Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
I'm gonna respectfully say that, from the inside, being told 'That not one of our clients, don't worry about how long the repair lasts.' and 'Why should we bother to put a DSLAM out there? It's only gonna get used up by them anyway.' and 'That pair of T1's is more than enough to feed that subdivision... They aren't our users anyway.' and lots more similar comments in the trenches tend to make me somewhat skeptical of that. I won't say that it may not have been a part of it. I will say, that as the workers saw it, when forced to give away their bread n butter, they rightly felt that it wasn't their problem anymore. When I refer to workers, I mean anyone who would have been CWA or equivalent. I'll even include lower management. Prior to Judge Greene, there was an /'esprit de corps'/ among the people of the Bell System. It persisted under Ameritec... for a while. By the time SBC was trying to become ATT all over again, it was gone. And when SBC became att, the employees, as far as I could see, didn't give a damn any more. It became more 'Good enough to get paid. By the time that becomes a problem, I'll be somewhere else...' . Prior to that, people expected to be working on and using the plant forever. When they fixed something, the fix was intended to last longer that the original. Mary left after 28 years because the culture was gone. She no longer liked working there. -- // On 11/22/2014 12:13 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: 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
Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
On 11/22/2014 5:02 AM, Blair Davis wrote: I'm gonna respectfully say that, from the inside, being told 'That not one of our clients, don't worry about how long the repair lasts.' and 'Why should we bother to put a DSLAM out there? It's only gonna get used up by them anyway.' and 'That pair of T1's is more than enough to feed that subdivision... They aren't our users anyway.' and lots more similar comments in the trenches tend to make me somewhat skeptical of that. I won't say that it may not have been a part of it. I will say, that as the workers saw it, when forced to give away their bread n butter, they rightly felt that it wasn't their problem anymore. When I refer to workers, I mean anyone who would have been CWA or equivalent. I'll even include lower management. To be blunt, the workers were lied to by management. During that era, CWA and IBEW were basically house unions, helping tout the management line so long as their salaries were decent. And under rate-of-return regulation, salaries were allowable expense, passed through 100% to ratepayers so they could pay well. But in reality those lines were just lines, not the truth. Bell culture simply did not recognize the value of wholesale, the channel. It was direct retail sales or nothing. The automobile industry was the opposite -- the dealer network did the heavy lifting of dealing with the actual users. Go to any retail store and you'll see the channel at work, the retailer buying wholesale. It works really well for Levi Strauss, Ralph Lauren, etc. Before the FCC relieved the Bells of their Title II reporting obligations, but before they relieved them of their wholesale obligations, they reported profit separately for their various subsidiaries. The raw DSL (wholesale) and other wholesale businesses were profitable (Special Access tends towards a 100%+ rate of return!), but the Internet retail subsidiaries, the ones that competed directly with real ISPs, were unprofitable. AFAIK they've never made money on Internet. They only want to drive of the other providers so they can kill it, but now it's too important to kill, hence the NN kerfuffle. Had the Bells been real businesses, managed for long-term profit (vs. management control and ego-tripping), they would have embraced the wholesale channel, not lied about it. Prior to Judge Greene, there was an /'esprit de corps'/ among the people of the Bell System. It persisted under Ameritec... for a while. By the time SBC was trying to become ATT all over again, it was gone. And when SBC became att, the employees, as far as I could see, didn't give a damn any more. It became more 'Good enough to get paid. By the time that becomes a problem, I'll be somewhere else...' . Prior to that, people expected to be working on and using the plant forever. When they fixed something, the fix was intended to last longer that the original. Mary left after 28 years because the culture was gone. She no longer liked working there. It should come as no surprise that the unions are no longer on management's side; they're tired of being dicked around. It wasn't Judge Greene who ended that esprit, either. It was a change in American business culture to one where short-term profit was all that mattered, where CEOs were a privileged class of super-high-paid suckups who got bonuses for both succes and failure, and union-busting was raised to a high art. AFOR was more damaging to labor relations than later demonopolization, as it made salaries and benefits an actual drain on shareholder returns, rather than an allowable expense. (Recall that after Standard Oil was broken up in 1912, it only took a few years before the sum of the parts was worth three times as much as the previous whole. Shareholders, including Rockefeller, cried all the way to the bank.) Now they're in the final stages of abandoning the undermaintained plant, using excuses like IP transition. It mostly means dumping on their last union employees by pushing more business onto non-union wireless subsidiaries. // On 11/22/2014 12:13 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: 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
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] 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
Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
Man we went through all those guys as they rose and fell in the early years. We had a 2x2Mbps SDSL line in our apt in college and it turned into homework central for all our friends that needed to push heavy data back to campus computing systems but didn't want to hang out in the labs all night. I also remember what a total trainwreck it was getting circuits provisioned/moved for our integration customers as BellSouth would drag their feet so bad. That mess is what pushed me into wireless to start with. On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Robert nos...@avantwireless.com wrote: Ah the days of Covad, Northpoint, etc.. Racing to get high speed internet to needy customers on VC dollars not knowing that behind their backs a quick regulation change would make all that easy pickings for the incumbents... Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.. Fred, please gaze into your magic ball of the past and give us a clue to our future? Are our collective necks starting to hover over the ax block? On 11/19/2014 08:32 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: Chuckle :) You all don't know who Fred is :) He has a weee bit of experience in these matters. :) I am reading this discussion about Title II and having a dejavu !!! What you all see coming to our door steps in form of Title II via the FCC, is pretty similar to what the we saw about 5 to 10 years ago on the wireline side.. there it was 'de-regulation' or Forbearance from Title II regulations.It is rather interesting and comical (sarcasm) to see the 'regulatory pendulum' swinging in the opposite direction...I wish there is a way to turn all the arguments presented and accepted by the FCC at that time to grant forbearance could be re-presented to them And yes, Fred is a subject matter expert on Wireline Regulation /FCC... (Think of him like a Steve Coran of the wireline world). :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: Eric Tykwinski eric-l...@truenet.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:10:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? Fred, It’s a little late, but damn, that was a good description of the problem. I’m hoping and just hoping, that Wheeler understands exactly what the problem really is. Everyone thinks Title II is a hammer both on the ILEC and the public activist side, but in reality I hope that the FCC does have a bit more common sense and see that competition is what will lead to the public good in the long run. Now if the lawyers can actually come up with something that will legally stick, well that’s up in the air. Sincerely, Eric Tykwinski TrueNet, Inc. P: 610-429-8300 F: 610-429-3222 On Nov 19, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Kevin Sullivan kevin.sulli...@alyrica.net wrote: Wow, that was well thought out. I'd say that's a pretty good assessment! Kevin - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein f...@interisle.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:26 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? On 11/19/2014 8:49 AM, Drew Lentz wrote: I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3R6YTH9 I'm curious to see what the percentages are between those that support and those that don't support the Title II argument. I've been trying to get a good feel for who would and wouldn't like it (mostly it seems carriers love it, web services hate it.) I have a feeling WISPs might be on the hate it side, but I'm interested to find out. Thanks for your answer and have a fantastic day! You asked the question very poorly, so there is no one correct answer. Broadband is an adjective. You don't regulate adjectives, you regulate nouns. Broadband what? This is the fallacy of today's public discourse -- they are using this adjective as a noun without the noun, so different people use it to have different referents. I think I'm in pretty close harmony with the WISPA position here, given that Steve Coran chose me to help him give his NN talk in Vegas last month based on my detailed Comments on the topic to the FCC. And I've been writing and Commenting on this for years. Several years ago I told the FCC that they were using this adjective as a noun, but that they could separate the two primary implied nouns by using a Spanish-language convention. El Broadband would refer to the physical facility, the high speed transmission medium. La Broadband would refer to the content of the facility, including Internet service delivered over it. (If you don't know Spanish, el radio is a device and la radio is a program.) But in lawyer terms, El Broadband is the telecommunications component, and La Broadband
Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
This is very informative, thanks Fred. I guess the part that I'm still confused about is the whole content neutrality/fastlane conversation, the only part general consumers care about as the political base pushing for these changes has made it into the single marketing pitch. I mean sure, at first glance it seems like a good idea to prevent telco/cable companies from parsing up the internet into psuedo-channels (worst case). But of course it's not that simple. What part of the proposed NN rules dictates how content is managed to make it neutral? For delivery/reporting/transport regulations, seems to me that if the feds want us to play by big boy rules then they need to give us big boy tools (spectrum). And real spectrum, not tiny neutered slices. Licensed (real, not this 3.65 nonsense), high power, wide bands (for mfg efficiency). On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Fred Goldstein f...@interisle.net wrote: On 11/19/2014 8:49 AM, Drew Lentz wrote: I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3R6YTH9 I'm curious to see what the percentages are between those that support and those that don't support the Title II argument. I've been trying to get a good feel for who would and wouldn't like it (mostly it seems carriers love it, web services hate it.) I have a feeling WISPs might be on the hate it side, but I'm interested to find out. Thanks for your answer and have a fantastic day! You asked the question very poorly, so there is no one correct answer. Broadband is an adjective. You don't regulate adjectives, you regulate nouns. Broadband what? This is the fallacy of today's public discourse -- they are using this adjective as a noun without the noun, so different people use it to have different referents. I think I'm in pretty close harmony with the WISPA position here, given that Steve Coran chose me to help him give his NN talk in Vegas last month based on my detailed Comments on the topic to the FCC. And I've been writing and Commenting on this for years. Several years ago I told the FCC that they were using this adjective as a noun, but that they could separate the two primary implied nouns by using a Spanish-language convention. El Broadband would refer to the physical facility, the high speed transmission medium. La Broadband would refer to the content of the facility, including Internet service delivered over it. (If you don't know Spanish, el radio is a device and la radio is a program.) But in lawyer terms, El Broadband is the telecommunications component, and La Broadband is the information service riding atop it. The reason NN is a Thing is that the FCC, in 2005, threw away the law (TA96) and decided that telephone companies could stop being common carriers, stop providing ISPs with El Broadband (raw DSL), and simply sell La Broadband as a vertically-integrated service with exclusive access to their formerly common-carrier facilities. So typical consumers in cities went from having many ISP choices (one cable company and many ISPs available via DSL) to two (one each cable and DSL). The public reaction to this was, understandably, rather negative. They recognized that they could be screwed by their cable and telco duopolists (monopolists in many areas, and more in the future as the ILECs abandon their copper plant without replacing it). But not recognizing the difference between a network (what carries IP) and an internetwork (the Internet itself, content slung across many networks), they demanded network neutrality referring to the ISP function itself. And the FCC obliged, being basically political, by proposing the regulation of Internet services, but not regulating the actual telecom provided by the monopolists. So I'm in favor of applying Title II to the actual telecommunications component of broadband services provided by incumbents, and those using rivalrous facilities (those that exclude others, including pole attachments, conduits, and exclusively-licensed frequencies). But those who only compete with incumbent cable and telco, or who use non-rivalrous facilities and frequencies (that includes essentially all WISPs), would not fall under Title II whatsoever, and neither would the Internet backbone or anything done on the Internet itself (IP layer on up, but this does not refer to IP-based voice services provided by facility owners). So I'm in favor of Title II for some broadband stuff (where it opens monopoly wire to competitive ISPs) but not others (where it regulates the Internet or WISPs). Got it? That's why the question is wrong. -- 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 ___ Wireless mailing list
Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
On 11/20/2014 12:07 AM, Robert wrote: Ah the days of Covad, Northpoint, etc.. Racing to get high speed internet to needy customers on VC dollars not knowing that behind their backs a quick regulation change would make all that easy pickings for the incumbents... Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.. Fred, please gaze into your magic ball of the past and give us a clue to our future? Are our collective necks starting to hover over the ax block? Ah yes, the days of Covad and Northpoint. It was fun to watch them fail. This wasn't however the FCC's doing. The crazy speculators of the day (investor is too kind a term for them) were dumping money where it was obviously impossible to make a profit, hoping a greater fool would bail them out. When there were six CLECs selling SDSL (aimed at business, full loop) in a suburban CO that didn't have a lot of businesses in it, you knew they were failures. I wrote about this in my book The Great Telecom Meltdown. One thing I like about the WISP business is that the participants don't have other people's money to waste so they're run like actual businesses. Of course the FCC came along and killed off most of the surviving real businesses a couple of years later. Their rule changes were justified by predictions that, predictably to us, never came true. It was a farce; SBC (n/k/a ATT) and Verizon had that FCC in their pocket and they weren't even trying to look fair. As to the crystal ball gazing: I think the WISPs will survive, and I credit WISPA and its legal and FCC teams for a lot of this. The wireline ISP and CLEC businesses never had good organizations behind them -- there were CLEC groups made up of the big guys who mostly did resale/platform, but nobody lobbying for the smaller and more data-oriented CLECs. WISPA literally gets a seat at the table (Steve Coran last week, for instance) so our needs are heard, and on record (which matters come appeal time -- no new facts allowed, but you can mine the record). My actual forecast is that Wheeler, in a few months, will come out with a cockamamie plan that tries to regulate the Internet itself using Section 706 authority, though he might touch Title II. It is likely to not directly impose common carrier regulation (Title II) on WISPs, but it might impact their upstream ISPs. It might make things a little difficult for some WISPs but not be fatal. In any case it will be appealed. Then after the 2016 election, the Court will throw out the bulk of it, noting that Section 706 is not a grant of authority after all (this was a legal issue they overlooked in the last case, where Verizon failed to point that out) and that Title II was aimed at common carriers, not information service providers, and the FCC will have failed to demonstrate that ISPs are common carriers when engaging in peering. Thus no Title II there. (Title II is absolutely legal to apply to the access wire of otherwise-regulated carriers, at the lower layers, and the DC Circuit said so in January. Tom will not go there. If he were to go there, he probably would not touch WISPs -- my Comment gave him a good way to draw that line without saying WISP out loud needing to define the term.) In other words, the FCC will write convoluted rules *designed to be overturned*, so that the next FCC (each president gets his/her own chairman) will be handed the issue again, and have to figure out how to kick the can down the road another 4/8 years, hoping it all goes away. On 11/19/2014 08:32 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: Chuckle :) You all don't know who Fred is :) He has a weee bit of experience in these matters. :) I am reading this discussion about Title II and having a dejavu !!! What you all see coming to our door steps in form of Title II via the FCC, is pretty similar to what the we saw about 5 to 10 years ago on the wireline side.. there it was 'de-regulation' or Forbearance from Title II regulations.It is rather interesting and comical (sarcasm) to see the 'regulatory pendulum' swinging in the opposite direction...I wish there is a way to turn all the arguments presented and accepted by the FCC at that time to grant forbearance could be re-presented to them And yes, Fred is a subject matter expert on Wireline Regulation /FCC... (Think of him like a Steve Coran of the wireline world). :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: Eric Tykwinski eric-l...@truenet.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:10:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? Fred, It’s a little late, but damn, that was a good description of the problem. I’m hoping and just hoping, that Wheeler understands exactly
[WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3R6YTH9 I'm curious to see what the percentages are between those that support and those that don't support the Title II argument. I've been trying to get a good feel for who would and wouldn't like it (mostly it seems carriers love it, web services hate it.) I have a feeling WISPs might be on the hate it side, but I'm interested to find out. Thanks for your answer and have a fantastic day! -d ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
I can't imagine why anyone other than a blind consumer would love it. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Drew Lentz d...@drewlentz.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:49:20 AM Subject: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3R6YTH9 I'm curious to see what the percentages are between those that support and those that don't support the Title II argument. I've been trying to get a good feel for who would and wouldn't like it (mostly it seems carriers love it, web services hate it.) I have a feeling WISPs might be on the hate it side, but I'm interested to find out. Thanks for your answer and have a fantastic day! -d ___ Wireless mailing list 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?
I'm guessing that while the phone companies may not like the idea it seems a little less onerous to them since they are already dealing with Title II. If nothing else it will weed out the smaller competition in their eyes. While the cable companies or more strongly in the hate it camp I doubt they will be getting out of the business if it comes about. Depending on what requirements actually come out of Title II for ISPs will probably have several WISPs close their doors. If there isn't some sort of small business exemption I doubt I will stay in the business. On 11/19/2014 07:51 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: I can't imagine why anyone other than a blind consumer would love it. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com https://www.facebook.com/ICSILhttps://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalbhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutionshttps://twitter.com/ICSIL *From: *Drew Lentz d...@drewlentz.com *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:49:20 AM *Subject: *[WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3R6YTH9 I'm curious to see what the percentages are between those that support and those that don't support the Title II argument. I've been trying to get a good feel for who would and wouldn't like it (mostly it seems carriers love it, web services hate it.) I have a feeling WISPs might be on the hate it side, but I'm interested to find out. Thanks for your answer and have a fantastic day! -d ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list 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?
Here is my confusion on this issue. Everyone is acting like it is the great harbinger for Internet companies. One of the biggest problems I have is lack of clear information. I'm not saying I have any of those answers for certainty but I will point a few things I have picked up meanwhile donning my flame proof cap. - Requires us to be able to provide per service reporting of traffic (I think of it as a port span or flow-analysis of a particular service user, which is fairly easy to do and you should already be able to do this) - Talks about potentially a 16% fee on service. This will not make you shut your doors big or small because every provider will have to do this and I can assure you in the long run no one is eating that cost but the consumer. Also this is fundamentally good for rural Americans. Rural areas have phone service because of that fund when used properly. Now it would include proper broadband access. This is the only risk I see to the WISP model. There is nothing that says you can't play both sides and become a participant in utilizing the USF to build out infrastructure even if that means doing scary things like diving into ground models like fiber. - The biggest one I have is fair treatment of traffic. To me this is the default way to run an ISP. I don't want an ISP that slows down certain traffic and I definitely don't want to be the service provider that does that. I'd rather see more guaranteed bandwidth numbers and a flatter pricing scheme even if that means a higher cost to the consumer. What I mean by that is if you deploy 100mbps of service to an area and you start signing up users and all the sudden you are promising everyone 20% over what you can provide them at the head-end don't use the words up to in your service agreement. Either adjust the service speeds to control the talking on a head-end radio or make adjustments to your architecture to accommodate the bursts in traffic. What that might mean is more smaller cells to service an area and yes that costs money. Nothing is free in this world so if it costs X dollars to provide Y services to consumers that want Y then such is life. No on complains when they need to upgrade their electrical service at home because they want to run more equipment or devices. If that means I as the consumer that wants to stream HD Netflix in 4 rooms has to upgrade my service then so be it. The provider (You/Me) can then build out our infrastructure to accommodate that need at the cost you and your customer agree on or he/she just decides that their bandwidth needs doesn't match the price point to achieve what they are trying to do and goes back to buying DVDs through Amazon. This also works on the upstream, as a small WISP do you really want to be on the receiving end of a big provider possibly your only option for decent upstream connectivity to suddenly start slowing down certain types of traffic? Then you are faced with trying to provide a service that your customers might demand without any ability other than potentially an extremely expensive one to fill that need. I think it is always better to not shape traffic for customers. Let them manage their connection to the Internet. Instead for high throughput applications we should push for the option to deploy CDN like edge devices from these larger service providers if the actual throughput is not available or more costly. Alright I've got my flame retardant cap on let the replies flood in :) Tim On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.net wrote: I'm guessing that while the phone companies may not like the idea it seems a little less onerous to them since they are already dealing with Title II. If nothing else it will weed out the smaller competition in their eyes. While the cable companies or more strongly in the hate it camp I doubt they will be getting out of the business if it comes about. Depending on what requirements actually come out of Title II for ISPs will probably have several WISPs close their doors. If there isn't some sort of small business exemption I doubt I will stay in the business. On 11/19/2014 07:51 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: I can't imagine why anyone other than a blind consumer would love it. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions https://twitter.com/ICSIL -- *From: *Drew Lentz d...@drewlentz.com d...@drewlentz.com *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:49:20 AM *Subject: *[WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous. https
Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
consumer would love it. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com https://www.facebook.com/ICSILhttps://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalbhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutionshttps://twitter.com/ICSIL *From: *Drew Lentz d...@drewlentz.com mailto:d...@drewlentz.com *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:49:20 AM *Subject: *[WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3R6YTH9 I'm curious to see what the percentages are between those that support and those that don't support the Title II argument. I've been trying to get a good feel for who would and wouldn't like it (mostly it seems carriers love it, web services hate it.) I have a feeling WISPs might be on the hate it side, but I'm interested to find out. Thanks for your answer and have a fantastic day! -d ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4213/8595 - Release Date: 11/19/14 -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
On 11/19/2014 8:49 AM, Drew Lentz wrote: I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3R6YTH9 I'm curious to see what the percentages are between those that support and those that don't support the Title II argument. I've been trying to get a good feel for who would and wouldn't like it (mostly it seems carriers love it, web services hate it.) I have a feeling WISPs might be on the hate it side, but I'm interested to find out. Thanks for your answer and have a fantastic day! You asked the question very poorly, so there is no one correct answer. Broadband is an adjective. You don't regulate adjectives, you regulate nouns. Broadband what? This is the fallacy of today's public discourse -- they are using this adjective as a noun without the noun, so different people use it to have different referents. I think I'm in pretty close harmony with the WISPA position here, given that Steve Coran chose me to help him give his NN talk in Vegas last month based on my detailed Comments on the topic to the FCC. And I've been writing and Commenting on this for years. Several years ago I told the FCC that they were using this adjective as a noun, but that they could separate the two primary implied nouns by using a Spanish-language convention. El Broadband would refer to the physical facility, the high speed transmission medium. La Broadband would refer to the content of the facility, including Internet service delivered over it. (If you don't know Spanish, el radio is a device and la radio is a program.) But in lawyer terms, El Broadband is the telecommunications component, and La Broadband is the information service riding atop it. The reason NN is a Thing is that the FCC, in 2005, threw away the law (TA96) and decided that telephone companies could stop being common carriers, stop providing ISPs with El Broadband (raw DSL), and simply sell La Broadband as a vertically-integrated service with exclusive access to their formerly common-carrier facilities. So typical consumers in cities went from having many ISP choices (one cable company and many ISPs available via DSL) to two (one each cable and DSL). The public reaction to this was, understandably, rather negative. They recognized that they could be screwed by their cable and telco duopolists (monopolists in many areas, and more in the future as the ILECs abandon their copper plant without replacing it). But not recognizing the difference between a network (what carries IP) and an internetwork (the Internet itself, content slung across many networks), they demanded network neutrality referring to the ISP function itself. And the FCC obliged, being basically political, by proposing the regulation of Internet services, but not regulating the actual telecom provided by the monopolists. So I'm in favor of applying Title II to the actual telecommunications component of broadband services provided by incumbents, and those using rivalrous facilities (those that exclude others, including pole attachments, conduits, and exclusively-licensed frequencies). But those who only compete with incumbent cable and telco, or who use non-rivalrous facilities and frequencies (that includes essentially all WISPs), would not fall under Title II whatsoever, and neither would the Internet backbone or anything done on the Internet itself (IP layer on up, but this does not refer to IP-based voice services provided by facility owners). So I'm in favor of Title II for some broadband stuff (where it opens monopoly wire to competitive ISPs) but not others (where it regulates the Internet or WISPs). Got it? That's why the question is wrong. -- 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?
. This also works on the upstream, as a small WISP do you really want to be on the receiving end of a big provider possibly your only option for decent upstream connectivity to suddenly start slowing down certain types of traffic? Then you are faced with trying to provide a service that your customers might demand without any ability other than potentially an extremely expensive one to fill that need. I think it is always better to not shape traffic for customers. Let them manage their connection to the Internet. Instead for high throughput applications we should push for the option to deploy CDN like edge devices from these larger service providers if the actual throughput is not available or more costly. Alright I've got my flame retardant cap on let the replies flood in :) Tim On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.net mailto:tethe...@shwisp.net wrote: I'm guessing that while the phone companies may not like the idea it seems a little less onerous to them since they are already dealing with Title II. If nothing else it will weed out the smaller competition in their eyes. While the cable companies or more strongly in the hate it camp I doubt they will be getting out of the business if it comes about. Depending on what requirements actually come out of Title II for ISPs will probably have several WISPs close their doors. If there isn't some sort of small business exemption I doubt I will stay in the business. On 11/19/2014 07:51 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: I can't imagine why anyone other than a blind consumer would love it. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com https://www.facebook.com/ICSILhttps://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalbhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutionshttps://twitter.com/ICSIL *From: *Drew Lentz d...@drewlentz.com mailto:d...@drewlentz.com *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:49:20 AM *Subject: *[WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3R6YTH9 I'm curious to see what the percentages are between those that support and those that don't support the Title II argument. I've been trying to get a good feel for who would and wouldn't like it (mostly it seems carriers love it, web services hate it.) I have a feeling WISPs might be on the hate it side, but I'm interested to find out. Thanks for your answer and have a fantastic day! -d ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list 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?
in the hate it camp I doubt they will be getting out of the business if it comes about. Depending on what requirements actually come out of Title II for ISPs will probably have several WISPs close their doors. If there isn't some sort of small business exemption I doubt I will stay in the business. On 11/19/2014 07:51 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: I can't imagine why anyone other than a blind consumer would love it. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions https://twitter.com/ICSIL -- *From: *Drew Lentz d...@drewlentz.com d...@drewlentz.com *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:49:20 AM *Subject: *[WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3R6YTH9 I'm curious to see what the percentages are between those that support and those that don't support the Title II argument. I've been trying to get a good feel for who would and wouldn't like it (mostly it seems carriers love it, web services hate it.) I have a feeling WISPs might be on the hate it side, but I'm interested to find out. Thanks for your answer and have a fantastic day! -d ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list 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?
to the Internet. Instead for high throughput applications we should push for the option to deploy CDN like edge devices from these larger service providers if the actual throughput is not available or more costly. Alright I've got my flame retardant cap on let the replies flood in :) Tim On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.net mailto:tethe...@shwisp.net wrote: I'm guessing that while the phone companies may not like the idea it seems a little less onerous to them since they are already dealing with Title II. If nothing else it will weed out the smaller competition in their eyes. While the cable companies or more strongly in the hate it camp I doubt they will be getting out of the business if it comes about. Depending on what requirements actually come out of Title II for ISPs will probably have several WISPs close their doors. If there isn't some sort of small business exemption I doubt I will stay in the business. On 11/19/2014 07:51 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: I can't imagine why anyone other than a blind consumer would love it. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com https://www.facebook.com/ICSILhttps://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalbhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutionshttps://twitter.com/ICSIL *From: *Drew Lentz d...@drewlentz.com mailto:d...@drewlentz.com *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:49:20 AM *Subject: *[WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3R6YTH9 I'm curious to see what the percentages are between those that support and those that don't support the Title II argument. I've been trying to get a good feel for who would and wouldn't like it (mostly it seems carriers love it, web services hate it.) I have a feeling WISPs might be on the hate it side, but I'm interested to find out. Thanks for your answer and have a fantastic day! -d ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list 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?
also title II regulations are why an OC3 at 150Mbps costs 100 times as much as 150Mbps metro ethernet. Ethernet is unregulated, OC3 is part of the whole terrified crap left over from MaBell etc. So even though both services are delivered over the same medium (fiber) because of the technology used OC3 is heavily regulated while ethernet is not. Title II will make internet access more expensive, not less. On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Drew Lentz d...@drewlentz.com wrote: I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3R6YTH9 I'm curious to see what the percentages are between those that support and those that don't support the Title II argument. I've been trying to get a good feel for who would and wouldn't like it (mostly it seems carriers love it, web services hate it.) I have a feeling WISPs might be on the hate it side, but I'm interested to find out. Thanks for your answer and have a fantastic day! -d ___ Wireless mailing list 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?
Wow, that was well thought out. I'd say that's a pretty good assessment! Kevin - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein f...@interisle.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:26 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? On 11/19/2014 8:49 AM, Drew Lentz wrote: I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3R6YTH9 I'm curious to see what the percentages are between those that support and those that don't support the Title II argument. I've been trying to get a good feel for who would and wouldn't like it (mostly it seems carriers love it, web services hate it.) I have a feeling WISPs might be on the hate it side, but I'm interested to find out. Thanks for your answer and have a fantastic day! You asked the question very poorly, so there is no one correct answer. Broadband is an adjective. You don't regulate adjectives, you regulate nouns. Broadband what? This is the fallacy of today's public discourse -- they are using this adjective as a noun without the noun, so different people use it to have different referents. I think I'm in pretty close harmony with the WISPA position here, given that Steve Coran chose me to help him give his NN talk in Vegas last month based on my detailed Comments on the topic to the FCC. And I've been writing and Commenting on this for years. Several years ago I told the FCC that they were using this adjective as a noun, but that they could separate the two primary implied nouns by using a Spanish-language convention. El Broadband would refer to the physical facility, the high speed transmission medium. La Broadband would refer to the content of the facility, including Internet service delivered over it. (If you don't know Spanish, el radio is a device and la radio is a program.) But in lawyer terms, El Broadband is the telecommunications component, and La Broadband is the information service riding atop it. The reason NN is a Thing is that the FCC, in 2005, threw away the law (TA96) and decided that telephone companies could stop being common carriers, stop providing ISPs with El Broadband (raw DSL), and simply sell La Broadband as a vertically-integrated service with exclusive access to their formerly common-carrier facilities. So typical consumers in cities went from having many ISP choices (one cable company and many ISPs available via DSL) to two (one each cable and DSL). The public reaction to this was, understandably, rather negative. They recognized that they could be screwed by their cable and telco duopolists (monopolists in many areas, and more in the future as the ILECs abandon their copper plant without replacing it). But not recognizing the difference between a network (what carries IP) and an internetwork (the Internet itself, content slung across many networks), they demanded network neutrality referring to the ISP function itself. And the FCC obliged, being basically political, by proposing the regulation of Internet services, but not regulating the actual telecom provided by the monopolists. So I'm in favor of applying Title II to the actual telecommunications component of broadband services provided by incumbents, and those using rivalrous facilities (those that exclude others, including pole attachments, conduits, and exclusively-licensed frequencies). But those who only compete with incumbent cable and telco, or who use non-rivalrous facilities and frequencies (that includes essentially all WISPs), would not fall under Title II whatsoever, and neither would the Internet backbone or anything done on the Internet itself (IP layer on up, but this does not refer to IP-based voice services provided by facility owners). So I'm in favor of Title II for some broadband stuff (where it opens monopoly wire to competitive ISPs) but not others (where it regulates the Internet or WISPs). Got it? That's why the question is wrong. -- 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 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
Fred, It’s a little late, but damn, that was a good description of the problem. I’m hoping and just hoping, that Wheeler understands exactly what the problem really is. Everyone thinks Title II is a hammer both on the ILEC and the public activist side, but in reality I hope that the FCC does have a bit more common sense and see that competition is what will lead to the public good in the long run. Now if the lawyers can actually come up with something that will legally stick, well that’s up in the air. Sincerely, Eric Tykwinski TrueNet, Inc. P: 610-429-8300 F: 610-429-3222 On Nov 19, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Kevin Sullivan kevin.sulli...@alyrica.net wrote: Wow, that was well thought out. I'd say that's a pretty good assessment! Kevin - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein f...@interisle.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:26 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? On 11/19/2014 8:49 AM, Drew Lentz wrote: I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3R6YTH9 I'm curious to see what the percentages are between those that support and those that don't support the Title II argument. I've been trying to get a good feel for who would and wouldn't like it (mostly it seems carriers love it, web services hate it.) I have a feeling WISPs might be on the hate it side, but I'm interested to find out. Thanks for your answer and have a fantastic day! You asked the question very poorly, so there is no one correct answer. Broadband is an adjective. You don't regulate adjectives, you regulate nouns. Broadband what? This is the fallacy of today's public discourse -- they are using this adjective as a noun without the noun, so different people use it to have different referents. I think I'm in pretty close harmony with the WISPA position here, given that Steve Coran chose me to help him give his NN talk in Vegas last month based on my detailed Comments on the topic to the FCC. And I've been writing and Commenting on this for years. Several years ago I told the FCC that they were using this adjective as a noun, but that they could separate the two primary implied nouns by using a Spanish-language convention. El Broadband would refer to the physical facility, the high speed transmission medium. La Broadband would refer to the content of the facility, including Internet service delivered over it. (If you don't know Spanish, el radio is a device and la radio is a program.) But in lawyer terms, El Broadband is the telecommunications component, and La Broadband is the information service riding atop it. The reason NN is a Thing is that the FCC, in 2005, threw away the law (TA96) and decided that telephone companies could stop being common carriers, stop providing ISPs with El Broadband (raw DSL), and simply sell La Broadband as a vertically-integrated service with exclusive access to their formerly common-carrier facilities. So typical consumers in cities went from having many ISP choices (one cable company and many ISPs available via DSL) to two (one each cable and DSL). The public reaction to this was, understandably, rather negative. They recognized that they could be screwed by their cable and telco duopolists (monopolists in many areas, and more in the future as the ILECs abandon their copper plant without replacing it). But not recognizing the difference between a network (what carries IP) and an internetwork (the Internet itself, content slung across many networks), they demanded network neutrality referring to the ISP function itself. And the FCC obliged, being basically political, by proposing the regulation of Internet services, but not regulating the actual telecom provided by the monopolists. So I'm in favor of applying Title II to the actual telecommunications component of broadband services provided by incumbents, and those using rivalrous facilities (those that exclude others, including pole attachments, conduits, and exclusively-licensed frequencies). But those who only compete with incumbent cable and telco, or who use non-rivalrous facilities and frequencies (that includes essentially all WISPs), would not fall under Title II whatsoever, and neither would the Internet backbone or anything done on the Internet itself (IP layer on up, but this does not refer to IP-based voice services provided by facility owners). So I'm in favor of Title II for some broadband stuff (where it opens monopoly wire to competitive ISPs) but not others (where it regulates the Internet or WISPs). Got it? That's why the question is wrong. -- 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
Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
On 11/19/2014 4:22 PM, Sean Heskett wrote: also title II regulations are why an OC3 at 150Mbps costs 100 times as much as 150Mbps metro ethernet. Ethernet is unregulated, OC3 is part of the whole terrified crap left over from MaBell etc. So even though both services are delivered over the same medium (fiber) because of the technology used OC3 is heavily regulated while ethernet is not. Title II will make internet access more expensive, not less. No, not really. The problem is that OC-3 is fully deregulated too -- the FCC only applies title II on circuits up to DS3/OC-1. Thus the monopolists can charge whatever the want for it. Ethernet is more competitive, so they charge less where there is competition. The law isn't about technology, but the FCC is not always neutral. So a 10 Mbps Ethernet is unregulated but the equivalent TDM is. A CLEC can buy DS3, in many cases, for a very low price, where it' a UNE. An ISP has to pay the FCC-authorized price, but in many areas (not all) the FCC has deregulated that too. The Bells view SONET as a medium for carrying phone calls, and price it based on the assumption that it's lost toll revenue on each DS0. Insane. Plus they are using 1990s gear (pre-Cerent) and pricing based on what the paid then, not what newer gear costs (maybe 10% of that). -- 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?
The real problem is that consumers have only the CableCo and TelCo as options for purchasing internet. The government instead of regulating should encourage competition in the free market. WISPs are one such competitor. WISPs are prevented by laws of Electromagnetism and Communications to direct compete with CableCo and TelCo for most customers, so this argument actually justifies Title II treatment since CableCo and TelCo are the only ones most US citizens can choose from. Rubens ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
Title ll has a ton of regulations…some which could reasonably apply, but most that have no bearing whatsoever or would be incredibly damaging to our industry. The question…and the problem, is that we don’t know what the FCC would enforce and what they would forebear from enforcing…and for how long. Future FCCs would not be bound by this FCC’s decisions. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick Senior Account Manager, Convergence Technologies, Inc. mailto:jbroadw...@converge-tech.com jbroadw...@converge-tech.com 312-205-2519 Office 574-220-7826 Cell From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:40 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? The real problem is that consumers have only the CableCo and TelCo as options for purchasing internet. The government instead of regulating should encourage competition in the free market. WISPs are one such competitor. WISPs are prevented by laws of Electromagnetism and Communications to direct compete with CableCo and TelCo for most customers, so this argument actually justifies Title II treatment since CableCo and TelCo are the only ones most US citizens can choose from. Rubens ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
Future FCCs would not be bound by this FCC’s decisions. For good and bad. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@att.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:55:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? Title ll has a ton of regulations…some which could reasonably apply, but most that have no bearing whatsoever or would be incredibly damaging to our industry. The question…and the problem, is that we don’t know what the FCC would enforce and what they would forebear from enforcing…and for how long. Future FCCs would not be bound by this FCC’s decisions. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick Senior Account Manager, Convergence Technologies, Inc. jbroadw...@converge-tech.com 312-205-2519 Office 574-220-7826 Cell From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:40 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? The real problem is that consumers have only the CableCo and TelCo as options for purchasing internet. The government instead of regulating should encourage competition in the free market. WISPs are one such competitor. WISPs are prevented by laws of Electromagnetism and Communications to direct compete with CableCo and TelCo for most customers, so this argument actually justifies Title II treatment since CableCo and TelCo are the only ones most US citizens can choose from. Rubens ___ Wireless mailing list 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?
Chuckle :) You all don't know who Fred is :) He has a weee bit of experience in these matters. :) I am reading this discussion about Title II and having a dejavu !!! What you all see coming to our door steps in form of Title II via the FCC, is pretty similar to what the we saw about 5 to 10 years ago on the wireline side.. there it was 'de-regulation' or Forbearance from Title II regulations.It is rather interesting and comical (sarcasm) to see the 'regulatory pendulum' swinging in the opposite direction...I wish there is a way to turn all the arguments presented and accepted by the FCC at that time to grant forbearance could be re-presented to them And yes, Fred is a subject matter expert on Wireline Regulation /FCC... (Think of him like a Steve Coran of the wireline world). :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: Eric Tykwinski eric-l...@truenet.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:10:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? Fred, It’s a little late, but damn, that was a good description of the problem. I’m hoping and just hoping, that Wheeler understands exactly what the problem really is. Everyone thinks Title II is a hammer both on the ILEC and the public activist side, but in reality I hope that the FCC does have a bit more common sense and see that competition is what will lead to the public good in the long run. Now if the lawyers can actually come up with something that will legally stick, well that’s up in the air. Sincerely, Eric Tykwinski TrueNet, Inc. P: 610-429-8300 F: 610-429-3222 On Nov 19, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Kevin Sullivan kevin.sulli...@alyrica.net wrote: Wow, that was well thought out. I'd say that's a pretty good assessment! Kevin - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein f...@interisle.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:26 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? On 11/19/2014 8:49 AM, Drew Lentz wrote: I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3R6YTH9 I'm curious to see what the percentages are between those that support and those that don't support the Title II argument. I've been trying to get a good feel for who would and wouldn't like it (mostly it seems carriers love it, web services hate it.) I have a feeling WISPs might be on the hate it side, but I'm interested to find out. Thanks for your answer and have a fantastic day! You asked the question very poorly, so there is no one correct answer. Broadband is an adjective. You don't regulate adjectives, you regulate nouns. Broadband what? This is the fallacy of today's public discourse -- they are using this adjective as a noun without the noun, so different people use it to have different referents. I think I'm in pretty close harmony with the WISPA position here, given that Steve Coran chose me to help him give his NN talk in Vegas last month based on my detailed Comments on the topic to the FCC. And I've been writing and Commenting on this for years. Several years ago I told the FCC that they were using this adjective as a noun, but that they could separate the two primary implied nouns by using a Spanish-language convention. El Broadband would refer to the physical facility, the high speed transmission medium. La Broadband would refer to the content of the facility, including Internet service delivered over it. (If you don't know Spanish, el radio is a device and la radio is a program.) But in lawyer terms, El Broadband is the telecommunications component, and La Broadband is the information service riding atop it. The reason NN is a Thing is that the FCC, in 2005, threw away the law (TA96) and decided that telephone companies could stop being common carriers, stop providing ISPs with El Broadband (raw DSL), and simply sell La Broadband as a vertically-integrated service with exclusive access to their formerly common-carrier facilities. So typical consumers in cities went from having many ISP choices (one cable company and many ISPs available via DSL) to two (one each cable and DSL). The public reaction to this was, understandably, rather negative. They recognized that they could be screwed by their cable and telco duopolists (monopolists in many areas, and more in the future as the ILECs abandon their copper plant without replacing it). But not recognizing the difference between a network (what carries IP) and an internetwork (the Internet itself, content slung across many networks), they demanded network neutrality referring to the ISP function itself. And the FCC
Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
Agreed, thanks Fred! Sonic.net, a California CLEC offering DSL internet services, has a blog post about this topic that might be of interest to the group: https://corp.sonic.net/ceo/2014/11/12/neutrality-is-just-a-symptom/ Brett Woollum Senior Sales Engineer br...@tekify.com Tekify Broadband Internet Services Web: http://www.tekify.com Phone: 510-266-5800 , ext 6200 - Original Message - From: Kevin Sullivan kevin.sulli...@alyrica.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 3:04:17 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? Wow, that was well thought out. I'd say that's a pretty good assessment! Kevin - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein f...@interisle.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:26 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? On 11/19/2014 8:49 AM, Drew Lentz wrote: I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3R6YTH9 I'm curious to see what the percentages are between those that support and those that don't support the Title II argument. I've been trying to get a good feel for who would and wouldn't like it (mostly it seems carriers love it, web services hate it.) I have a feeling WISPs might be on the hate it side, but I'm interested to find out. Thanks for your answer and have a fantastic day! You asked the question very poorly, so there is no one correct answer. Broadband is an adjective. You don't regulate adjectives, you regulate nouns. Broadband what? This is the fallacy of today's public discourse -- they are using this adjective as a noun without the noun, so different people use it to have different referents. I think I'm in pretty close harmony with the WISPA position here, given that Steve Coran chose me to help him give his NN talk in Vegas last month based on my detailed Comments on the topic to the FCC. And I've been writing and Commenting on this for years. Several years ago I told the FCC that they were using this adjective as a noun, but that they could separate the two primary implied nouns by using a Spanish-language convention. El Broadband would refer to the physical facility, the high speed transmission medium. La Broadband would refer to the content of the facility, including Internet service delivered over it. (If you don't know Spanish, el radio is a device and la radio is a program.) But in lawyer terms, El Broadband is the telecommunications component, and La Broadband is the information service riding atop it. The reason NN is a Thing is that the FCC, in 2005, threw away the law (TA96) and decided that telephone companies could stop being common carriers, stop providing ISPs with El Broadband (raw DSL), and simply sell La Broadband as a vertically-integrated service with exclusive access to their formerly common-carrier facilities. So typical consumers in cities went from having many ISP choices (one cable company and many ISPs available via DSL) to two (one each cable and DSL). The public reaction to this was, understandably, rather negative. They recognized that they could be screwed by their cable and telco duopolists (monopolists in many areas, and more in the future as the ILECs abandon their copper plant without replacing it). But not recognizing the difference between a network (what carries IP) and an internetwork (the Internet itself, content slung across many networks), they demanded network neutrality referring to the ISP function itself. And the FCC obliged, being basically political, by proposing the regulation of Internet services, but not regulating the actual telecom provided by the monopolists. So I'm in favor of applying Title II to the actual telecommunications component of broadband services provided by incumbents, and those using rivalrous facilities (those that exclude others, including pole attachments, conduits, and exclusively-licensed frequencies). But those who only compete with incumbent cable and telco, or who use non-rivalrous facilities and frequencies (that includes essentially all WISPs), would not fall under Title II whatsoever, and neither would the Internet backbone or anything done on the Internet itself (IP layer on up, but this does not refer to IP-based voice services provided by facility owners). So I'm in favor of Title II for some broadband stuff (where it opens monopoly wire to competitive ISPs) but not others (where it regulates the Internet or WISPs). Got it? That's why the question is wrong. -- Fred R. Goldstein k1io fred 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?
Ah the days of Covad, Northpoint, etc.. Racing to get high speed internet to needy customers on VC dollars not knowing that behind their backs a quick regulation change would make all that easy pickings for the incumbents... Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.. Fred, please gaze into your magic ball of the past and give us a clue to our future? Are our collective necks starting to hover over the ax block? On 11/19/2014 08:32 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: Chuckle :) You all don't know who Fred is :) He has a weee bit of experience in these matters. :) I am reading this discussion about Title II and having a dejavu !!! What you all see coming to our door steps in form of Title II via the FCC, is pretty similar to what the we saw about 5 to 10 years ago on the wireline side.. there it was 'de-regulation' or Forbearance from Title II regulations.It is rather interesting and comical (sarcasm) to see the 'regulatory pendulum' swinging in the opposite direction...I wish there is a way to turn all the arguments presented and accepted by the FCC at that time to grant forbearance could be re-presented to them And yes, Fred is a subject matter expert on Wireline Regulation /FCC... (Think of him like a Steve Coran of the wireline world). :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: Eric Tykwinski eric-l...@truenet.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:10:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? Fred, It’s a little late, but damn, that was a good description of the problem. I’m hoping and just hoping, that Wheeler understands exactly what the problem really is. Everyone thinks Title II is a hammer both on the ILEC and the public activist side, but in reality I hope that the FCC does have a bit more common sense and see that competition is what will lead to the public good in the long run. Now if the lawyers can actually come up with something that will legally stick, well that’s up in the air. Sincerely, Eric Tykwinski TrueNet, Inc. P: 610-429-8300 F: 610-429-3222 On Nov 19, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Kevin Sullivan kevin.sulli...@alyrica.net wrote: Wow, that was well thought out. I'd say that's a pretty good assessment! Kevin - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein f...@interisle.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:26 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? On 11/19/2014 8:49 AM, Drew Lentz wrote: I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3R6YTH9 I'm curious to see what the percentages are between those that support and those that don't support the Title II argument. I've been trying to get a good feel for who would and wouldn't like it (mostly it seems carriers love it, web services hate it.) I have a feeling WISPs might be on the hate it side, but I'm interested to find out. Thanks for your answer and have a fantastic day! You asked the question very poorly, so there is no one correct answer. Broadband is an adjective. You don't regulate adjectives, you regulate nouns. Broadband what? This is the fallacy of today's public discourse -- they are using this adjective as a noun without the noun, so different people use it to have different referents. I think I'm in pretty close harmony with the WISPA position here, given that Steve Coran chose me to help him give his NN talk in Vegas last month based on my detailed Comments on the topic to the FCC. And I've been writing and Commenting on this for years. Several years ago I told the FCC that they were using this adjective as a noun, but that they could separate the two primary implied nouns by using a Spanish-language convention. El Broadband would refer to the physical facility, the high speed transmission medium. La Broadband would refer to the content of the facility, including Internet service delivered over it. (If you don't know Spanish, el radio is a device and la radio is a program.) But in lawyer terms, El Broadband is the telecommunications component, and La Broadband is the information service riding atop it. The reason NN is a Thing is that the FCC, in 2005, threw away the law (TA96) and decided that telephone companies could stop being common carriers, stop providing ISPs with El Broadband (raw DSL), and simply sell La Broadband as a vertically-integrated service with exclusive access to their formerly common-carrier facilities. So typical consumers in cities went from having many ISP choices (one cable company and many ISPs available via DSL) to two (one each cable and DSL). The public reaction to this was, understandably, rather negative
