al,
caught in the crossfire, having been left for dead years ago.
++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200 509-386-4589
++
From: <mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com>Fred Goldstein
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 7:43 PM
To: <mailto
l List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality statement from Genakowski
At 9/2/2010 05:59 PM, you wrote:
How, uhh.. .do they propose to ban doing this?
By permitting "specialized services" (anything other than a bog-neutral wide
open Internet service) only under limited conditio
At 9/2/2010 05:59 PM, you wrote:
How, uhh.. .do they propose to ban doing this?
By permitting "specialized services" (anything other than a
bog-neutral wide open Internet service) only under limited
conditions. Among them are these proposals, from the new Further Inquiry:
(E) Limit Special
How, uhh.. .do they propose to ban doing this?
>
> Note how the proposed rules essentially outlaw the competitive
> provision of non-POTS telecommunications service (anything but plain
> Internet access). They suggest that a large ISP is allowed to offer
> some small percentage of their net
10 1:21 PM
To: "WISPA General List"
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality statement from Genakowski
> At 9/2/2010 03:20 PM, MDK wrote:
>>Yesterday, the Chairman released a statement on net neutrality, which
>>basically said "We need more public comment".
>
>
At 9/2/2010 03:20 PM, MDK wrote:
>Yesterday, the Chairman released a statement on net neutrality, which
>basically said "We need more public comment".
Yes, we'll need to send in more posts to keep them from producing
rules that put WISPs and other competitive ISPs out of business. It
looks as i
Yesterday, the Chairman released a statement on net neutrality, which
basically said "We need more public comment".
This an excerpt from his published statement:
"Recent events have highlighted questions on how open Internet rules should
apply to 'specialized' services and to mobile broadband -
