Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
To align it more closely with the telecom world, consider the following. The city gave you an exclusive license to operate a grocery for 100 years, but you refused to accept credit cards, had manual doors, and rang up all prices by looking them up in a book. Since you were protected from new grocery stores, they forced you to allow a competitive store in your building, which accepted credit cards, had automatic doors, and had an electronic back end. Same thing other than the cost to lay new cables is almost insurmountable as opposed to just putting up another building. The key here is that you were protected from competition for 100 years. You shouldn't be allowed to build your empire under protection, then take advantage of said situation. You should have never had that protection. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 12/21/2010 4:30 PM, MDK wrote: Jeromie, my socialist (or was that anarchist, I can't ever remember) friend, how are ya? I was thinking about making a run to a wrecking yard up that way and stopping by to see how things were going. Anyway, each time I read this solution it reminds me why it won't work. Let's say I move to Cove. Buy the biggest building in town, and put in a grocery store. Along come the grocery neutrality advocates and require that I set aside space in my store for all the people who want to compete in the grocery market.If I knew that was going to happen, why would I be so brain dead stupid as to invest all my money in the first place?And if it happened after the fact, why would I continue to maintain the building and keep it open, for the benefit of others? YOU see this as an opportunity to capitalize on monopoly created investment, and getting your share of it. I look at it and notice that the business model it creates is insanity, and no effort will EVER be taken to be market oriented and innovative. YOu're just trading one set of problems for a future set of intractables, with EVERYONE invested into a system that's broken beyond hope. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ Right there you prove what many want. The last mile should not be held by someone with stakes in what drives OVER that road. Lets make the last mile open to all ISPs who want to build out to the CO. I would drop in VDSL in my town TODAY if I COULD get access to the CO but the FCC took that away from us. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
How is BT doing with their voluntary split? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 12/21/2010 5:40 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 12/21/2010 05:58 PM, Jeff wrote: Fred, You've been advocating splitting the ILECs between their delivery and service models...basically making the delivery (last mile/middle mile) into common carriers and having the service business stand on it's own, for as long as I've been reading your posts (close to 10 years). You haven't come out and said that here (that I've seen), but isn't that what you are getting at? Let the monopoly be the monopoly (a regulated utility at that point) and make the service/content providers compete, right? Yes. I've noted two different break points, either of which would solve neutrality. They are not mutually exclusive. The common carrier model, which used to apply to the Bells in the US, separates the lower layer (delivery) from upper layer (Internet service). The LoopCo model (structural or functional separation) goes even lower, putting the dark fiber or copper in one company (LoopCo) and letting all carriers (incumbent, competitor) lease it on the same terms. Either way the loop monopoly is broken. Regards, Jeff ImageStream Sales Manager 800-813-5123 x106 *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Fred Goldstein *Sent:* Tuesday, December 21, 2010 5:41 PM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless At 12/21/2010 05:14 PM, MDK wrote: Fred gave his reasons, which if I were to answer to, I'd have to quote him, but the gist of what he said, was that the NEXT operator to come along would have to pay MORE to compete than the original. Yes, to reach the first customer, as well as on a per-customer basis, which sets the price. If Bell has 100% of the market and you don't have lines, then you'd have to pull a line to reach your customer. That's a huge cost compared to their being able to use existing lines. If you won a 25% market share and they had 75%, then if your cost per mile were the same as theirs, your cost per home served would be three times theirs. If you don't know the impact of that, look at RCN's sad history. Hint: It's in my book. Five billion dollars lost in four years. That's about as flawed a premise for technological matters as it is possible to have. Technology gets CHEAPER as it become more popular, subsequent competitors pay LESS to provide services than the first. This is WHY telcos and utilities were given monopoly status in the first place, so they would be protected from competition, thereby ensuring healthy and long term profits from their investment. No. The telcos did not have monopolies granted by law until 1934! Well, they had it for 17 years from 1876, under Bell's patent (which turns out to have been fraudulently granted, but hey...). But when it expired, competition sprang up like weeds in spring. LOTS of independent telcos were in business in the 1890s. Some were in new turf, some were CLECs (in today's terms). But Bell then bought Pupin's patent on the loading coil and thus had a monopoly on long-haul (10 miles or so) calling. So the indies started failing. Bell (Ted Vail) proposed a regulated monopoly. In 1912, they were required to interconnect with the surviving indies, and banned from buying up non-bankrupt indies. The last CLECs petered out and were gone by 1930 or so. (Keystone in Philadelphia was the last big one.) When CA34 was written, the monopoly was made de jure. Fred used the example of roads, as a comparison. Hardly a valid one, since wire takes up minimal real space, and roads take up ALL the space we have for them. Roads are publicly owned, for the most part (yes, I know, private toll roads exist, but that's really outside of free market business, just the same), and consume the only space that exists for them, they live in a 2 dimension world. The two are NOT comparable, not even slightly. Of course not, but economically, they might as well be. There is negligible provision of mass-market competitive loop plant. That's why WISPs exist; it's the only competitive medium. What's really at issue here, is that the incumbents were built with money extracted from the consumer at usurious rates, and profits were protected and guaranteed by both federal and state law. And, incumbents have the historical benefit of having had that guaranteed profit from which to build an infrastructure that competitors would not have, and would have to start from scratch. We agree on that. Ideas of separating the lines from the service are merely responses to that fact, and in no way fix the issue. We disagree on that. Unbundling works all over the world. It started in the US but was reduced here, so
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
At 12/23/2010 09:09 AM, MikeH wrote: How is BT doing with their voluntary split? BT overall is making good money now, and nobody's whining about OpenReach from a business perspective. Their regulated prices are of course always open to complaint from customers... OpenReach is rolling out a lot of FTTC, and has just announced a start of FTTH next year. Open, wholesale FTTH. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.comhttp://www.ics-il.com On 12/21/2010 5:40 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 12/21/2010 05:58 PM, Jeff wrote: Fred, You've been advocating splitting the ILECs between their delivery and service models basically making the delivery (last mile/middle mile) into common carriers and having the service business stand on it's own, for as long as I've been reading your posts (close to 10 years). You haven't come out and said that here (that I've seen), but isn't that what you are getting at? Let the monopoly be the monopoly (a regulated utility at that point) and make the service/content providers compete, right? Yes. I've noted two different break points, either of which would solve neutrality. They are not mutually exclusive. The common carrier model, which used to apply to the Bells in the US, separates the lower layer (delivery) from upper layer (Internet service). The LoopCo model (structural or functional separation) goes even lower, putting the dark fiber or copper in one company (LoopCo) and letting all carriers (incumbent, competitor) lease it on the same terms. Either way the loop monopoly is broken. Regards, Jeff ImageStream Sales Manager 800-813-5123 x106 -- From: mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.orgwireless-boun...@wispa.org [ mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 5:41 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless At 12/21/2010 05:14 PM, MDK wrote: Fred gave his reasons, which if I were to answer to, I'd have to quote him, but the gist of what he said, was that the NEXT operator to come along would have to pay MORE to compete than the original. Yes, to reach the first customer, as well as on a per-customer basis, which sets the price. If Bell has 100% of the market and you don't have lines, then you'd have to pull a line to reach your customer. That's a huge cost compared to their being able to use existing lines. If you won a 25% market share and they had 75%, then if your cost per mile were the same as theirs, your cost per home served would be three times theirs. If you don't know the impact of that, look at RCN's sad history. Hint: It's in my book. Five billion dollars lost in four years. That's about as flawed a premise for technological matters as it is possible to have. Technology gets CHEAPER as it become more popular, subsequent competitors pay LESS to provide services than the first. This is WHY telcos and utilities were given monopoly status in the first place, so they would be protected from competition, thereby ensuring healthy and long term profits from their investment. No. The telcos did not have monopolies granted by law until 1934! Well, they had it for 17 years from 1876, under Bell's patent (which turns out to have been fraudulently granted, but hey...). But when it expired, competition sprang up like weeds in spring. LOTS of independent telcos were in business in the 1890s. Some were in new turf, some were CLECs (in today's terms). But Bell then bought Pupin's patent on the loading coil and thus had a monopoly on long-haul (10 miles or so) calling. So the indies started failing. Bell (Ted Vail) proposed a regulated monopoly. In 1912, they were required to interconnect with the surviving indies, and banned from buying up non-bankrupt indies. The last CLECs petered out and were gone by 1930 or so. (Keystone in Philadelphia was the last big one.) When CA34 was written, the monopoly was made de jure. Fred used the example of roads, as a comparison. Hardly a valid one, since wire takes up minimal real space, and roads take up ALL the space we have for them. Roads are publicly owned, for the most part (yes, I know, private toll roads exist, but that's really outside of free market business, just the same), and consume the only space that exists for them, they live in a 2 dimension world. The two are NOT comparable, not even slightly. Of course not, but economically, they might as well be. There is negligible provision of mass-market competitive loop plant. That's why WISPs exist; it's the only competitive medium. What's really at issue here, is that the incumbents were built with money extracted from the consumer at usurious rates, and profits were protected and guaranteed by both federal and state law. And, incumbents have the historical benefit of having had that guaranteed profit from which to build
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
Yes, by the fact that a private person doing business is forced to report anything to the government is wrong. It breaks the trues spirit of capitalism freedom that this country was founded upon. Sorry to sound extreme but what will they force us to do next? On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.netwrote: I don't think form 477 has anything to do with breaking anything. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutionshttp://www.ics-il.com On 12/22/2010 12:44 AM, RickG wrote: The first step to breaking the net was form 477. On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:57 PM, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then pretending you can fix what you broke by half-baked notions of government created markets... There is NOTHING broke about 'internet' because it hasn't been regulated. Your issue is nothing but a complaint about the results of what should never have been done in the first place. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:56 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Well, no, what IS PROFOUNDLY BROKEN is that the ILECs are no longer required to be common carriers. They built their network using common carrier privileges. They got their market share using common carrier privileges. And then they turned around and got their common carrier obligations lifted by the profoundly corrupt Cheney-Rove FCC. So now they control the content on their wires, and you can't lease them. That's just wrong. And the Genachowski FCC isn't doing squat about that, though they absolutely have the power to do so. We do need a national common carrier utility. There is a clear distinction between carriage and content. ISPs are content, not carriage. And WISPs are self-provisioned ISPs who deliver content over unlicensed facilities without using a carrier, and without being one. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today!http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
If you're trying to align it (analogy) with ILEC's, I agree, the monopoly should never have been created. However, if we just focus on the present, and ignore history - and history is ignored because it's mostly irrelevant - this is the situation and how it will be viewed. Unlike Jeromie's characterization, someone really DOES own it and it's not the taxpayer, it's a private entity.How they got it, no longer matters to the entity, it's how it affects them in the present and future that matters. Unbundling amounts to being required to maintain and innovate at your expense, for the benefit of your competitors. The business concept doesn't make sense, and it never will, ergo, it is not sustainable. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 6:05 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless To align it more closely with the telecom world, consider the following. The city gave you an exclusive license to operate a grocery for 100 years, but you refused to accept credit cards, had manual doors, and rang up all prices by looking them up in a book. Since you were protected from new grocery stores, they forced you to allow a competitive store in your building, which accepted credit cards, had automatic doors, and had an electronic back end. Same thing other than the cost to lay new cables is almost insurmountable as opposed to just putting up another building. The key here is that you were protected from competition for 100 years. You shouldn't be allowed to build your empire under protection, then take advantage of said situation. You should have never had that protection. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 12/21/2010 4:30 PM, MDK wrote: Jeromie, my socialist (or was that anarchist, I can't ever remember) friend, how are ya? I was thinking about making a run to a wrecking yard up that way and stopping by to see how things were going. Anyway, each time I read this solution it reminds me why it won't work. Let's say I move to Cove. Buy the biggest building in town, and put in a grocery store. Along come the grocery neutrality advocates and require that I set aside space in my store for all the people who want to compete in the grocery market.If I knew that was going to happen, why would I be so brain dead stupid as to invest all my money in the first place?And if it happened after the fact, why would I continue to maintain the building and keep it open, for the benefit of others? YOU see this as an opportunity to capitalize on monopoly created investment, and getting your share of it. I look at it and notice that the business model it creates is insanity, and no effort will EVER be taken to be market oriented and innovative. YOu're just trading one set of problems for a future set of intractables, with EVERYONE invested into a system that's broken beyond hope. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ Right there you prove what many want. The last mile should not be held by someone with stakes in what drives OVER that road. Lets make the last mile open to all ISPs who want to build out to the CO. I would drop in VDSL in my town TODAY if I COULD get access to the CO but the FCC took that away from us. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
That was the camel's nose in the tent, so to speak. NN and content regulation is merely some more of the camel through the door and in the tent with you. Rate or price controls, coverage requirements, bandwidth specifications, and so on would be the rest of the camel in the tent. At that point, you don't control your own network, prices, or service. You merely manage a utility that's either going to be the surviving monopoly or go under, as the regulators continue to raise your costs by demanding more from you, while regulating your revenues. If you don't think they'll do that, please research obamacare where in a short period of time, insurers are allowed to: Sign people up. They will not be able to set their own rates, design their own product, or benefit from efficient operations - as required ratio of incoming to outgoing dollars is specified. I'll bet some of you even thought it was a good idea at the time, as long as it's not YOUR business. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: RickG Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 8:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Yes, by the fact that a private person doing business is forced to report anything to the government is wrong. It breaks the trues spirit of capitalism freedom that this country was founded upon. Sorry to sound extreme but what will they force us to do next? On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: I don't think form 477 has anything to do with breaking anything. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 12/22/2010 12:44 AM, RickG wrote: The first step to breaking the net was form 477. On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:57 PM, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then pretending you can fix what you broke by half-baked notions of government created markets... There is NOTHING broke about 'internet' because it hasn't been regulated. Your issue is nothing but a complaint about the results of what should never have been done in the first place. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:56 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Well, no, what IS PROFOUNDLY BROKEN is that the ILECs are no longer required to be common carriers. They built their network using common carrier privileges. They got their market share using common carrier privileges. And then they turned around and got their common carrier obligations lifted by the profoundly corrupt Cheney-Rove FCC. So now they control the content on their wires, and you can't lease them. That's just wrong. And the Genachowski FCC isn't doing squat about that, though they absolutely have the power to do so. We do need a national common carrier utility. There is a clear distinction between carriage and content. ISPs are content, not carriage. And WISPs are self-provisioned ISPs who deliver content over unlicensed facilities without using a carrier, and without being one. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
Normally I don't open a message from MDK for fear of witnessing what I have become accustomed to. It took me a few days to do it, but I did open this thread. And I have to say I don't mind reading it. I may not agree with anything or agree with part, but the point is that I don't mind reading this, whereas I did in the past. For that effort, I say well done Mark. You've found a way to get your points across without clouding the issue with anti-government opinions. Now pay the fee join WISPA and help make change... Those of us who do would appreciate that (money where the mouth is, that kind of thing). On 12/23/2010 11:19 AM, MDK wrote: That was the camel's nose in the tent, so to speak. NN and content regulation is merely some more of the camel through the door and in the tent with you. Rate or price controls, coverage requirements, bandwidth specifications, and so on would be the rest of the camel in the tent. At that point, you don't control your own network, prices, or service. You merely manage a utility that's either going to be the surviving monopoly or go under, as the regulators continue to raise your costs by demanding more from you, while regulating your revenues. If you don't think they'll do that, please research obamacare where in a short period of time, insurers are allowed to: Sign people up. They will not be able to set their own rates, design their own product, or benefit from efficient operations - as required ratio of incoming to outgoing dollars is specified. I'll bet some of you even thought it was a good idea at the time, as long as it's not YOUR business. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ *From:* RickG mailto:rgunder...@gmail.com *Sent:* Thursday, December 23, 2010 8:58 AM *To:* WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Yes, by the fact that a private person doing business is forced to report anything to the government is wrong. It breaks the trues spirit of capitalism freedom that this country was founded upon. Sorry to sound extreme but what will they force us to do next? On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net mailto:wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: I don't think form 477 has anything to do with breaking anything. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 12/22/2010 12:44 AM, RickG wrote: The first step to breaking the net was form 477. On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:57 PM, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us mailto:rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then pretending you can fix what you broke by half-baked notions of government created markets... There is NOTHING broke about 'internet' because it hasn't been regulated. Your issue is nothing but a complaint about the results of what should never have been done in the first place. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:56 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Well, no, what IS PROFOUNDLY BROKEN is that the ILECs are no longer required to be common carriers. They built their network using common carrier privileges. They got their market share using common carrier privileges. And then they turned around and got their common carrier obligations lifted by the profoundly corrupt Cheney-Rove FCC. So now they control the content on their wires, and you can't lease them. That's just wrong. And the Genachowski FCC isn't doing squat about that, though they absolutely have the power to do so. We do need a national common carrier utility. There is a clear distinction between carriage and content. ISPs are content, not carriage. And WISPs are self-provisioned ISPs who deliver content over unlicensed facilities without using a carrier, and without being one. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com http://ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
At 12/23/2010 02:19 PM, MDK wrote: That was the camel's nose in the tent, so to speak. NN and content regulation is merely some more of the camel through the door and in the tent with you. Rate or price controls, coverage requirements, bandwidth specifications, and so on would be the rest of the camel in the tent. At that point, you don't control your own network, prices, or service. You merely manage a utility that's either going to be the surviving monopoly or go under, as the regulators continue to raise your costs by demanding more from you, while regulating your revenues. Actually, regulated utilities are a good thing. That's the point of there being a utility: It provides a necessary service to the public whose value is largely external to the utility itself, and which is not normally competitive. Hence it is usually regulated in a manner that ensures a fair profit for investors, while protecting consumers against price gouges. These are usually safe investments, so called widows and orphans stocks. However, it's necessary to define what is and what isn't a utility. Telephone companies are traditionally treated as utilities, though they no longer wish to be, except when it convenes them. ISP, in contrast, were created as the customers of the telephone utility, protected *from* misbehavior *by* the utility by regulation. The lifting of that utility-like rule -- in particular, Computer II -- led to the neutrality kerfuffle. Regulating ISPs per se *as* utilities, while popular among those who, for instance, created that silly mock tiered-service flyer in 2006, is a different issue. ISPs are being used as substitutes for utilities, because the Bells offer ISP services and have withdrawn their utility services. That does not argue against regulation of all utilities; it argues for maintaining a distinction between utility and customer. Because the FCC failed again to cite the Title II common carrier function as a basis for its rules, and maintains an artificial integration of content and carriage when the content is an ISP, its new regulations are likely to be voided. If they had cited a Title II function, it would have been unlikely to impact WISPs, who have never been Title II carriers. If you don't think they'll do that, please research obamacare where in a short period of time, insurers are allowed to: Sign people up. They will not be able to set their own rates, design their own product, or benefit from efficient operations - as required ratio of incoming to outgoing dollars is specified. I'll bet some of you even thought it was a good idea at the time, as long as it's not YOUR business. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: mailto:rgunder...@gmail.comRickG Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 8:58 AM To: mailto:wireless@wispa.orgWISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Yes, by the fact that a private person doing business is forced to report anything to the government is wrong. It breaks the trues spirit of capitalism freedom that this country was founded upon. Sorry to sound extreme but what will they force us to do next? On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Mike Hammett mailto:wispawirel...@ics-il.netwispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: I don't think form 477 has anything to do with breaking anything. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.comhttp://www.ics-il.com On 12/22/2010 12:44 AM, RickG wrote: The first step to breaking the net was form 477. On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:57 PM, MDK mailto:rea...@muddyfrogwater.usrea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then pretending you can fix what you broke by half-baked notions of government created markets... There is NOTHING broke about 'internet' because it hasn't been regulated. Your issue is nothing but a complaint about the results of what should never have been done in the first place. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Fred Goldstein mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.comfgoldst...@ionary.com Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:56 PM To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.orgwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Well, no, what IS PROFOUNDLY BROKEN is that the ILECs are no longer required to be common carriers. They built their network using common carrier privileges. They got their market share using common carrier privileges. And then they turned around and got their common carrier obligations lifted by the profoundly corrupt Cheney-Rove FCC. So now they control the content on their wires, and you can't lease them. That's just wrong. And the Genachowski
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
Hey Mark... This Mark is not anti-government, as in wanting anarchy. I'm still trying to grasp the thinking of people who welcome regulation. Perhaps my understanding is better and thus, I write better. I don't know. Thanks. However, as for giving WISPA money and promoting it... That will happen when or if WISPA officially adopts policies that I can support. But not until then. Don't ask me to change your organization. I was once in it and financially supported it and it took positions contrary to what I can support, so I left. That has to change before I will come back. Simple enough? You (as leaders and members of WISPA) really do have to decide where you're going, and if that's the same way, or close enough, that I can support, I will. Please don't ask me to jump into a contrarian situation, where I'm the odd man out, with an invitation to seek to change your organization around you. That's seriously chaos and results in severe discord. Ya'll don't need that ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: Mark Nash Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 11:41 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Normally I don't open a message from MDK for fear of witnessing what I have become accustomed to. It took me a few days to do it, but I did open this thread. And I have to say I don't mind reading it. I may not agree with anything or agree with part, but the point is that I don't mind reading this, whereas I did in the past. For that effort, I say well done Mark. You've found a way to get your points across without clouding the issue with anti-government opinions. Now pay the fee join WISPA and help make change... Those of us who do would appreciate that (money where the mouth is, that kind of thing). WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
I'll certainly agree that it's not sustainable. There's plenty of opportunity for people to run FTTH in subdivisions and backhaul with wireless. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 12/23/2010 1:04 PM, MDK wrote: If you're trying to align it (analogy) with ILEC's, I agree, the monopoly should never have been created. However, if we just focus on the present, and ignore history - and history is ignored because it's mostly irrelevant - this is the situation and how it will be viewed. Unlike Jeromie's characterization, someone really DOES own it and it's not the taxpayer, it's a private entity.How they got it, no longer matters to the entity, it's how it affects them in the present and future that matters. Unbundling amounts to being required to maintain and innovate at your expense, for the benefit of your competitors. The business concept doesn't make sense, and it never will, ergo, it is not sustainable. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Mike Hammettwispawirel...@ics-il.net Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 6:05 AM To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless To align it more closely with the telecom world, consider the following. The city gave you an exclusive license to operate a grocery for 100 years, but you refused to accept credit cards, had manual doors, and rang up all prices by looking them up in a book. Since you were protected from new grocery stores, they forced you to allow a competitive store in your building, which accepted credit cards, had automatic doors, and had an electronic back end. Same thing other than the cost to lay new cables is almost insurmountable as opposed to just putting up another building. The key here is that you were protected from competition for 100 years. You shouldn't be allowed to build your empire under protection, then take advantage of said situation. You should have never had that protection. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 12/21/2010 4:30 PM, MDK wrote: Jeromie, my socialist (or was that anarchist, I can't ever remember) friend, how are ya? I was thinking about making a run to a wrecking yard up that way and stopping by to see how things were going. Anyway, each time I read this solution it reminds me why it won't work. Let's say I move to Cove. Buy the biggest building in town, and put in a grocery store. Along come the grocery neutrality advocates and require that I set aside space in my store for all the people who want to compete in the grocery market.If I knew that was going to happen, why would I be so brain dead stupid as to invest all my money in the first place?And if it happened after the fact, why would I continue to maintain the building and keep it open, for the benefit of others? YOU see this as an opportunity to capitalize on monopoly created investment, and getting your share of it. I look at it and notice that the business model it creates is insanity, and no effort will EVER be taken to be market oriented and innovative. YOu're just trading one set of problems for a future set of intractables, with EVERYONE invested into a system that's broken beyond hope. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ Right there you prove what many want. The last mile should not be held by someone with stakes in what drives OVER that road. Lets make the last mile open to all ISPs who want to build out to the CO. I would drop in VDSL in my town TODAY if I COULD get access to the CO but the FCC took that away from us. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
Fred, your commentary on the written statutory and agency aspects of the events is admirably good and clear. However, we philosophically disagree vehemently, apparently, on the conclusions or judgements you make about things. I disagree almost entirely about the need or value of utilities as monopolies, or extremely regulated agents of government want and policy. I believe these have hurt us as a nation immensely. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: Fred Goldstein Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 12:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless At 12/23/2010 02:19 PM, MDK wrote: That was the camel's nose in the tent, so to speak. NN and content regulation is merely some more of the camel through the door and in the tent with you. Rate or price controls, coverage requirements, bandwidth specifications, and so on would be the rest of the camel in the tent. At that point, you don't control your own network, prices, or service. You merely manage a utility that's either going to be the surviving monopoly or go under, as the regulators continue to raise your costs by demanding more from you, while regulating your revenues. Actually, regulated utilities are a good thing. That's the point of there being a utility: It provides a necessary service to the public whose value is largely external to the utility itself, and which is not normally competitive. Hence it is usually regulated in a manner that ensures a fair profit for investors, while protecting consumers against price gouges. These are usually safe investments, so called widows and orphans stocks. However, it's necessary to define what is and what isn't a utility. Telephone companies are traditionally treated as utilities, though they no longer wish to be, except when it convenes them. ISP, in contrast, were created as the customers of the telephone utility, protected *from* misbehavior *by* the utility by regulation. The lifting of that utility-like rule -- in particular, Computer II -- led to the neutrality kerfuffle. Regulating ISPs per se *as* utilities, while popular among those who, for instance, created that silly mock tiered-service flyer in 2006, is a different issue. ISPs are being used as substitutes for utilities, because the Bells offer ISP services and have withdrawn their utility services. That does not argue against regulation of all utilities; it argues for maintaining a distinction between utility and customer. Because the FCC failed again to cite the Title II common carrier function as a basis for its rules, and maintains an artificial integration of content and carriage when the content is an ISP, its new regulations are likely to be voided. If they had cited a Title II function, it would have been unlikely to impact WISPs, who have never been Title II carriers. If you don't think they'll do that, please research obamacare where in a short period of time, insurers are allowed to: Sign people up. They will not be able to set their own rates, design their own product, or benefit from efficient operations - as required ratio of incoming to outgoing dollars is specified. I'll bet some of you even thought it was a good idea at the time, as long as it's not YOUR business. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: RickG Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 8:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Yes, by the fact that a private person doing business is forced to report anything to the government is wrong. It breaks the trues spirit of capitalism freedom that this country was founded upon. Sorry to sound extreme but what will they force us to do next? On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: I don't think form 477 has anything to do with breaking anything. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 12/22/2010 12:44 AM, RickG wrote: The first step to breaking the net was form 477. On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:57 PM, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then pretending you can fix what you broke by half-baked notions of government created markets... There is NOTHING broke about 'internet' because it hasn't been regulated. Your issue is nothing but a complaint about the results of what should never have been done in the first place. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
Agreed thereso then pay for value you receive... I'm sure that you're not a proponent of a handout... Or perhaps you perceive that you don't receive value. Enough said, anyway... On 12/23/2010 12:11 PM, MDK wrote: Hey Mark... This Mark is not anti-government, as in wanting anarchy. I'm still trying to grasp the thinking of people who welcome regulation. Perhaps my understanding is better and thus, I write better. I don't know. Thanks. However, as for giving WISPA money and promoting it... That will happen when or if WISPA officially adopts policies that I can support. But not until then. Don't ask me to change your organization. I was once in it and financially supported it and it took positions contrary to what I can support, so I left. That has to change before I will come back. Simple enough? You (as leaders and members of WISPA) really do have to decide where you're going, and if that's the same way, or close enough, that I can support, I will. Please don't ask me to jump into a contrarian situation, where I'm the odd man out, with an invitation to seek to change your organization around you. That's seriously chaos and results in severe discord. Ya'll don't need that ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ *From:* Mark Nash mailto:markl...@uwol.net *Sent:* Thursday, December 23, 2010 11:41 AM *To:* WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Normally I don't open a message from MDK for fear of witnessing what I have become accustomed to. It took me a few days to do it, but I did open this thread. And I have to say I don't mind reading it. I may not agree with anything or agree with part, but the point is that I don't mind reading this, whereas I did in the past. For that effort, I say well done Mark. You've found a way to get your points across without clouding the issue with anti-government opinions. Now pay the fee join WISPA and help make change... Those of us who do would appreciate that (money where the mouth is, that kind of thing). WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
I am not sure regulated or unregulated monopolies are a good thing. Locally the water company put pipe in the ground 50+ years ago. Because they are monopoly they have no competition. So, no need to provide better service today than yesterday. So now they have pipes breaking all the time and they patch the holes. Telephone is the same. Since VZ had no competition, they did not have to provide better service today than yesterday. So now they have wire in the ground that is ancient and the static is terrible in some areas. The fix is to for each customer that calls and complains enough, they find the bad spot and run a new piece of Cat3 wire from pedestal A to pedestal B and hang it on the fence so hopefully the local farmer or road crew won't catch it in the mower. I would argue that had these companies had competition they would have maintained the infrastructure to be able to provide the best possible service to avoid losing customers. So how did the consumer win in these instances? On 12/23/2010 3:06 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 12/23/2010 02:19 PM, MDK wrote: That was the camel's nose in the tent, so to speak. NN and content regulation is merely some more of the camel through the door and in the tent with you. Rate or price controls, coverage requirements, bandwidth specifications, and so on would be the rest of the camel in the tent. At that point, you don't control your own network, prices, or service. You merely manage a utility that's either going to be the surviving monopoly or go under, as the regulators continue to raise your costs by demanding more from you, while regulating your revenues. Actually, regulated utilities are a good thing. That's the point of there being a utility: It provides a necessary service to the public whose value is largely external to the utility itself, and which is not normally competitive. Hence it is usually regulated in a manner that ensures a fair profit for investors, while protecting consumers against price gouges. These are usually safe investments, so called widows and orphans stocks. However, it's necessary to define what is and what isn't a utility. Telephone companies are traditionally treated as utilities, though they no longer wish to be, except when it convenes them. ISP, in contrast, were created as the customers of the telephone utility, protected *from* misbehavior *by* the utility by regulation. The lifting of that utility-like rule -- in particular, Computer II -- led to the neutrality kerfuffle. Regulating ISPs per se *as* utilities, while popular among those who, for instance, created that silly mock tiered-service flyer in 2006, is a different issue. ISPs are being used as substitutes for utilities, because the Bells offer ISP services and have withdrawn their utility services. That does not argue against regulation of all utilities; it argues for maintaining a distinction between utility and customer. Because the FCC failed again to cite the Title II common carrier function as a basis for its rules, and maintains an artificial integration of content and carriage when the content is an ISP, its new regulations are likely to be voided. If they had cited a Title II function, it would have been unlikely to impact WISPs, who have never been Title II carriers. If you don't think they'll do that, please research obamacare where in a short period of time, insurers are allowed to: Sign people up. They will not be able to set their own rates, design their own product, or benefit from efficient operations - as required ratio of incoming to outgoing dollars is specified. I'll bet some of you even thought it was a good idea at the time, as long as it's not YOUR business. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ *From:* RickG mailto:rgunder...@gmail.com *Sent:* Thursday, December 23, 2010 8:58 AM *To:* WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Yes, by the fact that a private person doing business is forced to report anything to the government is wrong. It breaks the trues spirit of capitalism freedom that this country was founded upon. Sorry to sound extreme but what will they force us to do next? On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net mailto:wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: I don't think form 477 has anything to do with breaking anything. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 12/22/2010 12:44 AM, RickG wrote: The first step to breaking the net was form 477. On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:57 PM, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us mailto:rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
to set their own rates, design their own product, or benefit from efficient operations - as required ratio of incoming to outgoing dollars is specified. I'll bet some of you even thought it was a good idea at the time, as long as it's not YOUR business. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: mailto:rgunder...@gmail.comRickG Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 8:58 AM To: mailto:wireless@wispa.orgWISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Yes, by the fact that a private person doing business is forced to report anything to the government is wrong. It breaks the trues spirit of capitalism freedom that this country was founded upon. Sorry to sound extreme but what will they force us to do next? On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Mike Hammett mailto:wispawirel...@ics-il.netwispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: I don't think form 477 has anything to do with breaking anything. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.comhttp://www.ics-il.com On 12/22/2010 12:44 AM, RickG wrote: The first step to breaking the net was form 477. On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:57 PM, MDK mailto:rea...@muddyfrogwater.usrea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then pretending you can fix what you broke by half-baked notions of government created markets... There is NOTHING broke about 'internet' because it hasn't been regulated. Your issue is nothing but a complaint about the results of what should never have been done in the first place. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Fred Goldstein mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.comfgoldst...@ionary.com Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:56 PM To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.orgwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Well, no, what IS PROFOUNDLY BROKEN is that the ILECs are no longer required to be common carriers. They built their network using common carrier privileges. They got their market share using common carrier privileges. And then they turned around and got their common carrier obligations lifted by the profoundly corrupt Cheney-Rove FCC. So now they control the content on their wires, and you can't lease them. That's just wrong. And the Genachowski FCC isn't doing squat about that, though they absolutely have the power to do so. We do need a national common carrier utility. There is a clear distinction between carriage and content. ISPs are content, not carriage. And WISPs are self-provisioned ISPs who deliver content over unlicensed facilities without using a carrier, and without being one. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at http://ionary.comionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: mailto:wireless@wispa.orgwireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelesshttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: mailto:wireless@wispa.orgwireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelesshttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: mailto:wireless@wispa.orgwireless@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/http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: mailto:wireless@wispa.orgwireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
If I said 'they' did not own it, I am sorry, that is not what I intended at all. What I DO intend is that $.Telco OWE the public. 100 years of bullshit is not a correct payment of public debt. Forcing us into the position we are in now, is not a correct payment. I think the only places we really disagree Mark, is in how, or even if, the current companies owe for the public monies they have received. On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:04 AM, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: If you're trying to align it (analogy) with ILEC's, I agree, the monopoly should never have been created. However, if we just focus on the present, and ignore history - and history is ignored because it's mostly irrelevant - this is the situation and how it will be viewed. Unlike Jeromie's characterization, someone really DOES own it and it's not the taxpayer, it's a private entity. How they got it, no longer matters to the entity, it's how it affects them in the present and future that matters. Unbundling amounts to being required to maintain and innovate at your expense, for the benefit of your competitors. The business concept doesn't make sense, and it never will, ergo, it is not sustainable. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 6:05 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless To align it more closely with the telecom world, consider the following. The city gave you an exclusive license to operate a grocery for 100 years, but you refused to accept credit cards, had manual doors, and rang up all prices by looking them up in a book. Since you were protected from new grocery stores, they forced you to allow a competitive store in your building, which accepted credit cards, had automatic doors, and had an electronic back end. Same thing other than the cost to lay new cables is almost insurmountable as opposed to just putting up another building. The key here is that you were protected from competition for 100 years. You shouldn't be allowed to build your empire under protection, then take advantage of said situation. You should have never had that protection. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 12/21/2010 4:30 PM, MDK wrote: Jeromie, my socialist (or was that anarchist, I can't ever remember) friend, how are ya? I was thinking about making a run to a wrecking yard up that way and stopping by to see how things were going. Anyway, each time I read this solution it reminds me why it won't work. Let's say I move to Cove. Buy the biggest building in town, and put in a grocery store. Along come the grocery neutrality advocates and require that I set aside space in my store for all the people who want to compete in the grocery market. If I knew that was going to happen, why would I be so brain dead stupid as to invest all my money in the first place? And if it happened after the fact, why would I continue to maintain the building and keep it open, for the benefit of others? YOU see this as an opportunity to capitalize on monopoly created investment, and getting your share of it. I look at it and notice that the business model it creates is insanity, and no effort will EVER be taken to be market oriented and innovative. YOu're just trading one set of problems for a future set of intractables, with EVERYONE invested into a system that's broken beyond hope. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ Right there you prove what many want. The last mile should not be held by someone with stakes in what drives OVER that road. Lets make the last mile open to all ISPs who want to build out to the CO. I would drop in VDSL in my town TODAY if I COULD get access to the CO but the FCC took that away from us. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
The real question is does the FCC have the jurisdiction to do any of this. I think when one of the big guys challenges it in court we will see that they don't. I am sure that will change at some point in the future. Sent from my iPhone4 On Dec 22, 2010, at 12:44 AM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: The first step to breaking the net was form 477. On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:57 PM, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then pretending you can fix what you broke by half-baked notions of government created markets... There is NOTHING broke about 'internet' because it hasn't been regulated. Your issue is nothing but a complaint about the results of what should never have been done in the first place. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:56 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Well, no, what IS PROFOUNDLY BROKEN is that the ILECs are no longer required to be common carriers. They built their network using common carrier privileges. They got their market share using common carrier privileges. And then they turned around and got their common carrier obligations lifted by the profoundly corrupt Cheney-Rove FCC. So now they control the content on their wires, and you can't lease them. That's just wrong. And the Genachowski FCC isn't doing squat about that, though they absolutely have the power to do so. We do need a national common carrier utility. There is a clear distinction between carriage and content. ISPs are content, not carriage. And WISPs are self-provisioned ISPs who deliver content over unlicensed facilities without using a carrier, and without being one. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
Genachowski was confident that they do. He says Congress granted them that permission in 2008 (I believe). However, there is a large contingency of politicians, companies and special interest groups that disagree with the Chairman’s viewpoints. This ruling will be challenged in Court very quickly. Rick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeremie Chism Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 10:06 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless The real question is does the FCC have the jurisdiction to do any of this. I think when one of the big guys challenges it in court we will see that they don't. I am sure that will change at some point in the future. Sent from my iPhone4 On Dec 22, 2010, at 12:44 AM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: The first step to breaking the net was form 477. On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:57 PM, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then pretending you can fix what you broke by half-baked notions of government created markets... There is NOTHING broke about 'internet' because it hasn't been regulated. Your issue is nothing but a complaint about the results of what should never have been done in the first place. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:56 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Well, no, what IS PROFOUNDLY BROKEN is that the ILECs are no longer required to be common carriers. They built their network using common carrier privileges. They got their market share using common carrier privileges. And then they turned around and got their common carrier obligations lifted by the profoundly corrupt Cheney-Rove FCC. So now they control the content on their wires, and you can't lease them. That's just wrong. And the Genachowski FCC isn't doing squat about that, though they absolutely have the power to do so. We do need a national common carrier utility. There is a clear distinction between carriage and content. ISPs are content, not carriage. And WISPs are self-provisioned ISPs who deliver content over unlicensed facilities without using a carrier, and without being one. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
I think that most will agree that they do not however since it touches so many citizens there will always be a group demanding that “They need to do something about this” for whatever reason and most if not all bureaucrats are reactionary to the squeaky wheel and will do almost anything to shut them up. In the end, as you said, a deep pocket corporation will take it on and the FCC will cave in to the position of that party. The whole thing is a double edged sword, IMO. I just wake up and go to work and do as little as possible… J From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeremie Chism Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 10:06 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless The real question is does the FCC have the jurisdiction to do any of this. I think when one of the big guys challenges it in court we will see that they don't. I am sure that will change at some point in the future. Sent from my iPhone4 On Dec 22, 2010, at 12:44 AM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: The first step to breaking the net was form 477. On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:57 PM, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then pretending you can fix what you broke by half-baked notions of government created markets... There is NOTHING broke about 'internet' because it hasn't been regulated. Your issue is nothing but a complaint about the results of what should never have been done in the first place. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:56 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Well, no, what IS PROFOUNDLY BROKEN is that the ILECs are no longer required to be common carriers. They built their network using common carrier privileges. They got their market share using common carrier privileges. And then they turned around and got their common carrier obligations lifted by the profoundly corrupt Cheney-Rove FCC. So now they control the content on their wires, and you can't lease them. That's just wrong. And the Genachowski FCC isn't doing squat about that, though they absolutely have the power to do so. We do need a national common carrier utility. There is a clear distinction between carriage and content. ISPs are content, not carriage. And WISPs are self-provisioned ISPs who deliver content over unlicensed facilities without using a carrier, and without being one. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
At 12/22/2010 10:05 AM, JeremieC wrote: The real question is does the FCC have the jurisdiction to do any of this. I think when one of the big guys challenges it in court we will see that they don't. I am sure that will change at some point in the future. The FCC's authority over common carriers is clear. Their authority over ISPs is not. The DC Circuit's May ruling overturning the Comcast Order gives a pretty clear picture of the FCC's authority. Had the FCC actually wanted to make a new set of rules that could withstand judicial scrutiny, they were told how. They were also told exactly what would not be approved. Guess which path they took in yesterday's order... Sent from my iPhone4 On Dec 22, 2010, at 12:44 AM, RickG mailto:rgunder...@gmail.comrgunder...@gmail.com wrote: The first step to breaking the net was form 477. On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:57 PM, MDK mailto:rea...@muddyfrogwater.usrea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then pretending you can fix what you broke by half-baked notions of government created markets... There is NOTHING broke about 'internet' because it hasn't been regulated. Your issue is nothing but a complaint about the results of what should never have been done in the first place. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Fred Goldstein mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.comfgoldst...@ionary.com Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:56 PM To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.orgwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Well, no, what IS PROFOUNDLY BROKEN is that the ILECs are no longer required to be common carriers. They built their network using common carrier privileges. They got their market share using common carrier privileges. And then they turned around and got their common carrier obligations lifted by the profoundly corrupt Cheney-Rove FCC. So now they control the content on their wires, and you can't lease them. That's just wrong. And the Genachowski FCC isn't doing squat about that, though they absolutely have the power to do so. We do need a national common carrier utility. There is a clear distinction between carriage and content. ISPs are content, not carriage. And WISPs are self-provisioned ISPs who deliver content over unlicensed facilities without using a carrier, and without being one. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at http://ionary.comionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: mailto:wireless@wispa.orgwireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelesshttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: mailto:wireless@wispa.orgwireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelesshttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: mailto:wireless@wispa.orgwireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelesshttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/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/ -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
It was a win because the FCC did not decide to go after title-II reclassification. Taking authority under Title I will only allow limited authority in my opinion, and their authority and decissions could be challenged in court. Considering that many believe that titleI does not give the authority. So likely FCC would take a more conservative appproach, while wallking the thin line between what they can do and not do without pissing someone off to go to court. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: MDK To: WISPA General List Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 7:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless No, we LOST. You see, once they have the power, they have the power.It is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get partial exemption. I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this. As far as I'm concerned it's come and arrest me, coppers and I will damn well NOT comply. And if we all did that. They'd just give up. But we're too chicken to stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently. I don't know when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: Joe Fiero Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless It's good to see all our efforts pay off. REUTERS updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55 WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks, senior agency officials said Monday. Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month, but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are expected to vote in favor of the rules. Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based on Internet usage. The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband, Genachowski said in a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of development than terrestrial Internet service. -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
Excuse me but is your signature big enough on this e-mail?? :-) regarding this FCC thing... Some how, some way this thing will bite us in the butt and reward the big guys. -B- On 12/20/2010 8:05 PM, St. Louis Broadband wrote: Yes it is! *Victoria Proffer - President/CEO* www.ShowMeBroadband.com www.StLouisBroadband.com 314-974-5600 *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Joe Fiero *Sent:* Monday, December 20, 2010 4:12 PM *To:* 'WISPA General List' *Subject:* [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless It's good to see all our efforts pay off. REUTERS updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55 WASHINGTON --- The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks, senior agency officials said Monday. Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month, but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are expected to vote in favor of the rules. Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based on Internet usage. The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40756299/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/, Genachowski said in a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of development than terrestrial Internet service. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Charles N Wyble char...@knownelement.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/20/2010 04:56 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed) wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network) with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to wake up and go pickup the kids. Um. so you want the big guys to have to play by certain rules (be dumb pipes) but you wouldn't have to play by those rules as a small player? Why shouldn't that regulation be applied to wisps as well? Why shouldn't you have to share spectrum? Let's realize we are all in this together and come up with workable solutions. Let's be partners with the ISPs and not make it us vs them. You did not read my post well at all. I DID say wireless should play by the same rules, just not ALL wireless. 900,2.4,5.x and such unlicensed bands could never hold up to the SLA needed for such rules. I said NEW bands should be found and licensed to the same sharing rules. The rules also should be a little different for wireless, since it is a more over subscribed pipe then cable/dsl/fiber. Still, a NEW band WITH the sharing rules I would be all for. It needs to be LICENSED as such. . I have been doing a lot of thinking about how to make packet movement (in particular backhaul) somewhat more fair. I already discussed peering on the list in recent days. Have folks been following the NBN rollout in Australlia? It leaves a certain amount of rough edges on the implementation specifics (see the AUSNOG mailing list archives for several very detailed discussions). However it's a national l2 network. Pretty cool stuff. See I'm a layer3 and above guy, and have targeted very specific areas for my wireless deployment (currently in 4 locations in the greater la/oc area). I'm deploying an advertising network and giving internet access away. I'm going into areas that don't have a lot of existing wifi, running heavily localized advertising driven hotspots. So I don't have spectrum issues. This is what I am doing also, cept I am targeting areas that both have and do not have a lot of existing wifi. One of the good things since everyone jumped on the WPA/2 bandwagon is no more open wifi! =) However I face the same problems as many wisps at layer3 and above (namely getting bandwidth at a good price where I need it). So what would folks like to see? Would you like to see a layer1/2 natural monopolie run as a municipal utility, that would run an open access/co-op fiber network? No. For ILECs to be ran as a layer1 corp, and everyone layer 2+ to be ran as a separate one. That would mean that I could do layer2+ where I wanted to on tax payer funded lines, and my other corp could do layer1, with or with out tax payer monies. Corp1 has to lease from Corp2 and Corp2 has to lease to everyone under the same schedule. No sweetheart deals for my self cause I am both Corp 1 and Corp 2. Take Qw's $15 DSL. It costs ME $40/mo for that same loop with NO IP on it. It was paid for by tax payers, it should be available. And do you think Qw will let ME into the local CO or the RT's to offer better services? How many here participated in the broadband forum meetings that were held prior to the Obama election? How many people here reached out to those folks and requested exactly this? I know I did (I went to the Los Angeles meeting). Don't get mad, get even!!! Hmmm... the above was a bit rambling... looks like rough pieces of a mind map for a blog post. :) Things to think about anyway. On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: No, we LOST. You see, once they have the power, they have the power. It is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get partial exemption. I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this. As far as I’m concerned it's come and arrest me, coppers and I will damn well NOT comply. And if we all did that. They'd just give up. But we're too chicken to stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently. I don't know when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
Nothing personal here... I have yet to see some 'constructive' discussion from Mark about how to influence the outcome of such regulations... I am not in favor of the regulation... but ours would not be the first Independent Business to be 'Regulated' in some form or another.. (Food business is regulated, Medial Business is regulated, Fuel Business is regulated etc. etc. etc..) On one side when larger companies in an industry start to flex their muscles, and start playing arrogant, that simply invites Regulation... but then again we all behave similar in our own play pens as well... but it is just that we are small and thus don't hit the regulators radar screen.. You have to actively Participate in the rule making process, otherwise live be the rules made by others. A boycott, or total anti gov. attitude is simply going to increase your stress level and accomplish nothing. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 12/21/2010 12:42 AM, RickG wrote: Faisal, with all due respect, (and you know I do) - Mark is right. We are not phone companys. We are PRIVATE, independent companys with volunteer subscribers. Are you saying we have already lost? The fact that we are even having to have this conversation in the land of the free is sad. BTW: I dont read Mark's post as a tantrum. It's hard for anyone to comment on negative news in a positive light. P.S. It looks like Bell fared well against governmetn lawsuits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Graham_Bell On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net mailto:fai...@snappydsl.net wrote: 'Dude'... get a grip.. get out of this business, get some sanity into your life... this kind of stress is not good... Just imagine how Alexander Graham Bell felt when the Gov. decided to regulate the Phone Company ! Fact of life... when a service starts to become a crucial / critical for the general population... the Gov. (anywhere in the world) will start to regulate it... Don't be surprised if tomorrow's Internet, gets to be like a utility ! (Electricity ?) ... Get a grip, you don't have to like the rules, but realize you are not in position to make the rules, just play by them...or not ! Don't like it.. go do something else... Throwing tantrums will not make a difference... :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 12/20/2010 8:36 PM, MDK wrote: I am opposed to ALL aspects, period. Nothing is broken such that it needs the atomic bomb of government to fix it. This is a fix in desperate search of a broken and the closest thing to a broken they can find is a hypothetical that isn't a disaster in the first place. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Jeromie Reevesjree...@18-30chat.net mailto:jree...@18-30chat.net Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:56 PM To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed) wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network) with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to wake up and go pickup the kids. On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDKrea...@muddyfrogwater.us mailto:rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: No, we LOST. You see, once they have the power, they have the power. It is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get partial exemption. I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this. As far as I’m concerned it's come and arrest me, coppers and I will damn well NOT comply. And if we all did that. They'd just give up. But we're too chicken to stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently. I don't know when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
Mark may state his case strongly, but he isn't wrong. Fred stated it better than I could. Even though this particular set of regs may not be particularly onerous.you've just invited the camel under the tent. Regards, Jeff ImageStream Sales Manager 800-813-5123 x106 _ From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 9:27 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless 'Dude'... get a grip.. get out of this business, get some sanity into your life... this kind of stress is not good... Just imagine how Alexander Graham Bell felt when the Gov. decided to regulate the Phone Company ! Fact of life... when a service starts to become a crucial / critical for the general population... the Gov. (anywhere in the world) will start to regulate it... Don't be surprised if tomorrow's Internet, gets to be like a utility ! (Electricity ?) ... Get a grip, you don't have to like the rules, but realize you are not in position to make the rules, just play by them...or not ! Don't like it.. go do something else... Throwing tantrums will not make a difference... :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 12/20/2010 8:36 PM, MDK wrote: I am opposed to ALL aspects, period. Nothing is broken such that it needs the atomic bomb of government to fix it. This is a fix in desperate search of a broken and the closest thing to a broken they can find is a hypothetical that isn't a disaster in the first place. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Jeromie Reevesjree...@18-30chat.net Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:56 PM To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed) wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network) with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to wake up and go pickup the kids. On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDKrea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: No, we LOST. You see, once they have the power, they have the power. It is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get partial exemption. I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this. As far as I'm concerned it's come and arrest me, coppers and I will damn well NOT comply. And if we all did that. They'd just give up. But we're too chicken to stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently. I don't know when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: Joe Fiero Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless It's good to see all our efforts pay off. REUTERS updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55 WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks, senior agency officials said Monday. Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month, but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are expected to vote in favor of the rules. Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based on Internet usage. The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband, Genachowski said in a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of development than terrestrial Internet service. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
Yes, I am in agreement the point I was trying to make was, channel your energy into something productive that can make a difference.. venting it out on the list may make you feel better, but will not accomplish anything else. :) Jeff, I am curious about the background on the 'camel' analogy... there are no camels to be found in the US, and tents are even more rare... cats / dogs / Uncle Bob etc etc are more common heheheh... Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 12/21/2010 11:11 AM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists wrote: Mark may state his case strongly, but he isn't wrong. Fred stated it better than I could. Even though this particular set of regs may not be particularly onerous...you've just invited the camel under the tent. Regards, Jeff ImageStream Sales Manager 800-813-5123 x106 *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Faisal Imtiaz *Sent:* Monday, December 20, 2010 9:27 PM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless 'Dude'... get a grip.. get out of this business, get some sanity into your life... this kind of stress is not good... Just imagine how Alexander Graham Bell felt when the Gov. decided to regulate the Phone Company ! Fact of life... when a service starts to become a crucial / critical for the general population... the Gov. (anywhere in the world) will start to regulate it... Don't be surprised if tomorrow's Internet, gets to be like a utility ! (Electricity ?) ... Get a grip, you don't have to like the rules, but realize you are not in position to make the rules, just play by them...or not ! Don't like it.. go do something else... Throwing tantrums will not make a difference... :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 12/20/2010 8:36 PM, MDK wrote: I am opposed to ALL aspects, period. Nothing is broken such that it needs the atomic bomb of government to fix it. This is a fix in desperate search of a broken and the closest thing to a broken they can find is a hypothetical that isn't a disaster in the first place. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Jeromie Reevesjree...@18-30chat.net Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:56 PM To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed) wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network) with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to wake up and go pickup the kids. On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDKrea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: No, we LOST. You see, once they have the power, they have the power. It is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get partial exemption. I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this. As far as I'm concerned it's come and arrest me, coppers and I will damn well NOT comply. And if we all did that. They'd just give up. But we're too chicken to stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently. I don't know when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: Joe Fiero Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless It's good to see all our efforts pay off. REUTERS updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55 WASHINGTON --- The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks, senior agency officials said Monday. Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month, but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are expected to vote in favor of the rules. Genachowski proposed banning the blocking
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
Faisal, Nothing personal taken. I understand what you are saying but let me rephrase my thoughts. Why is it that government has to get into every aspect of our lives and business? Just because the big guys flex some muscle doesnt meant we should be included in their regulations. And thats my point, we shouldnt even be part of the question. Someday, they'll ask - whatever happened to the USA? We'll say Government run amuck! I realize discussing this here wont do any good so I'm going to drop it. Just some food for thought. On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net wrote: Nothing personal here... I have yet to see some 'constructive' discussion from Mark about how to influence the outcome of such regulations... I am not in favor of the regulation... but ours would not be the first Independent Business to be 'Regulated' in some form or another.. (Food business is regulated, Medial Business is regulated, Fuel Business is regulated etc. etc. etc..) On one side when larger companies in an industry start to flex their muscles, and start playing arrogant, that simply invites Regulation... but then again we all behave similar in our own play pens as well... but it is just that we are small and thus don't hit the regulators radar screen.. You have to actively Participate in the rule making process, otherwise live be the rules made by others. A boycott, or total anti gov. attitude is simply going to increase your stress level and accomplish nothing. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 12/21/2010 12:42 AM, RickG wrote: Faisal, with all due respect, (and you know I do) - Mark is right. We are not phone companys. We are PRIVATE, independent companys with volunteer subscribers. Are you saying we have already lost? The fact that we are even having to have this conversation in the land of the free is sad. BTW: I dont read Mark's post as a tantrum. It's hard for anyone to comment on negative news in a positive light. P.S. It looks like Bell fared well against governmetn lawsuits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Graham_Bell On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.netwrote: 'Dude'... get a grip.. get out of this business, get some sanity into your life... this kind of stress is not good... Just imagine how Alexander Graham Bell felt when the Gov. decided to regulate the Phone Company ! Fact of life... when a service starts to become a crucial / critical for the general population... the Gov. (anywhere in the world) will start to regulate it... Don't be surprised if tomorrow's Internet, gets to be like a utility ! (Electricity ?) ... Get a grip, you don't have to like the rules, but realize you are not in position to make the rules, just play by them...or not ! Don't like it.. go do something else... Throwing tantrums will not make a difference... :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 12/20/2010 8:36 PM, MDK wrote: I am opposed to ALL aspects, period. Nothing is broken such that it needs the atomic bomb of government to fix it. This is a fix in desperate search of a broken and the closest thing to a broken they can find is a hypothetical that isn't a disaster in the first place. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Jeromie Reevesjree...@18-30chat.net Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:56 PM To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed) wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network) with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to wake up and go pickup the kids. On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDKrea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: No, we LOST. You see, once they have the power, they have the power. It is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get partial exemption. I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this. As far as I’m concerned it's come and arrest me, coppers and I will damn well NOT comply. And if we all did that. They'd just give up. But we're too chicken to stand up for ourselves, as a country
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then pretending you can fix what you broke by half-baked notions of government created markets... There is NOTHING broke about 'internet' because it hasn't been regulated. Your issue is nothing but a complaint about the results of what should never have been done in the first place. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:56 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Well, no, what IS PROFOUNDLY BROKEN is that the ILECs are no longer required to be common carriers. They built their network using common carrier privileges. They got their market share using common carrier privileges. And then they turned around and got their common carrier obligations lifted by the profoundly corrupt Cheney-Rove FCC. So now they control the content on their wires, and you can't lease them. That's just wrong. And the Genachowski FCC isn't doing squat about that, though they absolutely have the power to do so. We do need a national common carrier utility. There is a clear distinction between carriage and content. ISPs are content, not carriage. And WISPs are self-provisioned ISPs who deliver content over unlicensed facilities without using a carrier, and without being one. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
I'm sure you mean well, but I'm not even stirred up yet. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:27 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless 'Dude'... get a grip.. get out of this business, get some sanity into your life... this kind of stress is not good... WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
Bob, that's about the truest comments on the matter... ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: Bob Moldashel Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 6:34 AM To: li...@stlbroadband.com ; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Excuse me but is your signature big enough on this e-mail?? :-) regarding this FCC thing... Some how, some way this thing will bite us in the butt and reward the big guys. -B- On 12/20/2010 8:05 PM, St. Louis Broadband wrote: Yes it is! Victoria Proffer - President/CEO www.ShowMeBroadband.com www.StLouisBroadband.com 314-974-5600 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:12 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless It's good to see all our efforts pay off. REUTERS updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55 WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks, senior agency officials said Monday. Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month, but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are expected to vote in favor of the rules. Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based on Internet usage. The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband, Genachowski said in a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of development than terrestrial Internet service. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
, it is us vs the FCC and a couple of special interest groups. After the new Congress is sworn in, we have a real possibility of getting the law written to say we're to be left alone, and NOT subject to the whims of agency people. But, like I said almost a year ago... Ya'll gonna have to decide which side of this fence ya wanna be on. You know where I am. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: Faisal Imtiaz Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 6:26 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Nothing personal here... I have yet to see some 'constructive' discussion from Mark about how to influence the outcome of such regulations... I am not in favor of the regulation... but ours would not be the first Independent Business to be 'Regulated' in some form or another.. (Food business is regulated, Medial Business is regulated, Fuel Business is regulated etc. etc. etc..) On one side when larger companies in an industry start to flex their muscles, and start playing arrogant, that simply invites Regulation... but then again we all behave similar in our own play pens as well... but it is just that we are small and thus don't hit the regulators radar screen.. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
At 12/21/2010 01:57 PM, MDK wrote: The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then pretending you can fix what you broke by half-baked notions of government created markets... Uh, no. Wireline is a natural monopoly. That is NOT what it has sometimes been taken to mean, an excuse to regulate. Rather, it's an economics concept, which means that the cost of entering the market as a new provider is substantially higher than the cost to an existing provider of adding incremental capacity. In other words, the incumbent can always underprice the new entrant, so it's impossible to compete. If you don't believe it's the case for wireline loops, think about roads. How much would it cost for a second road company to pull up to your front door? Absurd? Wire is almost the same thing. When there is a natural monopoly, the holder of that monopoly has the potential to abuse its power. Hence such companies are normally regulated. That applies to electric distribution, natural gas distribution, water, and until recently telecommunications. These are thus regulated utilities, where being a utility means that the company is entitled to make a fair profit, but that the value of the product or service is assumed to be greater than its price, so the monopoly utility can't charge whatever the market will bear (monopoly rents). Wireless is not, of course; market entry is regulated based on spectrum allocation rules. That too is now optimized for corporate profit, not maximal public utility. If it were not regulated to protect license values, then there would be much more unlicensed spectrum, since WISPs make much more efficient use of spectrum than many of the licensees. Telcos have been regulated as utilities since the 19th century; telegraph was regulated before then. And common carrier regulation (the old concept of bailment translates to neutrality when it's applied to bits) goes back for several centuries, when it applied to horse-wagon and canal-boat carriers, and then to railroads. There is NOTHING broke about 'internet' because it hasn't been regulated. Information service should not be viewed as a monopoly or utility either. HOWEVER, the FCC has created an untenable monster in which ISPs are vertically integrated, from information down to physical medium. so the natural break between the information service and the telecommunications service (to use the somewhat broken TA96 terms) is now gone. That's the elbow joint in the arm of communications policy. Remove its flexibility, as was done a few years ago, and no matter which way you point the arm, it can't do its job. THAT is what's broken. It creates the *possibiilty* that the wire owner will abuse the user's Internet information, with the user not having a choice of alternative ISPs. There was no public call for network neutrality until after the FCC revoked Computer II in 2005. Your issue is nothing but a complaint about the results of what should never have been done in the first place. What should never have been done is remove the ISPs' open access to the telcos' wire. And what should not be done now is regulate small, non-dominant non-telco ISPs the same way as the telcos. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:56 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Well, no, what IS PROFOUNDLY BROKEN is that the ILECs are no longer required to be common carriers. They built their network using common carrier privileges. They got their market share using common carrier privileges. And then they turned around and got their common carrier obligations lifted by the profoundly corrupt Cheney-Rove FCC. So now they control the content on their wires, and you can't lease them. That's just wrong. And the Genachowski FCC isn't doing squat about that, though they absolutely have the power to do so. We do need a national common carrier utility. There is a clear distinction between carriage and content. ISPs are content, not carriage. And WISPs are self-provisioned ISPs who deliver content over unlicensed facilities without using a carrier, and without being one. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
I wholeheartedly disagree with your premise. From that point on, we have little to debate about. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 11:43 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless At 12/21/2010 01:57 PM, MDK wrote: The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then pretending you can fix what you broke by half-baked notions of government created markets... Uh, no. Wireline is a natural monopoly. That is NOT what it has sometimes been taken to mean, an excuse to regulate. Rather, it's an economics concept, which means that the cost of entering the market as a new provider is substantially higher than the cost to an existing provider of adding incremental capacity. In other words, the incumbent can always underprice the new entrant, so it's impossible to compete. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
Very nice explanation, thanks Fred. Victoria Proffer - President/CEO www.ShowMeBroadband.com www.StLouisBroadband.com 314-974-5600 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 1:43 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless At 12/21/2010 01:57 PM, MDK wrote: The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then pretending you can fix what you broke by half-baked notions of government created markets... Uh, no. Wireline is a natural monopoly. That is NOT what it has sometimes been taken to mean, an excuse to regulate. Rather, it's an economics concept, which means that the cost of entering the market as a new provider is substantially higher than the cost to an existing provider of adding incremental capacity. In other words, the incumbent can always underprice the new entrant, so it's impossible to compete. If you don't believe it's the case for wireline loops, think about roads. How much would it cost for a second road company to pull up to your front door? Absurd? Wire is almost the same thing. When there is a natural monopoly, the holder of that monopoly has the potential to abuse its power. Hence such companies are normally regulated. That applies to electric distribution, natural gas distribution, water, and until recently telecommunications. These are thus regulated utilities, where being a utility means that the company is entitled to make a fair profit, but that the value of the product or service is assumed to be greater than its price, so the monopoly utility can't charge whatever the market will bear (monopoly rents). Wireless is not, of course; market entry is regulated based on spectrum allocation rules. That too is now optimized for corporate profit, not maximal public utility. If it were not regulated to protect license values, then there would be much more unlicensed spectrum, since WISPs make much more efficient use of spectrum than many of the licensees. Telcos have been regulated as utilities since the 19th century; telegraph was regulated before then. And common carrier regulation (the old concept of bailment translates to neutrality when it's applied to bits) goes back for several centuries, when it applied to horse-wagon and canal-boat carriers, and then to railroads. There is NOTHING broke about 'internet' because it hasn't been regulated. Information service should not be viewed as a monopoly or utility either. HOWEVER, the FCC has created an untenable monster in which ISPs are vertically integrated, from information down to physical medium. so the natural break between the information service and the telecommunications service (to use the somewhat broken TA96 terms) is now gone. That's the elbow joint in the arm of communications policy. Remove its flexibility, as was done a few years ago, and no matter which way you point the arm, it can't do its job. THAT is what's broken. It creates the *possibiilty* that the wire owner will abuse the user's Internet information, with the user not having a choice of alternative ISPs. There was no public call for network neutrality until after the FCC revoked Computer II in 2005. Your issue is nothing but a complaint about the results of what should never have been done in the first place. What should never have been done is remove the ISPs' open access to the telcos' wire. And what should not be done now is regulate small, non-dominant non-telco ISPs the same way as the telcos. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:56 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Well, no, what IS PROFOUNDLY BROKEN is that the ILECs are no longer required to be common carriers. They built their network using common carrier privileges. They got their market share using common carrier privileges. And then they turned around and got their common carrier obligations lifted by the profoundly corrupt Cheney-Rove FCC. So now they control the content on their wires, and you can't lease them. That's just wrong. And the Genachowski FCC isn't doing squat about that, though they absolutely have the power to do so. We do need a national common carrier utility. There is a clear distinction between carriage and content. ISPs are content, not carriage. And WISPs are self-provisioned ISPs who deliver content over unlicensed facilities without using a carrier, and without being one. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
, and it said basically the following: How long are you going to try to straddle this? How long is the leadership going to mouth we need freedom to operate our business with the contradicting premise of we want to get federal money and subsidies? The latter never comes with the former.WISPA is going to have to take a stand, either it's going to say we invite and recognize the value of regulation of ISP business, network, and policies or, it's going to have to say We believe that our industry is best UNREGULATED.And they punted. Instead, I was told to shut the hell up and not bring it up again. Instead of sitting down and asking our contacts in DC who our friends are, in terms of getting us permanent free market status, the leadership chose to continue straddling the fence, so as to not rock the boat.And, I will NOT support WISPA, until or unless it actually grows a pair and fights, not to encourage and promote us being regulated, but the RIGHT thing, which is our independence. Those people who were denigrated and put down, those tea party types, have suddenly gotten big pull in DC. And they want every ally they can get. And WE should be one of them. EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK for the last month, major opinion writers, congressmen, senators, and so on, have ARGUED for our NON regulated status all over the news, tv shows, cable, internet sites, newspapers, magazines, you name it. Where the hell are we? Afraid to say the word, all hunkered down and have already given up and declared dead - that being heavily regulated status being a foregone conclusion and our free market status lost. There's basically TWO organizations, the White House, and Genachowski himself that are pushing it, THAT IS IT. And they're a tiny, but loud minority, and they have the sympathy of Democrats. Both of the organizations pushing it, are well funded and are basically socialists, who push an agenda of extreme government power, over all things. In this is case, it is not us against Congress, it is us vs the FCC and a couple of special interest groups. After the new Congress is sworn in, we have a real possibility of getting the law written to say we're to be left alone, and NOT subject to the whims of agency people. But, like I said almost a year ago... Ya'll gonna have to decide which side of this fence ya wanna be on. You know where I am. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ *From:* Faisal Imtiaz mailto:fai...@snappydsl.net *Sent:* Tuesday, December 21, 2010 6:26 AM *To:* WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Nothing personal here... I have yet to see some 'constructive' discussion from Mark about how to influence the outcome of such regulations... I am not in favor of the regulation... but ours would not be the first Independent Business to be 'Regulated' in some form or another.. (Food business is regulated, Medial Business is regulated, Fuel Business is regulated etc. etc. etc..) On one side when larger companies in an industry start to flex their muscles, and start playing arrogant, that simply invites Regulation... but then again we all behave similar in our own play pens as well... but it is just that we are small and thus don't hit the regulators radar screen.. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
It is tough to have a meaningful discussion when you make comments as such .. You don't have to agree with Fred, but if you listen to him with and open mind, at worst you will end up learning about a whole series of events that got us this point... And it is not due to some individual who went to Washington and Kissed someone ! :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 12/21/2010 3:06 PM, MDK wrote: I wholeheartedly disagree with your premise. From that point on, we have little to debate about. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Fred Goldsteinfgoldst...@ionary.com Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 11:43 AM To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless At 12/21/2010 01:57 PM, MDK wrote: The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then pretending you can fix what you broke by half-baked notions of government created markets... Uh, no. Wireline is a natural monopoly. That is NOT what it has sometimes been taken to mean, an excuse to regulate. Rather, it's an economics concept, which means that the cost of entering the market as a new provider is substantially higher than the cost to an existing provider of adding incremental capacity. In other words, the incumbent can always underprice the new entrant, so it's impossible to compete. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
So, I disagree with his premise, and his argument about the premise, that wired telephony is a natural monopoly, and I'm not allowed to say so? What, who speaks first is now the authority and cannot be questioned? All of what he said is based upon the natural monopoly premise, and since we disagree on that premise, we don't have anything to debate about what he said, I disagree with his conclusions. This is neither disrespectful nor insulting. And, since it's somewhat off the topic of this thread, I chose to not further pursue it. Now, can we get on with whatever our conversation will be about the matter of import, at least at this point in time? ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:31 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless It is tough to have a meaningful discussion when you make comments as such .. You don't have to agree with Fred, but if you listen to him with and open mind, at worst you will end up learning about a whole series of events that got us this point... And it is not due to some individual who went to Washington and Kissed someone ! :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 12/21/2010 3:06 PM, MDK wrote: I wholeheartedly disagree with your premise. From that point on, we have little to debate about. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Fred Goldsteinfgoldst...@ionary.com Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 11:43 AM To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless At 12/21/2010 01:57 PM, MDK wrote: The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then pretending you can fix what you broke by half-baked notions of government created markets... Uh, no. Wireline is a natural monopoly. That is NOT what it has sometimes been taken to mean, an excuse to regulate. Rather, it's an economics concept, which means that the cost of entering the market as a new provider is substantially higher than the cost to an existing provider of adding incremental capacity. In other words, the incumbent can always underprice the new entrant, so it's impossible to compete. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
I think you mis-reading what Fred Wrote... Wireline (wires in the ground) are a natural monopoly... Wireline does not automatically equal = Wired Telephony.. As Yoda Said... Difficult it is to see where going we are, if we understand not how we got here Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 12/21/2010 4:08 PM, MDK wrote: So, I disagree with his premise, and his argument about the premise, that wired telephony is a natural monopoly, and I'm not allowed to say so? What, who speaks first is now the authority and cannot be questioned? All of what he said is based upon the natural monopoly premise, and since we disagree on that premise, we don't have anything to debate about what he said, I disagree with his conclusions. This is neither disrespectful nor insulting. And, since it's somewhat off the topic of this thread, I chose to not further pursue it. Now, can we get on with whatever our conversation will be about the matter of import, at least at this point in time? ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Faisal Imtiazfai...@snappydsl.net Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:31 PM To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless It is tough to have a meaningful discussion when you make comments as such .. You don't have to agree with Fred, but if you listen to him with and open mind, at worst you will end up learning about a whole series of events that got us this point... And it is not due to some individual who went to Washington and Kissed someone ! :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 12/21/2010 3:06 PM, MDK wrote: I wholeheartedly disagree with your premise. From that point on, we have little to debate about. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Fred Goldsteinfgoldst...@ionary.com Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 11:43 AM To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless At 12/21/2010 01:57 PM, MDK wrote: The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then pretending you can fix what you broke by half-baked notions of government created markets... Uh, no. Wireline is a natural monopoly. That is NOT what it has sometimes been taken to mean, an excuse to regulate. Rather, it's an economics concept, which means that the cost of entering the market as a new provider is substantially higher than the cost to an existing provider of adding incremental capacity. In other words, the incumbent can always underprice the new entrant, so it's impossible to compete. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
Faisal -- YODA? hehe On 12/21/10 3:16 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net wrote: I think you mis-reading what Fred Wrote... Wireline (wires in the ground) are a natural monopoly... Wireline does not automatically equal = Wired Telephony.. As Yoda Said... Difficult it is to see where going we are, if we understand not how we got here Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 12/21/2010 4:08 PM, MDK wrote: So, I disagree with his premise, and his argument about the premise, that wired telephony is a natural monopoly, and I'm not allowed to say so? What, who speaks first is now the authority and cannot be questioned? All of what he said is based upon the natural monopoly premise, and since we disagree on that premise, we don't have anything to debate about what he said, I disagree with his conclusions. This is neither disrespectful nor insulting. And, since it's somewhat off the topic of this thread, I chose to not further pursue it. Now, can we get on with whatever our conversation will be about the matter of import, at least at this point in time? ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Faisal Imtiazfai...@snappydsl.net Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:31 PM To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless It is tough to have a meaningful discussion when you make comments as such .. You don't have to agree with Fred, but if you listen to him with and open mind, at worst you will end up learning about a whole series of events that got us this point... And it is not due to some individual who went to Washington and Kissed someone ! :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 12/21/2010 3:06 PM, MDK wrote: I wholeheartedly disagree with your premise. From that point on, we have little to debate about. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Fred Goldsteinfgoldst...@ionary.com Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 11:43 AM To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless At 12/21/2010 01:57 PM, MDK wrote: The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then pretending you can fix what you broke by half-baked notions of government created markets... Uh, no. Wireline is a natural monopoly. That is NOT what it has sometimes been taken to mean, an excuse to regulate. Rather, it's an economics concept, which means that the cost of entering the market as a new provider is substantially higher than the cost to an existing provider of adding incremental capacity. In other words, the incumbent can always underprice the new entrant, so it's impossible to compete. --- - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ --- - WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ - --- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ - --- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 15:08, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: So, I disagree with his premise, and his argument about the premise, that wired telephony is a natural monopoly, and I'm not allowed to say so? If you claim telephony isn't a natural monopoly, by the definition of that phrase, you have to back up the assertion. By the macroeconomics definition of the phrase, telephone wires are pretty much a perfect example; what's your counter-argument? David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
those "tea party" types, have suddenly gotten big pull in DC.
And they want every ally they can get.
And WE should be one of them. EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK for the
last month, major opinion writers, congressmen, senators, and
so on, have ARGUED for our NON regulated status all over the
news, tv shows, cable, internet sites, newspapers, magazines,
you name it. Where the hell are we? Afraid to say the word,
all hunkered down and have already given up and declared dead
- that being heavily regulated status being a foregone
conclusion and our free market status lost. There's
basically TWO organizations, the White House, and Genachowski
himself that are pushing it, THAT IS IT. And they're a tiny,
but loud minority, and they have the sympathy of Democrats.
Both of the organizations pushing it, are well funded and are
basically socialists, who push an agenda of extreme government
power, over all things.
In this is case, it is not us against
Congress, it is us vs the FCC and a couple of special interest
groups. After the new Congress is sworn in, we have a real
possibility of getting the law written to say we're to be left
alone, and NOT subject to the whims of agency people. But,
like I said almost a year ago... Ya'll gonna have to decide
which side of this fence ya wanna be on.
You know where I am.
++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200 509-386-4589
++
From: Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 6:26 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for
wireless
Nothing personal here...
I have yet to see some 'constructive' discussion from Mark about
how to influence the outcome of such regulations... I am not in
favor of the regulation... but ours would not be the first
Independent Business to be 'Regulated' in some form or another..
(Food business is regulated, Medial Business is regulated, Fuel
Business is regulated etc. etc. etc..)
On one side when larger companies in an industry start to flex
their muscles, and start playing arrogant, that simply invites
Regulation... but then again we all behave similar in our own play
pens as well... but it is just that we are small and thus don't
hit the regulators radar screen..
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
At 12/21/2010 04:16 PM, FaisalI wrote: I think you mis-reading what Fred Wrote... Wireline (wires in the ground) are a natural monopoly... Wireline does not automatically equal = Wired Telephony.. That's correct. I was referring to the medium of wire lines. Telephony is one application of the wire. The medium is a natural monopoly. It is only a duopoly in many areas because the FCC, at one point in the distant past, banned telephone companies from owning the local CATV company, except in rural areas. Telephony the application can make use of different media; it does not use much bandwidth, so it can run over wire, coax, glass, or radio. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
Fred gave his reasons, which if I were to answer to, I'd have to quote him, but the gist of what he said, was that the NEXT operator to come along would have to pay MORE to compete than the original. That's about as flawed a premise for technological matters as it is possible to have. Technology gets CHEAPER as it become more popular, subsequent competitors pay LESS to provide services than the first. This is WHY telcos and utilities were given monopoly status in the first place, so they would be protected from competition, thereby ensuring healthy and long term profits from their investment. Fred used the example of roads, as a comparison. Hardly a valid one, since wire takes up minimal real space, and roads take up ALL the space we have for them. Roads are publicly owned, for the most part (yes, I know, private toll roads exist, but that's really outside of free market business, just the same), and consume the only space that exists for them, they live in a 2 dimension world. The two are NOT comparable, not even slightly. What's really at issue here, is that the incumbents were built with money extracted from the consumer at usurious rates, and profits were protected and guaranteed by both federal and state law. And, incumbents have the historical benefit of having had that guaranteed profit from which to build an infrastructure that competitors would not have, and would have to start from scratch.Ideas of separating the lines from the service are merely responses to that fact, and in no way fix the issue. It can't be fixed, but we could undo some of it, if we wanted. And, that would mean, quite simply, the deregulation and non-protected status of common carriers. Basically, just doing away with it entirely.Sadly, that leaves some with a historical advantage, but NOT one that cannot be overcome. RF space could be allocated to overcome the lack of land space that states have created by making monopolies out of rights of way, etc. There's myriad ways of putting the free back in the market, rather than just trying to rent-seek, by trying to divert profits or cash flow from one entity to another. States could recognize the validity of the need for free market services and stop protecting the incubent by allocation of space adequate for multiple competitors. I don't know why the idea of natural monopoly has such sway on some people. For the most part, it's just a dodge against doing the hard thing... Undoing historical mistakes. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: David E. Smith Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 1:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 15:08, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: So, I disagree with his premise, and his argument about the premise, that wired telephony is a natural monopoly, and I'm not allowed to say so? If you claim telephony isn't a natural monopoly, by the definition of that phrase, you have to back up the assertion. By the macroeconomics definition of the phrase, telephone wires are pretty much a perfect example; what's your counter-argument? David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 12/21/2010 01:57 PM, MDK wrote: The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then pretending you can fix what you broke by half-baked notions of government created markets... Uh, no. Wireline is a natural monopoly. That is NOT what it has sometimes been taken to mean, an excuse to regulate. Rather, it's an economics concept, which means that the cost of entering the market as a new provider is substantially higher than the cost to an existing provider of adding incremental capacity. In other words, the incumbent can always underprice the new entrant, so it's impossible to compete. If you don't believe it's the case for wireline loops, think about roads. How much would it cost for a second road company to pull up to your front door? Absurd? Wire is almost the same thing. When there is a natural monopoly, the holder of that monopoly has the potential to abuse its power. Right there you prove what many want. The last mile should not be held by someone with stakes in what drives OVER that road. Lets make the last mile open to all ISPs who want to build out to the CO. I would drop in VDSL in my town TODAY if I COULD get access to the CO but the FCC took that away from us. Hence such companies are normally regulated. That applies to electric distribution, natural gas distribution, water, and until recently telecommunications. These are thus regulated utilities, where being a utility means that the company is entitled to make a fair profit, but that the value of the product or service is assumed to be greater than its price, so the monopoly utility can't charge whatever the market will bear (monopoly rents). Wireless is not, of course; market entry is regulated based on spectrum allocation rules. That too is now optimized for corporate profit, not maximal public utility. If it were not regulated to protect license values, then there would be much more unlicensed spectrum, since WISPs make much more efficient use of spectrum than many of the licensees. Telcos have been regulated as utilities since the 19th century; telegraph was regulated before then. And common carrier regulation (the old concept of bailment translates to neutrality when it's applied to bits) goes back for several centuries, when it applied to horse-wagon and canal-boat carriers, and then to railroads. There is NOTHING broke about 'internet' because it hasn't been regulated. Information service should not be viewed as a monopoly or utility either. HOWEVER, the FCC has created an untenable monster in which ISPs are vertically integrated, from information down to physical medium. so the natural break between the information service and the telecommunications service (to use the somewhat broken TA96 terms) is now gone. That's the elbow joint in the arm of communications policy. Remove its flexibility, as was done a few years ago, and no matter which way you point the arm, it can't do its job. THAT is what's broken. It creates the *possibiilty* that the wire owner will abuse the user's Internet information, with the user not having a choice of alternative ISPs. There was no public call for network neutrality until after the FCC revoked Computer II in 2005. Your issue is nothing but a complaint about the results of what should never have been done in the first place. What should never have been done is remove the ISPs' open access to the telcos' wire. And what should not be done now is regulate small, non-dominant non-telco ISPs the same way as the telcos. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:56 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Well, no, what IS PROFOUNDLY BROKEN is that the ILECs are no longer required to be common carriers. They built their network using common carrier privileges. They got their market share using common carrier privileges. And then they turned around and got their common carrier obligations lifted by the profoundly corrupt Cheney-Rove FCC. So now they control the content on their wires, and you can't lease them. That's just wrong. And the Genachowski FCC isn't doing squat about that, though they absolutely have the power to do so. We do need a national common carrier utility. There is a clear distinction between carriage and content. ISPs are content, not carriage. And WISPs are self-provisioned ISPs who deliver content over unlicensed facilities without using a carrier, and without being one. -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
Jeromie, my socialist (or was that anarchist, I can't ever remember) friend, how are ya? I was thinking about making a run to a wrecking yard up that way and stopping by to see how things were going. Anyway, each time I read this solution it reminds me why it won't work. Let's say I move to Cove. Buy the biggest building in town, and put in a grocery store. Along come the grocery neutrality advocates and require that I set aside space in my store for all the people who want to compete in the grocery market.If I knew that was going to happen, why would I be so brain dead stupid as to invest all my money in the first place?And if it happened after the fact, why would I continue to maintain the building and keep it open, for the benefit of others? YOU see this as an opportunity to capitalize on monopoly created investment, and getting your share of it. I look at it and notice that the business model it creates is insanity, and no effort will EVER be taken to be market oriented and innovative. YOu're just trading one set of problems for a future set of intractables, with EVERYONE invested into a system that's broken beyond hope. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ Right there you prove what many want. The last mile should not be held by someone with stakes in what drives OVER that road. Lets make the last mile open to all ISPs who want to build out to the CO. I would drop in VDSL in my town TODAY if I COULD get access to the CO but the FCC took that away from us. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
At 12/21/2010 05:14 PM, MDK wrote: Fred gave his reasons, which if I were to answer to, I'd have to quote him, but the gist of what he said, was that the NEXT operator to come along would have to pay MORE to compete than the original. Yes, to reach the first customer, as well as on a per-customer basis, which sets the price. If Bell has 100% of the market and you don't have lines, then you'd have to pull a line to reach your customer. That's a huge cost compared to their being able to use existing lines. If you won a 25% market share and they had 75%, then if your cost per mile were the same as theirs, your cost per home served would be three times theirs. If you don't know the impact of that, look at RCN's sad history. Hint: It's in my book. Five billion dollars lost in four years. That's about as flawed a premise for technological matters as it is possible to have. Technology gets CHEAPER as it become more popular, subsequent competitors pay LESS to provide services than the first. This is WHY telcos and utilities were given monopoly status in the first place, so they would be protected from competition, thereby ensuring healthy and long term profits from their investment. No. The telcos did not have monopolies granted by law until 1934! Well, they had it for 17 years from 1876, under Bell's patent (which turns out to have been fraudulently granted, but hey...). But when it expired, competition sprang up like weeds in spring. LOTS of independent telcos were in business in the 1890s. Some were in new turf, some were CLECs (in today's terms). But Bell then bought Pupin's patent on the loading coil and thus had a monopoly on long-haul (10 miles or so) calling. So the indies started failing. Bell (Ted Vail) proposed a regulated monopoly. In 1912, they were required to interconnect with the surviving indies, and banned from buying up non-bankrupt indies. The last CLECs petered out and were gone by 1930 or so. (Keystone in Philadelphia was the last big one.) When CA34 was written, the monopoly was made de jure. Fred used the example of roads, as a comparison. Hardly a valid one, since wire takes up minimal real space, and roads take up ALL the space we have for them. Roads are publicly owned, for the most part (yes, I know, private toll roads exist, but that's really outside of free market business, just the same), and consume the only space that exists for them, they live in a 2 dimension world. The two are NOT comparable, not even slightly. Of course not, but economically, they might as well be. There is negligible provision of mass-market competitive loop plant. That's why WISPs exist; it's the only competitive medium. What's really at issue here, is that the incumbents were built with money extracted from the consumer at usurious rates, and profits were protected and guaranteed by both federal and state law. And, incumbents have the historical benefit of having had that guaranteed profit from which to build an infrastructure that competitors would not have, and would have to start from scratch. We agree on that. Ideas of separating the lines from the service are merely responses to that fact, and in no way fix the issue. We disagree on that. Unbundling works all over the world. It started in the US but was reduced here, so it is not as widely available as it once was. But I do have WISP clients who do unbundled DSL in town while using wireless in the lower-density countryside. You can still get unbundled copper in most places (not all) within about 2 miles of a wire center. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
Fred, You've been advocating splitting the ILECs between their delivery and service models.basically making the delivery (last mile/middle mile) into common carriers and having the service business stand on it's own, for as long as I've been reading your posts (close to 10 years). You haven't come out and said that here (that I've seen), but isn't that what you are getting at? Let the monopoly be the monopoly (a regulated utility at that point) and make the service/content providers compete, right? Regards, Jeff ImageStream Sales Manager 800-813-5123 x106 _ From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 5:41 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless At 12/21/2010 05:14 PM, MDK wrote: Fred gave his reasons, which if I were to answer to, I'd have to quote him, but the gist of what he said, was that the NEXT operator to come along would have to pay MORE to compete than the original. Yes, to reach the first customer, as well as on a per-customer basis, which sets the price. If Bell has 100% of the market and you don't have lines, then you'd have to pull a line to reach your customer. That's a huge cost compared to their being able to use existing lines. If you won a 25% market share and they had 75%, then if your cost per mile were the same as theirs, your cost per home served would be three times theirs. If you don't know the impact of that, look at RCN's sad history. Hint: It's in my book. Five billion dollars lost in four years. That's about as flawed a premise for technological matters as it is possible to have. Technology gets CHEAPER as it become more popular, subsequent competitors pay LESS to provide services than the first. This is WHY telcos and utilities were given monopoly status in the first place, so they would be protected from competition, thereby ensuring healthy and long term profits from their investment. No. The telcos did not have monopolies granted by law until 1934! Well, they had it for 17 years from 1876, under Bell's patent (which turns out to have been fraudulently granted, but hey...). But when it expired, competition sprang up like weeds in spring. LOTS of independent telcos were in business in the 1890s. Some were in new turf, some were CLECs (in today's terms). But Bell then bought Pupin's patent on the loading coil and thus had a monopoly on long-haul (10 miles or so) calling. So the indies started failing. Bell (Ted Vail) proposed a regulated monopoly. In 1912, they were required to interconnect with the surviving indies, and banned from buying up non-bankrupt indies. The last CLECs petered out and were gone by 1930 or so. (Keystone in Philadelphia was the last big one.) When CA34 was written, the monopoly was made de jure. Fred used the example of roads, as a comparison. Hardly a valid one, since wire takes up minimal real space, and roads take up ALL the space we have for them. Roads are publicly owned, for the most part (yes, I know, private toll roads exist, but that's really outside of free market business, just the same), and consume the only space that exists for them, they live in a 2 dimension world. The two are NOT comparable, not even slightly. Of course not, but economically, they might as well be. There is negligible provision of mass-market competitive loop plant. That's why WISPs exist; it's the only competitive medium. What's really at issue here, is that the incumbents were built with money extracted from the consumer at usurious rates, and profits were protected and guaranteed by both federal and state law. And, incumbents have the historical benefit of having had that guaranteed profit from which to build an infrastructure that competitors would not have, and would have to start from scratch. We agree on that. Ideas of separating the lines from the service are merely responses to that fact, and in no way fix the issue. We disagree on that. Unbundling works all over the world. It started in the US but was reduced here, so it is not as widely available as it once was. But I do have WISP clients who do unbundled DSL in town while using wireless in the lower-density countryside. You can still get unbundled copper in most places (not all) within about 2 miles of a wire center. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 _ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3329 - Release Date: 12/21/10 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: Fred Goldstein Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 2:41 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless At 12/21/2010 05:14 PM, MDK wrote: Fred gave his reasons, which if I were to answer to, I'd have to quote him, but the gist of what he said, was that the NEXT operator to come along would have to pay MORE to compete than the original. Yes, to reach the first customer, as well as on a per-customer basis, which sets the price. If Bell has 100% of the market and you don't have lines, then you'd have to pull a line to reach your customer. That's a huge cost compared to their being able to use existing lines. If you won a 25% market share and they had 75%, then if your cost per mile were the same as theirs, your cost per home served would be three times theirs. If you don't know the impact of that, look at RCN's sad history. Hint: It's in my book. Five billion dollars lost in four years. The average cost per customer goes UP as you expand, not down - when discussing wires. And nobody starts a telco based on having ONE customer. Instead, you pull lines and invest in plant to develop a business model that's better priced than your ILEC's average and undercut them to gain marketshare where you pass the customer. Yes, I know somewhere you have ONE customer, I had that experience a few years back, myself.This is because you have to reach farther and to less dense customers as you expand. Since that lowers your cost / customer, it allows you to siphon off the less costly to provision with lower prices, and it raises the cost per customer of the incumbent, as they lose customers in close (cheap) and their mix becomes more and more costly, as yours goes down... Eventually, the ILEC is a non-viable entity and will either be broken and consumed by competitors, or it will divest itself into smaller, lower-cost units. There ARE NO NATURAL MONOPOLIES in this business.There are natural sizes of maximum efficiency, and to be above or below will result in you being less than fully competitive. By their nature, the incumbents are too large to be efficient and are, given the proper political environment, fully vulnerable to competition. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 2:30 PM, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: Jeromie, my socialist (or was that anarchist, I can't ever remember) friend, how are ya? Hey buddy, I have a lake with your name on it. I was thinking about making a run to a wrecking yard up that way and stopping by to see how things were going. Come on over. Anyway, each time I read this solution it reminds me why it won't work. Let's say I move to Cove. Buy the biggest building in town, and put in a grocery store. You did not pay for the store, the gov`mnt paid for it, for you to be the only store in town. Along come the grocery neutrality advocates and require that I set aside space in my store for all the people who want to compete in the grocery market. If I knew that was going to happen, why would I be so brain dead stupid as to invest all my money in the first place? And if it happened after the fact, why would I continue to maintain the building and keep it open, for the benefit of others? Nice, but you have it wrong. With your gov YOU see this as an opportunity to capitalize on monopoly created investment, and getting your share of it. I look at it and notice that the business model it creates is insanity, and no effort will EVER be taken to be market oriented and innovative. YOu're just trading one set of problems for a future set of intractables, with EVERYONE invested into a system that's broken beyond hope. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ Right there you prove what many want. The last mile should not be held by someone with stakes in what drives OVER that road. Lets make the last mile open to all ISPs who want to build out to the CO. I would drop in VDSL in my town TODAY if I COULD get access to the CO but the FCC took that away from us. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
Fixing previous email that sent... prematurely On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 2:30 PM, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: Jeromie, my socialist (or was that anarchist, I can't ever remember) friend, how are ya? I was thinking about making a run to a wrecking yard up that way and stopping by to see how things were going. Anyway, each time I read this solution it reminds me why it won't work. Let's say I move to Cove. Buy the biggest building in town, and put in a grocery store. Wrong, the Gov`mnt paid for the store so you would be the first (and only for a long long time till the population grew) store in town. Along come the grocery neutrality advocates and require that I set aside space in my store for all the people who want to compete in the grocery market. This is where you now become TWO corporations. One owns the building and has to rent space to all who want to rent, on a equal per square foot basis. The job of Corp A is ONLY to own the building and rent space, build new space as needed and upgrade the old space. If I knew that was going to happen, why would I be so brain dead stupid as to invest all my money in the first place? Not all of that was YOUR money. Much of it was Gov`mnt money (IE we the people) and now that WE have paid for YOU to have the only store in town, we want OUR investment back. And if it happened after the fact, why would I continue to maintain the building and keep it open, for the benefit of others? Yes because now you are TWO companies. Your left hand STILL gets to be Teclo/ISP ABC and your hand gets to be Realty XYZ. Your Left hand pays the Right hand for said space, just as I would then be allowed to. YOU see this as an opportunity to capitalize on monopoly created investment, and getting your share of it. Only the parts paid for by TAXES, or as a RESULT of taxes. IE, pretty much the entire COPPER Telco infrastructure. I look at it and notice that the business model it creates is insanity, and no effort will EVER be taken to be market oriented and innovative. If I had the cash to start it, I would do it. Say XXX cents/foot for copp, YYY for fiber, and lease it out every month. ALL I would do is build out. YOu're just trading one set of problems for a future set of intractables, with EVERYONE invested into a system that's broken beyond hope. We are all invested NOW, and more so every day. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ Right there you prove what many want. The last mile should not be held by someone with stakes in what drives OVER that road. Lets make the last mile open to all ISPs who want to build out to the CO. I would drop in VDSL in my town TODAY if I COULD get access to the CO but the FCC took that away from us. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
At 12/21/2010 05:58 PM, Jeff wrote: Fred, You've been advocating splitting the ILECs between their delivery and service models basically making the delivery (last mile/middle mile) into common carriers and having the service business stand on it's own, for as long as I've been reading your posts (close to 10 years). You haven't come out and said that here (that I've seen), but isn't that what you are getting at? Let the monopoly be the monopoly (a regulated utility at that point) and make the service/content providers compete, right? Yes. I've noted two different break points, either of which would solve neutrality. They are not mutually exclusive. The common carrier model, which used to apply to the Bells in the US, separates the lower layer (delivery) from upper layer (Internet service). The LoopCo model (structural or functional separation) goes even lower, putting the dark fiber or copper in one company (LoopCo) and letting all carriers (incumbent, competitor) lease it on the same terms. Either way the loop monopoly is broken. Regards, Jeff ImageStream Sales Manager 800-813-5123 x106 -- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 5:41 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless At 12/21/2010 05:14 PM, MDK wrote: Fred gave his reasons, which if I were to answer to, I'd have to quote him, but the gist of what he said, was that the NEXT operator to come along would have to pay MORE to compete than the original. Yes, to reach the first customer, as well as on a per-customer basis, which sets the price. If Bell has 100% of the market and you don't have lines, then you'd have to pull a line to reach your customer. That's a huge cost compared to their being able to use existing lines. If you won a 25% market share and they had 75%, then if your cost per mile were the same as theirs, your cost per home served would be three times theirs. If you don't know the impact of that, look at RCN's sad history. Hint: It's in my book. Five billion dollars lost in four years. That's about as flawed a premise for technological matters as it is possible to have. Technology gets CHEAPER as it become more popular, subsequent competitors pay LESS to provide services than the first. This is WHY telcos and utilities were given monopoly status in the first place, so they would be protected from competition, thereby ensuring healthy and long term profits from their investment. No. The telcos did not have monopolies granted by law until 1934! Well, they had it for 17 years from 1876, under Bell's patent (which turns out to have been fraudulently granted, but hey...). But when it expired, competition sprang up like weeds in spring. LOTS of independent telcos were in business in the 1890s. Some were in new turf, some were CLECs (in today's terms). But Bell then bought Pupin's patent on the loading coil and thus had a monopoly on long-haul (10 miles or so) calling. So the indies started failing. Bell (Ted Vail) proposed a regulated monopoly. In 1912, they were required to interconnect with the surviving indies, and banned from buying up non-bankrupt indies. The last CLECs petered out and were gone by 1930 or so. (Keystone in Philadelphia was the last big one.) When CA34 was written, the monopoly was made de jure. Fred used the example of roads, as a comparison. Hardly a valid one, since wire takes up minimal real space, and roads take up ALL the space we have for them. Roads are publicly owned, for the most part (yes, I know, private toll roads exist, but that's really outside of free market business, just the same), and consume the only space that exists for them, they live in a 2 dimension world. The two are NOT comparable, not even slightly. Of course not, but economically, they might as well be. There is negligible provision of mass-market competitive loop plant. That's why WISPs exist; it's the only competitive medium. What's really at issue here, is that the incumbents were built with money extracted from the consumer at usurious rates, and profits were protected and guaranteed by both federal and state law. And, incumbents have the historical benefit of having had that guaranteed profit from which to build an infrastructure that competitors would not have, and would have to start from scratch. We agree on that. Ideas of separating the lines from the service are merely responses to that fact, and in no way fix the issue. We disagree on that. Unbundling works all over the world. It started in the US but was reduced here, so it is not as widely available as it once was. But I do have WISP clients who do unbundled DSL in town while using wireless in the lower-density countryside. You can still get unbundled copper in most places (not all) within about 2
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
The first step to breaking the net was form 477. On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:57 PM, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: The whole problem was creating monopolies in the first place, and then pretending you can fix what you broke by half-baked notions of government created markets... There is NOTHING broke about 'internet' because it hasn't been regulated. Your issue is nothing but a complaint about the results of what should never have been done in the first place. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:56 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless Well, no, what IS PROFOUNDLY BROKEN is that the ILECs are no longer required to be common carriers. They built their network using common carrier privileges. They got their market share using common carrier privileges. And then they turned around and got their common carrier obligations lifted by the profoundly corrupt Cheney-Rove FCC. So now they control the content on their wires, and you can't lease them. That's just wrong. And the Genachowski FCC isn't doing squat about that, though they absolutely have the power to do so. We do need a national common carrier utility. There is a clear distinction between carriage and content. ISPs are content, not carriage. And WISPs are self-provisioned ISPs who deliver content over unlicensed facilities without using a carrier, and without being one. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
No, we LOST. You see, once they have the power, they have the power.It is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get partial exemption. I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this. As far as I'm concerned it's come and arrest me, coppers and I will damn well NOT comply. And if we all did that. They'd just give up. But we're too chicken to stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently. I don't know when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: Joe Fiero Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless It's good to see all our efforts pay off. REUTERS updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55 WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks, senior agency officials said Monday. Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month, but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are expected to vote in favor of the rules. Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based on Internet usage. The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband, Genachowski said in a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of development than terrestrial Internet service. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed) wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network) with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to wake up and go pickup the kids. On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: No, we LOST. You see, once they have the power, they have the power. It is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get partial exemption. I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this. As far as I’m concerned it's come and arrest me, coppers and I will damn well NOT comply. And if we all did that. They'd just give up. But we're too chicken to stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently. I don't know when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: Joe Fiero Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless It’s good to see all our efforts pay off. REUTERS updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55 WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks, senior agency officials said Monday. Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month, but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are expected to vote in favor of the rules. Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based on Internet usage. The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband, Genachowski said in a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of development than terrestrial Internet service. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
Yes it is! Victoria Proffer - President/CEO www.ShowMeBroadband.com www.StLouisBroadband.com 314-974-5600 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:12 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless It's good to see all our efforts pay off. REUTERS updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55 WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks, senior agency officials said Monday. Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month, but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are expected to vote in favor of the rules. Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based on Internet usage. The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40756299/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/ , Genachowski said in a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of development than terrestrial Internet service. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
Of course I agree that no regulation would be preferable, but when you see the train coming and you know you can't stop it, you are glad to find that you can lie between the tracks and let it pass over you. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of MDK Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 7:31 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless No, we LOST. You see, once they have the power, they have the power.It is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get partial exemption. I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this. As far as I'm concerned it's come and arrest me, coppers and I will damn well NOT comply. And if we all did that. They'd just give up. But we're too chicken to stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently. I don't know when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: Joe Fiero mailto:joe1...@optonline.net Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM To: 'WISPA General List' mailto:wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless It's good to see all our efforts pay off. REUTERS updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55 WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks, senior agency officials said Monday. Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month, but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are expected to vote in favor of the rules. Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based on Internet usage. The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40756299/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/ , Genachowski said in a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of development than terrestrial Internet service. _ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
I am opposed to ALL aspects, period. Nothing is broken such that it needs the atomic bomb of government to fix it. This is a fix in desperate search of a broken and the closest thing to a broken they can find is a hypothetical that isn't a disaster in the first place. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Jeromie Reeves jree...@18-30chat.net Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:56 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed) wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network) with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to wake up and go pickup the kids. On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: No, we LOST. You see, once they have the power, they have the power. It is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get partial exemption. I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this. As far as I’m concerned it's come and arrest me, coppers and I will damn well NOT comply. And if we all did that. They'd just give up. But we're too chicken to stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently. I don't know when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: Joe Fiero Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless It’s good to see all our efforts pay off. REUTERS updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55 WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks, senior agency officials said Monday. Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month, but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are expected to vote in favor of the rules. Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based on Internet usage. The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband, Genachowski said in a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of development than terrestrial Internet service. 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
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
'Dude'... get a grip.. get out of this business, get some sanity into your life... this kind of stress is not good... Just imagine how Alexander Graham Bell felt when the Gov. decided to regulate the Phone Company ! Fact of life... when a service starts to become a crucial / critical for the general population... the Gov. (anywhere in the world) will start to regulate it... Don't be surprised if tomorrow's Internet, gets to be like a utility ! (Electricity ?) ... Get a grip, you don't have to like the rules, but realize you are not in position to make the rules, just play by them...or not ! Don't like it.. go do something else... Throwing tantrums will not make a difference... :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 12/20/2010 8:36 PM, MDK wrote: I am opposed to ALL aspects, period. Nothing is broken such that it needs the atomic bomb of government to fix it. This is a fix in desperate search of a broken and the closest thing to a broken they can find is a hypothetical that isn't a disaster in the first place. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Jeromie Reevesjree...@18-30chat.net Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:56 PM To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed) wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network) with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to wake up and go pickup the kids. On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDKrea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: No, we LOST. You see, once they have the power, they have the power. It is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get partial exemption. I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this. As far as I’m concerned it's come and arrest me, coppers and I will damn well NOT comply. And if we all did that. They'd just give up. But we're too chicken to stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently. I don't know when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: Joe Fiero Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless It’s good to see all our efforts pay off. REUTERS updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55 WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks, senior agency officials said Monday. Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month, but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are expected to vote in favor of the rules. Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based on Internet usage. The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband, Genachowski said in a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of development than terrestrial Internet service. 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
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
At 12/20/2010 07:30 PM, MDK wrote: No, we LOST. You see, once they have the power, they have the power.It is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get partial exemption. I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this. As far as I'm concerned it's come and arrest me, coppers and I will damn well NOT comply. And if we all did that. They'd just give up. But we're too chicken to stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently. I don't know when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around. I repeat advice I mentioned once before (on 12/11). Stop identifying your service as simply Internet service. Define your service as online differentiated data services with managed Internet access, and invite those who want a pure ISP to go elsewhere (yeah, right). Since you are not licensed, and not holding yourself out as a carrier, you can offer whatever you want. (Warning: IANAL.) I also expect the FCC's policy to be enjoined promptly and overturned slowly. It is a political game. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
At 12/20/2010 07:56 PM, Jeromie wrote: While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed) wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network) with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to wake up and go pickup the kids. That's what I asked for too, separation of the ILEC services into wholesale lower layers and multiple providers of unregulated upper layers. But the FCC is more likely to attempt, without statutory authority, to regulate all ISPs' layer 7 offerings, with exemptions for CMRS and maybe some leeway on a case-by-case basis for WISPs. But since they lack authority over Part 15 content, they probably can't act. The rule exists to allow the ILEC to attack its competitors, not to protect consumers. On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: No, we LOST. You see, once they have the power, they have the power.It is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get partial exemption. I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this. As far as I'm concerned it's come and arrest me, coppers and I will damn well NOT comply. And if we all did that. They'd just give up. But we're too chicken to stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently. I don't know when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: Joe Fiero Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless It's good to see all our efforts pay off. REUTERS updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55 WASHINGTON The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks, senior agency officials said Monday. Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month, but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are expected to vote in favor of the rules. Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based on Internet usage. The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband, Genachowski said in a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of development than terrestrial Internet service. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
At 12/20/2010 08:36 PM, MDK wrote: I am opposed to ALL aspects, period. Nothing is broken such that it needs the atomic bomb of government to fix it. This is a fix in desperate search of a broken and the closest thing to a broken they can find is a hypothetical that isn't a disaster in the first place. Well, no, what IS PROFOUNDLY BROKEN is that the ILECs are no longer required to be common carriers. They built their network using common carrier privileges. They got their market share using common carrier privileges. And then they turned around and got their common carrier obligations lifted by the profoundly corrupt Cheney-Rove FCC. So now they control the content on their wires, and you can't lease them. That's just wrong. And the Genachowski FCC isn't doing squat about that, though they absolutely have the power to do so. We do need a national common carrier utility. There is a clear distinction between carriage and content. ISPs are content, not carriage. And WISPs are self-provisioned ISPs who deliver content over unlicensed facilities without using a carrier, and without being one. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
I'd have to agree with Mark. Its my network, my money. Get the hell out. When I accept government money or protections, sure, tell me what to do. Otherwise... - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 12/20/2010 8:27 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: 'Dude'... get a grip.. get out of this business, get some sanity into your life... this kind of stress is not good... Just imagine how Alexander Graham Bell felt when the Gov. decided to regulate the Phone Company ! Fact of life... when a service starts to become a crucial / critical for the general population... the Gov. (anywhere in the world) will start to regulate it... Don't be surprised if tomorrow's Internet, gets to be like a utility ! (Electricity ?) ... Get a grip, you don't have to like the rules, but realize you are not in position to make the rules, just play by them...or not ! Don't like it.. go do something else... Throwing tantrums will not make a difference... :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 12/20/2010 8:36 PM, MDK wrote: I am opposed to ALL aspects, period. Nothing is broken such that it needs the atomic bomb of government to fix it. This is a fix in desperate search of a broken and the closest thing to a broken they can find is a hypothetical that isn't a disaster in the first place. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Jeromie Reevesjree...@18-30chat.net Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:56 PM To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed) wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network) with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to wake up and go pickup the kids. On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDKrea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: No, we LOST. You see, once they have the power, they have the power. It is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get partial exemption. I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this. As far as I’m concerned it's come and arrest me, coppers and I will damn well NOT comply. And if we all did that. They'd just give up. But we're too chicken to stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently. I don't know when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: Joe Fiero Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless It’s good to see all our efforts pay off. REUTERS updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55 WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks, senior agency officials said Monday. Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month, but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are expected to vote in favor of the rules. Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based on Internet usage. The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband, Genachowski said in a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of development than terrestrial Internet service. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
Faisal, with all due respect, (and you know I do) - Mark is right. We are not phone companys. We are PRIVATE, independent companys with volunteer subscribers. Are you saying we have already lost? The fact that we are even having to have this conversation in the land of the free is sad. BTW: I dont read Mark's post as a tantrum. It's hard for anyone to comment on negative news in a positive light. P.S. It looks like Bell fared well against governmetn lawsuits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Graham_Bell On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net wrote: 'Dude'... get a grip.. get out of this business, get some sanity into your life... this kind of stress is not good... Just imagine how Alexander Graham Bell felt when the Gov. decided to regulate the Phone Company ! Fact of life... when a service starts to become a crucial / critical for the general population... the Gov. (anywhere in the world) will start to regulate it... Don't be surprised if tomorrow's Internet, gets to be like a utility ! (Electricity ?) ... Get a grip, you don't have to like the rules, but realize you are not in position to make the rules, just play by them...or not ! Don't like it.. go do something else... Throwing tantrums will not make a difference... :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 12/20/2010 8:36 PM, MDK wrote: I am opposed to ALL aspects, period. Nothing is broken such that it needs the atomic bomb of government to fix it. This is a fix in desperate search of a broken and the closest thing to a broken they can find is a hypothetical that isn't a disaster in the first place. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Jeromie Reevesjree...@18-30chat.net Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:56 PM To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed) wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network) with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to wake up and go pickup the kids. On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDKrea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: No, we LOST. You see, once they have the power, they have the power. It is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get partial exemption. I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this. As far as I’m concerned it's come and arrest me, coppers and I will damn well NOT comply. And if we all did that. They'd just give up. But we're too chicken to stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently. I don't know when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: Joe Fiero Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless It’s good to see all our efforts pay off. REUTERS updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55 WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks, senior agency officials said Monday. Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month, but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are expected to vote in favor of the rules. Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based on Internet usage. The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband, Genachowski said in a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of development than terrestrial Internet service
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/20/2010 06:52 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 12/20/2010 07:56 PM, Jeromie wrote: While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed) wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network) with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to wake up and go pickup the kids. That's what I asked for too, separation of the ILEC services into wholesale lower layers and multiple providers of unregulated upper layers. You do realize that regulation and government action is required for that to happen. I thought you didn't want any regulation at all? Doesn't work. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNEEBxAAoJEMvvG/TyLEAtrB0P/RDCbBPr/+S7Bfg3zLITvKku i5j86w30KhbU32ZgL2XJg5kzlOIMBXi42LvFF8cAj7ZLrvqh5czZhWPbmJkyJtUZ zMgxXwC6ERao3esZEEEaso8XqPMbAmua3y3qrX3UCFC5ZDyhH+flkyLUlD7IYWcj OKpzg4sqTnys44fAO/EZSnabfOmlhvRSu+OxZp7O5POZWHHtQEOJLGuSJ/c8lEk0 yYObpBaFzd3yCi6HeDCpjym/9HA6qRXwv8U1zlR9VNf7h/mUoSFffWfxcjtxDecB IrbLUQfnNRTGASNIH5jWzwm4i0aPdJ0qjHa105XHw9UnlFEnYrVXMatFw8qt2KDr ZZKkU/pE8IEIC0rJt+azpSVatnpxQwNb9xHg+PnexDcJlhoYPSdofbUcgUcp++Jy aBWUuGw3/7W5wow/nzayEXGnpMJk9Tv7PmPLb7Z36uACEvH13qTSx/q/QNOHVBhp HAga2QpiAUK54aJYC5e/zV6VDR58xjYB8ggjpGn8YwgcjPnrprSkw3TBGXX56wfZ ckjZYGFUiFc9NmLWW5BZgJOPSvOSXF/g6wGnILpObdD6AnxMIkrJxOYfTRfuWm6e yotQ22mHZWhin7zPJ4xLQxqUx901MudQjfZSekHNdmuEVMziG2EJ4nVOh9dD640/ EOV4S3uf+uum21uRHqKG =sN91 -END PGP SIGNATURE- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/20/2010 04:56 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed) wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network) with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to wake up and go pickup the kids. Um. so you want the big guys to have to play by certain rules (be dumb pipes) but you wouldn't have to play by those rules as a small player? Why shouldn't that regulation be applied to wisps as well? Why shouldn't you have to share spectrum? Let's realize we are all in this together and come up with workable solutions. Let's be partners with the ISPs and not make it us vs them. . I have been doing a lot of thinking about how to make packet movement (in particular backhaul) somewhat more fair. I already discussed peering on the list in recent days. Have folks been following the NBN rollout in Australlia? It leaves a certain amount of rough edges on the implementation specifics (see the AUSNOG mailing list archives for several very detailed discussions). However it's a national l2 network. Pretty cool stuff. See I'm a layer3 and above guy, and have targeted very specific areas for my wireless deployment (currently in 4 locations in the greater la/oc area). I'm deploying an advertising network and giving internet access away. I'm going into areas that don't have a lot of existing wifi, running heavily localized advertising driven hotspots. So I don't have spectrum issues. However I face the same problems as many wisps at layer3 and above (namely getting bandwidth at a good price where I need it). So what would folks like to see? Would you like to see a layer1/2 natural monopolie run as a municipal utility, that would run an open access/co-op fiber network? How many here participated in the broadband forum meetings that were held prior to the Obama election? How many people here reached out to those folks and requested exactly this? I know I did (I went to the Los Angeles meeting). Don't get mad, get even!!! Hmmm... the above was a bit rambling... looks like rough pieces of a mind map for a blog post. :) Things to think about anyway. On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: No, we LOST. You see, once they have the power, they have the power.It is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get partial exemption. I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this. As far as I’m concerned it's come and arrest me, coppers and I will damn well NOT comply. And if we all did that. They'd just give up. But we're too chicken to stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently. I don't know when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNEEKgAAoJEMvvG/TyLEAt19AQAJ37RZb/1ORF1XUr+Cb6O2xX M1Sp2QKxqPUfG+EaGGosLRchOrK8TyWrlxR8LR9qEYzFXbNO8VDg4DQlsl06p7FC rlrSDwXhFWHjJ7bx2EbSIhXC5JQoWsBRy1vS4D4FRdG5NqoTOEZbmCuFLhGM6FbG gd+lcawW1v4IcmK5clRceVqMC3Re/oPKGoMFSKLeQlv2eyXGz8qmyGT9h2XV+85j jzzVcjdypTzTVtPW3oT5d5FgPPLEfkTlCQN0POYTELyJGrEmVyYjgCKfttK90Jjy vgO5NPBISZzPV9K5iTt6znDiMda+es2olIn13FI20wAl6WZJCdKmId4zqHWnWm+O 8075XcuMoydANddR/0SPiJcoJo0pMI2yScTf4Iy79eVXQVKMFIbqS8uoZEnmJRXE /jxwXdzR69hxww91eTWEtDnbpBxyki10WCvPReCma2VE/9BoQKBIuol7qhMHg999 BPqgCW8U6g/lBrxNmwVNPGftngXi5UzyNqwfsksUxpV/OwNjU5/dr2v6DAdpRcPK 0w7N+Urkh7sUApFEc3hYTpYPBJTL2Rhjp3s5xt89cxjr/DimuhH0WyKCcIPsTQNv uwP9xq3YcpQ12wIJyZP6ODSwNV1Aabzdr+tZIHsTcfwrEpw6GIJaNtNsqxq6//2v PWBrSECldSImdr5ZqrDN =hM4B -END PGP SIGNATURE- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
Charles, I know that you are aware of this but it's worth repeating - there is a huge difference between regulated telephone companys and unregulated ISP's. As I'm sure you are also well aware of - the phone cos get lots of subsidy money, ISP's dont. So why compare them? On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Charles N Wyble char...@knownelement.comwrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/20/2010 06:52 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 12/20/2010 07:56 PM, Jeromie wrote: While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed) wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network) with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to wake up and go pickup the kids. That's what I asked for too, separation of the ILEC services into wholesale lower layers and multiple providers of unregulated upper layers. You do realize that regulation and government action is required for that to happen. I thought you didn't want any regulation at all? Doesn't work. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNEEBxAAoJEMvvG/TyLEAtrB0P/RDCbBPr/+S7Bfg3zLITvKku i5j86w30KhbU32ZgL2XJg5kzlOIMBXi42LvFF8cAj7ZLrvqh5czZhWPbmJkyJtUZ zMgxXwC6ERao3esZEEEaso8XqPMbAmua3y3qrX3UCFC5ZDyhH+flkyLUlD7IYWcj OKpzg4sqTnys44fAO/EZSnabfOmlhvRSu+OxZp7O5POZWHHtQEOJLGuSJ/c8lEk0 yYObpBaFzd3yCi6HeDCpjym/9HA6qRXwv8U1zlR9VNf7h/mUoSFffWfxcjtxDecB IrbLUQfnNRTGASNIH5jWzwm4i0aPdJ0qjHa105XHw9UnlFEnYrVXMatFw8qt2KDr ZZKkU/pE8IEIC0rJt+azpSVatnpxQwNb9xHg+PnexDcJlhoYPSdofbUcgUcp++Jy aBWUuGw3/7W5wow/nzayEXGnpMJk9Tv7PmPLb7Z36uACEvH13qTSx/q/QNOHVBhp HAga2QpiAUK54aJYC5e/zV6VDR58xjYB8ggjpGn8YwgcjPnrprSkw3TBGXX56wfZ ckjZYGFUiFc9NmLWW5BZgJOPSvOSXF/g6wGnILpObdD6AnxMIkrJxOYfTRfuWm6e yotQ22mHZWhin7zPJ4xLQxqUx901MudQjfZSekHNdmuEVMziG2EJ4nVOh9dD640/ EOV4S3uf+uum21uRHqKG =sN91 -END PGP SIGNATURE- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
