 years of AFOR and the chickens have come home to roost. The plant is very heavily depreciated, not maintained, and the parent companies have put their capital into wireless, which has been more profitable lately. Such is deregulation, helping turn the USA into a third world country while rentiers take the money and run. Do you want to be forced to allow other to use your wireless network? And have your costs and reimbursements determined by bureaucrats? This would not apply to WISPs even in the unlikely event that WISPs were covered by Title II (which I've strongly opposed). They were never common carriers, and WISP plant is generally not suited for it. (There are wireless common carriers, and you could create one if you wanted, but it would be a choice.) And non-ILEC prices are never set by regulators. The Just Reasonable standard is only raised when a price is truly out of line, like the $68 3-minute pay phone call, or prison phone calls (always collect, typically at dollars per minute, which the FCC is cracking down on now). Not even ILEC retail rates are set by regulators any more, just wholesale rates, which are regulated as part of the must-carry nature of the PSTN. Title II, if forced on the small wisps, will kill us. Probably true, but it's not the facilities they're talking about now, it's the data itself, which Title II was never meant to regulate, so it wouldn't stand up in court. -- On 11/21/2014 6:19 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: On 11/21/2014 5:47 PM, Drew Lentz wrote: So here's what sparked the question. I was trying to get some point-counterpoint going on with a friend of mine and found some pretty good arguments on each. This article made me think about it all a little differently: http://www.netcompetition.org/congress/the-multi-billion-dollar-impact-of-fcc-title-ii-broadband-for-google-entire-internet-ecosystem To Fred's point, the article mentions: That's because of the way the law and the forbearance provision are written; they apparently do not allow for any immaculate ruling where the FCC somehow rules the service and carrier of Internet traffic are regulated, but not the Internet traffic itself that is precisely
