From MDK's original post this is what I saw as a plan of action that I
could agree to:
1) Develop and follow a statement in regards as to how WISPA will
address all frequency space. Whether it be autcion it all, make it all
available, make it all license-lite, something else may not be as
I am going to address your points backwards:-
You wrote ---
And lastly, about the FCC, the last administration's appointees were
advocates for free markets and for competition and deregulation. Not
particularly effective ones, but at least they were not our enemy. The
current
Here .. incase you all don't follow the Telecom Side of Regulatory events..
Here is what happens with 'Deregulation'...
http://radinfo.blogspot.com/2011/07/florida-psc-bill.html
Get ready for the new Robber Barrons of the 21's century... The ILEC's
of the USA.
This marks the beginning of a
Your first point is why I've been beating the dead horse of getting
people to avoid the telcos wherever possible.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
On 7/16/2011 9:42 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
I am going to address your points backwards:-
You
I'm sorry I guess I missed you at the Legislative Committee list when I
was putting this together sending out drafts and asking for comments and
help /sarcasm. WISPA is a representation of those who show up to help
formulate consensus and policy, not my personal views. So easy to throw
darts
+1
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net wrote:
From MDK's original post this is what I saw as a plan of action that I
could agree to:
1) Develop and follow a statement in regards as to how WISPA will
address all frequency space. Whether it be autcion it all, make
it is Regulation (1996 Telecom Act) that
allowed us (ISP's) to be able to go into the business of providing
internet access and other communication services
With all due respect, it's exactly the mindset that government allows us
to be in business that IS the problem. Telecom Act or no,
Well...again you have to go further back in history...before telecom regulation
..it was a Ma Bell monopoly ..and without regulation...there is a very good
chance that it will again become a Ma Bell monopoly or maybe a duopoly...
Let's not forget that...
Faisal
On Jul 16, 2011, at 9:03
I also noticed that the breakup of Ma Bell degraded service in many
areas. A monopoly by market demand is not necessarily bad. A monopoly
by regulation is bad.
On 7/16/2011 9:25 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
Well...again you have to go further back in history...before telecom
regulation ..it was
At 7/16/2011 09:41 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
I also noticed that the breakup of Ma Bell degraded service in many
areas. A monopoly by market demand is not necessarily bad. A
monopoly by regulation is bad.
Well, not necessarily. Ma Bell's service was never consistent before
the breakup, but
Faisal,
If I understand history correctly, there was a time when the country
was best served by a monopoly. In it's infancy fierce competition wouldn't have
led to a strong nationwide phone system. But then times changed and the country
was best served by the divestiture (breakup) of
On 7/15/2011 9:03 AM, Forbes Mercy wrote:
Forbes Mercy
WISPA VP/Legislative Chair
Just to give you an idea of what you're up against, the #1 provider of
lobbying money and political donations to congress is the healthcare
industry. They are followed by the telecom industry.
--Curtis Maurand
And that's not regulation, that's bribery and corruption! Maybe we need to
regulate the regualtors?!?!
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.comwrote:
On 7/15/2011 9:03 AM, Forbes Mercy wrote:
Forbes Mercy
WISPA VP/Legislative Chair
Just to give you an idea of
13 matches
Mail list logo
