My opinion is that you're not helping the big picture by saying compliance
is more than you can handle. The FCC is not going to go out of their way to
hand out more spectrum to providers that can't perform basic requirements.
Just like they're not going to help providers that refuse to file 475
Dear cw,
Thank you for your opinion. I respectfully disagree.
There's nothing wrong with admitting that small local providers can't
afford to comply with the same requirements that big carriers like ATT
can comply with. That's the problem here; small local businesses are
being asked to shell
I believe the feds have secret deals with the telcos so they can do what
ever they want besides calea. Just like I pointed out that fiber att
wiretapping deal in the very first days of wispa calea discussion.
This is where I see the imbalance,
The little guys carry the weight and the big guys
My opinion then, is that the FCC can get off their duffs and provide
internet to the hinterlands themselves.
There is more to CALEA than having a $500 unix box, and sharing a $7000
turnkey box is not an option unless you are sharing it within a tight
geographical area since response times on
for a
mile or two.
marlon
- Original Message -
From: Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Exemption for Small Wireless ISPs
My opinion then, is that the FCC can get off their duffs
, 2007 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Exemption for Small Wireless ISPs
My opinion then, is that the FCC can get off their duffs and provide
internet to the hinterlands themselves.
There is more to CALEA than having a $500 unix box, and sharing a
$7000 turnkey box is not an option unless you
Thank you Jack. I am glad to see someone doing something for their
beliefs instead of kicking WISPA in the chins for not doing it for them.
WISPA is here for all of you to interact and decide what and how you
want to represent yourselves and your industry. Jack knows that means he
can do
