Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking
You know, I think there are three very different issues here. 1) Is one in favor of Calea. 2) Regardless, Calea is Law. How will WISPs best deal with Compliance? 3) What did WISPA do to help WISPs solve this problem? #1 is something we can go on forever debating. There are many WISPs that are not in favor of Calea, and took positions to fight it in the past. Including some WISPA members. WISPA has never taken the position that we are Pro Calea. WISPA has taken the position to represent WISPs, and do our best to comply with the Law. We have a responsibilty to our Country first. FBI won the Calea battle with legislators. Its not approriate to hold it against WISPA, that the US's elected legislators favored law enforcement's request for CALEA Compliance. #2 This is something every WISP has to ask themselves. REGARDLESS of whether they agree or disagree with Calea. This has nothing to do with WISPA. #3 What WISPA has done, as John Scrivner stated, is that the Calea committee asked these questions for WISPs, so WISP's did not have to. And I tell you there was a lot of man hours by those volunteers. Something that should be appreciated. I'd argue the Calea effort was probably the single largest group effort contribution in the organization's history, and undisputedly a success, and worthy of praise. If someone is unhappy with Calea, they should take it out on legislators, not WISPA that has just tried to ease the pain. Calea law was passed way before the Calea committee started to work on ways to comply. The time to fight the Calea law was BEFORE it was passed, and that was not the Calea's committees task, sense the laws had already been passed. Saying "I can't" or "I wont" doesn't do anyone any good. It was already law that we "Have to". The best that could be expected of the Calea Committee and Leadership was to determine "what is feasibly possible", and how we might most easilly accomplish that. Lets keep it real, please. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 7:44 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking >I object to this. Here is an example of what I have done regarding my > interactions with the FCC in the last year: > > I was on a conference call with several ranking members of the FCC about a > year ago. One of the people on the call was the head of enforcement in DC. > I > had recently purchased a pair of Alvarion backhaul radios and used my > existing (already installed and aimed) Gabriel parabolics from my previous > EX-1 link as opposed to the flat panels that they came with. I was getting > fed up with their whole certified system crap. I asked the enforcement guy > to tell me if I had broken the law. I was very frank and nearly yelling at > the guy. I asked him to wear my shoes for one time and told him the > scenario > and asked him what he would do in my shoes. He promptly told me that there > is no reason to ever break the law. (He never answered the question > because > he did not know if I had broken the law or not. None of them in DC knew > the > answer which was my point) I told him, in front of many in this > association > and on the phone at FCC headquarters to come and arrest me and to be sure > and arrest the 3000 other people who had done the same thing between DC > and > Illinois on the way to get me. If that is not taking a stand and showing > some balls then kiss my rear quarters. I took a stand with enforcement in > DC > for you. So get off my ass. By the way, I'll take my week's removal from > this week for cussing if that was too much. I have had it with Mr. > Conspiracy always slamming us here. So Muddy, when is the last time you > told > a federal official to come and get you in regard to standing up or our > industry? > Scriv > > > On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 5:26 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> This is what I don't get. >> >> I reminded the OP that several ranking members of WISPA have declared >> "objecting to mandates" as "politics". >> >> And, unless I have missed something, WISPA has NEVER officially objected >> to >> a single thing the FCC has wanted or gotten or demanded, and if someone >> suggests they should, immediately, all the long term list members and >> board >> members and committee members start hollering "Stop being political". >> Yet, >> they suggest that our "going along with nicely and with a smile" will buy >> us >> some future favor - the essence
Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking
ality mandates? You hoping for quid pro quo future benefits from the > FCC? ( I gotta bunch of tropical beach front property in Montana to sell > you, then ) You hoping for MONEY, in the form of grants or loans or some > other taxpayer funding? What is it? > > Frankly, I don't want any mandates. I kinda hope that Qwest and Comcast > get some stupid notion and tick off their customers left and right. If > they > do, hurrah for us! > > NO mandate of any kind is going to come without cost. And cost is the ONE > thing we cannot bear. The competition is the big guys, cost and service > differences are THE thing that separate us from them. The more mandates, > regulations, controls, and restrictions on services there are, the fewer > our > competitive advantages will be. > > Anarchist? hell no. This is just plain old fashioned bottom of the > spreadsheet common sense. > > Now, what the hell is motivating YOU? > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 5:13 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking > > > > Hyperbole is not helpful to discourse. > > If you want no FCC go to some other country. > > Are you really the anarchist you come across as? > > > > - Original Message - > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "WISPA General List" > > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 5:06 PM > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "Frank Muto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: "WISPA General List" > >> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 9:31 AM > >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking > >> > >> > >>> Does the FCC have jurisdiction over all the bit-content passing on the > >>> Internet network or control of a providers management > >>> of network resources? > >> > >> Didn't you know the FCC was holy, and that objecting to anything they > >> want > >> is "political" and must be never spoken of here? > >> > >> /extreme sarcasm > >> > >> We, as an industry, should have been screaming at the top of our lungs, > >> writing objections to EVERYTHING the FCC has tried to demand from us or > >> take > >> from us from the day WISPA was a legal entity, till now. And I mean > >> EVERY > >> mandate of any kind. > >> > >> But no, that's playing "politics". > >> > >> When they issue decrees that turn your balance sheet negative and > >> bankrupt > >> you, will it still be "political" to object? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! > >> http://signup.wispa.org/ > >> > > >> > >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >> > >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> > >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> > > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking
This is what I don't get. I reminded the OP that several ranking members of WISPA have declared "objecting to mandates" as "politics". And, unless I have missed something, WISPA has NEVER officially objected to a single thing the FCC has wanted or gotten or demanded, and if someone suggests they should, immediately, all the long term list members and board members and committee members start hollering "Stop being political". Yet, they suggest that our "going along with nicely and with a smile" will buy us some future favor - the essence of DIRTY POLITICS. And, over the years, WISPA has officially endorsed and approved of all kinds of stuff we should have fought tooth and nail. Why? I don't know. I can't understand it.We're not on record objecting to anything, but many of those things have the capability of putting most or all of us out of business, especially if future personell in DC, who know nothing of representations or negotiations or discussions made historically decide to re-interpret stuff we've already endorsed in the past tense, which basically has taken away any legitemate ability TO object credibly in the future. Yet, here we are, after all the time I've been repeating till I"m blue in the face that we need to fight for our survival, and you can easily see that minor opinion changes in DC could ultimately send us to flipping burgers at McDonald's. Yet, everyone's blithely going along with the "stop playing politics, it's not nice and will embarrass the wannabe future politicians running WISPA" nonsense. And now you want to label me "Anarchist"? For what purpose? Just because I have the math skills of at least a second grader and can tell that work done for free for the government is bad for my business? Or that I have 20 years experience in small business and loads of experience in how mandates and regulation can be idiotically costly and yet accomplish minimal or no benefit because beaurocracies are horribly incompetent at getting stuff done? That doesn't require me to be "political". All it requires is that I have an IQ above 60 and the ability to recognize reality. And you find this so threatening, you have to get personal and attempt character denigration by callign me "anarchist". What would objecting to these things cost YOU? If you're going to claim these things dont' benefit you, then it must be that you believe in them, and that makes YOU THE POLITICAL person, not me. There are political ideologies that believe in public control over private business and services. If that's your motivation, then just come out and admit it. By golly, it's about time YOU and all the other people who're whining and moaning start telling the rest us of just what is in this for you? What benefits did you acrue from the CALEA mandates? Reporting mandates? Net Neutrality mandates? You hoping for quid pro quo future benefits from the FCC? ( I gotta bunch of tropical beach front property in Montana to sell you, then ) You hoping for MONEY, in the form of grants or loans or some other taxpayer funding? What is it? Frankly, I don't want any mandates. I kinda hope that Qwest and Comcast get some stupid notion and tick off their customers left and right. If they do, hurrah for us! NO mandate of any kind is going to come without cost. And cost is the ONE thing we cannot bear. The competition is the big guys, cost and service differences are THE thing that separate us from them. The more mandates, regulations, controls, and restrictions on services there are, the fewer our competitive advantages will be. Anarchist? hell no. This is just plain old fashioned bottom of the spreadsheet common sense. Now, what the hell is motivating YOU? ++++ ----- Original Message - From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 5:13 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking > Hyperbole is not helpful to discourse. > If you want no FCC go to some other country. > Are you really the anarchist you come across as? > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 5:06 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking > > >> >> ++++ >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Frank Muto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 9:31 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking >> >> >>>
Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking
I'd argue that FCC does not have the right to pass judgement on one's management of their network, and recently spoke to several house commmittees on that topic. However, Provisions are required to make palyers pay nice with each other. You are right it is not just about Bit toerrent and VOIP. What about Email? What happens when a large carrier decides who they will and wonl;t accept Email from? What if the sender did have a violation at one time, but it was then cured? How long can one provider hold a grudge over another? I can share a recent example, where there was a legitimate violation, the violation was responsibly cured immeidately, but the grudge left my ISP unable to send their ISP mail for 4 months. It took a lot of bad PR and complaints to get it fixed. The problem is the one ISP didn't want to enable methods for other ISPs to contact them. There was no obligation to help fix the problems preventing the other ISP's legitimate Email delivery. Nor was there any financial benefit to doing so. My point is ISP should be required to make mechanisms available to be contacted by otehr ISPs, to work out disputes. Sorta liek Part 90, an obligation to cooperate. So false conclusions aren;t made that cause the smaller weaker ISP to be irrversibly harmed. Martins war against Comcast is a necessary war. It sets the precidence that these Netetrality blocking won't expand as a strategic advanatage to harm their competitors. What would happen to your Email company, If tommorrow, COMCAST deicded to no longer accept your Email? Well, you might win, as you are now affiliated with a goliath like Google. But if it occured 2 years ago, when it was just Postini, what would have been the outcome? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Frank Muto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking > Martin is on his high horse again about Net Neutrality. Most of this stems > from the 2005 Madison River BS when they were > blocking VOIP and in Oct 2007 when Comcast was blocking BitTorrent. Both > parties have since then reached an agreement to work > together. > > Martin some how thinks the FCC "principles" of NN are law and that he, > (not the FCC is, my own emphasis added) "ready, > willing and able," to prevent broadband internet service providers from > irrationally interfering with their subscribers' > internet access. > http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN2525077120080225 > >>From the article referenced by Larry ; > "FCC commissioners have said on several occasions that the Internet policy > statement is not enforceable, and the law is very > clear on that basic point," wrote Joe Waz, senior vice president of > external affairs for Comcast. "The policy statement is > not a set of rules. It doesn't have any binding effect. And the FCC has > never adopted rules in this area." > > "The Supreme Court and Congress have made it clear that a federal agency > like the FCC can act either through rules or a > complaint processes," Ammori responded in a blog post. "It's astounding > that a company with an army of high-priced lawyers > would even try to dispute this, as it is a basic fact taught on day one of > any administrative law class." > > But Congress has said otherwise when it comes to taking it from "policy" > to law. Two laws have since been killed. > > 1. The Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 would have > prohibited the use of admission control to determine > network traffic priority. The legislation was approved by the House > Judiciary committee but was never taken for vote, > therefore failed to become law. > > 2. The Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006 > was introduced in the US House of Representatives, > referencing the principles of the FCC and authorizing fines up to $750,000 > for infractions. It passed full House of > Representatives failed to become law when it was filibustered in the > Senate. > > The FCC IMO has not met their ancillary jurisdiction powers for what they > feel they can do to Comcast. This whole NN debate > has matters of opinion on both sides of the issue and should be debated > openly for public review and comment. > > Internet access is one thing, how about email and websites maxing out > their limits? Am I as a host provider for these > services, not allowed to shut down an account for going over a mailbox > limit, or a website that goes over their bandwidth use > or storage allocation? I can and do shut d
Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking
Amen (Carterphone, had not thought bout that for a while) - Original Message - From: "Jonathan Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 6:54 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking > Without traffic management standards and support, our roads would be a > bloodbath. > > Without the FCC you wouldn't have an open frequency for anything. > > As a Ham Radio operator for over 50 years, I appreciate the regulations > that protected the nursery for some of our greatest electronic > developments. > > With the FCC bending to some political shenanigans we do have some > less-than-fair bias toward (ahem) a segment of the telecommunications > industry. Granted. > > And, on the whole...I'm not sure I agree with the remainder of W.C. > Fields' gravestone (although, they seem to be learning). > > But, we have a new and fertile environment for exploitation and > interference. If a major broadband provider made the sources of media > downloads (iTunes, etc.) either pay or suffer intolerable sluggishness (as > opposed to the provider's own fast-as-hell pay-for-songs/movies site) then > the provider is using their pipe to an unfair advantage. That's Net > Neutrality as being presented to the FCC and Congress. Broadband > providers, WISPA members included, are becoming a necessary utility. > > Here in San Antonio, the rumor was that (ex-pres.)Ed Whitacre not only > didn't use computers but thought of e-mail as stupid. He was reportedly > the source of the philosophy that AT&T owned the transport and that GOOGLE > was making BILLIONS off the connection and AT&T wasn't participating. > That's a perfectly natural perspective for an old timer with the > pre-CarterPhone mentality. As a side note, however, I don't know where he > was during the 1-900 fiasco in the '90s. > > However, we need to work together to present the positive benefits that we > bring to the population, like the TVA. You can't argue with motherhood > and virtue and that's what the message is. Flailing at boogiemen isn't a > help. The fact that WISPA helps bring the bottom-of-the-list USA to the > top of broadband users' survey is! > > . . . J o n a t h a n > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 7:13 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking > > Hyperbole is not helpful to discourse. > If you want no FCC go to some other country. > Are you really the anarchist you come across as? > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 5:06 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking > > >> >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Frank Muto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 9:31 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking >> >> >>> Does the FCC have jurisdiction over all the bit-content passing on the >>> Internet network or control of a providers management >>> of network resources? >> >> Didn't you know the FCC was holy, and that objecting to anything they > want >> is "political" and must be never spoken of here? >> >> /extreme sarcasm >> >> We, as an industry, should have been screaming at the top of our lungs, >> writing objections to EVERYTHING the FCC has tried to demand from us or >> take >> from us from the day WISPA was a legal entity, till now. And I mean >> EVERY >> mandate of any kind. >> >> But no, that's playing "politics". >> >> When they issue decrees that turn your balance sheet negative and > bankrupt >> you, will it still be "political" to object? >> >> >> >> >> > -- > -- >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > -- > -- >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > > > -
Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking
Without traffic management standards and support, our roads would be a bloodbath. Without the FCC you wouldn't have an open frequency for anything. As a Ham Radio operator for over 50 years, I appreciate the regulations that protected the nursery for some of our greatest electronic developments. With the FCC bending to some political shenanigans we do have some less-than-fair bias toward (ahem) a segment of the telecommunications industry. Granted. And, on the whole...I'm not sure I agree with the remainder of W.C. Fields' gravestone (although, they seem to be learning). But, we have a new and fertile environment for exploitation and interference. If a major broadband provider made the sources of media downloads (iTunes, etc.) either pay or suffer intolerable sluggishness (as opposed to the provider's own fast-as-hell pay-for-songs/movies site) then the provider is using their pipe to an unfair advantage. That's Net Neutrality as being presented to the FCC and Congress. Broadband providers, WISPA members included, are becoming a necessary utility. Here in San Antonio, the rumor was that (ex-pres.)Ed Whitacre not only didn't use computers but thought of e-mail as stupid. He was reportedly the source of the philosophy that AT&T owned the transport and that GOOGLE was making BILLIONS off the connection and AT&T wasn't participating. That's a perfectly natural perspective for an old timer with the pre-CarterPhone mentality. As a side note, however, I don't know where he was during the 1-900 fiasco in the '90s. However, we need to work together to present the positive benefits that we bring to the population, like the TVA. You can't argue with motherhood and virtue and that's what the message is. Flailing at boogiemen isn't a help. The fact that WISPA helps bring the bottom-of-the-list USA to the top of broadband users' survey is! . . . J o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 7:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking Hyperbole is not helpful to discourse. If you want no FCC go to some other country. Are you really the anarchist you come across as? - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 5:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Frank Muto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 9:31 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking > > >> Does the FCC have jurisdiction over all the bit-content passing on the >> Internet network or control of a providers management >> of network resources? > > Didn't you know the FCC was holy, and that objecting to anything they want > is "political" and must be never spoken of here? > > /extreme sarcasm > > We, as an industry, should have been screaming at the top of our lungs, > writing objections to EVERYTHING the FCC has tried to demand from us or > take > from us from the day WISPA was a legal entity, till now. And I mean > EVERY > mandate of any kind. > > But no, that's playing "politics". > > When they issue decrees that turn your balance sheet negative and bankrupt > you, will it still be "political" to object? > > > > > -- -- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -- -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking
Hyperbole is not helpful to discourse. If you want no FCC go to some other country. Are you really the anarchist you come across as? - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 5:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Frank Muto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 9:31 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking > > >> Does the FCC have jurisdiction over all the bit-content passing on the >> Internet network or control of a providers management >> of network resources? > > Didn't you know the FCC was holy, and that objecting to anything they want > is "political" and must be never spoken of here? > > /extreme sarcasm > > We, as an industry, should have been screaming at the top of our lungs, > writing objections to EVERYTHING the FCC has tried to demand from us or > take > from us from the day WISPA was a legal entity, till now. And I mean > EVERY > mandate of any kind. > > But no, that's playing "politics". > > When they issue decrees that turn your balance sheet negative and bankrupt > you, will it still be "political" to object? > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking
- Original Message - From: "Frank Muto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 9:31 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking > Does the FCC have jurisdiction over all the bit-content passing on the > Internet network or control of a providers management > of network resources? Didn't you know the FCC was holy, and that objecting to anything they want is "political" and must be never spoken of here? /extreme sarcasm We, as an industry, should have been screaming at the top of our lungs, writing objections to EVERYTHING the FCC has tried to demand from us or take from us from the day WISPA was a legal entity, till now. And I mean EVERY mandate of any kind. But no, that's playing "politics". When they issue decrees that turn your balance sheet negative and bankrupt you, will it still be "political" to object? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking
Martin is on his high horse again about Net Neutrality. Most of this stems from the 2005 Madison River BS when they were blocking VOIP and in Oct 2007 when Comcast was blocking BitTorrent. Both parties have since then reached an agreement to work together. Martin some how thinks the FCC "principles" of NN are law and that he, (not the FCC is, my own emphasis added) "ready, willing and able," to prevent broadband internet service providers from irrationally interfering with their subscribers' internet access. http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN2525077120080225 >From the article referenced by Larry ; "FCC commissioners have said on several occasions that the Internet policy statement is not enforceable, and the law is very clear on that basic point," wrote Joe Waz, senior vice president of external affairs for Comcast. "The policy statement is not a set of rules. It doesn't have any binding effect. And the FCC has never adopted rules in this area." "The Supreme Court and Congress have made it clear that a federal agency like the FCC can act either through rules or a complaint processes," Ammori responded in a blog post. "It's astounding that a company with an army of high-priced lawyers would even try to dispute this, as it is a basic fact taught on day one of any administrative law class." But Congress has said otherwise when it comes to taking it from "policy" to law. Two laws have since been killed. 1. The Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 would have prohibited the use of admission control to determine network traffic priority. The legislation was approved by the House Judiciary committee but was never taken for vote, therefore failed to become law. 2. The Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006 was introduced in the US House of Representatives, referencing the principles of the FCC and authorizing fines up to $750,000 for infractions. It passed full House of Representatives failed to become law when it was filibustered in the Senate. The FCC IMO has not met their ancillary jurisdiction powers for what they feel they can do to Comcast. This whole NN debate has matters of opinion on both sides of the issue and should be debated openly for public review and comment. Internet access is one thing, how about email and websites maxing out their limits? Am I as a host provider for these services, not allowed to shut down an account for going over a mailbox limit, or a website that goes over their bandwidth use or storage allocation? I can and do shut down accounts for overages after providing sufficient notices to the customer, as per their AUP, TOS and billing agreements. Does the FCC have jurisdiction over all the bit-content passing on the Internet network or control of a providers management of network resources? Frank Muto www.SecureEmailPlus.com - Original Message - From: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 10:48 AM Subject: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking > Looks like the FCC make take some action in enforcing its Net Neutrality > "Policies" > > > > See: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2325396,00.asp > > > > Depending on the scope of their ruling, this could have a significant impact > on how WISPs can control traffic on their own networks. > > > > Larry Yunker > > Network Consultant > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking
Looks like the FCC make take some action in enforcing its Net Neutrality "Policies" See: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2325396,00.asp Depending on the scope of their ruling, this could have a significant impact on how WISPs can control traffic on their own networks. Larry Yunker Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
