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
, 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
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
: 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
++
--
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
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
...@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
] 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
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
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
, 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
@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
++
*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
: 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
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
++
--
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
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
...@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
++
--
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
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
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*
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
++
--
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
: 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
*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
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
, 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
, 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
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
.
++
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
.
++
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
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
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
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
-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
, 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
: 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
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
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
+
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200 509-386-4589
++
From: Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 6:26 AM
To: WISP
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
. 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
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
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
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
: 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
++
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
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
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
[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
++
--
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
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
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
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]
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
: [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
++
--
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
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
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
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
++
--
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
++
--
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
-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
-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
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
65 matches
Mail list logo
