Re: [WISPA] I probably haven't been clear...

[RickG]

"like"!

Our Founding Fathers were called radicals too! They paid the price dearly:
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/421.html


On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 3:00 PM, MDK  wrote:

> This business about "winning" and "losing"...
>
> For me, "winning" is about being in charge of my life and my business.
> Who
> has veto power over what I choose to do?   Me.   That's winning.
>
> Losing:   When someone else has veto power over any decision I make.
> Example, the FCC decides which aspects of my business I can control, and
> which aspects THEY control.
>
> This is the precise argument over our nation's founding.   The rebellious
> types decided they'd had it, and they wanted to govern their own lives.
> Now, it's really hard to have a nation, with NO GOVERNMENT,  but that
> doesn't mean that you have to live with a tyrant deciding what powers to
> exercise.We gave government limited powers, and everything else IS UP
> TO
> US.   Government does not get to decide what additional powers it has.   It
> does not get to "reinterpret" the establishing contract ( Constitution) for
> itself.   It has never been given that power.   No branch of government is
> delegated "interpretation" power of the Constitution, by the Constitution,
> for instance.   It stands on its own, with plain and obvious language
> anyone
> can understand.   Not even the Supreme Court.   Don't believe me?   Read
> the
> Constitution.
>
> In a microcosm, this is my point of view.Neither Congress nor the FCC
> has any statutory authority in the Constitution to require you to do SQUAT,
> unless your business is somehow "commerce between the states".   And in
> that
> regard, it is still limited to the ability to override state policy toward
> commerce with ANOTHER STATE.   Just because you buy internet in state 1 and
> sell it in state 2 does not mean that Congress now owns you.  It just means
> that Congress can overrule any rules state 1 or 2 makes about what you do.
>
> When we take the attitude that it is inevitable that we are "regulated" as
> an industry, we have utterly forgotten the legal foundation of both OUR
> individual rights, our rights as business entities, and the statutory
> limitations of government.
>
> It's like establishing a contract between you and someone else, say, hiring
> a secretary, who, over time, decides that you are subservient to the
> employee you pay, and starts making your decisions for you.   You, legally,
> would fire this person, and that's the end of that.   Congress and the FCC
> simply do not have the authority to do many things they want to do.   We
> should be bound, by civic duty, and by citizenship, to simply say "No".
> It
> is US who should decide if we WANT any federal laws on the matter, and if
> so, we ask for them, and if we decide they can't do anything useful, we say
> "no" and send them packing.   No, not the people who want to control their
> neighbor's business, but those who own the business decide.
>
> We are in an "outside of the law" situation.   Both Congress and the
> various
> agencies have decided for themselves what powers to exercise, far in excess
> of their constitutional limitations.And, for whatever reason, we have a
> significant segment of the population who likes this situation, of having
> an
> unlimited and unrestricted government controlling them.   Why "unlimited"?
> Well, if you specify what your employee is empowered to do, and instead,
> your employee takes upon themselves full control over your enterprise...
> Then the agreement between you is broken.Either you assert your
> contractual standards... or there are no standards.   Either you enforce
> your employee's behavior, to contractual limitations... Or your employee
> just does WHATEVER he or she wants.It really is an all or nothing
> situation.
>
> If you do not assert your dominance, which exists as a matter of
> contractual
> law, then you have lost all authority to object to anything.   You cannot,
> as a matter of consistency say "I Object to the breaking of this part of
> the
> contract between you and me" and at the same time, refuse to enforce most
> other provisions, and have any logical leg to stand on.If it's not all
> valid, then who gets to decide what is and what isn't?
>
> I've been called "radical" and all sorts of things for this thinking.   But
> for the life of me, I cannot understand why.   There's nothing radical
> about
> insisting that your contractual rights be respected.   We have them, and
> they're contained in the Constitution.  And it says that WE, as the people,
> control our government, FULLY, except for approximately 36 specific,
> delegated, enumerated responsibilities ( the number is debateable, what
> they
> are isn't), and we have a process called "amendment" that gives us power to
> both further delegate and to rescind.
>
> I want that contract respected and honored.How is that radical?
>
> And why do so many of you object?   It's all about law, and contract.
>

Re: [WISPA] Wow

[RickG]

Another item for us to do: Peer, aggregate bandwidth and save money. As you
said, thing like the big guys.

On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

>  .. Correction / Point:-
>   The ISP  Model is built on OverSubcription.. the Telco's 'generate'
> internet traffic or in otherwords 'peer' so their capacity cost is dictated
> by equipment and infrastructure maintenance cost.
>
> The price for anything is arbitrary based on their desired profit level.
>
> @ $100/month the services START becoming profitable, as WISP's & ISP's may
> not have much of Add-on Services to keep increasing that number, the Telco's
> and Cable Co's have plenty of options to raise the monthly tab.
>
> Yes we do have some features that are very much applicable for a 'niche'
> cannot be everything to everyone (e.g. like Cable Co's & TelCo's), and I
> think that is going to hold the key to success for WISP's .
>
> the other option is to look and think beyond.. e.g. make some real /
> serious money so that you can build or pay for infrastructure that one can
> own.. (e.g. wires in the Ground... / CLEC presense @ colo / Fiber Routes /
> Cable Plant etc.etc.)
>
> Regards
> Happy Holidays & Merry Christmas  to all.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>
>
>
> On 12/23/2010 11:53 PM, RickG wrote:
>
>  Frankly, the converse of this is also true... Maybe our services are
>> 'under-priced' to begin with ? We, because of our cut to the bone
>> business model of making little to no profit, choose to sell service at
>> a price that takes a lot of factors into consideration and we may have
>> 'mis-calculated' on the shifting consumer behavior ?
>>
>
>  I've been saying that since 1997 when I was paying $3500 per T1 and I
> bought my first Alott box. The problem is people cant pay for what they use
> and depend on the over-subscription model.
>
>
>> B.  Cost of Communication Services Consumed by folks will go UP. (I say
>> Communication Cost, not Internet Cost.. go back into time, 20 years ago
>> I was spending about $70 on Phone service, $35 on cable Tv... Today, it
>> is something like $35 voip/Home Phone + $50 Internet DSL + $70 Cable Tv
>> Service + $250 Cell Phone + data Plan. Over time this will
>> consolidate, and the Telco's and cable Co's are fighting to keep as big
>> as a share the can off it... Plus there are other pay for services HD /
>> DvR / Special Programing etc etc that can  kick in another $100 / month
>> from the subscribers...
>>
>
>  Can anyone make any money providing all that for $100 or less?
>
>
>> Unfortunately, the WISP's may not have "other addons" to make money from
>>  personally, when ever I do the un-adulterated business math, I keep
>> coming up with conclusions that .. when Gross Revenue from a Subscriber
>> hits south of $50/month, it is very difficult to turn healthy profit..
>> when it starts to approach $100/month, things start looking a lot more
>> reasonable and business like.  This is very much true for the Cable Co's
>> and the Telco's as well.
>>
>
>  We do have one feature - upload bandwidth. I havent marketed it yet but
> with Facebook and such being so popular I hear people grumbling about upload
> speed on their DSL & cable.
>
>>  --
>>
>  -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] Wow

[Faisal Imtiaz]

.. Correction / Point:-
  The ISP  Model is built on OverSubcription.. the Telco's 'generate' 
internet traffic or in otherwords 'peer' so their capacity cost is 
dictated by equipment and infrastructure maintenance cost.


The price for anything is arbitrary based on their desired profit level.

@ $100/month the services START becoming profitable, as WISP's & ISP's 
may not have much of Add-on Services to keep increasing that number, the 
Telco's and Cable Co's have plenty of options to raise the monthly tab.


Yes we do have some features that are very much applicable for a 'niche' 
cannot be everything to everyone (e.g. like Cable Co's & TelCo's), and I 
think that is going to hold the key to success for WISP's .


the other option is to look and think beyond.. e.g. make some real / 
serious money so that you can build or pay for infrastructure that one 
can own.. (e.g. wires in the Ground... / CLEC presense @ colo / Fiber 
Routes / Cable Plant etc.etc.)


Regards
Happy Holidays & Merry Christmas  to all.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet&  Telecom



On 12/23/2010 11:53 PM, RickG wrote:


Frankly, the converse of this is also true... Maybe our services are
'under-priced' to begin with ? We, because of our cut to the bone
business model of making little to no profit, choose to sell
service at
a price that takes a lot of factors into consideration and we may have
'mis-calculated' on the shifting consumer behavior ?


I've been saying that since 1997 when I was paying $3500 per T1 and I 
bought my first Alott box. The problem is people cant pay for what 
they use and depend on the over-subscription model.


B.  Cost of Communication Services Consumed by folks will go UP.
(I say
Communication Cost, not Internet Cost.. go back into time, 20
years ago
I was spending about $70 on Phone service, $35 on cable Tv...
Today, it
is something like $35 voip/Home Phone + $50 Internet DSL + $70
Cable Tv
Service + $250 Cell Phone + data Plan. Over time this will
consolidate, and the Telco's and cable Co's are fighting to keep
as big
as a share the can off it... Plus there are other pay for services
HD /
DvR / Special Programing etc etc that can  kick in another $100 /
month
from the subscribers...


Can anyone make any money providing all that for $100 or less?

Unfortunately, the WISP's may not have "other addons" to make
money from
 personally, when ever I do the un-adulterated business math,
I keep
coming up with conclusions that .. when Gross Revenue from a
Subscriber
hits south of $50/month, it is very difficult to turn healthy profit..
when it starts to approach $100/month, things start looking a lot more
reasonable and business like.  This is very much true for the
Cable Co's
and the Telco's as well.


We do have one feature - upload bandwidth. I havent marketed it yet 
but with Facebook and such being so popular I hear people grumbling 
about upload speed on their DSL & cable.


-- 


-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] Wow

[RickG]

>
> Frankly, the converse of this is also true... Maybe our services are
> 'under-priced' to begin with ? We, because of our cut to the bone
> business model of making little to no profit, choose to sell service at
> a price that takes a lot of factors into consideration and we may have
> 'mis-calculated' on the shifting consumer behavior ?
>

I've been saying that since 1997 when I was paying $3500 per T1 and I bought
my first Alott box. The problem is people cant pay for what they use and
depend on the over-subscription model.


> B.  Cost of Communication Services Consumed by folks will go UP. (I say
> Communication Cost, not Internet Cost.. go back into time, 20 years ago
> I was spending about $70 on Phone service, $35 on cable Tv... Today, it
> is something like $35 voip/Home Phone + $50 Internet DSL + $70 Cable Tv
> Service + $250 Cell Phone + data Plan. Over time this will
> consolidate, and the Telco's and cable Co's are fighting to keep as big
> as a share the can off it... Plus there are other pay for services HD /
> DvR / Special Programing etc etc that can  kick in another $100 / month
> from the subscribers...
>

Can anyone make any money providing all that for $100 or less?


> Unfortunately, the WISP's may not have "other addons" to make money from
>  personally, when ever I do the un-adulterated business math, I keep
> coming up with conclusions that .. when Gross Revenue from a Subscriber
> hits south of $50/month, it is very difficult to turn healthy profit..
> when it starts to approach $100/month, things start looking a lot more
> reasonable and business like.  This is very much true for the Cable Co's
> and the Telco's as well.
>

We do have one feature - upload bandwidth. I havent marketed it yet but with
Facebook and such being so popular I hear people grumbling about upload
speed on their DSL & cable.

> --
>
-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] Wow

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Okay, I will bite...

What you are stating / observing is not too far off from what is 
actually happening at the moment..
I would like to point out and additional dimension which is reality at 
the moment, working it's way outwards from the Major Metro Areas 
you, myself and our peers may not like what / where this is leading to...

My comments inline.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet&  Telecom

On 12/23/2010 8:01 PM, MDK wrote:
> You know, the thing about this, is that it would probably be GOOD, not bad.
>
> It would eventually result in people noticing that data consumption is a
> little like your water bill...  The more you use, the more it costs.
This may be true for smaller operators or Wireless Operators, but not 
true for the Wireline Operators (Telco & Cable)... point to note.. 
cellular carriers value Data Very Much, and you can see they they don't 
sell it very cheap.
> These people believe that an ISP's connection to you is unlimited...  All
> you can consume, 24/7.   And they base their premise that pricing to pay for
> that kind of use, is what people are paying, and that's not true.
This is what we as an InternetAccess & Data Communication Industry have 
told to our customer and trained them as such...  so why should one be 
surprised to see the consumer behaving as such ?
> people are paying for, is the average between the users.   Eventually, I see
> people ASKING to not pay the ever growing bill that will be required when
> everyone ( not really, just a significant percentage, like 10 to 30% of
> users) streams the evening news, 5 hours of nightly entertainment movies, tv
> shows, live peer to peer entertainment and transfers, and other such
> bandwidth hungry services.
this is where I think you are wrong, Cable & Telco's are grearing up to 
be able to accomodate such consumer behavior. Deep Down, both the 
Cable Co's and Telco's are in the business of 'Last Mile Delivery 
Network', frankly they could not care less as to what is the content ... 
they are simply looking to maximize revenue on a per wire connection 
delivered basis.

While, the Wireless ISP's and "Cell Co's" cannot support this model due 
to the last mile technology they deploy.
> If I could buy at a carrier hotel, for $1/Mbit, and had no transport costs,
> save my own network,  my pricing structure STILL FAILS at about 4 - 8 times
> the usage that my average customer now consumes and I'm faced with raising
> rates.
Frankly, the converse of this is also true... Maybe our services are 
'under-priced' to begin with ? We, because of our cut to the bone 
business model of making little to no profit, choose to sell service at 
a price that takes a lot of factors into consideration and we may have 
'mis-calculated' on the shifting consumer behavior ?

>   And, that customer is using between 8 and 12 times what he did just
> 6 years ago.  IE, it's not that long when the internet bandwidth price just
> may not matter - no matter how cheap it becomes, and that the final mile and
> next to final mile costs will be what drives the price and the way of
> marketing services.
Reality Check here Telco's & Cable Co's are pricing their services 
based on Network Cost of Last Mile Delivery.. Consideration of Content 
Cost is pretty much negligible (well with the exception of Cable Tv 
stuff).. but on IP delivery, they are pretty much taking cost of build 
out / delivery and amortizing it over 24 to 36 months to come up with 
the cost (plus some heavy marketing subsidies to gain the subscriber for 
the long run)
> I don't have a great deal on bandwidth, but it's not a BAD deal on
> bandwidth, and honestly, the bandwidth cost, though a significant component
> of the monthly outgo, and I expect it to fall "per meg" over time,  is going
> to be less and less relevant - and the cost of delivering that final and
> next to final mile, along with customer service, is going to be the BIG
> cost.
>
You are now thinking like the bigger carriers...
> What's this mean, in 5 years?   I think it means that either certain means
> of offering internet are either going to become a menu of services with a
> price attached to each, or the overall cost to the consumer is going to
> climb so far that people are going to demand "tiered" services so that they,
> themselves, choose consumption levels they are willing to pay for.
>
Keep the info I have shared above and revisit the conclusion
A.  Wireless Internet Service will become marginalized (niche service) 
as Wired Infrastructure gets built out ?
  (for this reason the ILEC Monopoly has to break !!, or duopoly has to 
increase coverage area).
B.  Cost of Communication Services Consumed by folks will go UP. (I say 
Communication Cost, not Internet Cost.. go back into time, 20 years ago 
I was spending about $70 on Phone service, $35 on cable Tv... Today, it 
is something like $35 voip/Home Phone + $50 Internet DSL + $70 Cable Tv 
Service + $250 Cell Phone + data Plan. Over time this will 
conso

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Jeromie Reeves]

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  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" 
> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 6:05 AM
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> 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: wireles

Re: [WISPA] Wow

[Robert West]

Da.

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of RickG
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 8:03 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wow

 

"give away"?!?!? You mean take away comrade!

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Robert West 
wrote:

Hard to be a capitalist AND a socialist at the same time.  So, you are
expected to turn a profit but at the same time give away the store.  Yes?
:)



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Scott Piehn
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 6:51 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wow

As is usual with bad ideas that sound great.  The first assumption is
flawed.  After the first flawed idea, everything else is very logical and
sounds great.

"ISPs provide your internet access.  You can use it as much as you want, for

anything you want."

This ignores the concept of oversubscription.

We pay $450 for 5 mb and sell that same 5 mb for $40.



Scott Piehn


- Original Message -
From: "Larry A Weidig" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 9:30 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Wow


> Just wanted to pass this along, as I think it summarizes what
> the general public believes is the entire issue at stake:
> http://www.theopeninter.net/
> Yikes!
>
> * Larry A. Weidig (lwei...@excel.net)
> * Excel.Net,Inc. - http://www.excel.net/
> * (920) 452-0455 - Sheboygan/Plymouth area
> * (888) 489-9995 - Other areas, toll-free
>
>
>
>


> 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/




-- 
-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] Wow

[Josh Luthman]

In Soviet Russia, Internet downloads you!

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:03 PM, RickG  wrote:

> "give away"?!?!? You mean take away comrade!
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Robert West 
> wrote:
>
>> Hard to be a capitalist AND a socialist at the same time.  So, you are
>> expected to turn a profit but at the same time give away the store.  Yes?
>> :)
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Scott Piehn
>> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 6:51 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wow
>>
>> As is usual with bad ideas that sound great.  The first assumption is
>> flawed.  After the first flawed idea, everything else is very logical and
>> sounds great.
>>
>> "ISPs provide your internet access.  You can use it as much as you want,
>> for
>>
>> anything you want."
>>
>> This ignores the concept of oversubscription.
>>
>> We pay $450 for 5 mb and sell that same 5 mb for $40.
>>
>>
>> 
>> Scott Piehn
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Larry A Weidig" 
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 9:30 AM
>> Subject: [WISPA] Wow
>>
>>
>> > Just wanted to pass this along, as I think it summarizes what
>> > the general public believes is the entire issue at stake:
>> > http://www.theopeninter.net/
>> > Yikes!
>> >
>> > * Larry A. Weidig (lwei...@excel.net)
>> > * Excel.Net,Inc. - http://www.excel.net/
>> > * (920) 452-0455 - Sheboygan/Plymouth area
>> > * (888) 489-9995 - Other areas, toll-free
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> 
>> 
>> > 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/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -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] Wow

[RickG]

"give away"?!?!? You mean take away comrade!

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Robert West wrote:

> Hard to be a capitalist AND a socialist at the same time.  So, you are
> expected to turn a profit but at the same time give away the store.  Yes?
> :)
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Scott Piehn
> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 6:51 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wow
>
> As is usual with bad ideas that sound great.  The first assumption is
> flawed.  After the first flawed idea, everything else is very logical and
> sounds great.
>
> "ISPs provide your internet access.  You can use it as much as you want,
> for
>
> anything you want."
>
> This ignores the concept of oversubscription.
>
> We pay $450 for 5 mb and sell that same 5 mb for $40.
>
>
> 
> Scott Piehn
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Larry A Weidig" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 9:30 AM
> Subject: [WISPA] Wow
>
>
> > Just wanted to pass this along, as I think it summarizes what
> > the general public believes is the entire issue at stake:
> > http://www.theopeninter.net/
> > Yikes!
> >
> > * Larry A. Weidig (lwei...@excel.net)
> > * Excel.Net,Inc. - http://www.excel.net/
> > * (920) 452-0455 - Sheboygan/Plymouth area
> > * (888) 489-9995 - Other areas, toll-free
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> 
> 
> > 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/
>



-- 
-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] Wow

[MDK]

You know, the thing about this, is that it would probably be GOOD, not bad.

It would eventually result in people noticing that data consumption is a 
little like your water bill...  The more you use, the more it costs.

These people believe that an ISP's connection to you is unlimited...  All 
you can consume, 24/7.   And they base their premise that pricing to pay for 
that kind of use, is what people are paying, and that's not true.   What 
people are paying for, is the average between the users.   Eventually, I see 
people ASKING to not pay the ever growing bill that will be required when 
everyone ( not really, just a significant percentage, like 10 to 30% of 
users) streams the evening news, 5 hours of nightly entertainment movies, tv 
shows, live peer to peer entertainment and transfers, and other such 
bandwidth hungry services.

If I could buy at a carrier hotel, for $1/Mbit, and had no transport costs, 
save my own network,  my pricing structure STILL FAILS at about 4 - 8 times 
the usage that my average customer now consumes and I'm faced with raising 
rates.  And, that customer is using between 8 and 12 times what he did just 
6 years ago.  IE, it's not that long when the internet bandwidth price just 
may not matter - no matter how cheap it becomes, and that the final mile and 
next to final mile costs will be what drives the price and the way of 
marketing services.

I don't have a great deal on bandwidth, but it's not a BAD deal on 
bandwidth, and honestly, the bandwidth cost, though a significant component 
of the monthly outgo, and I expect it to fall "per meg" over time,  is going 
to be less and less relevant - and the cost of delivering that final and 
next to final mile, along with customer service, is going to be the BIG 
cost.

What's this mean, in 5 years?   I think it means that either certain means 
of offering internet are either going to become a menu of services with a 
price attached to each, or the overall cost to the consumer is going to 
climb so far that people are going to demand "tiered" services so that they, 
themselves, choose consumption levels they are willing to pay for.

I could be all wrong, here, but, hey... It's almost a new year, so I'm 
donning my "prophet" hat and shooting off my mouth.   Let the debates 
commence.





++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++

--
From: "Larry A Weidig" 
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 7:30 AM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: [WISPA] Wow

> Just wanted to pass this along, as I think it summarizes what
> the general public believes is the entire issue at stake:
> http://www.theopeninter.net/
> Yikes!
>
> * Larry A. Weidig (lwei...@excel.net)
> * Excel.Net,Inc. - http://www.excel.net/
> * (920) 452-0455 - Sheboygan/Plymouth area
> * (888) 489-9995 - Other areas, toll-free
>
>
>
> 
> 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] Wow

[Robert West]

Hard to be a capitalist AND a socialist at the same time.  So, you are
expected to turn a profit but at the same time give away the store.  Yes?
:)



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Scott Piehn
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 6:51 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wow

As is usual with bad ideas that sound great.  The first assumption is 
flawed.  After the first flawed idea, everything else is very logical and 
sounds great.

"ISPs provide your internet access.  You can use it as much as you want, for

anything you want."

This ignores the concept of oversubscription.

We pay $450 for 5 mb and sell that same 5 mb for $40.



Scott Piehn


- Original Message - 
From: "Larry A Weidig" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 9:30 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Wow


> Just wanted to pass this along, as I think it summarizes what
> the general public believes is the entire issue at stake:
> http://www.theopeninter.net/
> Yikes!
>
> * Larry A. Weidig (lwei...@excel.net)
> * Excel.Net,Inc. - http://www.excel.net/
> * (920) 452-0455 - Sheboygan/Plymouth area
> * (888) 489-9995 - Other areas, toll-free
>
>
>
>


> 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] Wow

[Josh Luthman]

The cost is in getting it to them.
On Dec 23, 2010 6:51 PM, "Scott Piehn"  wrote:
> As is usual with bad ideas that sound great. The first assumption is
> flawed. After the first flawed idea, everything else is very logical and
> sounds great.
>
> "ISPs provide your internet access. You can use it as much as you want,
for
> anything you want."
>
> This ignores the concept of oversubscription.
>
> We pay $450 for 5 mb and sell that same 5 mb for $40.
>
>
> 
> Scott Piehn
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Larry A Weidig" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 9:30 AM
> Subject: [WISPA] Wow
>
>
>> Just wanted to pass this along, as I think it summarizes what
>> the general public believes is the entire issue at stake:
>> http://www.theopeninter.net/
>> Yikes!
>>
>> * Larry A. Weidig (lwei...@excel.net)
>> * Excel.Net,Inc. - http://www.excel.net/
>> * (920) 452-0455 - Sheboygan/Plymouth area
>> * (888) 489-9995 - Other areas, toll-free
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> 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] Wow

[Scott Piehn]

As is usual with bad ideas that sound great.  The first assumption is 
flawed.  After the first flawed idea, everything else is very logical and 
sounds great.

"ISPs provide your internet access.  You can use it as much as you want, for 
anything you want."

This ignores the concept of oversubscription.

We pay $450 for 5 mb and sell that same 5 mb for $40.



Scott Piehn


- Original Message - 
From: "Larry A Weidig" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 9:30 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Wow


> Just wanted to pass this along, as I think it summarizes what
> the general public believes is the entire issue at stake:
> http://www.theopeninter.net/
> Yikes!
>
> * Larry A. Weidig (lwei...@excel.net)
> * Excel.Net,Inc. - http://www.excel.net/
> * (920) 452-0455 - Sheboygan/Plymouth area
> * (888) 489-9995 - Other areas, toll-free
>
>
>
> 
> 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] Google buys NYC carrier hotel - 111 8th Ave.

[Joe Fiero]

While we struggle with neutrality issues, Google is buying up the Internet.

 

 

http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/12/22/google-confirms-purch
ase-of-111-8th-avenue/

 

 

 




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 Goldstein]

At 12/23/2010 03:41 PM, ScottR wrote:
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.


Monopolies exist because some things just don't work competitively. 
You can't really expect two water companies to dig up the streets and 
pull water pipes.  The pipes may be old and creaky but there is no 
way that two sets will work better.  This is the so-called natural monopoly.


The telcos were essentially given statutory monopolies on almost 
everything from 1934 to 1959 or so, at which point competition was 
very gradually opened up.  (More details are in Chapter 2 of The 
Great Telecom Meltdown.)  What had been entirely a natural monopoly 
in 1934 had in fact become a de jure artificial one, and I would 
agree with y'all that those are a bad idea.  Competition should not 
be banned.  However, just because something is legal, that doesn't 
make it possible.  That's the point of regulated utilities: That 
which cannot be competitive is regulated.


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?


It has been legal to compete with Verizon since 1996, as it was 
before 1934.  But the only real competition to their wire is a) 
cable, which the FCC prohibited phone companies from owning, thus 
creating the duopoly; and b) radio, which is what CMRSs and WISPs 
do.  But nobody is going to pull more wire in about 98% of 
places.  The numbers just don't work.  There are exceptions, of 
course, but they don't define the nature of the business.  That's why 
ILEC loop plant (not their retail services, whether dial tone or 
Internet) should be a regulated utility.



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 abl

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Scott Reed]

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 
*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 
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
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

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Mark Nash]

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 
*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/



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

[MDK]

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  
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  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] I probably haven't been clear...

[Sam Tetherow]

Well stated.
+1

On 12/23/10 2:00 PM, MDK wrote:
> This business about "winning" and "losing"...
>
> For me, "winning" is about being in charge of my life and my business.   Who
> has veto power over what I choose to do?   Me.   That's winning.
>
> Losing:   When someone else has veto power over any decision I make.
> Example, the FCC decides which aspects of my business I can control, and
> which aspects THEY control.
>
> This is the precise argument over our nation's founding.   The rebellious
> types decided they'd had it, and they wanted to govern their own lives.
> Now, it's really hard to have a nation, with NO GOVERNMENT,  but that
> doesn't mean that you have to live with a tyrant deciding what powers to
> exercise.We gave government limited powers, and everything else IS UP TO
> US.   Government does not get to decide what additional powers it has.   It
> does not get to "reinterpret" the establishing contract ( Constitution) for
> itself.   It has never been given that power.   No branch of government is
> delegated "interpretation" power of the Constitution, by the Constitution,
> for instance.   It stands on its own, with plain and obvious language anyone
> can understand.   Not even the Supreme Court.   Don't believe me?   Read the
> Constitution.
>
> In a microcosm, this is my point of view.Neither Congress nor the FCC
> has any statutory authority in the Constitution to require you to do SQUAT,
> unless your business is somehow "commerce between the states".   And in that
> regard, it is still limited to the ability to override state policy toward
> commerce with ANOTHER STATE.   Just because you buy internet in state 1 and
> sell it in state 2 does not mean that Congress now owns you.  It just means
> that Congress can overrule any rules state 1 or 2 makes about what you do.
>
> When we take the attitude that it is inevitable that we are "regulated" as
> an industry, we have utterly forgotten the legal foundation of both OUR
> individual rights, our rights as business entities, and the statutory
> limitations of government.
>
> It's like establishing a contract between you and someone else, say, hiring
> a secretary, who, over time, decides that you are subservient to the
> employee you pay, and starts making your decisions for you.   You, legally,
> would fire this person, and that's the end of that.   Congress and the FCC
> simply do not have the authority to do many things they want to do.   We
> should be bound, by civic duty, and by citizenship, to simply say "No".   It
> is US who should decide if we WANT any federal laws on the matter, and if
> so, we ask for them, and if we decide they can't do anything useful, we say
> "no" and send them packing.   No, not the people who want to control their
> neighbor's business, but those who own the business decide.
>
> We are in an "outside of the law" situation.   Both Congress and the various
> agencies have decided for themselves what powers to exercise, far in excess
> of their constitutional limitations.And, for whatever reason, we have a
> significant segment of the population who likes this situation, of having an
> unlimited and unrestricted government controlling them.   Why "unlimited"?
> Well, if you specify what your employee is empowered to do, and instead,
> your employee takes upon themselves full control over your enterprise...
> Then the agreement between you is broken.Either you assert your
> contractual standards... or there are no standards.   Either you enforce
> your employee's behavior, to contractual limitations... Or your employee
> just does WHATEVER he or she wants.It really is an all or nothing
> situation.
>
> If you do not assert your dominance, which exists as a matter of contractual
> law, then you have lost all authority to object to anything.   You cannot,
> as a matter of consistency say "I Object to the breaking of this part of the
> contract between you and me" and at the same time, refuse to enforce most
> other provisions, and have any logical leg to stand on.If it's not all
> valid, then who gets to decide what is and what isn't?
>
> I've been called "radical" and all sorts of things for this thinking.   But
> for the life of me, I cannot understand why.   There's nothing radical about
> insisting that your contractual rights be respected.   We have them, and
> they're contained in the Constitution.  And it says that WE, as the people,
> control our government, FULLY, except for approximately 36 specific,
> delegated, enumerated responsibilities ( the number is debateable, what they
> are isn't), and we have a process called "amendment" that gives us power to
> both further delegate and to rescind.
>
> I want that contract respected and honored.How is that radical?
>
> And why do so many of you object?   It's all about law, and contract.
>
> We as businesses operate on agreements.   We have agreements with our
> customers.   We do x, they do y.   We're only in business so long

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Mike Hammett]

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 Hammett"
> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 6:05 AM
> To: "WISPA General List"
> 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

[MDK]

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

[Fred Goldstein]

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
++

--
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.  Tha

[WISPA] I probably haven't been clear...

[MDK]

This business about "winning" and "losing"...

For me, "winning" is about being in charge of my life and my business.   Who 
has veto power over what I choose to do?   Me.   That's winning.

Losing:   When someone else has veto power over any decision I make. 
Example, the FCC decides which aspects of my business I can control, and 
which aspects THEY control.

This is the precise argument over our nation's founding.   The rebellious 
types decided they'd had it, and they wanted to govern their own lives. 
Now, it's really hard to have a nation, with NO GOVERNMENT,  but that 
doesn't mean that you have to live with a tyrant deciding what powers to 
exercise.We gave government limited powers, and everything else IS UP TO 
US.   Government does not get to decide what additional powers it has.   It 
does not get to "reinterpret" the establishing contract ( Constitution) for 
itself.   It has never been given that power.   No branch of government is 
delegated "interpretation" power of the Constitution, by the Constitution, 
for instance.   It stands on its own, with plain and obvious language anyone 
can understand.   Not even the Supreme Court.   Don't believe me?   Read the 
Constitution.

In a microcosm, this is my point of view.Neither Congress nor the FCC 
has any statutory authority in the Constitution to require you to do SQUAT, 
unless your business is somehow "commerce between the states".   And in that 
regard, it is still limited to the ability to override state policy toward 
commerce with ANOTHER STATE.   Just because you buy internet in state 1 and 
sell it in state 2 does not mean that Congress now owns you.  It just means 
that Congress can overrule any rules state 1 or 2 makes about what you do.

When we take the attitude that it is inevitable that we are "regulated" as 
an industry, we have utterly forgotten the legal foundation of both OUR 
individual rights, our rights as business entities, and the statutory 
limitations of government.

It's like establishing a contract between you and someone else, say, hiring 
a secretary, who, over time, decides that you are subservient to the 
employee you pay, and starts making your decisions for you.   You, legally, 
would fire this person, and that's the end of that.   Congress and the FCC 
simply do not have the authority to do many things they want to do.   We 
should be bound, by civic duty, and by citizenship, to simply say "No".   It 
is US who should decide if we WANT any federal laws on the matter, and if 
so, we ask for them, and if we decide they can't do anything useful, we say 
"no" and send them packing.   No, not the people who want to control their 
neighbor's business, but those who own the business decide.

We are in an "outside of the law" situation.   Both Congress and the various 
agencies have decided for themselves what powers to exercise, far in excess 
of their constitutional limitations.And, for whatever reason, we have a 
significant segment of the population who likes this situation, of having an 
unlimited and unrestricted government controlling them.   Why "unlimited"? 
Well, if you specify what your employee is empowered to do, and instead, 
your employee takes upon themselves full control over your enterprise... 
Then the agreement between you is broken.Either you assert your 
contractual standards... or there are no standards.   Either you enforce 
your employee's behavior, to contractual limitations... Or your employee 
just does WHATEVER he or she wants.It really is an all or nothing 
situation.

If you do not assert your dominance, which exists as a matter of contractual 
law, then you have lost all authority to object to anything.   You cannot, 
as a matter of consistency say "I Object to the breaking of this part of the 
contract between you and me" and at the same time, refuse to enforce most 
other provisions, and have any logical leg to stand on.If it's not all 
valid, then who gets to decide what is and what isn't?

I've been called "radical" and all sorts of things for this thinking.   But 
for the life of me, I cannot understand why.   There's nothing radical about 
insisting that your contractual rights be respected.   We have them, and 
they're contained in the Constitution.  And it says that WE, as the people, 
control our government, FULLY, except for approximately 36 specific, 
delegated, enumerated responsibilities ( the number is debateable, what they 
are isn't), and we have a process called "amendment" that gives us power to 
both further delegate and to rescind.

I want that contract respected and honored.How is that radical?

And why do so many of you object?   It's all about law, and contract.

We as businesses operate on agreements.   We have agreements with our 
customers.   We do x, they do y.   We're only in business so long as that 
specific relationship stays intact.If we don't perform and / or, they 
don't pay, then it all falls apart.If your provider fa

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Mark Nash]

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 
*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 
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 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" mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com>>
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:56 PM
To: "WISPA General List" 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

>  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

[MDK]

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  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  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" 

  Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:56 PM
  To: "WISPA General List"  

  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:/

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[MDK]

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" 
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 6:05 AM
To: "WISPA General List" 
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/

[WISPA] WISPA Members Map Updated

[Rick Harnish]

I have updated the WISPA Member  's
Directory Maps as of today.  

 

If you have someone looking for a WISP in a given area, type in the address
in the search tool at the top of the Principal Member's map and it will
locate the nearest WISPA Member to that location.  

 

We are always looking for more support and if you would like to be included
on the map, the first step is to join WISPA at http://signup.wispa.org.  

 

In the next few months, I hope to start including coverage overlays on this
map as well.  There may be some logistical challenges to overcome, but will
a diligent effort and assistance from others, I know we can do it.

 

Respectfully,

 

Rick Harnish

Executive Director

WISPA

260-307-4000 cell

866-317-2851 WISPA Office

Skype: rick.harnish.

rharn...@wispa.org

 




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

[RickG]

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 wrote:

>  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  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" 
>> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:56 PM
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>
>> 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/

[WISPA] Wow

[Larry A Weidig]

Just wanted to pass this along, as I think it summarizes what
the general public believes is the entire issue at stake:
http://www.theopeninter.net/
Yikes!

* Larry A. Weidig (lwei...@excel.net)
* Excel.Net,Inc. - http://www.excel.net/
* (920) 452-0455 - Sheboygan/Plymouth area
* (888) 489-9995 - Other areas, toll-free




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 Goldstein]

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.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

Re: [WISPA] Time Warner fiber OHIO price per meg

[Mike Hammett]

Depends on location and time of the year.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



On 12/22/2010 2:29 PM, Nick Olsen wrote:

$4/meg from cogent is actually a bit high.
I've seen deals for 3/meg on 100mb/s commit, And under 1.8/meg for 
GigE commit.


Nick Olsen
Network Operations
(855) FLSPEED  x106




*From*: "Glenn Kelley" 
*Sent*: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 12:47 PM
*To*: "WISPA General List" 
*Subject*: Re: [WISPA] Time Warner fiber OHIO price per meg

Correct.

If you can come off a large building out of any of the cities here in 
Ohio that have carrier hotels - you can just backhaul your network 
right out of the city.
Cogent for example on their website today is offering $4/meg (for gige 
commit I bet)


if TW wants to charge $2100 for 40 Meg ($52.50/meg) you really have to 
start thinking about why not setup some backhauls to give yourself a 
better rate.


Coming from Columbus for example - and getting even $10/meg or Dayton 
or Cincy for us @ $10/meg allows us to make up the other $42+/- per 
meg in backhaul costs.


Lets say for giggles and grins that Time Warner requires a 4 year 
contract at a rate of $2100 or at a total cost of $100,800
In turn an agreement from a carrier hotel for Blended bandwidth or 
even let's say from Cogent at a cost lets say for 40 Meg of $10/meg = 
$400/mo or $19.200 for the same agreement ( 4 years)
You really need to debate what the additional $81,600 could mean to 
your bottom line.


Even setting up multiple links from a carrier hotel - EVEN if it cost 
you $50K for the links would still place $30K +/-  in your bottom line.


I could see where some of us that but up against each other could 
actually build our own Network to assist each other even :-)   but 
that is a different story


Many will argue that Cogent stinks -   Funny but I feel just the 
opposite.  It is a great product for a good price.
AND I find they still kick the heck out of Time Warner - but thats 
just my opinion.







On Dec 22, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Kurt Fankhauser wrote:


Is this not from time Warner? Is it from someone else at 5/Meg

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 22, 2010, at 12:18 PM, Glenn Kelley > wrote:


Depending on your location - AND if you can backhaul you might think 
about instead grabbing a licensed backhaul and pulling in a 
different way .


For example -  While Washington Court House is 40+ miles from 
Columbus I have found a way to purchase bandwidth @ $5.00/meg
And yes - even thought he license costs $3K  and the radios $10K  in 
the end - I can push a Gig for much lower than i could ever get from TW

we are exploring this now in fact



On Dec 15, 2010, at 9:07 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:


40 megs for $2100 here

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373



On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Kurt Fankhauser 
mailto:li...@wavelinc.com>> wrote:
Really? Guess I shouldn't complain when they sold me the 30/30 for 
$1600
then, I was trying to get the 50/50 and so far they are only 
coming down to

about $2300 for it.





From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org 
 
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On

Behalf Of Robert West
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 7:10 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Time Warner fiber OHIO price per meg



They seem to have an across the board 800 bucks or so for 10/10 
and 1600 for
20/20Negotiable but not much.  All the statics you need 
included.








From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org 
 
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On

Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 6:01 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] Time Warner fiber OHIO price per meg



Whats everyone paying price per meg for Time Warner dedicated internet
access here in Ohio?







-Kurt Fankhauser



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/


_
*Glenn Kelley | Principal | HostMedic |www.HostMedic

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Mike Hammett]

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 > 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.com>>
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:56 PM
To: "WISPA General List" 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

>  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

[Mike Hammett]

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, s

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Mike Hammett]

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/