[WISPA] From Today's WSJ...hope this doesn't offend anyone...seems to be pretty straightforward reporting with minimal opinion

2010-05-06 Thread Jeff Broadwick
New U.S. Push to Regulate Internet Access
By AMY SCHATZ

WASHINGTON-In a move that will stoke a battle over the future of the
Internet, the federal government plans to propose regulating broadband lines
under decades-old rules designed for traditional phone networks.

The decision, by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius
Genachowski, is likely to trigger a vigorous lobbying battle, arraying big
phone and cable companies and their allies on Capitol Hill against Silicon
Valley giants and consumer advocates.

Breaking a deadlock within his agency, Mr. Genachowski is expected Thursday
to outline his plan for regulating broadband lines. He wants to adopt net
neutrality rules that require Internet providers like Comcast Corp. and
ATT Inc. to treat all traffic equally, and not to slow or block access to
websites.

The decision has been eagerly awaited since a federal appeals court ruling
last month cast doubt on the FCC's authority over broadband lines, throwing
into question Mr. Genachowski's proposal to set new rules for how Internet
traffic is managed. The court ruled the FCC had overstepped when it cited
Comcast in 2008 for slowing some customers' Internet traffic.

In a nod to such concerns, the FCC said in a statement that Mr. Genachowski
wouldn't apply the full brunt of existing phone regulations to Internet
lines and that he would set meaningful boundaries to guard against
regulatory overreach.

Some senior Democratic lawmakers provided Mr. Genachowski with political
cover for his decision Wednesday, suggesting they wouldn't be opposed to the
FCC taking the re-regulation route towards net neutrality protections.

The Commission should consider all viable options, wrote Sen. Jay
Rockefeller (D, W.V.), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Rep.
Henry Waxman (D, Calif.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee, in a letter.

At stake is how far the FCC can go to dictate the way Internet providers
manage traffic on their multibillion-dollar networks. For the past decade or
so, the FCC has maintained a mostly hands-off approach to Internet
regulation.

Internet giants like Google Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and eBay Inc., which want
to offer more Web video and other high-bandwidth services, have called for
stronger action by the FCC to assure free access to websites.

Cable and telecommunications executives have warned that using land-line
phone rules to govern their management of Internet traffic would lead them
to cut billions of capital expenditure for their networks, slash jobs and go
to court to fight the rules.

Consumer groups hailed the decision Wednesday, an abrupt change from recent
days, when they'd bombarded the FCC chairman with emails and phone calls
imploring him to fight phone and cable companies lobbyists.

On the surface it looks like a win for Internet companies, said Rebecca
Arbogast, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus. A lot will depend on the details
of how this gets implemented.

Mr. Genachowski's proposal will have to go through a modified inquiry and
rule-making process that will likely take months of public comment. But Ms.
Arbogast said the rule is likely to be passed since it has the support of
the two other Democratic commissioners.

President Barack Obama vowed during his campaign to support regulation to
promote so-called net neutrality, and received significant campaign
contributions from Silicon Valley. Mr. Genachowski, a Harvard Law School
buddy of the president, proposed new net neutrality rules as his first major
action as FCC chairman.

Telecom executives say privately that limits on their ability to change
pricing would make it harder to convince shareholders that the returns from
spending billions of dollars on improving a network are worth the cost.

Carriers fear further regulation could handcuff their ability to cope with
the growing demand put on their networks by the explosion in Internet and
wireless data traffic. In particular, they worry that the FCC will require
them to share their networks with rivals at government-regulated rates.

Mike McCurry, former press secretary for President Bill Clinton and co-chair
of the Arts + Labs Coalition, an industry group representing technology
companies, telecom companies and content providers, said the FCC needs to
assert some authority to back up the general net neutrality principles it
outlined in 2005.

The question is how heavy a hand will the regulatory touch be, he said.
We don't know yet, so the devil is in the details. The network operators
have to be able to treat some traffic on the Internet different than other
traffic-most people agree that web video is different than an email to
grandma. You have to discriminate in some fashion.

UBS analyst John Hodulik said the cable companies and carriers were likely
to fight this in court for years and could accelerate their plans to wind
down investment in their broadband networks.

You could have regulators involved in every facet of providing 

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ...hope this doesn't offend anyone...seems to be pretty straightforward reporting with minimal opinion

2010-05-06 Thread Josh Luthman
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703961104575226583645448758.html

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

“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to
continue that counts.”
--- Winston Churchill



On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net wrote:
 New U.S. Push to Regulate Internet Access
 By AMY SCHATZ

 WASHINGTON-In a move that will stoke a battle over the future of the
 Internet, the federal government plans to propose regulating broadband lines
 under decades-old rules designed for traditional phone networks.

 The decision, by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius
 Genachowski, is likely to trigger a vigorous lobbying battle, arraying big
 phone and cable companies and their allies on Capitol Hill against Silicon
 Valley giants and consumer advocates.

 Breaking a deadlock within his agency, Mr. Genachowski is expected Thursday
 to outline his plan for regulating broadband lines. He wants to adopt net
 neutrality rules that require Internet providers like Comcast Corp. and
 ATT Inc. to treat all traffic equally, and not to slow or block access to
 websites.

 The decision has been eagerly awaited since a federal appeals court ruling
 last month cast doubt on the FCC's authority over broadband lines, throwing
 into question Mr. Genachowski's proposal to set new rules for how Internet
 traffic is managed. The court ruled the FCC had overstepped when it cited
 Comcast in 2008 for slowing some customers' Internet traffic.

 In a nod to such concerns, the FCC said in a statement that Mr. Genachowski
 wouldn't apply the full brunt of existing phone regulations to Internet
 lines and that he would set meaningful boundaries to guard against
 regulatory overreach.

 Some senior Democratic lawmakers provided Mr. Genachowski with political
 cover for his decision Wednesday, suggesting they wouldn't be opposed to the
 FCC taking the re-regulation route towards net neutrality protections.

 The Commission should consider all viable options, wrote Sen. Jay
 Rockefeller (D, W.V.), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Rep.
 Henry Waxman (D, Calif.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce
 Committee, in a letter.

 At stake is how far the FCC can go to dictate the way Internet providers
 manage traffic on their multibillion-dollar networks. For the past decade or
 so, the FCC has maintained a mostly hands-off approach to Internet
 regulation.

 Internet giants like Google Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and eBay Inc., which want
 to offer more Web video and other high-bandwidth services, have called for
 stronger action by the FCC to assure free access to websites.

 Cable and telecommunications executives have warned that using land-line
 phone rules to govern their management of Internet traffic would lead them
 to cut billions of capital expenditure for their networks, slash jobs and go
 to court to fight the rules.

 Consumer groups hailed the decision Wednesday, an abrupt change from recent
 days, when they'd bombarded the FCC chairman with emails and phone calls
 imploring him to fight phone and cable companies lobbyists.

 On the surface it looks like a win for Internet companies, said Rebecca
 Arbogast, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus. A lot will depend on the details
 of how this gets implemented.

 Mr. Genachowski's proposal will have to go through a modified inquiry and
 rule-making process that will likely take months of public comment. But Ms.
 Arbogast said the rule is likely to be passed since it has the support of
 the two other Democratic commissioners.

 President Barack Obama vowed during his campaign to support regulation to
 promote so-called net neutrality, and received significant campaign
 contributions from Silicon Valley. Mr. Genachowski, a Harvard Law School
 buddy of the president, proposed new net neutrality rules as his first major
 action as FCC chairman.

 Telecom executives say privately that limits on their ability to change
 pricing would make it harder to convince shareholders that the returns from
 spending billions of dollars on improving a network are worth the cost.

 Carriers fear further regulation could handcuff their ability to cope with
 the growing demand put on their networks by the explosion in Internet and
 wireless data traffic. In particular, they worry that the FCC will require
 them to share their networks with rivals at government-regulated rates.

 Mike McCurry, former press secretary for President Bill Clinton and co-chair
 of the Arts + Labs Coalition, an industry group representing technology
 companies, telecom companies and content providers, said the FCC needs to
 assert some authority to back up the general net neutrality principles it
 outlined in 2005.

 The question is how heavy a hand will the regulatory touch be, he said.
 We don't know yet, so the devil is in the details. The network operators
 have to be able to 

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ...hope this doesn't offendanyone...seems to be pretty straightforward reporting withminimal opinion

2010-05-06 Thread MDK
Opinion:   It won't be good.

Also, the financial reform currently contains a provision that requires 
ANY contract that can be construed as credit extended to your customer be 
approved by an as yet not created federal agency.



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

 




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] From Today's WSJ

2010-03-17 Thread Scottie Arnett
But THEY are going to get one, and I doubt you or I will see that change during 
our lifetime.

Scottie

-- Original Message --
From: Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com
Date:  Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:42:57 -0500

On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 13:29 -0600, Scottie Arnett wrote: 
 If they are giving them some form of subsidy to build these 
 networks, then I think we should have access to use it too.

This is the wrong way to view it, though.  I'm not looking to argue the
point, but want to address this in a slightly different way.  Let's take
an area called ruralville, us.  In Ruralville, there is a population of
1000 citizens who earn an average of $22k/year.  If there were no high
speed options in ruralville, would YOU build a network there?  I know I
would.  Especially if I carried the backhaul in from a larger network.
Would you require someone else to pay for the gear, or could you make
the numbers work for that area?  I know I could make the numbers work.  

NOW...the question is:  If it is feasible to make it work without a
subsidy, WHY SHOULD ANYONE GET ONE FOR THAT AREA?

In my mind, it's not about if they get one, I want one, too.  It is
more along the line of if I don't NEED one, neither do they.  

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *


---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]



Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $30.00/mth.
Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html for information.



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] From Today's WSJ

2010-03-17 Thread Marlon K. Schafer
Finally someone in the major press willing to call a spade a spade.
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 1:29 PM
Subject: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 REVIEW  OUTLOOK  MARCH 15, 2010
 Broadband Trojan Horse
 The FCC has a new plan but doesn't want a vote.
 Health care isn't the only policy arena in which the Obama Administration
 aims to ram through controversial new rules. The Federal Communications
 Commission is set to unveil a national broadband plan opposed by 
 industry
 and without any of the five commissioners voting on it.

 Last year, Congress directed the FCC to develop a plan to make high-speed
 Internet available to more people. But given that 95% of Americans already
 have access to some form of broadband-and 94% can choose from at least 
 four
 wireless carriers-rapid broadband deployment is already occurring without
 new government mandates.

 Since 1998, the FCC has classified broadband as an information service
 subject to less regulation than traditional telecom services. The Supreme
 Court's Brand X decision in 2005 validated that classification, and the
 upshot has been more investment, innovation and competition among Internet
 service providers, all to the benefit of consumers.

 In 2009 alone, broadband providers spent nearly $60 billion on their
 networks. Absent any evidence of market failure, the best course for the 
 FCC
 is to report back to Congress that a broadband industrial policy is
 unnecessary. Instead, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is moving to 
 increase
 the reach of his agency and expand government control of the Web.

 Among other things, he wants broadband services reclassified so the FCC 
 can
 more heavily regulate them. The national broadband plan, to be unveiled
 tomorrow, will call for using the federal Universal Service Fund to
 subsidize broadband deployment. The USF currently subsidizes phone service
 in rural areas, and Mr. Genachowski knows that current law prevents it 
 from
 being used to subsidize broadband unless broadband is reclassified as a
 telecom service. Congress ought to be wary of letting the FCC expand its
 jurisdiction through back doors like this.

 Mr. Genachowski wants more control over broadband providers so that he can
 implement net neutrality rules that would dictate how ATT, Verizon and
 other Internet service providers manage their networks. To date, Congress
 has given the FCC no such authority. Nor has the agency had success in
 court. Based on oral arguments last month, the D.C. Circuit Court of 
 Appeals
 is almost certain to rule against the FCC in a case involving Comcast's
 network management.

 At the urging of liberal advocacy groups like Free Press and Public
 Knowledge, Mr. Genachowski also wants to use the national broadband plan 
 as
 a vehicle for returning to the bad old 1990s era of open access
 regulations. He recommends forcing major broadband providers like Time
 Warner Cable and Qwest to share their high-speed networks with smaller
 competitors at federally set rates. We can't think of a better way to 
 reduce
 capital investment and slow the build-out of high-speed networks.

 Mr. Genachowski's proposals are meeting resistance from telecom companies
 and fellow commissioners, which is reason enough to put his broadband plan
 to an agency vote. Instead, the chairman is urging his colleagues to sign 
 a
 general statement that endorses the goals of the plan and ignores the
 details.

 Instead of risking a split vote among the five regulators on approving 
 the
 plan, reports National Journal, Genachowski is seeking consensus on a
 joint statement, which sources said would provide him with some political
 cover for the controversies that are certain to be triggered by some of 
 the
 plan's recommendations.

 The FCC chairman and his staff have spent the better part of a year
 preparing a major report while keeping his colleagues largely in the dark.
 What happened to the Obama Administration's promise to be open and
 transparent?

 Copyright 2009 Dow Jones  Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

 Regards,

 Jeff


 Jeff Broadwick
 Sales Manager, ImageStream
 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
 +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
 +1 574-935-8488   (Fax)



 
 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

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-03-17 Thread Tom DeReggi
Good point, Butch. Well said.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com
To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 13:29 -0600, Scottie Arnett wrote:
 If they are giving them some form of subsidy to build these
 networks, then I think we should have access to use it too.

 This is the wrong way to view it, though.  I'm not looking to argue the
 point, but want to address this in a slightly different way.  Let's take
 an area called ruralville, us.  In Ruralville, there is a population of
 1000 citizens who earn an average of $22k/year.  If there were no high
 speed options in ruralville, would YOU build a network there?  I know I
 would.  Especially if I carried the backhaul in from a larger network.
 Would you require someone else to pay for the gear, or could you make
 the numbers work for that area?  I know I could make the numbers work.

 NOW...the question is:  If it is feasible to make it work without a
 subsidy, WHY SHOULD ANYONE GET ONE FOR THAT AREA?

 In my mind, it's not about if they get one, I want one, too.  It is
 more along the line of if I don't NEED one, neither do they.

 -- 
 
 * Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
 * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
 * http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
 * http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
 



 
 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] From Today's WSJ

2010-03-16 Thread Brian Webster
Wow Mark. For once I can actually state that I agree with your statements.



Thank You,
Brian Webster

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of MDK
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 1:54 AM
To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

Scottie, the problem is nothing at all to do with open access.This 
open access has the effect of fixing the type of access.  Once you 
build a network, and a third party mandates you share it at prices they set,

no more networks will be built.   The prices will be fixed, the technology 
will be fixed, and nobody in that system will move anywhere.   Why should 
they?   Profit is guaranteed, forever, even if subsidy is required to 
support it.   You have to have multiple last miles for there to be ANY 
competition in technological advancement. And one has to be able to 
build their own network and use it to best advantage without interference...

or why build?If you don't believe me...   Just agree to the following 
statement:   I agree to build a network, then allow MDK to use it at a 
price set by people who want the public to think they're being given 
something at rich people's expense, and I will maintain, update, and 
continue to upgrade capacity, while everyone who uses my network abuses it 
to the maximum possible amount, while doing everything to undercut my price.

I also agree that if I charge enough that I can undercut the other users, 
that I will continue to share at ever lower prices, so that the appearance

of a monopoly will not become apparent.

Yes, we have a duopoly, sort of, with cable and dsl being at an uneasy 
truce, but fix the prices on both, and both will halt, exactly where they 
are, and no further advancement will occur in EITHER industry.Why should

they?   Any effort to get ahead in the game simply results in your piece of 
the pie being confiscated and given to those who put no investment into it. 
Once the pipe has been defined in price, size, and technology, it simply 
becomes fixed.Which is why telephone service took more than a half 
century to advance from rotary dial to DTMF. Once we blew apart the 
official monopoly and allowed competition for every mile, the actual 
obsolescence of voice over copper became obvious in a very short period of 
time.

You want to see REAL advancement happen?Have the FCC and Congress reduce

regulatory barriers to all forms of telecommunication - from spectrum 
shortages, to monopoly status for various types of providers, to rules about

availability of public real estate, and the repeal of at least 90% of the 
completely useless and pointless regulations out there.

We don't need Congress or some pointy-heads at the FCC to write us a plan.

it will be asininely stupid as the old Soviet Union plans to modernize the

USSR.Beaurocrats are and always will be utterly incompetent at deciding 
such future directions.   Have them repeal 99% of the income tax, OSHA, and 
other rules (keeping the .5% that are useful), remove the barriers to 
competition that exist at both federal and state levels, and give us some 
tools to fight the local ones,  and then run for cover, because we'll be 
charging into the future like tigers chasing prey.

 Once we start setting prices by some beaurocrat, and using regulators to 
decide fair cost or fair price of something, that's basically... the 
end.They will never admit to their failures and from that point on, the 
game is:  If it succeeds and makes a profit, tax it.   If taxing it doesn't 
fix it, tax it some more.   Once you've killed it with stupidity, then 
subsidize it forever to make your plan look like a success.

I want no part of such things, and how DARE you people think it's a good 
idea to force it upon the people, and upon us... with our own money used 
against us, of all things.

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

--
From: Scottie Arnett sarn...@info-ed.com
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 10:28 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ



 Did they even give the open access a chance even back then? This was the

 start for the end of the dial-up ISP's. Do they not remember the end of 
 line sharing in the early 2000's?  The throw-off of what the big players

 did not think would ever succeed, being dial-up and what may come 
 afterward? No, they were making big money even off that. Then they looked 
 forward for once and saw that the future was not as bright as they had 
 thought. NOW, they want it all, and still do! I will say again, let's go 
 back to the Computer Inquires Acts and force these big players to go by 
 the books...no cross subsidizing, an Enforcement Bureau at the FCC that 
 can't be paid off, etc

 If they think we can not build

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-03-16 Thread Scottie Arnett

Ok, I see you guy's points. I was looking at it from the point if the gov't is 
going to keep giving the big guys tax breaks, USF, and whatever else, it is 
like I am competing against my/our own money. If they are giving them some form 
of subsidy to build these networks, then I think we should have access to use 
it too.

Scottie

-- Original Message --
From: Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com
Reply-To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com, WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Date:  Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:17:26 -0400

Wow Mark. For once I can actually state that I agree with your statements.



Thank You,
Brian Webster

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of MDK
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 1:54 AM
To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

Scottie, the problem is nothing at all to do with open access.This 
open access has the effect of fixing the type of access.  Once you 
build a network, and a third party mandates you share it at prices they set,

no more networks will be built.   The prices will be fixed, the technology 
will be fixed, and nobody in that system will move anywhere.   Why should 
they?   Profit is guaranteed, forever, even if subsidy is required to 
support it.   You have to have multiple last miles for there to be ANY 
competition in technological advancement. And one has to be able to 
build their own network and use it to best advantage without interference...

or why build?If you don't believe me...   Just agree to the following 
statement:   I agree to build a network, then allow MDK to use it at a 
price set by people who want the public to think they're being given 
something at rich people's expense, and I will maintain, update, and 
continue to upgrade capacity, while everyone who uses my network abuses it 
to the maximum possible amount, while doing everything to undercut my price.

I also agree that if I charge enough that I can undercut the other users, 
that I will continue to share at ever lower prices, so that the appearance

of a monopoly will not become apparent.

Yes, we have a duopoly, sort of, with cable and dsl being at an uneasy 
truce, but fix the prices on both, and both will halt, exactly where they 
are, and no further advancement will occur in EITHER industry.Why should

they?   Any effort to get ahead in the game simply results in your piece of 
the pie being confiscated and given to those who put no investment into it. 
Once the pipe has been defined in price, size, and technology, it simply 
becomes fixed.Which is why telephone service took more than a half 
century to advance from rotary dial to DTMF. Once we blew apart the 
official monopoly and allowed competition for every mile, the actual 
obsolescence of voice over copper became obvious in a very short period of 
time.

You want to see REAL advancement happen?Have the FCC and Congress reduce

regulatory barriers to all forms of telecommunication - from spectrum 
shortages, to monopoly status for various types of providers, to rules about

availability of public real estate, and the repeal of at least 90% of the 
completely useless and pointless regulations out there.

We don't need Congress or some pointy-heads at the FCC to write us a plan.

it will be asininely stupid as the old Soviet Union plans to modernize the

USSR.Beaurocrats are and always will be utterly incompetent at deciding 
such future directions.   Have them repeal 99% of the income tax, OSHA, and 
other rules (keeping the .5% that are useful), remove the barriers to 
competition that exist at both federal and state levels, and give us some 
tools to fight the local ones,  and then run for cover, because we'll be 
charging into the future like tigers chasing prey.

 Once we start setting prices by some beaurocrat, and using regulators to 
decide fair cost or fair price of something, that's basically... the 
end.They will never admit to their failures and from that point on, the 
game is:  If it succeeds and makes a profit, tax it.   If taxing it doesn't 
fix it, tax it some more.   Once you've killed it with stupidity, then 
subsidize it forever to make your plan look like a success.

I want no part of such things, and how DARE you people think it's a good 
idea to force it upon the people, and upon us... with our own money used 
against us, of all things.

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

--
From: Scottie Arnett sarn...@info-ed.com
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 10:28 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ



 Did they even give the open access a chance even back then? This was the

 start for the end of the dial-up ISP's. Do they not remember the end of 
 line

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-03-16 Thread Butch Evans
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 13:29 -0600, Scottie Arnett wrote: 
 If they are giving them some form of subsidy to build these 
 networks, then I think we should have access to use it too.

This is the wrong way to view it, though.  I'm not looking to argue the
point, but want to address this in a slightly different way.  Let's take
an area called ruralville, us.  In Ruralville, there is a population of
1000 citizens who earn an average of $22k/year.  If there were no high
speed options in ruralville, would YOU build a network there?  I know I
would.  Especially if I carried the backhaul in from a larger network.
Would you require someone else to pay for the gear, or could you make
the numbers work for that area?  I know I could make the numbers work.  

NOW...the question is:  If it is feasible to make it work without a
subsidy, WHY SHOULD ANYONE GET ONE FOR THAT AREA?

In my mind, it's not about if they get one, I want one, too.  It is
more along the line of if I don't NEED one, neither do they.  

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





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] From Today's WSJ

2010-03-16 Thread Josh Luthman
Either way you put it suggests that capitalism is being destroyed.

On 3/16/10, Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com wrote:
 On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 13:29 -0600, Scottie Arnett wrote:
 If they are giving them some form of subsidy to build these
 networks, then I think we should have access to use it too.

 This is the wrong way to view it, though.  I'm not looking to argue the
 point, but want to address this in a slightly different way.  Let's take
 an area called ruralville, us.  In Ruralville, there is a population of
 1000 citizens who earn an average of $22k/year.  If there were no high
 speed options in ruralville, would YOU build a network there?  I know I
 would.  Especially if I carried the backhaul in from a larger network.
 Would you require someone else to pay for the gear, or could you make
 the numbers work for that area?  I know I could make the numbers work.

 NOW...the question is:  If it is feasible to make it work without a
 subsidy, WHY SHOULD ANYONE GET ONE FOR THAT AREA?

 In my mind, it's not about if they get one, I want one, too.  It is
 more along the line of if I don't NEED one, neither do they.

 --
 
 * Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
 * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
 * http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
 * http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
 



 
 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/



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

“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to
continue that counts.”
--- Winston Churchill



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] From Today's WSJ

2010-03-15 Thread Jeff Broadwick
REVIEW  OUTLOOK  MARCH 15, 2010
Broadband Trojan Horse
The FCC has a new plan but doesn't want a vote.
Health care isn't the only policy arena in which the Obama Administration
aims to ram through controversial new rules. The Federal Communications
Commission is set to unveil a national broadband plan opposed by industry
and without any of the five commissioners voting on it.

Last year, Congress directed the FCC to develop a plan to make high-speed
Internet available to more people. But given that 95% of Americans already
have access to some form of broadband-and 94% can choose from at least four
wireless carriers-rapid broadband deployment is already occurring without
new government mandates.

Since 1998, the FCC has classified broadband as an information service
subject to less regulation than traditional telecom services. The Supreme
Court's Brand X decision in 2005 validated that classification, and the
upshot has been more investment, innovation and competition among Internet
service providers, all to the benefit of consumers.

In 2009 alone, broadband providers spent nearly $60 billion on their
networks. Absent any evidence of market failure, the best course for the FCC
is to report back to Congress that a broadband industrial policy is
unnecessary. Instead, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is moving to increase
the reach of his agency and expand government control of the Web.

Among other things, he wants broadband services reclassified so the FCC can
more heavily regulate them. The national broadband plan, to be unveiled
tomorrow, will call for using the federal Universal Service Fund to
subsidize broadband deployment. The USF currently subsidizes phone service
in rural areas, and Mr. Genachowski knows that current law prevents it from
being used to subsidize broadband unless broadband is reclassified as a
telecom service. Congress ought to be wary of letting the FCC expand its
jurisdiction through back doors like this.

Mr. Genachowski wants more control over broadband providers so that he can
implement net neutrality rules that would dictate how ATT, Verizon and
other Internet service providers manage their networks. To date, Congress
has given the FCC no such authority. Nor has the agency had success in
court. Based on oral arguments last month, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
is almost certain to rule against the FCC in a case involving Comcast's
network management.

At the urging of liberal advocacy groups like Free Press and Public
Knowledge, Mr. Genachowski also wants to use the national broadband plan as
a vehicle for returning to the bad old 1990s era of open access
regulations. He recommends forcing major broadband providers like Time
Warner Cable and Qwest to share their high-speed networks with smaller
competitors at federally set rates. We can't think of a better way to reduce
capital investment and slow the build-out of high-speed networks.

Mr. Genachowski's proposals are meeting resistance from telecom companies
and fellow commissioners, which is reason enough to put his broadband plan
to an agency vote. Instead, the chairman is urging his colleagues to sign a
general statement that endorses the goals of the plan and ignores the
details.

Instead of risking a split vote among the five regulators on approving the
plan, reports National Journal, Genachowski is seeking consensus on a
joint statement, which sources said would provide him with some political
cover for the controversies that are certain to be triggered by some of the
plan's recommendations.

The FCC chairman and his staff have spent the better part of a year
preparing a major report while keeping his colleagues largely in the dark.
What happened to the Obama Administration's promise to be open and
transparent?

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones  Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Regards,

Jeff


Jeff Broadwick
Sales Manager, ImageStream
800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
+1 574-935-8488   (Fax) 




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] From Today's WSJ

2010-03-15 Thread Jack Unger
It's those damn communists. They're on the march again. Quick, man the 
barricades!

Wait, I'm wrong. It's ATT and Verizon. They're on the march again. 
Quick, open the gates to the City.

Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 REVIEW  OUTLOOK  MARCH 15, 2010
 Broadband Trojan Horse
 The FCC has a new plan but doesn't want a vote.
 Health care isn't the only policy arena in which the Obama Administration
 aims to ram through controversial new rules. The Federal Communications
 Commission is set to unveil a national broadband plan opposed by industry
 and without any of the five commissioners voting on it.

 Last year, Congress directed the FCC to develop a plan to make high-speed
 Internet available to more people. But given that 95% of Americans already
 have access to some form of broadband-and 94% can choose from at least four
 wireless carriers-rapid broadband deployment is already occurring without
 new government mandates.

 Since 1998, the FCC has classified broadband as an information service
 subject to less regulation than traditional telecom services. The Supreme
 Court's Brand X decision in 2005 validated that classification, and the
 upshot has been more investment, innovation and competition among Internet
 service providers, all to the benefit of consumers.

 In 2009 alone, broadband providers spent nearly $60 billion on their
 networks. Absent any evidence of market failure, the best course for the FCC
 is to report back to Congress that a broadband industrial policy is
 unnecessary. Instead, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is moving to increase
 the reach of his agency and expand government control of the Web.

 Among other things, he wants broadband services reclassified so the FCC can
 more heavily regulate them. The national broadband plan, to be unveiled
 tomorrow, will call for using the federal Universal Service Fund to
 subsidize broadband deployment. The USF currently subsidizes phone service
 in rural areas, and Mr. Genachowski knows that current law prevents it from
 being used to subsidize broadband unless broadband is reclassified as a
 telecom service. Congress ought to be wary of letting the FCC expand its
 jurisdiction through back doors like this.

 Mr. Genachowski wants more control over broadband providers so that he can
 implement net neutrality rules that would dictate how ATT, Verizon and
 other Internet service providers manage their networks. To date, Congress
 has given the FCC no such authority. Nor has the agency had success in
 court. Based on oral arguments last month, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
 is almost certain to rule against the FCC in a case involving Comcast's
 network management.

 At the urging of liberal advocacy groups like Free Press and Public
 Knowledge, Mr. Genachowski also wants to use the national broadband plan as
 a vehicle for returning to the bad old 1990s era of open access
 regulations. He recommends forcing major broadband providers like Time
 Warner Cable and Qwest to share their high-speed networks with smaller
 competitors at federally set rates. We can't think of a better way to reduce
 capital investment and slow the build-out of high-speed networks.

 Mr. Genachowski's proposals are meeting resistance from telecom companies
 and fellow commissioners, which is reason enough to put his broadband plan
 to an agency vote. Instead, the chairman is urging his colleagues to sign a
 general statement that endorses the goals of the plan and ignores the
 details.

 Instead of risking a split vote among the five regulators on approving the
 plan, reports National Journal, Genachowski is seeking consensus on a
 joint statement, which sources said would provide him with some political
 cover for the controversies that are certain to be triggered by some of the
 plan's recommendations.

 The FCC chairman and his staff have spent the better part of a year
 preparing a major report while keeping his colleagues largely in the dark.
 What happened to the Obama Administration's promise to be open and
 transparent?

 Copyright 2009 Dow Jones  Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

 Regards,

 Jeff


 Jeff Broadwick
 Sales Manager, ImageStream
 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
 +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
 +1 574-935-8488   (Fax) 



 
 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/


   

-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com







WISPA Wants You! Join 

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-03-15 Thread Patrick Leary
A misplaced personal opinion rant:

The new United States, where everything is written and reported as us vs
the nefarious them, where everything is a conspiracy.

As if the sensationalist, yellow dog journalistic title, Broadband
Trojan Horse wasn't a big enough clue, I knew this article would be an
alarmist screed by the first sentence, which uses the word ram and
controversial and Obama in the same sentence. For Christ's sake I am
so tired of the relentless fear-mongering. If I were to believe all this
junk I'd be running into Iranian Revolutionary Guards teamed together
with Bolsheviks around every corner. 

Writers like live in opposite world in my opinion. The ones actually
doing any crazy things are the riled up lunatics who see boogeymen and
socialists under every leaf. Just yesterday the Texas School Board
pulled Thomas Jefferson (a Diest) from the textbooks in favor of John
Calvin, among many other politically and backwardly revisionist changes.
One of the Board Members, advising on the subject of Economics, did not
even know who Milton Friedman was. Yeah, tell me what the real threats
to our country are today...

Last night I watched the first installment of Hank's new Pacific
mini-series, an American master piece like Band of Brothers and Saving
Private Ryan. I followed that with a late night watching Apollo 13. As I
lay down to sleep, I reflected on what we have become as a people since
those days of great national unity, though not without challenges of
course, but at least unified toward some greater common goal and ideal.
I wonder if the wedge-driving nature of how we conduct our national
dialogue and get our, uhem, news today is only capable of further
subverting our common interests and repeling each other.

Misplaced personal opinion rant off. 


Patrick Leary
A veteran
An American, like many of you




-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 1:30 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

REVIEW  OUTLOOK  MARCH 15, 2010
Broadband Trojan Horse
The FCC has a new plan but doesn't want a vote.
Health care isn't the only policy arena in which the Obama
Administration aims to ram through controversial new rules. The Federal
Communications Commission is set to unveil a national broadband plan
opposed by industry and without any of the five commissioners voting on
it.

Last year, Congress directed the FCC to develop a plan to make
high-speed Internet available to more people. But given that 95% of
Americans already have access to some form of broadband-and 94% can
choose from at least four wireless carriers-rapid broadband deployment
is already occurring without new government mandates.

Since 1998, the FCC has classified broadband as an information service
subject to less regulation than traditional telecom services. The
Supreme Court's Brand X decision in 2005 validated that classification,
and the upshot has been more investment, innovation and competition
among Internet service providers, all to the benefit of consumers.

In 2009 alone, broadband providers spent nearly $60 billion on their
networks. Absent any evidence of market failure, the best course for the
FCC is to report back to Congress that a broadband industrial policy is
unnecessary. Instead, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is moving to
increase the reach of his agency and expand government control of the
Web.

Among other things, he wants broadband services reclassified so the FCC
can more heavily regulate them. The national broadband plan, to be
unveiled tomorrow, will call for using the federal Universal Service
Fund to subsidize broadband deployment. The USF currently subsidizes
phone service in rural areas, and Mr. Genachowski knows that current law
prevents it from being used to subsidize broadband unless broadband is
reclassified as a telecom service. Congress ought to be wary of letting
the FCC expand its jurisdiction through back doors like this.

Mr. Genachowski wants more control over broadband providers so that he
can implement net neutrality rules that would dictate how ATT,
Verizon and other Internet service providers manage their networks. To
date, Congress has given the FCC no such authority. Nor has the agency
had success in court. Based on oral arguments last month, the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals is almost certain to rule against the FCC in a
case involving Comcast's network management.

At the urging of liberal advocacy groups like Free Press and Public
Knowledge, Mr. Genachowski also wants to use the national broadband plan
as a vehicle for returning to the bad old 1990s era of open access
regulations. He recommends forcing major broadband providers like Time
Warner Cable and Qwest to share their high-speed networks with smaller
competitors at federally set rates. We can't think of a better way to
reduce capital investment and slow the build-out of high-speed networks.

Mr

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-03-15 Thread Jeff Broadwick
Wow, Jack and Patrick.

I respect the two of you as much as any two people in this industry.  Has
the day come when posting an article about broadband, from a respected
national newspaper, warrants this sort of a response on list?  I wasn't
trying to throw a bomb...I don't really have a firm opinion on this
particular matter.  I thought that the List members would be interested in
the article.  End of story.

There are many different points of view on this List.  I respect that and I
can respectfully disagree with just about anyone.  I really try to keep my
personal political opinions confined to Facebook.  If the day has come that
one cannot make this sort of post, then maybe it's time for me to drop off
of the List. 


Regards,

Jeff


Jeff Broadwick
ImageStream
800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 4:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

It's those damn communists. They're on the march again. Quick, man the
barricades!

Wait, I'm wrong. It's ATT and Verizon. They're on the march again. 
Quick, open the gates to the City.

Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 REVIEW  OUTLOOK  MARCH 15, 2010
 Broadband Trojan Horse
 The FCC has a new plan but doesn't want a vote.
 Health care isn't the only policy arena in which the Obama 
 Administration aims to ram through controversial new rules. The 
 Federal Communications Commission is set to unveil a national 
 broadband plan opposed by industry and without any of the five
commissioners voting on it.

 Last year, Congress directed the FCC to develop a plan to make 
 high-speed Internet available to more people. But given that 95% of 
 Americans already have access to some form of broadband-and 94% can 
 choose from at least four wireless carriers-rapid broadband deployment 
 is already occurring without new government mandates.

 Since 1998, the FCC has classified broadband as an information service
 subject to less regulation than traditional telecom services. The 
 Supreme Court's Brand X decision in 2005 validated that 
 classification, and the upshot has been more investment, innovation 
 and competition among Internet service providers, all to the benefit of
consumers.

 In 2009 alone, broadband providers spent nearly $60 billion on their 
 networks. Absent any evidence of market failure, the best course for 
 the FCC is to report back to Congress that a broadband industrial 
 policy is unnecessary. Instead, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is 
 moving to increase the reach of his agency and expand government control
of the Web.

 Among other things, he wants broadband services reclassified so the 
 FCC can more heavily regulate them. The national broadband plan, to be 
 unveiled tomorrow, will call for using the federal Universal Service 
 Fund to subsidize broadband deployment. The USF currently subsidizes 
 phone service in rural areas, and Mr. Genachowski knows that current 
 law prevents it from being used to subsidize broadband unless 
 broadband is reclassified as a telecom service. Congress ought to be 
 wary of letting the FCC expand its jurisdiction through back doors like
this.

 Mr. Genachowski wants more control over broadband providers so that he 
 can implement net neutrality rules that would dictate how ATT, 
 Verizon and other Internet service providers manage their networks. To 
 date, Congress has given the FCC no such authority. Nor has the agency 
 had success in court. Based on oral arguments last month, the D.C. 
 Circuit Court of Appeals is almost certain to rule against the FCC in 
 a case involving Comcast's network management.

 At the urging of liberal advocacy groups like Free Press and Public 
 Knowledge, Mr. Genachowski also wants to use the national broadband 
 plan as a vehicle for returning to the bad old 1990s era of open access
 regulations. He recommends forcing major broadband providers like Time 
 Warner Cable and Qwest to share their high-speed networks with smaller 
 competitors at federally set rates. We can't think of a better way to 
 reduce capital investment and slow the build-out of high-speed networks.

 Mr. Genachowski's proposals are meeting resistance from telecom 
 companies and fellow commissioners, which is reason enough to put his 
 broadband plan to an agency vote. Instead, the chairman is urging his 
 colleagues to sign a general statement that endorses the goals of the 
 plan and ignores the details.

 Instead of risking a split vote among the five regulators on 
 approving the plan, reports National Journal, Genachowski is seeking 
 consensus on a joint statement, which sources said would provide him 
 with some political cover for the controversies that are certain to be 
 triggered by some of the plan's recommendations.

 The FCC chairman and his staff have spent the better part of a year 
 preparing a major report

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-03-15 Thread Patrick Leary
Hi Jeff,

Mine was not a return bomb to you Jeff, just a general comment about the
state of our society. To be sure though it was not a news article, it
was an opinion piece and one, in my opinion, laden with the codes du
jour intended to drive people apart into one camp against the other.

About broadband, the author would assert no national policy is needed
(which translates as him saying keep the government off my broadband),
but any one with an ability to look cross borders and analyze the sorry
state of our broadband relative to most other industrialized societies
will recognize we do need a national plan. We need targets and brave
goals, not this tepid duopoly we have now.

Writers like this are not helpful. Not every national effort is some
socialist, communist, nazi, Islamic, fascist plot to enslave patriotic,
hard-working Americans, sometimes it is just an attemp to form a
rational, coherent and necessary national initiative to further prevent
Americans from sliding down into number 20 (or worse) in yet another
measurable aspect of Americans' quality of life. Getting tired of the
chest-beating, dillusional We're America, we're number 1!! Really? In
what are we number one in any more? (I know a few things, but they are
not metrics to proud of.)

Americans need to genuinely start working together to solve very real
and very darned serious problems. Find our shared interests and work
from there. We need to end this tribal garbage that's reared up before
we end up like the Baltic republics circa early 1990's.


Patrick

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 2:52 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

Wow, Jack and Patrick.

I respect the two of you as much as any two people in this industry.
Has the day come when posting an article about broadband, from a
respected national newspaper, warrants this sort of a response on list?
I wasn't trying to throw a bomb...I don't really have a firm opinion on
this particular matter.  I thought that the List members would be
interested in the article.  End of story.

There are many different points of view on this List.  I respect that
and I can respectfully disagree with just about anyone.  I really try to
keep my personal political opinions confined to Facebook.  If the day
has come that one cannot make this sort of post, then maybe it's time
for me to drop off of the List. 


Regards,

Jeff


Jeff Broadwick
ImageStream
800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 4:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

It's those damn communists. They're on the march again. Quick, man the
barricades!

Wait, I'm wrong. It's ATT and Verizon. They're on the march again. 
Quick, open the gates to the City.

Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 REVIEW  OUTLOOK  MARCH 15, 2010
 Broadband Trojan Horse
 The FCC has a new plan but doesn't want a vote.
 Health care isn't the only policy arena in which the Obama 
 Administration aims to ram through controversial new rules. The 
 Federal Communications Commission is set to unveil a national 
 broadband plan opposed by industry and without any of the five
commissioners voting on it.

 Last year, Congress directed the FCC to develop a plan to make 
 high-speed Internet available to more people. But given that 95% of 
 Americans already have access to some form of broadband-and 94% can 
 choose from at least four wireless carriers-rapid broadband deployment

 is already occurring without new government mandates.

 Since 1998, the FCC has classified broadband as an information
service
 subject to less regulation than traditional telecom services. The 
 Supreme Court's Brand X decision in 2005 validated that 
 classification, and the upshot has been more investment, innovation 
 and competition among Internet service providers, all to the benefit 
 of
consumers.

 In 2009 alone, broadband providers spent nearly $60 billion on their 
 networks. Absent any evidence of market failure, the best course for 
 the FCC is to report back to Congress that a broadband industrial 
 policy is unnecessary. Instead, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is 
 moving to increase the reach of his agency and expand government 
 control
of the Web.

 Among other things, he wants broadband services reclassified so the 
 FCC can more heavily regulate them. The national broadband plan, to be

 unveiled tomorrow, will call for using the federal Universal Service 
 Fund to subsidize broadband deployment. The USF currently subsidizes 
 phone service in rural areas, and Mr. Genachowski knows that current 
 law prevents it from being used to subsidize broadband unless 
 broadband is reclassified as a telecom service. Congress ought to be 
 wary of letting

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-03-15 Thread Patrick Leary
Sorry, meant that offlist to Jeff. Thread is over, for me. Sorry for the
list pollution.


Patrick
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 3:37 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

Hi Jeff,

Mine was not a return bomb to you Jeff, just a general comment about the
state of our society. To be sure though it was not a news article, it
was an opinion piece and one, in my opinion, laden with the codes du
jour intended to drive people apart into one camp against the other.

About broadband, the author would assert no national policy is needed
(which translates as him saying keep the government off my broadband),
but any one with an ability to look cross borders and analyze the sorry
state of our broadband relative to most other industrialized societies
will recognize we do need a national plan. We need targets and brave
goals, not this tepid duopoly we have now.

Writers like this are not helpful. Not every national effort is some
socialist, communist, nazi, Islamic, fascist plot to enslave patriotic,
hard-working Americans, sometimes it is just an attemp to form a
rational, coherent and necessary national initiative to further prevent
Americans from sliding down into number 20 (or worse) in yet another
measurable aspect of Americans' quality of life. Getting tired of the
chest-beating, dillusional We're America, we're number 1!! Really? In
what are we number one in any more? (I know a few things, but they are
not metrics to proud of.)

Americans need to genuinely start working together to solve very real
and very darned serious problems. Find our shared interests and work
from there. We need to end this tribal garbage that's reared up before
we end up like the Baltic republics circa early 1990's.


Patrick

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 2:52 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

Wow, Jack and Patrick.

I respect the two of you as much as any two people in this industry.
Has the day come when posting an article about broadband, from a
respected national newspaper, warrants this sort of a response on list?
I wasn't trying to throw a bomb...I don't really have a firm opinion on
this particular matter.  I thought that the List members would be
interested in the article.  End of story.

There are many different points of view on this List.  I respect that
and I can respectfully disagree with just about anyone.  I really try to
keep my personal political opinions confined to Facebook.  If the day
has come that one cannot make this sort of post, then maybe it's time
for me to drop off of the List. 


Regards,

Jeff


Jeff Broadwick
ImageStream
800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 4:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

It's those damn communists. They're on the march again. Quick, man the
barricades!

Wait, I'm wrong. It's ATT and Verizon. They're on the march again. 
Quick, open the gates to the City.

Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 REVIEW  OUTLOOK  MARCH 15, 2010
 Broadband Trojan Horse
 The FCC has a new plan but doesn't want a vote.
 Health care isn't the only policy arena in which the Obama 
 Administration aims to ram through controversial new rules. The 
 Federal Communications Commission is set to unveil a national 
 broadband plan opposed by industry and without any of the five
commissioners voting on it.

 Last year, Congress directed the FCC to develop a plan to make 
 high-speed Internet available to more people. But given that 95% of 
 Americans already have access to some form of broadband-and 94% can 
 choose from at least four wireless carriers-rapid broadband deployment

 is already occurring without new government mandates.

 Since 1998, the FCC has classified broadband as an information
service
 subject to less regulation than traditional telecom services. The 
 Supreme Court's Brand X decision in 2005 validated that 
 classification, and the upshot has been more investment, innovation 
 and competition among Internet service providers, all to the benefit 
 of
consumers.

 In 2009 alone, broadband providers spent nearly $60 billion on their 
 networks. Absent any evidence of market failure, the best course for 
 the FCC is to report back to Congress that a broadband industrial 
 policy is unnecessary. Instead, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is 
 moving to increase the reach of his agency and expand government 
 control
of the Web.

 Among other things, he wants broadband services reclassified so the 
 FCC can more heavily regulate them. The national broadband plan, to be

 unveiled tomorrow, will call for using

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-03-15 Thread RickG
Do not feed the trolls :)

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:
 It's those damn communists. They're on the march again. Quick, man the
 barricades!

 Wait, I'm wrong. It's ATT and Verizon. They're on the march again.
 Quick, open the gates to the City.

 Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 REVIEW  OUTLOOK  MARCH 15, 2010
 Broadband Trojan Horse
 The FCC has a new plan but doesn't want a vote.
 Health care isn't the only policy arena in which the Obama Administration
 aims to ram through controversial new rules. The Federal Communications
 Commission is set to unveil a national broadband plan opposed by industry
 and without any of the five commissioners voting on it.

 Last year, Congress directed the FCC to develop a plan to make high-speed
 Internet available to more people. But given that 95% of Americans already
 have access to some form of broadband-and 94% can choose from at least four
 wireless carriers-rapid broadband deployment is already occurring without
 new government mandates.

 Since 1998, the FCC has classified broadband as an information service
 subject to less regulation than traditional telecom services. The Supreme
 Court's Brand X decision in 2005 validated that classification, and the
 upshot has been more investment, innovation and competition among Internet
 service providers, all to the benefit of consumers.

 In 2009 alone, broadband providers spent nearly $60 billion on their
 networks. Absent any evidence of market failure, the best course for the FCC
 is to report back to Congress that a broadband industrial policy is
 unnecessary. Instead, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is moving to increase
 the reach of his agency and expand government control of the Web.

 Among other things, he wants broadband services reclassified so the FCC can
 more heavily regulate them. The national broadband plan, to be unveiled
 tomorrow, will call for using the federal Universal Service Fund to
 subsidize broadband deployment. The USF currently subsidizes phone service
 in rural areas, and Mr. Genachowski knows that current law prevents it from
 being used to subsidize broadband unless broadband is reclassified as a
 telecom service. Congress ought to be wary of letting the FCC expand its
 jurisdiction through back doors like this.

 Mr. Genachowski wants more control over broadband providers so that he can
 implement net neutrality rules that would dictate how ATT, Verizon and
 other Internet service providers manage their networks. To date, Congress
 has given the FCC no such authority. Nor has the agency had success in
 court. Based on oral arguments last month, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
 is almost certain to rule against the FCC in a case involving Comcast's
 network management.

 At the urging of liberal advocacy groups like Free Press and Public
 Knowledge, Mr. Genachowski also wants to use the national broadband plan as
 a vehicle for returning to the bad old 1990s era of open access
 regulations. He recommends forcing major broadband providers like Time
 Warner Cable and Qwest to share their high-speed networks with smaller
 competitors at federally set rates. We can't think of a better way to reduce
 capital investment and slow the build-out of high-speed networks.

 Mr. Genachowski's proposals are meeting resistance from telecom companies
 and fellow commissioners, which is reason enough to put his broadband plan
 to an agency vote. Instead, the chairman is urging his colleagues to sign a
 general statement that endorses the goals of the plan and ignores the
 details.

 Instead of risking a split vote among the five regulators on approving the
 plan, reports National Journal, Genachowski is seeking consensus on a
 joint statement, which sources said would provide him with some political
 cover for the controversies that are certain to be triggered by some of the
 plan's recommendations.

 The FCC chairman and his staff have spent the better part of a year
 preparing a major report while keeping his colleagues largely in the dark.
 What happened to the Obama Administration's promise to be open and
 transparent?

 Copyright 2009 Dow Jones  Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

 Regards,

 Jeff


 Jeff Broadwick
 Sales Manager, ImageStream
 800-813-5123 x106     (US/Can)
 +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
 +1 574-935-8488       (Fax)



 
 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/




 --
 Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
 Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
 Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
 www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com






 

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-03-15 Thread Jeff Broadwick
Hi Patrick,

I'm sorry.  My note was more directed at my good friend Jack than at you.
:-)

I'm not a fan of the government's intervention in the marketplace.  I know
you've been frustrated too.  $7 billion approved for broadband buildout a
year ago and they are just now getting the money out.  I said from the
get-go that if they are going to do it, they should have made up a 3 or 4
part formula using current subscribers, area covered, population covered,
and what you could cover extra with more money.  Hand Scriv, Mac, Matt, etc.
a check and say bring me the receipts!  We'd have had that money working
within a month.  Would there have been fraud?  Sure!  There will be fraud
with this program, despite all their efforts.  This process has been too
long and too ham handed.  I HOPE that something good will come out of it,
but I'm not convinced that it will.  Ultimately, I think most will go to the
LECs/RBOCs/CableCos/Etc. and precious little to our industry.  I hope I'm
wrong. 


Regards,

Jeff


Jeff Broadwick
ImageStream
800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 6:37 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

Hi Jeff,

Mine was not a return bomb to you Jeff, just a general comment about the
state of our society. To be sure though it was not a news article, it was an
opinion piece and one, in my opinion, laden with the codes du jour intended
to drive people apart into one camp against the other.

About broadband, the author would assert no national policy is needed (which
translates as him saying keep the government off my broadband), but any one
with an ability to look cross borders and analyze the sorry state of our
broadband relative to most other industrialized societies will recognize we
do need a national plan. We need targets and brave goals, not this tepid
duopoly we have now.

Writers like this are not helpful. Not every national effort is some
socialist, communist, nazi, Islamic, fascist plot to enslave patriotic,
hard-working Americans, sometimes it is just an attemp to form a rational,
coherent and necessary national initiative to further prevent Americans from
sliding down into number 20 (or worse) in yet another measurable aspect of
Americans' quality of life. Getting tired of the chest-beating, dillusional
We're America, we're number 1!! Really? In what are we number one in any
more? (I know a few things, but they are not metrics to proud of.)

Americans need to genuinely start working together to solve very real and
very darned serious problems. Find our shared interests and work from there.
We need to end this tribal garbage that's reared up before we end up like
the Baltic republics circa early 1990's.


Patrick

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 2:52 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

Wow, Jack and Patrick.

I respect the two of you as much as any two people in this industry.
Has the day come when posting an article about broadband, from a respected
national newspaper, warrants this sort of a response on list?
I wasn't trying to throw a bomb...I don't really have a firm opinion on this
particular matter.  I thought that the List members would be interested in
the article.  End of story.

There are many different points of view on this List.  I respect that and I
can respectfully disagree with just about anyone.  I really try to keep my
personal political opinions confined to Facebook.  If the day has come that
one cannot make this sort of post, then maybe it's time for me to drop off
of the List. 


Regards,

Jeff


Jeff Broadwick
ImageStream
800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 4:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

It's those damn communists. They're on the march again. Quick, man the
barricades!

Wait, I'm wrong. It's ATT and Verizon. They're on the march again. 
Quick, open the gates to the City.

Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 REVIEW  OUTLOOK  MARCH 15, 2010
 Broadband Trojan Horse
 The FCC has a new plan but doesn't want a vote.
 Health care isn't the only policy arena in which the Obama 
 Administration aims to ram through controversial new rules. The 
 Federal Communications Commission is set to unveil a national 
 broadband plan opposed by industry and without any of the five
commissioners voting on it.

 Last year, Congress directed the FCC to develop a plan to make 
 high-speed Internet available to more people. But given that 95% of 
 Americans already have access to some form of broadband-and 94% can 
 choose from at least four wireless

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-03-15 Thread Jeff Broadwick
DANG IT!

Now it's my turn to apologize for putting this onlist!

Sorry folks, just 3 friends trying to hash something out. 


Regards,

Jeff


Jeff Broadwick
ImageStream
800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 9:16 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

Hi Patrick,

I'm sorry.  My note was more directed at my good friend Jack than at you.
:-)

I'm not a fan of the government's intervention in the marketplace.  I know
you've been frustrated too.  $7 billion approved for broadband buildout a
year ago and they are just now getting the money out.  I said from the
get-go that if they are going to do it, they should have made up a 3 or 4
part formula using current subscribers, area covered, population covered,
and what you could cover extra with more money.  Hand Scriv, Mac, Matt, etc.
a check and say bring me the receipts!  We'd have had that money working
within a month.  Would there have been fraud?  Sure!  There will be fraud
with this program, despite all their efforts.  This process has been too
long and too ham handed.  I HOPE that something good will come out of it,
but I'm not convinced that it will.  Ultimately, I think most will go to the
LECs/RBOCs/CableCos/Etc. and precious little to our industry.  I hope I'm
wrong. 


Regards,

Jeff


Jeff Broadwick
ImageStream
800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 6:37 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

Hi Jeff,

Mine was not a return bomb to you Jeff, just a general comment about the
state of our society. To be sure though it was not a news article, it was an
opinion piece and one, in my opinion, laden with the codes du jour intended
to drive people apart into one camp against the other.

About broadband, the author would assert no national policy is needed (which
translates as him saying keep the government off my broadband), but any one
with an ability to look cross borders and analyze the sorry state of our
broadband relative to most other industrialized societies will recognize we
do need a national plan. We need targets and brave goals, not this tepid
duopoly we have now.

Writers like this are not helpful. Not every national effort is some
socialist, communist, nazi, Islamic, fascist plot to enslave patriotic,
hard-working Americans, sometimes it is just an attemp to form a rational,
coherent and necessary national initiative to further prevent Americans from
sliding down into number 20 (or worse) in yet another measurable aspect of
Americans' quality of life. Getting tired of the chest-beating, dillusional
We're America, we're number 1!! Really? In what are we number one in any
more? (I know a few things, but they are not metrics to proud of.)

Americans need to genuinely start working together to solve very real and
very darned serious problems. Find our shared interests and work from there.
We need to end this tribal garbage that's reared up before we end up like
the Baltic republics circa early 1990's.


Patrick

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 2:52 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

Wow, Jack and Patrick.

I respect the two of you as much as any two people in this industry.
Has the day come when posting an article about broadband, from a respected
national newspaper, warrants this sort of a response on list?
I wasn't trying to throw a bomb...I don't really have a firm opinion on this
particular matter.  I thought that the List members would be interested in
the article.  End of story.

There are many different points of view on this List.  I respect that and I
can respectfully disagree with just about anyone.  I really try to keep my
personal political opinions confined to Facebook.  If the day has come that
one cannot make this sort of post, then maybe it's time for me to drop off
of the List. 


Regards,

Jeff


Jeff Broadwick
ImageStream
800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 4:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

It's those damn communists. They're on the march again. Quick, man the
barricades!

Wait, I'm wrong. It's ATT and Verizon. They're on the march again. 
Quick, open the gates to the City.

Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 REVIEW  OUTLOOK  MARCH 15, 2010
 Broadband Trojan Horse
 The FCC has a new plan but doesn't want a vote.
 Health care isn't the only policy arena in which the Obama

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-03-15 Thread Scottie Arnett

The only good statement out of this which may deserve Merit to us WISP is:
 At the urging of liberal advocacy groups like Free Press and Public
 Knowledge, Mr. Genachowski also wants to use the national broadband
 plan as a vehicle for returning to the bad old 1990s era of open access
 regulations. He recommends forcing major broadband providers like Time
 Warner Cable and Qwest to share their high-speed networks with smaller
 competitors at federally set rates. We can't think of a better way to
 reduce capital investment and slow the build-out of high-speed networks. 

Did they even give the open access a chance even back then? This was the 
start for the end of the dial-up ISP's. Do they not remember the end of line 
sharing in the early 2000's?  The throw-off of what the big players did not 
think would ever succeed, being dial-up and what may come afterward? No, they 
were making big money even off that. Then they looked forward for once and saw 
that the future was not as bright as they had thought. NOW, they want it all, 
and still do! I will say again, let's go back to the Computer Inquires Acts and 
force these big players to go by the books...no cross subsidizing, an 
Enforcement Bureau at the FCC that can't be paid off, etc

If they think we can not build our own networks out of what they have 
built(with gov't help), then us WISP have been building out networks that the 
big guys will not serve for almost 2 decades. The article claims that open 
access slows buildouts and innovation. WTF? I know that we can prove that 
different. I have built networks out in the middle of BFE, and many of you have 
in much larger population areas! The big guys have not because they can't see a 
return in the next 10 years...that seems to happen when you have to bury fiber 
or copper into the middle of nowhere, without USF funds, or other gov't 
incentives.

Being bent over in BFE,
Scottie

-- Original Message --
From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net
Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Date:  Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:51:48 -0400

Wow, Jack and Patrick.

I respect the two of you as much as any two people in this industry.  Has
the day come when posting an article about broadband, from a respected
national newspaper, warrants this sort of a response on list?  I wasn't
trying to throw a bomb...I don't really have a firm opinion on this
particular matter.  I thought that the List members would be interested in
the article.  End of story.

There are many different points of view on this List.  I respect that and I
can respectfully disagree with just about anyone.  I really try to keep my
personal political opinions confined to Facebook.  If the day has come that
one cannot make this sort of post, then maybe it's time for me to drop off
of the List. 


Regards,

Jeff


Jeff Broadwick
ImageStream
800-813-5123 
begin_of_the_skype_highlighting  800-813-5123  end_of_the_skype_highlighting
 x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 4:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

It's those damn communists. They're on the march again. Quick, man the
barricades!

Wait, I'm wrong. It's ATT and Verizon. They're on the march again. 
Quick, open the gates to the City.

Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 REVIEW  OUTLOOK  MARCH 15, 2010
 Broadband Trojan Horse
 The FCC has a new plan but doesn't want a vote.
 Health care isn't the only policy arena in which the Obama 
 Administration aims to ram through controversial new rules. The 
 Federal Communications Commission is set to unveil a national 
 broadband plan opposed by industry and without any of the five
commissioners voting on it.

 Last year, Congress directed the FCC to develop a plan to make 
 high-speed Internet available to more people. But given that 95% of 
 Americans already have access to some form of broadband-and 94% can 
 choose from at least four wireless carriers-rapid broadband deployment 
 is already occurring without new government mandates.

 Since 1998, the FCC has classified broadband as an information service
 subject to less regulation than traditional telecom services. The 
 Supreme Court's Brand X decision in 2005 validated that 
 classification, and the upshot has been more investment, innovation 
 and competition among Internet service providers, all to the benefit of
consumers.

 In 2009 alone, broadband providers spent nearly $60 billion on their 
 networks. Absent any evidence of market failure, the best course for 
 the FCC is to report back to Congress that a broadband industrial 
 policy is unnecessary. Instead, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is 
 moving to increase the reach of his agency and expand government control
of the Web.

 Among other things, he wants broadband services reclassified so the 
 FCC can

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-03-15 Thread MDK

There really is very little difference between these tyrants and the Iranian 
Mullahs.

Both need to be deposed instantly tried for their crimes against humanity.



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

--
From: Patrick Leary ple...@apertonet.com
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 2:19 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

 A misplaced personal opinion rant:

 The new United States, where everything is written and reported as us vs
 the nefarious them, where everything is a conspiracy.

 As if the sensationalist, yellow dog journalistic title, Broadband
 Trojan Horse wasn't a big enough clue, I knew this article would be an
 alarmist screed by the first sentence, which uses the word ram and
 controversial and Obama in the same sentence. For Christ's sake I am
 so tired of the relentless fear-mongering. If I were to believe all this
 junk I'd be running into Iranian Revolutionary Guards teamed together
 with Bolsheviks around every corner.

 Writers like live in opposite world in my opinion. The ones actually
 doing any crazy things are the riled up lunatics who see boogeymen and
 socialists under every leaf. Just yesterday the Texas School Board
 pulled Thomas Jefferson (a Diest) from the textbooks in favor of John
 Calvin, among many other politically and backwardly revisionist changes.
 One of the Board Members, advising on the subject of Economics, did not
 even know who Milton Friedman was. Yeah, tell me what the real threats
 to our country are today...

 Last night I watched the first installment of Hank's new Pacific
 mini-series, an American master piece like Band of Brothers and Saving
 Private Ryan. I followed that with a late night watching Apollo 13. As I
 lay down to sleep, I reflected on what we have become as a people since
 those days of great national unity, though not without challenges of
 course, but at least unified toward some greater common goal and ideal.
 I wonder if the wedge-driving nature of how we conduct our national
 dialogue and get our, uhem, news today is only capable of further
 subverting our common interests and repeling each other.

 Misplaced personal opinion rant off.


 Patrick Leary
 A veteran
 An American, like many of you




 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick
 Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 1:30 PM
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 Subject: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

 REVIEW  OUTLOOK  MARCH 15, 2010
 Broadband Trojan Horse
 The FCC has a new plan but doesn't want a vote.
 Health care isn't the only policy arena in which the Obama
 Administration aims to ram through controversial new rules. The Federal
 Communications Commission is set to unveil a national broadband plan
 opposed by industry and without any of the five commissioners voting on
 it.

 Last year, Congress directed the FCC to develop a plan to make
 high-speed Internet available to more people. But given that 95% of
 Americans already have access to some form of broadband-and 94% can
 choose from at least four wireless carriers-rapid broadband deployment
 is already occurring without new government mandates.

 Since 1998, the FCC has classified broadband as an information service
 subject to less regulation than traditional telecom services. The
 Supreme Court's Brand X decision in 2005 validated that classification,
 and the upshot has been more investment, innovation and competition
 among Internet service providers, all to the benefit of consumers.

 In 2009 alone, broadband providers spent nearly $60 billion on their
 networks. Absent any evidence of market failure, the best course for the
 FCC is to report back to Congress that a broadband industrial policy is
 unnecessary. Instead, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is moving to
 increase the reach of his agency and expand government control of the
 Web.

 Among other things, he wants broadband services reclassified so the FCC
 can more heavily regulate them. The national broadband plan, to be
 unveiled tomorrow, will call for using the federal Universal Service
 Fund to subsidize broadband deployment. The USF currently subsidizes
 phone service in rural areas, and Mr. Genachowski knows that current law
 prevents it from being used to subsidize broadband unless broadband is
 reclassified as a telecom service. Congress ought to be wary of letting
 the FCC expand its jurisdiction through back doors like this.

 Mr. Genachowski wants more control over broadband providers so that he
 can implement net neutrality rules that would dictate how ATT,
 Verizon and other Internet service providers manage their networks. To
 date, Congress has given the FCC no such authority. Nor has the agency
 had success in court. Based on oral arguments last month, the D.C.
 Circuit Court of Appeals is almost certain

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-03-15 Thread MDK
Scottie, the problem is nothing at all to do with open access.This 
open access has the effect of fixing the type of access.  Once you 
build a network, and a third party mandates you share it at prices they set, 
no more networks will be built.   The prices will be fixed, the technology 
will be fixed, and nobody in that system will move anywhere.   Why should 
they?   Profit is guaranteed, forever, even if subsidy is required to 
support it.   You have to have multiple last miles for there to be ANY 
competition in technological advancement. And one has to be able to 
build their own network and use it to best advantage without interference... 
or why build?If you don't believe me...   Just agree to the following 
statement:   I agree to build a network, then allow MDK to use it at a 
price set by people who want the public to think they're being given 
something at rich people's expense, and I will maintain, update, and 
continue to upgrade capacity, while everyone who uses my network abuses it 
to the maximum possible amount, while doing everything to undercut my price. 
I also agree that if I charge enough that I can undercut the other users, 
that I will continue to share at ever lower prices, so that the appearance 
of a monopoly will not become apparent.

Yes, we have a duopoly, sort of, with cable and dsl being at an uneasy 
truce, but fix the prices on both, and both will halt, exactly where they 
are, and no further advancement will occur in EITHER industry.Why should 
they?   Any effort to get ahead in the game simply results in your piece of 
the pie being confiscated and given to those who put no investment into it. 
Once the pipe has been defined in price, size, and technology, it simply 
becomes fixed.Which is why telephone service took more than a half 
century to advance from rotary dial to DTMF. Once we blew apart the 
official monopoly and allowed competition for every mile, the actual 
obsolescence of voice over copper became obvious in a very short period of 
time.

You want to see REAL advancement happen?Have the FCC and Congress reduce 
regulatory barriers to all forms of telecommunication - from spectrum 
shortages, to monopoly status for various types of providers, to rules about 
availability of public real estate, and the repeal of at least 90% of the 
completely useless and pointless regulations out there.

We don't need Congress or some pointy-heads at the FCC to write us a plan. 
it will be asininely stupid as the old Soviet Union plans to modernize the 
USSR.Beaurocrats are and always will be utterly incompetent at deciding 
such future directions.   Have them repeal 99% of the income tax, OSHA, and 
other rules (keeping the .5% that are useful), remove the barriers to 
competition that exist at both federal and state levels, and give us some 
tools to fight the local ones,  and then run for cover, because we'll be 
charging into the future like tigers chasing prey.

 Once we start setting prices by some beaurocrat, and using regulators to 
decide fair cost or fair price of something, that's basically... the 
end.They will never admit to their failures and from that point on, the 
game is:  If it succeeds and makes a profit, tax it.   If taxing it doesn't 
fix it, tax it some more.   Once you've killed it with stupidity, then 
subsidize it forever to make your plan look like a success.

I want no part of such things, and how DARE you people think it's a good 
idea to force it upon the people, and upon us... with our own money used 
against us, of all things.

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

--
From: Scottie Arnett sarn...@info-ed.com
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 10:28 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ



 Did they even give the open access a chance even back then? This was the 
 start for the end of the dial-up ISP's. Do they not remember the end of 
 line sharing in the early 2000's?  The throw-off of what the big players 
 did not think would ever succeed, being dial-up and what may come 
 afterward? No, they were making big money even off that. Then they looked 
 forward for once and saw that the future was not as bright as they had 
 thought. NOW, they want it all, and still do! I will say again, let's go 
 back to the Computer Inquires Acts and force these big players to go by 
 the books...no cross subsidizing, an Enforcement Bureau at the FCC that 
 can't be paid off, etc

 If they think we can not build our own networks out of what they have 
 built(with gov't help), then us WISP have been building out networks that 
 the big guys will not serve for almost 2 decades. The article claims that 
 open access slows buildouts and innovation. WTF? I know that we can 
 prove that different. I have built networks out in the middle of BFE

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-25 Thread Stuart Pierce

WE collectively NEED handouts from the taxpayers?   Like hell we do.   All we 
need is some guts and a willingness to actually risk a bit for what we 
actually believe in.

I think you meant DO WE collectively NEED handouts from the taxpayers? like 
hell we do not need them. 





Sent via the WebMail system at avolve.net


 
   



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] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-23 Thread MDK
You're not wrong, Rick.   But we live in a land with so incredibly much 
wealth, privilege, and opportunity, that there's actually very little that 
politicians can actually DO.   There's so little wrong to correct that 
everything they can make a noise about, they blow into a crisis, when it's 
no crisis at all.We've allowed them to blow up every minor issue into 
some kind of crisis, to make people with wealth beyond imagining for much of 
the world's population,  think that they're somehow helpless victims of 
this land of wealth and ease.And we've been so gullible in letting them 
control more and more, we HAVE almost ruined our country.

Go watch some video of Haiti, find pictures of what's happened there... And 
I do not in any way believe you can come back and tell me we have ANY crisis 
in this country.   We have difficulties, rather MINOR ones by comparison at 
that, here, but there is no crisis of any kind.

Watch this: 
http://video.foxnews.com/v/3972193/haitians-helping-haitians?playlist_id=87249

THESE people have a crisis, and darnit, they're putting US to shame with 
their optimism, can-do attitude, and willingness to pull together in and of 
themselves, rather than depend on their government.

Dangit, I have LIVED far beyond the end of the power lines, where there was 
no phone, and running water was when you ran and got it, and our house was 
3 rooms and a path.   And I don't consider that time of my life to be 
deprived of anything, nor was I disadvantaged, even though it was some of my 
grade school years.   Is internet or broadband or a lack of it a big 
factor?   Heck no.   It is a FACTOR, and we should work towards improving 
things.

WE collectively NEED handouts from the taxpayers?   Like hell we do.   All 
we need is some guts and a willingness to actually risk a bit for what we 
actually believe in.We already have a hell of a lot, all that's really 
lacking is our own individual initiative, courage, and willingness to do 
something.I point no fingers here at anyone else,  I have been quite 
proficient in my own faults, as far as that's concerned.   But someone's got 
to say it.We gotta learn to stop making excuses and just go out and do.


--
From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 9:31 AM
To: spie...@avolve.net; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

 That is my point. Over my lifetime, I've done a lot of moving and 
 traveling.
 What I find is that some areas are not as progressive as others - and they
 want it that way. Why do the Feds think they know whats best for these
 areas? Dont the locals know whats best for themselves? If the majority in
 these areas dont want broadband access so be it. If the minority in these
 areas wants it, then they need to change the minds of the majority, figure
 out a way to get it there, or move. Where is my thinking wrong here?
 -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] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-22 Thread Stuart Pierce
Under/un-served areas unfortunately doesn't guarantee any take rate or even 
clients being able to or wanting to make payment. So your own money would be 
best in those situations rather than stimulus for sure.


Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
 You've got an area with 25k households close by and you don't have anything 
 in there?  No one else has anything there either?

 That's 2.5 times MORE than my ENTIRE COUNTY has in it!

 Man I could be making a lot more money if I lived nearly anywhere else!
 marlon

 - Original Message - 
 From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:04 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


   
 In my 3 county area that I was developing an application for, there were 
 25,000 households without access to service and in one of those counties I 
 was only covering the lower half of the unserved areas of the county. (And 
 one partially unserved town in the County I live in was counting on a 
 different provider to include them in their application, but that provider 
 chose not to include them for one reason or another). It's very easy for 
 me to believe the 24 million number since I'm in upstate NY.

 What was particularly interesting to me is that in the detailed census 
 block studies I did, you would often see half of a census block 
 (geographical half) had service and the other did not. 2/3rds of the 
 houses in the census block were on the covered side, but it's very 
 difficult to see how the other third would ever get service since it 
 doesn't fit cable's density plan but isn't enough to justify anyone else 
 building out to them either.

 Chuck

 On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

 
 I think so.

 24 million just seems to be such a large number when you take into 
 account
 the well known underreporting of our industry segment (and perhaps 
 others?).

 It's hard to imagine that all of our hard work thus far has left so many
 homes untouched.

 At a lowly 40% take rate and $20 per month per account that's 
 $288,000,000
 in MONTHLY revenue left sitting idle.  It just makes no sense to me.  I
 can't get my arms around the idea that we've left that many homes with no
 options.

 I can see 24 million households with no service.  I just can't see that 
 many
 with no access to service.  Heck, I have people that still have dialup
 internet even though they are within spitting distance of a tower.  Do 
 they
 count as one of the 24 million?

 laters,
 marlon

 - Original Message - 
 From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:06 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


   
 So, the salient points are, as I understand it (correct me if I'm 
 wrong):

 (1) Brian's numbers are 24 million currently HAVE NO ACCESS TO SERVICE.
 His number DOES NOT INCLUDE the number who have access but have chosen 
 not
 to subscribe.

 (2) You haven't seen the underlying data yourself because much of it is
 private data that you didn't purchase yourself. You get to see the
 analysis from it because Brian HAS purchased it and combined it with
 publicly available data.

 Chuck

 On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

 
 Heya Brian,

 That's the take I had on this.  That the number of households services
 was
 based on the 477 data.  I didn't see any other data sets that would 
 give
 an
 indication of the number of actually services households.

 If the study is based only on the consumers reported via the 477 it's
 likely
 to be quite inaccurate.

 People in government etc. are often quite amazed at the number of
 customers
 that I service out here.  And I'm just one of a great many companies
 offering services in the area.

 I'm trying to get a handle on what additional sources of fact based
 information are out there.  It's important to know what the real number
 is
 and yours seems very high to me.  I don't think it'll be helpful in the
 long
 term if we have a number that gets blown out of the water in the 
 upcoming
 census.

 marlon

 - Original Message - 
 From: Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:00 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


   
 Marlon,
 Read this take rate brief I wrote with one of the data companies I 
 work
 with. It will take you about 10 minutes. It goes in to specific detail
 of
 how the study was conducted and the sources of the data. It was 
 written
 for
 the 10 minute managers of the world. The key to being able to come up
 with
 the numbers was having the data at the census block level in the first
 place. Prior to July of this year there were no sources that I am 
 aware
 of.
 The only information drawn from the form 477 is the total number of
 residential subscribers by state. The number of households without
 access

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-22 Thread RickG
That is my point. Over my lifetime, I've done a lot of moving and traveling.
What I find is that some areas are not as progressive as others - and they
want it that way. Why do the Feds think they know whats best for these
areas? Dont the locals know whats best for themselves? If the majority in
these areas dont want broadband access so be it. If the minority in these
areas wants it, then they need to change the minds of the majority, figure
out a way to get it there, or move. Where is my thinking wrong here?
-RickG

On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Stuart Pierce spie...@avolve.net wrote:

 Under/un-served areas unfortunately doesn't guarantee any take rate or even
 clients being able to or wanting to make payment. So your own money would be
 best in those situations rather than stimulus for sure.


 Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
  You've got an area with 25k households close by and you don't have
 anything
  in there?  No one else has anything there either?
 
  That's 2.5 times MORE than my ENTIRE COUNTY has in it!
 
  Man I could be making a lot more money if I lived nearly anywhere else!
  marlon
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:04 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
 
 
 
  In my 3 county area that I was developing an application for, there
 were
  25,000 households without access to service and in one of those
 counties I
  was only covering the lower half of the unserved areas of the county.
 (And
  one partially unserved town in the County I live in was counting on a
  different provider to include them in their application, but that
 provider
  chose not to include them for one reason or another). It's very easy
 for
  me to believe the 24 million number since I'm in upstate NY.
 
  What was particularly interesting to me is that in the detailed census
  block studies I did, you would often see half of a census block
  (geographical half) had service and the other did not. 2/3rds of the
  houses in the census block were on the covered side, but it's very
  difficult to see how the other third would ever get service since it
  doesn't fit cable's density plan but isn't enough to justify anyone
 else
  building out to them either.
 
  Chuck
 
  On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
 
 
  I think so.
 
  24 million just seems to be such a large number when you take into
  account
  the well known underreporting of our industry segment (and perhaps
  others?).
 
  It's hard to imagine that all of our hard work thus far has left so
 many
  homes untouched.
 
  At a lowly 40% take rate and $20 per month per account that's
  $288,000,000
  in MONTHLY revenue left sitting idle.  It just makes no sense to me.
  I
  can't get my arms around the idea that we've left that many homes with
 no
  options.
 
  I can see 24 million households with no service.  I just can't see
 that
  many
  with no access to service.  Heck, I have people that still have dialup
  internet even though they are within spitting distance of a tower.  Do
  they
  count as one of the 24 million?
 
  laters,
  marlon
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:06 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
 
 
 
  So, the salient points are, as I understand it (correct me if I'm
  wrong):
 
  (1) Brian's numbers are 24 million currently HAVE NO ACCESS TO
 SERVICE.
  His number DOES NOT INCLUDE the number who have access but have
 chosen
  not
  to subscribe.
 
  (2) You haven't seen the underlying data yourself because much of it
 is
  private data that you didn't purchase yourself. You get to see the
  analysis from it because Brian HAS purchased it and combined it with
  publicly available data.
 
  Chuck
 
  On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
 
 
  Heya Brian,
 
  That's the take I had on this.  That the number of households
 services
  was
  based on the 477 data.  I didn't see any other data sets that would
  give
  an
  indication of the number of actually services households.
 
  If the study is based only on the consumers reported via the 477
 it's
  likely
  to be quite inaccurate.
 
  People in government etc. are often quite amazed at the number of
  customers
  that I service out here.  And I'm just one of a great many companies
  offering services in the area.
 
  I'm trying to get a handle on what additional sources of fact based
  information are out there.  It's important to know what the real
 number
  is
  and yours seems very high to me.  I don't think it'll be helpful in
 the
  long
  term if we have a number that gets blown out of the water in the
  upcoming
  census.
 
  marlon
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Wednesday, January 20

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-22 Thread Scottie Arnett
Yep! and quit spending our money to get it there, if it even registered on 
the radar. I could go further about all the $$$ they give to rural telco's, but 
that's another matter.

Scott

-- Original Message --
From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com
Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Date:  Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:31:37 -0500

That is my point. Over my lifetime, I've done a lot of moving and traveling.
What I find is that some areas are not as progressive as others - and they
want it that way. Why do the Feds think they know whats best for these
areas? Dont the locals know whats best for themselves? If the majority in
these areas dont want broadband access so be it. If the minority in these
areas wants it, then they need to change the minds of the majority, figure
out a way to get it there, or move. Where is my thinking wrong here?
-RickG

On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Stuart Pierce spie...@avolve.net wrote:

 Under/un-served areas unfortunately doesn't guarantee any take rate or even
 clients being able to or wanting to make payment. So your own money would be
 best in those situations rather than stimulus for sure.


 Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
  You've got an area with 25k households close by and you don't have
 anything
  in there?  No one else has anything there either?
 
  That's 2.5 times MORE than my ENTIRE COUNTY has in it!
 
  Man I could be making a lot more money if I lived nearly anywhere else!
  marlon
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:04 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
 
 
 
  In my 3 county area that I was developing an application for, there
 were
  25,000 households without access to service and in one of those
 counties I
  was only covering the lower half of the unserved areas of the county.
 (And
  one partially unserved town in the County I live in was counting on a
  different provider to include them in their application, but that
 provider
  chose not to include them for one reason or another). It's very easy
 for
  me to believe the 24 million number since I'm in upstate NY.
 
  What was particularly interesting to me is that in the detailed census
  block studies I did, you would often see half of a census block
  (geographical half) had service and the other did not. 2/3rds of the
  houses in the census block were on the covered side, but it's very
  difficult to see how the other third would ever get service since it
  doesn't fit cable's density plan but isn't enough to justify anyone
 else
  building out to them either.
 
  Chuck
 
  On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
 
 
  I think so.
 
  24 million just seems to be such a large number when you take into
  account
  the well known underreporting of our industry segment (and perhaps
  others?).
 
  It's hard to imagine that all of our hard work thus far has left so
 many
  homes untouched.
 
  At a lowly 40% take rate and $20 per month per account that's
  $288,000,000
  in MONTHLY revenue left sitting idle.  It just makes no sense to me.
  I
  can't get my arms around the idea that we've left that many homes with
 no
  options.
 
  I can see 24 million households with no service.  I just can't see
 that
  many
  with no access to service.  Heck, I have people that still have dialup
  internet even though they are within spitting distance of a tower.  Do
  they
  count as one of the 24 million?
 
  laters,
  marlon
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:06 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
 
 
 
  So, the salient points are, as I understand it (correct me if I'm
  wrong):
 
  (1) Brian's numbers are 24 million currently HAVE NO ACCESS TO
 SERVICE.
  His number DOES NOT INCLUDE the number who have access but have
 chosen
  not
  to subscribe.
 
  (2) You haven't seen the underlying data yourself because much of it
 is
  private data that you didn't purchase yourself. You get to see the
  analysis from it because Brian HAS purchased it and combined it with
  publicly available data.
 
  Chuck
 
  On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
 
 
  Heya Brian,
 
  That's the take I had on this.  That the number of households
 services
  was
  based on the 477 data.  I didn't see any other data sets that would
  give
  an
  indication of the number of actually services households.
 
  If the study is based only on the consumers reported via the 477
 it's
  likely
  to be quite inaccurate.
 
  People in government etc. are often quite amazed at the number of
  customers
  that I service out here.  And I'm just one of a great many companies
  offering services in the area.
 
  I'm trying to get a handle on what additional sources of fact based
  information are out there.  It's important

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-21 Thread Chuck Bartosch
So, the salient points are, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong):

(1) Brian's numbers are 24 million currently HAVE NO ACCESS TO SERVICE. His 
number DOES NOT INCLUDE the number who have access but have chosen not to 
subscribe.

(2) You haven't seen the underlying data yourself because much of it is private 
data that you didn't purchase yourself. You get to see the analysis from it 
because Brian HAS purchased it and combined it with publicly available data.

Chuck

On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

 Heya Brian,
 
 That's the take I had on this.  That the number of households services was 
 based on the 477 data.  I didn't see any other data sets that would give an 
 indication of the number of actually services households.
 
 If the study is based only on the consumers reported via the 477 it's likely 
 to be quite inaccurate.
 
 People in government etc. are often quite amazed at the number of customers 
 that I service out here.  And I'm just one of a great many companies 
 offering services in the area.
 
 I'm trying to get a handle on what additional sources of fact based 
 information are out there.  It's important to know what the real number is 
 and yours seems very high to me.  I don't think it'll be helpful in the long 
 term if we have a number that gets blown out of the water in the upcoming 
 census.
 
 marlon
 
 - Original Message - 
 From: Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:00 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
 
 
 Marlon,
 Read this take rate brief I wrote with one of the data companies I work
 with. It will take you about 10 minutes. It goes in to specific detail of
 how the study was conducted and the sources of the data. It was written 
 for
 the 10 minute managers of the world. The key to being able to come up with
 the numbers was having the data at the census block level in the first
 place. Prior to July of this year there were no sources that I am aware 
 of.
 The only information drawn from the form 477 is the total number of
 residential subscribers by state. The number of households without access 
 to
 broadband has no relationship to the 477 data. That should be spelled out 
 in
 the report.
 
 
 
 Thank You,
 Brian Webster
 
 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on
 Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:32 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
 
 
 OK, as I understand that the report is based upon the 477 data?
 marlon
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Jack Unger
 To: WISPA General List
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:41 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
 
 
 Marlon,
 
 See the attached report. Go to Table 2 on page 11. Look at the last cell
 in the lower, right-hand corner.
 
 jack
 
 
 Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
 I still don't buy that number in the first place.  I wish I knew more 
 about
 how Brian came up with it.
 
 What % of rural households does that work out to be?
 marlon
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
 
 
 Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
 likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
 households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
 (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.
 
 jack
 
 
 Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 
 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870365210457465250160837655
 2.ht
 ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
 
 
 
   * REVIEW  OUTLOOK
   * JANUARY 20, 2010
 
 A 'National Broadband Plan'
 One more solution in search of a problem.
 
 
 The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will
 miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband plan and
 requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly
 everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet.
 
 As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a
 plan
 to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a
 worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false
 presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that
 broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of
 Internet connections.
 
 Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80
 million
 from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy
 Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is
 94%,
 and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A
 typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless
 bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a
 500-fold

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-21 Thread Jeff Broadwick
Actually, from where I'm sitting, it seems like roll-outs have slowed
dramatically as people are waiting to see who gets government funding.  I've
heard Patrick Leary say much the same thing from the radio side.

Anyone else seeing this phenomena?
 


Regards,

Jeff


Jeff Broadwick
ImageStream
800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of RickG
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:49 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

Right: The Technology Policy Institute notes that at the current rates of
broadband adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of
months, and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within
the next few years.

Now, how many here are updating their business models to compete with the
government?
-RickG

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Jeff Broadwick
jeffl...@comcast.netwrote:

 I don't think it ignores that, it is suggesting that the private 
 sector is in the process of closing that gap, without government 
 investment and/or intervention.

 I don't believe that it is arguable that coverage is 
 increasing...that's the net effect of the whole WISP industry.


 Regards,

 Jeff


 Jeff Broadwick
 ImageStream
 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
 +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
 On Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:28 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

 Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
 likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American 
 households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece 
 (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

 jack


 Jeff Broadwick wrote:
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487036521045746525016083
  76
  552.ht
  ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
 
 
 
  * REVIEW  OUTLOOK
  * JANUARY 20, 2010
 
  A 'National Broadband Plan'
  One more solution in search of a problem.
 
 
  The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it 
  will miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband 
  plan and requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing 
  deadlines, nearly everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed
 Internet.
 
  As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for 
  a plan to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband.
  That's a worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on 
  a false presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The 
  reality is that broadband adoption continues apace, as does the 
  quality and speed of Internet connections.
 
  Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 
  million from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of 
  Entropy Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users 
  at home is 94%, and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the 
  Internet with broadband. A typical cable modem today is 10 times 
  faster than a decade ago. Wireless bandwidth growth per capita has 
  been no less impressive, showing a 500-fold increase since 2000.
 
  Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment 
  in 2008 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital 
  investment. Nominal capital investment in telecom between 2000 and
  2008 was more than $3.5 trillion.
 
  Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this 
  private progress and point to international rankings. According to 
  OECD estimates, the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband 
  penetration per capita. But because household sizes differ from 
  country to country, and the U.S. has relatively large households, 
  the per capita figures can be misleading. A better way to gauge 
  wired broadband connections is per household, not per person. By 
  that measure
 the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th.
 
  Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband 
  penetration is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology 
  Policy Institute notes that at the current rates of broadband 
  adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of months, 
  and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within 
  the
 next few years.
 
  Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband 
  market failure thesis. In any industry subject to significant 
  technological change, it is important that the evaluation of 
  competition be forward-looking rather than based on static 
  definitions of products and services, said the Antitrust Division 
  in a January 4 filing to the FCC. In the case of broadband 
  services, it's clear that the market is shifting generally in the 
  direction of faster

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-21 Thread Marlon K. Schafer
I think so.

24 million just seems to be such a large number when you take into account 
the well known underreporting of our industry segment (and perhaps others?).

It's hard to imagine that all of our hard work thus far has left so many 
homes untouched.

At a lowly 40% take rate and $20 per month per account that's $288,000,000 
in MONTHLY revenue left sitting idle.  It just makes no sense to me.  I 
can't get my arms around the idea that we've left that many homes with no 
options.

I can see 24 million households with no service.  I just can't see that many 
with no access to service.  Heck, I have people that still have dialup 
internet even though they are within spitting distance of a tower.  Do they 
count as one of the 24 million?

laters,
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:06 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 So, the salient points are, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong):

 (1) Brian's numbers are 24 million currently HAVE NO ACCESS TO SERVICE. 
 His number DOES NOT INCLUDE the number who have access but have chosen not 
 to subscribe.

 (2) You haven't seen the underlying data yourself because much of it is 
 private data that you didn't purchase yourself. You get to see the 
 analysis from it because Brian HAS purchased it and combined it with 
 publicly available data.

 Chuck

 On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

 Heya Brian,

 That's the take I had on this.  That the number of households services 
 was
 based on the 477 data.  I didn't see any other data sets that would give 
 an
 indication of the number of actually services households.

 If the study is based only on the consumers reported via the 477 it's 
 likely
 to be quite inaccurate.

 People in government etc. are often quite amazed at the number of 
 customers
 that I service out here.  And I'm just one of a great many companies
 offering services in the area.

 I'm trying to get a handle on what additional sources of fact based
 information are out there.  It's important to know what the real number 
 is
 and yours seems very high to me.  I don't think it'll be helpful in the 
 long
 term if we have a number that gets blown out of the water in the upcoming
 census.

 marlon

 - Original Message - 
 From: Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:00 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 Marlon,
 Read this take rate brief I wrote with one of the data companies I work
 with. It will take you about 10 minutes. It goes in to specific detail 
 of
 how the study was conducted and the sources of the data. It was written
 for
 the 10 minute managers of the world. The key to being able to come up 
 with
 the numbers was having the data at the census block level in the first
 place. Prior to July of this year there were no sources that I am aware
 of.
 The only information drawn from the form 477 is the total number of
 residential subscribers by state. The number of households without 
 access
 to
 broadband has no relationship to the 477 data. That should be spelled 
 out
 in
 the report.



 Thank You,
 Brian Webster

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on
 Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:32 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 OK, as I understand that the report is based upon the 477 data?
 marlon

 - Original Message -
 From: Jack Unger
 To: WISPA General List
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:41 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 Marlon,

 See the attached report. Go to Table 2 on page 11. Look at the last cell
 in the lower, right-hand corner.

 jack


 Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
 I still don't buy that number in the first place.  I wish I knew more
 about
 how Brian came up with it.

 What % of rural households does that work out to be?
 marlon

 - Original Message -
 From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
 likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
 households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
 (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

 jack


 Jeff Broadwick wrote:

 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870365210457465250160837655
 2.ht
 ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop



   * REVIEW  OUTLOOK
   * JANUARY 20, 2010

 A 'National Broadband Plan'
 One more solution in search of a problem.


 The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it 
 will
 miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband plan and
 requested a one

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-21 Thread Marlon K. Schafer
Our rollouts have slowed but only because demand has dropped off.

Those that want broadband have it.

OR, they are in VERY expensive to service areas.  Places where the current 
grant programs make absolutely no sense.

An example is one I just put in.  There is a valley that has just 7 homes in 
it.  I drove all over the area looking for a way to hit more people from one 
spot.  No can do, so 7 homes are all that's possible.  On top of that there 
is NO infrastructure at the only viable transmit site.  No power, nothing 
but sagebrush and rocks.  I didn't even see any deer tracks up there!

6 of the home owners got together and put up the $4,000 needed for a solar 
system, mounting structure, repeater equipment and client radios.  We billed 
them an install fee to match and we'll maintain ownership of the repeater 
site (customers own cpe) so it'll be our bill to take care of it from here 
on out.

We now have 6 subs at that location, not sure when or if the 7th will come 
online.  If we'd have had to fund that initial outlay it would work out to 
just short of $9 per month per sub for 5 years.  That's longer than the 
equipment is likely to be in place (I tend to upgrade my ap's every 2 to 3 
years just to stay current).  And $9 is within a couple of bucks of my net 
revenue per sub.

It pencils out for the people at the location though, $9 per month is still 
LESS than the difference in cost between my service and inferior service 
from any of the satellite companies.  Run the numbers out 10 years and they 
were very much money ahead.

But, they would be counted as unserved until now.  And, unfortunately, for 
good reason.  In this case the consumer took it upon themselves to fix their 
problem.  Well and truly the American way of doing things.  A private team 
effort between them and the supplier.  Win win.

Those are the kinds of grants we need right now.  $3000 to $30,000 levels 
with VERY light paperwork requirements.

I guess the cool part of this whole thing is that I've got nearly 100% take 
rates with 100% coverage rates for the area!  grin  There is ONE house JUST 
around the corner yet, not sure how to take care of them but I'll figure it 
out.

H, cool new product?  Self enclosed 16 hour standby time solar repeater. 
$1000 or less with dual n connectors and swappable between 2.4 gig and 5 gig 
radios.  Get to work guys.

laters,
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:10 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 Actually, from where I'm sitting, it seems like roll-outs have slowed
 dramatically as people are waiting to see who gets government funding. 
 I've
 heard Patrick Leary say much the same thing from the radio side.

 Anyone else seeing this phenomena?



 Regards,

 Jeff


 Jeff Broadwick
 ImageStream
 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
 +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of RickG
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:49 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

 Right: The Technology Policy Institute notes that at the current rates of
 broadband adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of
 months, and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point 
 within
 the next few years.

 Now, how many here are updating their business models to compete with the
 government?
 -RickG

 On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Jeff Broadwick
 jeffl...@comcast.netwrote:

 I don't think it ignores that, it is suggesting that the private
 sector is in the process of closing that gap, without government
 investment and/or intervention.

 I don't believe that it is arguable that coverage is
 increasing...that's the net effect of the whole WISP industry.


 Regards,

 Jeff


 Jeff Broadwick
 ImageStream
 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
 +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
 On Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:28 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

 Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
 likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
 households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
 (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

 jack


 Jeff Broadwick wrote:
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487036521045746525016083
  76
  552.ht
  ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
 
 
 
  * REVIEW  OUTLOOK
  * JANUARY 20, 2010
 
  A 'National Broadband Plan'
  One more solution in search of a problem.
 
 
  The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it
  will miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband
  plan and requested a one-month extension. If it keeps

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-21 Thread MDK
The cable co and telco and I generally deploy where people say yeah, we'll 
pay for it.

There IS a relationship - a weak one - between not available and don't 
want it or won't pay for it.

That was my take in the first place.And then there's the I haven't 
gotten there yet number.   It seems that number shrinks steadily...



--
From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:22 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

 I won't comment on the first parts.  ;-)

 The rest is completely true, other than Brian is talking about 24 million
 households can't get it in the first place vs. 24 million households that
 don't want it that you (and others on the list) took it to mean.


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



 --
 From: MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:58 PM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

 Is that directly off the pages of the Democrat National Committee Blast
 Fax talking points of the day?

 Shame on you, Jack.

 There's easily 24 million households THAT DO NOT WANT OR WILL NOT PAY FOR
 broadband.

 I have some areas where I cover 100% of the households, nobody else does,
 and yet, I can only get 60 percent of them to subscribe.   The rest?
 Too
 expensive (even 25.50/mo is 'too much') or we don't even have a 
 computer
 is still something I hear semi regularly.

 I don't think my demographics are specifically average... but they're not
 THAT far off the norm.

 In the last 2 years I've lost 5 customers to cable and dsl.   1 to 
 another
 provider (was glad to see them go),  but that's less than the number who
 have moved or died.   I think we've seen nearly the limits of cable and
 dsl
 expansion where I am.   And they've covered a good 75% of the population,
 even as rural as we are.The WSJ article is dead on right, from what I
 can tell.   My growth is now the niche areas that aren't high on the 
 cable
 or dsl deployment priority, yet I'm seeing the want for broadband to be
 under 80%, even in affluent areas.

 Since our install costs are now as low as free, depending on location,
 we're seeing signficant not heavy user adoption.

 Now, the growth of actual data moved...   The percentage increase every
 month is near or at double digits.


 --
 From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

 Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
 likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
 households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
 (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

 jack


 Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht
 ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop



 * REVIEW  OUTLOOK
 * JANUARY 20, 2010

 A 'National Broadband Plan'
 One more solution in search of a problem.


 The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it
 will
 miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband plan and
 requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly
 everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet.

 As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a
 plan
 to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's
 a
 worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false
 presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is 
 that
 broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of
 Internet connections.

 Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80
 million
 from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy
 Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is
 94%,
 and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. 
 A
 typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. 
 Wireless
 bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a
 500-fold
 increase since 2000.

 Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in
 2008
 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment.
 Nominal
 capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5
 trillion.

 Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this
 private
 progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD
 estimates,
 the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita.
 But
 because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. 
 has
 relatively large households, the per capita

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-21 Thread MDK
That would seem to be rational and logical as an observation, prediction, 
and explanation.



--
From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:10 AM
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

 Actually, from where I'm sitting, it seems like roll-outs have slowed
 dramatically as people are waiting to see who gets government funding. 
 I've
 heard Patrick Leary say much the same thing from the radio side.

 Anyone else seeing this phenomena?



 Regards,

 Jeff


 Jeff Broadwick
 ImageStream
 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
 +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of RickG
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:49 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

 Right: The Technology Policy Institute notes that at the current rates of
 broadband adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of
 months, and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point 
 within
 the next few years.

 Now, how many here are updating their business models to compete with the
 government?
 -RickG

 On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Jeff Broadwick
 jeffl...@comcast.netwrote:

 I don't think it ignores that, it is suggesting that the private
 sector is in the process of closing that gap, without government
 investment and/or intervention.

 I don't believe that it is arguable that coverage is
 increasing...that's the net effect of the whole WISP industry.


 Regards,

 Jeff


 Jeff Broadwick
 ImageStream
 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
 +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
 On Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:28 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

 Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
 likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
 households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
 (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

 jack


 Jeff Broadwick wrote:
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487036521045746525016083
  76
  552.ht
  ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
 
 
 
  * REVIEW  OUTLOOK
  * JANUARY 20, 2010
 
  A 'National Broadband Plan'
  One more solution in search of a problem.
 
 
  The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it
  will miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband
  plan and requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing
  deadlines, nearly everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed
 Internet.
 
  As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for
  a plan to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband.
  That's a worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on
  a false presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The
  reality is that broadband adoption continues apace, as does the
  quality and speed of Internet connections.
 
  Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80
  million from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of
  Entropy Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users
  at home is 94%, and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the
  Internet with broadband. A typical cable modem today is 10 times
  faster than a decade ago. Wireless bandwidth growth per capita has
  been no less impressive, showing a 500-fold increase since 2000.
 
  Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment
  in 2008 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital
  investment. Nominal capital investment in telecom between 2000 and
  2008 was more than $3.5 trillion.
 
  Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this
  private progress and point to international rankings. According to
  OECD estimates, the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband
  penetration per capita. But because household sizes differ from
  country to country, and the U.S. has relatively large households,
  the per capita figures can be misleading. A better way to gauge
  wired broadband connections is per household, not per person. By
  that measure
 the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th.
 
  Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband
  penetration is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology
  Policy Institute notes that at the current rates of broadband
  adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of months,
  and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within
  the
 next few years.
 
  Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband
  market failure thesis. In any industry subject to significant
  technological change, it is important

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-21 Thread MDK
interestingly enough, mine has picked up of late.   I think it's the reduced 
install cost that's driven that.

I also had a small time competitor just walk way from his network and I'm 
scrambling big time trying to fill the gap... but I haven't the money to put 
up the infrastructure...  We're talking about backhauls and access points 
for 3 and 5 and 15 and 2 and so customers.   That means finding new sites, 
new equipment, and it's ALL up in the mountains, where it's normally snowed 
in this time of year, but clear at the moment, so time is our biggest 
enemy.   Not to mention irate folks who just got dependent...

If I'd known all this... I'd not just have invested most of our saved up 
cash in that fancy new backhaul to our main site so we can now get near 
ethernet speed feed to our largest network segment.Then again, I need 
the bandwidth to add those folks...





--
From: Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.com
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:21 AM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

 Our rollouts have slowed but only because demand has dropped off.

 Those that want broadband have it.

 OR, they are in VERY expensive to service areas.  Places where the current
 grant programs make absolutely no sense.

 An example is one I just put in.  There is a valley that has just 7 homes 
 in
 it.  I drove all over the area looking for a way to hit more people from 
 one
 spot.  No can do, so 7 homes are all that's possible.  On top of that 
 there
 is NO infrastructure at the only viable transmit site.  No power, nothing
 but sagebrush and rocks.  I didn't even see any deer tracks up there!

 6 of the home owners got together and put up the $4,000 needed for a solar
 system, mounting structure, repeater equipment and client radios.  We 
 billed
 them an install fee to match and we'll maintain ownership of the repeater
 site (customers own cpe) so it'll be our bill to take care of it from here
 on out.

 We now have 6 subs at that location, not sure when or if the 7th will come
 online.  If we'd have had to fund that initial outlay it would work out to
 just short of $9 per month per sub for 5 years.  That's longer than the
 equipment is likely to be in place (I tend to upgrade my ap's every 2 to 3
 years just to stay current).  And $9 is within a couple of bucks of my net
 revenue per sub.

 It pencils out for the people at the location though, $9 per month is 
 still
 LESS than the difference in cost between my service and inferior service
 from any of the satellite companies.  Run the numbers out 10 years and 
 they
 were very much money ahead.

 But, they would be counted as unserved until now.  And, unfortunately, for
 good reason.  In this case the consumer took it upon themselves to fix 
 their
 problem.  Well and truly the American way of doing things.  A private team
 effort between them and the supplier.  Win win.

 Those are the kinds of grants we need right now.  $3000 to $30,000 levels
 with VERY light paperwork requirements.

 I guess the cool part of this whole thing is that I've got nearly 100% 
 take
 rates with 100% coverage rates for the area!  grin  There is ONE house 
 JUST
 around the corner yet, not sure how to take care of them but I'll figure 
 it
 out.

 H, cool new product?  Self enclosed 16 hour standby time solar 
 repeater.
 $1000 or less with dual n connectors and swappable between 2.4 gig and 5 
 gig
 radios.  Get to work guys.

 laters,
 marlon

 - Original Message - 
 From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:10 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 Actually, from where I'm sitting, it seems like roll-outs have slowed
 dramatically as people are waiting to see who gets government funding.
 I've
 heard Patrick Leary say much the same thing from the radio side.

 Anyone else seeing this phenomena?



 Regards,

 Jeff


 Jeff Broadwick
 ImageStream
 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
 +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of RickG
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:49 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

 Right: The Technology Policy Institute notes that at the current rates 
 of
 broadband adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of
 months, and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point
 within
 the next few years.

 Now, how many here are updating their business models to compete with the
 government?
 -RickG

 On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Jeff Broadwick
 jeffl...@comcast.netwrote:

 I don't think it ignores that, it is suggesting that the private
 sector is in the process of closing that gap, without government
 investment and/or intervention.

 I don't believe that it is arguable that coverage is
 increasing

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-21 Thread Chuck Bartosch
In my 3 county area that I was developing an application for, there were 25,000 
households without access to service and in one of those counties I was only 
covering the lower half of the unserved areas of the county. (And one partially 
unserved town in the County I live in was counting on a different provider to 
include them in their application, but that provider chose not to include them 
for one reason or another). It's very easy for me to believe the 24 million 
number since I'm in upstate NY.

What was particularly interesting to me is that in the detailed census block 
studies I did, you would often see half of a census block (geographical half) 
had service and the other did not. 2/3rds of the houses in the census block 
were on the covered side, but it's very difficult to see how the other third 
would ever get service since it doesn't fit cable's density plan but isn't 
enough to justify anyone else building out to them either.

Chuck

On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

 I think so.
 
 24 million just seems to be such a large number when you take into account 
 the well known underreporting of our industry segment (and perhaps others?).
 
 It's hard to imagine that all of our hard work thus far has left so many 
 homes untouched.
 
 At a lowly 40% take rate and $20 per month per account that's $288,000,000 
 in MONTHLY revenue left sitting idle.  It just makes no sense to me.  I 
 can't get my arms around the idea that we've left that many homes with no 
 options.
 
 I can see 24 million households with no service.  I just can't see that many 
 with no access to service.  Heck, I have people that still have dialup 
 internet even though they are within spitting distance of a tower.  Do they 
 count as one of the 24 million?
 
 laters,
 marlon
 
 - Original Message - 
 From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:06 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
 
 
 So, the salient points are, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong):
 
 (1) Brian's numbers are 24 million currently HAVE NO ACCESS TO SERVICE. 
 His number DOES NOT INCLUDE the number who have access but have chosen not 
 to subscribe.
 
 (2) You haven't seen the underlying data yourself because much of it is 
 private data that you didn't purchase yourself. You get to see the 
 analysis from it because Brian HAS purchased it and combined it with 
 publicly available data.
 
 Chuck
 
 On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
 
 Heya Brian,
 
 That's the take I had on this.  That the number of households services 
 was
 based on the 477 data.  I didn't see any other data sets that would give 
 an
 indication of the number of actually services households.
 
 If the study is based only on the consumers reported via the 477 it's 
 likely
 to be quite inaccurate.
 
 People in government etc. are often quite amazed at the number of 
 customers
 that I service out here.  And I'm just one of a great many companies
 offering services in the area.
 
 I'm trying to get a handle on what additional sources of fact based
 information are out there.  It's important to know what the real number 
 is
 and yours seems very high to me.  I don't think it'll be helpful in the 
 long
 term if we have a number that gets blown out of the water in the upcoming
 census.
 
 marlon
 
 - Original Message - 
 From: Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:00 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
 
 
 Marlon,
 Read this take rate brief I wrote with one of the data companies I work
 with. It will take you about 10 minutes. It goes in to specific detail 
 of
 how the study was conducted and the sources of the data. It was written
 for
 the 10 minute managers of the world. The key to being able to come up 
 with
 the numbers was having the data at the census block level in the first
 place. Prior to July of this year there were no sources that I am aware
 of.
 The only information drawn from the form 477 is the total number of
 residential subscribers by state. The number of households without 
 access
 to
 broadband has no relationship to the 477 data. That should be spelled 
 out
 in
 the report.
 
 
 
 Thank You,
 Brian Webster
 
 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on
 Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:32 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
 
 
 OK, as I understand that the report is based upon the 477 data?
 marlon
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Jack Unger
 To: WISPA General List
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:41 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
 
 
 Marlon,
 
 See the attached report. Go to Table 2 on page 11. Look at the last cell
 in the lower, right-hand corner.
 
 jack
 
 
 Marlon K. Schafer wrote

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-21 Thread Marlon K. Schafer
You've got an area with 25k households close by and you don't have anything 
in there?  No one else has anything there either?

That's 2.5 times MORE than my ENTIRE COUNTY has in it!

Man I could be making a lot more money if I lived nearly anywhere else!
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 In my 3 county area that I was developing an application for, there were 
 25,000 households without access to service and in one of those counties I 
 was only covering the lower half of the unserved areas of the county. (And 
 one partially unserved town in the County I live in was counting on a 
 different provider to include them in their application, but that provider 
 chose not to include them for one reason or another). It's very easy for 
 me to believe the 24 million number since I'm in upstate NY.

 What was particularly interesting to me is that in the detailed census 
 block studies I did, you would often see half of a census block 
 (geographical half) had service and the other did not. 2/3rds of the 
 houses in the census block were on the covered side, but it's very 
 difficult to see how the other third would ever get service since it 
 doesn't fit cable's density plan but isn't enough to justify anyone else 
 building out to them either.

 Chuck

 On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

 I think so.

 24 million just seems to be such a large number when you take into 
 account
 the well known underreporting of our industry segment (and perhaps 
 others?).

 It's hard to imagine that all of our hard work thus far has left so many
 homes untouched.

 At a lowly 40% take rate and $20 per month per account that's 
 $288,000,000
 in MONTHLY revenue left sitting idle.  It just makes no sense to me.  I
 can't get my arms around the idea that we've left that many homes with no
 options.

 I can see 24 million households with no service.  I just can't see that 
 many
 with no access to service.  Heck, I have people that still have dialup
 internet even though they are within spitting distance of a tower.  Do 
 they
 count as one of the 24 million?

 laters,
 marlon

 - Original Message - 
 From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:06 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 So, the salient points are, as I understand it (correct me if I'm 
 wrong):

 (1) Brian's numbers are 24 million currently HAVE NO ACCESS TO SERVICE.
 His number DOES NOT INCLUDE the number who have access but have chosen 
 not
 to subscribe.

 (2) You haven't seen the underlying data yourself because much of it is
 private data that you didn't purchase yourself. You get to see the
 analysis from it because Brian HAS purchased it and combined it with
 publicly available data.

 Chuck

 On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

 Heya Brian,

 That's the take I had on this.  That the number of households services
 was
 based on the 477 data.  I didn't see any other data sets that would 
 give
 an
 indication of the number of actually services households.

 If the study is based only on the consumers reported via the 477 it's
 likely
 to be quite inaccurate.

 People in government etc. are often quite amazed at the number of
 customers
 that I service out here.  And I'm just one of a great many companies
 offering services in the area.

 I'm trying to get a handle on what additional sources of fact based
 information are out there.  It's important to know what the real number
 is
 and yours seems very high to me.  I don't think it'll be helpful in the
 long
 term if we have a number that gets blown out of the water in the 
 upcoming
 census.

 marlon

 - Original Message - 
 From: Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:00 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 Marlon,
 Read this take rate brief I wrote with one of the data companies I 
 work
 with. It will take you about 10 minutes. It goes in to specific detail
 of
 how the study was conducted and the sources of the data. It was 
 written
 for
 the 10 minute managers of the world. The key to being able to come up
 with
 the numbers was having the data at the census block level in the first
 place. Prior to July of this year there were no sources that I am 
 aware
 of.
 The only information drawn from the form 477 is the total number of
 residential subscribers by state. The number of households without
 access
 to
 broadband has no relationship to the 477 data. That should be spelled
 out
 in
 the report.



 Thank You,
 Brian Webster

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on
 Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:32 PM

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-21 Thread Travis Johnson
But anywhere else I don't think your LMR-Antenna would work as well...

Travis
Microserv

Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
 You've got an area with 25k households close by and you don't have anything 
 in there?  No one else has anything there either?

 That's 2.5 times MORE than my ENTIRE COUNTY has in it!

 Man I could be making a lot more money if I lived nearly anywhere else!
 marlon

 - Original Message - 
 From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:04 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


   
 In my 3 county area that I was developing an application for, there were 
 25,000 households without access to service and in one of those counties I 
 was only covering the lower half of the unserved areas of the county. (And 
 one partially unserved town in the County I live in was counting on a 
 different provider to include them in their application, but that provider 
 chose not to include them for one reason or another). It's very easy for 
 me to believe the 24 million number since I'm in upstate NY.

 What was particularly interesting to me is that in the detailed census 
 block studies I did, you would often see half of a census block 
 (geographical half) had service and the other did not. 2/3rds of the 
 houses in the census block were on the covered side, but it's very 
 difficult to see how the other third would ever get service since it 
 doesn't fit cable's density plan but isn't enough to justify anyone else 
 building out to them either.

 Chuck

 On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

 
 I think so.

 24 million just seems to be such a large number when you take into 
 account
 the well known underreporting of our industry segment (and perhaps 
 others?).

 It's hard to imagine that all of our hard work thus far has left so many
 homes untouched.

 At a lowly 40% take rate and $20 per month per account that's 
 $288,000,000
 in MONTHLY revenue left sitting idle.  It just makes no sense to me.  I
 can't get my arms around the idea that we've left that many homes with no
 options.

 I can see 24 million households with no service.  I just can't see that 
 many
 with no access to service.  Heck, I have people that still have dialup
 internet even though they are within spitting distance of a tower.  Do 
 they
 count as one of the 24 million?

 laters,
 marlon

 - Original Message - 
 From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:06 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


   
 So, the salient points are, as I understand it (correct me if I'm 
 wrong):

 (1) Brian's numbers are 24 million currently HAVE NO ACCESS TO SERVICE.
 His number DOES NOT INCLUDE the number who have access but have chosen 
 not
 to subscribe.

 (2) You haven't seen the underlying data yourself because much of it is
 private data that you didn't purchase yourself. You get to see the
 analysis from it because Brian HAS purchased it and combined it with
 publicly available data.

 Chuck

 On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

 
 Heya Brian,

 That's the take I had on this.  That the number of households services
 was
 based on the 477 data.  I didn't see any other data sets that would 
 give
 an
 indication of the number of actually services households.

 If the study is based only on the consumers reported via the 477 it's
 likely
 to be quite inaccurate.

 People in government etc. are often quite amazed at the number of
 customers
 that I service out here.  And I'm just one of a great many companies
 offering services in the area.

 I'm trying to get a handle on what additional sources of fact based
 information are out there.  It's important to know what the real number
 is
 and yours seems very high to me.  I don't think it'll be helpful in the
 long
 term if we have a number that gets blown out of the water in the 
 upcoming
 census.

 marlon

 - Original Message - 
 From: Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:00 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


   
 Marlon,
 Read this take rate brief I wrote with one of the data companies I 
 work
 with. It will take you about 10 minutes. It goes in to specific detail
 of
 how the study was conducted and the sources of the data. It was 
 written
 for
 the 10 minute managers of the world. The key to being able to come up
 with
 the numbers was having the data at the census block level in the first
 place. Prior to July of this year there were no sources that I am 
 aware
 of.
 The only information drawn from the form 477 is the total number of
 residential subscribers by state. The number of households without
 access
 to
 broadband has no relationship to the 477 data. That should be spelled
 out
 in
 the report.



 Thank You,
 Brian Webster

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-21 Thread Brian Webster
Until you have to deal with the trees and mountains he has too :-)



Thank You,
Brian Webster


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 4:54 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


You've got an area with 25k households close by and you don't have anything
in there?  No one else has anything there either?

That's 2.5 times MORE than my ENTIRE COUNTY has in it!

Man I could be making a lot more money if I lived nearly anywhere else!
marlon

- Original Message -
From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 In my 3 county area that I was developing an application for, there were
 25,000 households without access to service and in one of those counties I
 was only covering the lower half of the unserved areas of the county. (And
 one partially unserved town in the County I live in was counting on a
 different provider to include them in their application, but that provider
 chose not to include them for one reason or another). It's very easy for
 me to believe the 24 million number since I'm in upstate NY.

 What was particularly interesting to me is that in the detailed census
 block studies I did, you would often see half of a census block
 (geographical half) had service and the other did not. 2/3rds of the
 houses in the census block were on the covered side, but it's very
 difficult to see how the other third would ever get service since it
 doesn't fit cable's density plan but isn't enough to justify anyone else
 building out to them either.

 Chuck

 On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

 I think so.

 24 million just seems to be such a large number when you take into
 account
 the well known underreporting of our industry segment (and perhaps
 others?).

 It's hard to imagine that all of our hard work thus far has left so many
 homes untouched.

 At a lowly 40% take rate and $20 per month per account that's
 $288,000,000
 in MONTHLY revenue left sitting idle.  It just makes no sense to me.  I
 can't get my arms around the idea that we've left that many homes with no
 options.

 I can see 24 million households with no service.  I just can't see that
 many
 with no access to service.  Heck, I have people that still have dialup
 internet even though they are within spitting distance of a tower.  Do
 they
 count as one of the 24 million?

 laters,
 marlon

 - Original Message -
 From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:06 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 So, the salient points are, as I understand it (correct me if I'm
 wrong):

 (1) Brian's numbers are 24 million currently HAVE NO ACCESS TO SERVICE.
 His number DOES NOT INCLUDE the number who have access but have chosen
 not
 to subscribe.

 (2) You haven't seen the underlying data yourself because much of it is
 private data that you didn't purchase yourself. You get to see the
 analysis from it because Brian HAS purchased it and combined it with
 publicly available data.

 Chuck

 On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

 Heya Brian,

 That's the take I had on this.  That the number of households services
 was
 based on the 477 data.  I didn't see any other data sets that would
 give
 an
 indication of the number of actually services households.

 If the study is based only on the consumers reported via the 477 it's
 likely
 to be quite inaccurate.

 People in government etc. are often quite amazed at the number of
 customers
 that I service out here.  And I'm just one of a great many companies
 offering services in the area.

 I'm trying to get a handle on what additional sources of fact based
 information are out there.  It's important to know what the real number
 is
 and yours seems very high to me.  I don't think it'll be helpful in the
 long
 term if we have a number that gets blown out of the water in the
 upcoming
 census.

 marlon

 - Original Message -
 From: Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:00 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 Marlon,
 Read this take rate brief I wrote with one of the data companies I
 work
 with. It will take you about 10 minutes. It goes in to specific detail
 of
 how the study was conducted and the sources of the data. It was
 written
 for
 the 10 minute managers of the world. The key to being able to come up
 with
 the numbers was having the data at the census block level in the first
 place. Prior to July of this year there were no sources that I am
 aware
 of.
 The only information drawn from the form 477 is the total number of
 residential subscribers by state. The number of households without
 access

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-21 Thread Marlon K. Schafer
Grin.

Mountains or valleys, 2' of dirt is just as bad as 20,000' of dirt in this 
game!

Tough nut to crack, that's for sure.
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 Until you have to deal with the trees and mountains he has too :-)



 Thank You,
 Brian Webster


 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on
 Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
 Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 4:54 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 You've got an area with 25k households close by and you don't have 
 anything
 in there?  No one else has anything there either?

 That's 2.5 times MORE than my ENTIRE COUNTY has in it!

 Man I could be making a lot more money if I lived nearly anywhere else!
 marlon

 - Original Message -
 From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:04 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 In my 3 county area that I was developing an application for, there were
 25,000 households without access to service and in one of those counties 
 I
 was only covering the lower half of the unserved areas of the county. 
 (And
 one partially unserved town in the County I live in was counting on a
 different provider to include them in their application, but that 
 provider
 chose not to include them for one reason or another). It's very easy for
 me to believe the 24 million number since I'm in upstate NY.

 What was particularly interesting to me is that in the detailed census
 block studies I did, you would often see half of a census block
 (geographical half) had service and the other did not. 2/3rds of the
 houses in the census block were on the covered side, but it's very
 difficult to see how the other third would ever get service since it
 doesn't fit cable's density plan but isn't enough to justify anyone else
 building out to them either.

 Chuck

 On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

 I think so.

 24 million just seems to be such a large number when you take into
 account
 the well known underreporting of our industry segment (and perhaps
 others?).

 It's hard to imagine that all of our hard work thus far has left so many
 homes untouched.

 At a lowly 40% take rate and $20 per month per account that's
 $288,000,000
 in MONTHLY revenue left sitting idle.  It just makes no sense to me.  I
 can't get my arms around the idea that we've left that many homes with 
 no
 options.

 I can see 24 million households with no service.  I just can't see that
 many
 with no access to service.  Heck, I have people that still have dialup
 internet even though they are within spitting distance of a tower.  Do
 they
 count as one of the 24 million?

 laters,
 marlon

 - Original Message -
 From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:06 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 So, the salient points are, as I understand it (correct me if I'm
 wrong):

 (1) Brian's numbers are 24 million currently HAVE NO ACCESS TO SERVICE.
 His number DOES NOT INCLUDE the number who have access but have chosen
 not
 to subscribe.

 (2) You haven't seen the underlying data yourself because much of it is
 private data that you didn't purchase yourself. You get to see the
 analysis from it because Brian HAS purchased it and combined it with
 publicly available data.

 Chuck

 On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

 Heya Brian,

 That's the take I had on this.  That the number of households services
 was
 based on the 477 data.  I didn't see any other data sets that would
 give
 an
 indication of the number of actually services households.

 If the study is based only on the consumers reported via the 477 it's
 likely
 to be quite inaccurate.

 People in government etc. are often quite amazed at the number of
 customers
 that I service out here.  And I'm just one of a great many companies
 offering services in the area.

 I'm trying to get a handle on what additional sources of fact based
 information are out there.  It's important to know what the real 
 number
 is
 and yours seems very high to me.  I don't think it'll be helpful in 
 the
 long
 term if we have a number that gets blown out of the water in the
 upcoming
 census.

 marlon

 - Original Message -
 From: Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:00 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 Marlon,
 Read this take rate brief I wrote with one of the data companies I
 work
 with. It will take you about 10 minutes. It goes in to specific 
 detail
 of
 how the study was conducted and the sources of the data. It was
 written

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-21 Thread RickG
Yes, I enjoyed it a few years back. Still waiting on the new one! Jack?
-RickG

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Josh Luthman
j...@imaginenetworksllc.comwrote:

 Jack wrote and published a book...

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

 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.
 --- Albert Einstein


 On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:54 AM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:

   I refuse to feed the troll. I refuse to feed the troll. I refuse to feed
  the troll. I refuse to feed the troll. I refuse to feed the troll.
 
  MDK wrote:
 
  Is that directly off the pages of the Democrat National Committee Blast
  Fax talking points of the day?
 
  Shame on you, Jack.
 
  There's easily 24 million households THAT DO NOT WANT OR WILL NOT PAY FOR
  broadband.
 
  I have some areas where I cover 100% of the households, nobody else does,
  and yet, I can only get 60 percent of them to subscribe.   The rest?
  Too
  expensive (even 25.50/mo is 'too much') or we don't even have a
 computer
  is still something I hear semi regularly.
 
  I don't think my demographics are specifically average... but they're not
  THAT far off the norm.
 
  In the last 2 years I've lost 5 customers to cable and dsl.   1 to
 another
  provider (was glad to see them go),  but that's less than the number who
  have moved or died.   I think we've seen nearly the limits of cable and
 dsl
  expansion where I am.   And they've covered a good 75% of the population,
  even as rural as we are.The WSJ article is dead on right, from what I
  can tell.   My growth is now the niche areas that aren't high on the
 cable
  or dsl deployment priority, yet I'm seeing the want for broadband to be
  under 80%, even in affluent areas.
 
  Since our install costs are now as low as free, depending on location,
  we're seeing signficant not heavy user adoption.
 
  Now, the growth of actual data moved...   The percentage increase every
  month is near or at double digits.
 
 
  --
  From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com jun...@ask-wi.com
  Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org wireless@wispa.org
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
 
 
 
   Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
  likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
  households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
  (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.
 
  jack
 
 
  Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 
 
 
 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht
  ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
 
 
 
  * REVIEW  OUTLOOK
  * JANUARY 20, 2010
 
  A 'National Broadband Plan'
  One more solution in search of a problem.
 
 
  The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will
  miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband plan and
  requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly
  everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet.
 
  As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a
  plan
  to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a
  worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false
  presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that
  broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of
  Internet connections.
 
  Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80
  million
  from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy
  Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is
  94%,
  and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A
  typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless
  bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a
  500-fold
  increase since 2000.
 
  Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in
  2008
  alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment.
  Nominal
  capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5
  trillion.
 
  Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this
  private
  progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD
  estimates,
  the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But
  because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has
  relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A
  better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per
  person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th.
 
  Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband
  penetration
  is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy Institute
  notes

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-21 Thread RickG
I've picked up since before Christmas. From what I can tell most are taking
college classes from home.
-RickG

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.netwrote:

 Actually, from where I'm sitting, it seems like roll-outs have slowed
 dramatically as people are waiting to see who gets government funding.
  I've
 heard Patrick Leary say much the same thing from the radio side.

 Anyone else seeing this phenomena?



 Regards,

 Jeff


 Jeff Broadwick
 ImageStream
 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
 +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of RickG
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:49 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

 Right: The Technology Policy Institute notes that at the current rates of
 broadband adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of
 months, and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within
 the next few years.

 Now, how many here are updating their business models to compete with the
 government?
 -RickG

 On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Jeff Broadwick
 jeffl...@comcast.netwrote:

  I don't think it ignores that, it is suggesting that the private
  sector is in the process of closing that gap, without government
  investment and/or intervention.
 
  I don't believe that it is arguable that coverage is
  increasing...that's the net effect of the whole WISP industry.
 
 
  Regards,
 
  Jeff
 
 
  Jeff Broadwick
  ImageStream
  800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
  +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
  On Behalf Of Jack Unger
  Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:28 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
 
  Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
  likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
  households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
  (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.
 
  jack
 
 
  Jeff Broadwick wrote:
   http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487036521045746525016083
   76
   552.ht
   ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
  
  
  
   * REVIEW  OUTLOOK
   * JANUARY 20, 2010
  
   A 'National Broadband Plan'
   One more solution in search of a problem.
  
  
   The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it
   will miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband
   plan and requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing
   deadlines, nearly everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed
  Internet.
  
   As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for
   a plan to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband.
   That's a worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on
   a false presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The
   reality is that broadband adoption continues apace, as does the
   quality and speed of Internet connections.
  
   Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80
   million from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of
   Entropy Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users
   at home is 94%, and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the
   Internet with broadband. A typical cable modem today is 10 times
   faster than a decade ago. Wireless bandwidth growth per capita has
   been no less impressive, showing a 500-fold increase since 2000.
  
   Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment
   in 2008 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital
   investment. Nominal capital investment in telecom between 2000 and
   2008 was more than $3.5 trillion.
  
   Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this
   private progress and point to international rankings. According to
   OECD estimates, the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband
   penetration per capita. But because household sizes differ from
   country to country, and the U.S. has relatively large households,
   the per capita figures can be misleading. A better way to gauge
   wired broadband connections is per household, not per person. By
   that measure
  the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th.
  
   Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband
   penetration is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology
   Policy Institute notes that at the current rates of broadband
   adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of months,
   and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within
   the
  next few years.
  
   Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband
   market failure thesis. In any industry subject to significant
   technological change, it is important that the evaluation of
   competition

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-21 Thread RickG
There are a lot of counties in eastern Kentucky that have way too many
mountains  trees for me. They've begged for us to come out there but I'm
not up to that task!
-RickG

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Marlon K. Schafer 
o...@odessaoffice.comwrote:

 I think so.

 24 million just seems to be such a large number when you take into account
 the well known underreporting of our industry segment (and perhaps
 others?).

 It's hard to imagine that all of our hard work thus far has left so many
 homes untouched.

 At a lowly 40% take rate and $20 per month per account that's $288,000,000
 in MONTHLY revenue left sitting idle.  It just makes no sense to me.  I
 can't get my arms around the idea that we've left that many homes with no
 options.

 I can see 24 million households with no service.  I just can't see that
 many
 with no access to service.  Heck, I have people that still have dialup
 internet even though they are within spitting distance of a tower.  Do they
 count as one of the 24 million?

 laters,
 marlon

 - Original Message -
 From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:06 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


  So, the salient points are, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong):
 
  (1) Brian's numbers are 24 million currently HAVE NO ACCESS TO SERVICE.
  His number DOES NOT INCLUDE the number who have access but have chosen
 not
  to subscribe.
 
  (2) You haven't seen the underlying data yourself because much of it is
  private data that you didn't purchase yourself. You get to see the
  analysis from it because Brian HAS purchased it and combined it with
  publicly available data.
 
  Chuck
 
  On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
 
  Heya Brian,
 
  That's the take I had on this.  That the number of households services
  was
  based on the 477 data.  I didn't see any other data sets that would give
  an
  indication of the number of actually services households.
 
  If the study is based only on the consumers reported via the 477 it's
  likely
  to be quite inaccurate.
 
  People in government etc. are often quite amazed at the number of
  customers
  that I service out here.  And I'm just one of a great many companies
  offering services in the area.
 
  I'm trying to get a handle on what additional sources of fact based
  information are out there.  It's important to know what the real number
  is
  and yours seems very high to me.  I don't think it'll be helpful in the
  long
  term if we have a number that gets blown out of the water in the
 upcoming
  census.
 
  marlon
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:00 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
 
 
  Marlon,
  Read this take rate brief I wrote with one of the data companies I work
  with. It will take you about 10 minutes. It goes in to specific detail
  of
  how the study was conducted and the sources of the data. It was written
  for
  the 10 minute managers of the world. The key to being able to come up
  with
  the numbers was having the data at the census block level in the first
  place. Prior to July of this year there were no sources that I am aware
  of.
  The only information drawn from the form 477 is the total number of
  residential subscribers by state. The number of households without
  access
  to
  broadband has no relationship to the 477 data. That should be spelled
  out
  in
  the report.
 
 
 
  Thank You,
  Brian Webster
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on
  Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
  Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:32 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
 
 
  OK, as I understand that the report is based upon the 477 data?
  marlon
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Jack Unger
  To: WISPA General List
  Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:41 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
 
 
  Marlon,
 
  See the attached report. Go to Table 2 on page 11. Look at the last
 cell
  in the lower, right-hand corner.
 
  jack
 
 
  Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
  I still don't buy that number in the first place.  I wish I knew more
  about
  how Brian came up with it.
 
  What % of rural households does that work out to be?
  marlon
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
 
 
  Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
  likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
  households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
  (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.
 
  jack
 
 
  Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 
 
 http

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-21 Thread Jack Unger




I think my new "book" will actually be online training videos. 

RickG wrote:

  Yes, I enjoyed it a few years back. Still waiting on the new one! Jack?
-RickG

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Josh Luthman
j...@imaginenetworksllc.comwrote:

  
  
Jack wrote and published a book...

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

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
--- Albert Einstein


On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:54 AM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:



   I refuse to feed the troll. I refuse to feed the troll. I refuse to feed
the troll. I refuse to feed the troll. I refuse to feed the troll.

MDK wrote:

Is that directly off the pages of the Democrat National Committee "Blast
Fax" talking points of the day?

Shame on you, Jack.

There's easily 24 million households THAT DO NOT WANT OR WILL NOT PAY FOR
broadband.

I have some areas where I cover 100% of the households, nobody else does,
and yet, I can only get 60 percent of them to subscribe.   The rest?
  

 Too


  expensive (even 25.50/mo is 'too much') or "we don't even have a
  

computer"


  is still something I hear semi regularly.

I don't think my demographics are specifically average... but they're not
THAT far off the norm.

In the last 2 years I've lost 5 customers to cable and dsl.   1 to
  

another


  provider (was glad to see them go),  but that's less than the number who
have moved or died.   I think we've seen nearly the limits of cable and
  

dsl


  expansion where I am.   And they've covered a good 75% of the population,
even as rural as we are.The WSJ article is dead on right, from what I
can tell.   My growth is now the niche areas that aren't high on the
  

cable


  or dsl deployment priority, yet I'm seeing the "want" for broadband to be
under 80%, even in affluent areas.

Since our install costs are now as low as "free", depending on location,
we're seeing signficant "not heavy user" adoption.

Now, the growth of actual data moved...   The percentage increase every
month is near or at double digits.


--
From: "Jack Unger" jun...@ask-wi.com jun...@ask-wi.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM
To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ



 Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
(especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

jack


Jeff Broadwick wrote:



  

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht


  ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop



* REVIEW  OUTLOOK
* JANUARY 20, 2010

A 'National Broadband Plan'
One more solution in search of a problem.


The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will
miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband plan" and
requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly
everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet.

As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a
plan
to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a
worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false
presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that
broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of
Internet connections.

Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80
million
from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy
Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is
94%,
and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A
typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless
bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a
500-fold
increase since 2000.

Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in
2008
alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment.
Nominal
capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5
trillion.

Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this
private
progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD
estimates,
the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But
because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has
relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A
better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per
person. By that measure th

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-21 Thread Chuck Bartosch
The counties out here are apparently a lot bigger than your counties. One of 
the counties we have service in (but not one of the counties I was looking at 
for this grant) is 18% bigger than the State of Rhode Island.

Chuck

On Jan 21, 2010, at 4:54 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

 You've got an area with 25k households close by and you don't have anything 
 in there?  No one else has anything there either?
 
 That's 2.5 times MORE than my ENTIRE COUNTY has in it!
 
 Man I could be making a lot more money if I lived nearly anywhere else!
 marlon
 
 - Original Message - 
 From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:04 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
 
 
 In my 3 county area that I was developing an application for, there were 
 25,000 households without access to service and in one of those counties I 
 was only covering the lower half of the unserved areas of the county. (And 
 one partially unserved town in the County I live in was counting on a 
 different provider to include them in their application, but that provider 
 chose not to include them for one reason or another). It's very easy for 
 me to believe the 24 million number since I'm in upstate NY.
 
 What was particularly interesting to me is that in the detailed census 
 block studies I did, you would often see half of a census block 
 (geographical half) had service and the other did not. 2/3rds of the 
 houses in the census block were on the covered side, but it's very 
 difficult to see how the other third would ever get service since it 
 doesn't fit cable's density plan but isn't enough to justify anyone else 
 building out to them either.
 
 Chuck
 
 On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
 
 I think so.
 
 24 million just seems to be such a large number when you take into 
 account
 the well known underreporting of our industry segment (and perhaps 
 others?).
 
 It's hard to imagine that all of our hard work thus far has left so many
 homes untouched.
 
 At a lowly 40% take rate and $20 per month per account that's 
 $288,000,000
 in MONTHLY revenue left sitting idle.  It just makes no sense to me.  I
 can't get my arms around the idea that we've left that many homes with no
 options.
 
 I can see 24 million households with no service.  I just can't see that 
 many
 with no access to service.  Heck, I have people that still have dialup
 internet even though they are within spitting distance of a tower.  Do 
 they
 count as one of the 24 million?
 
 laters,
 marlon
 
 - Original Message - 
 From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:06 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
 
 
 So, the salient points are, as I understand it (correct me if I'm 
 wrong):
 
 (1) Brian's numbers are 24 million currently HAVE NO ACCESS TO SERVICE.
 His number DOES NOT INCLUDE the number who have access but have chosen 
 not
 to subscribe.
 
 (2) You haven't seen the underlying data yourself because much of it is
 private data that you didn't purchase yourself. You get to see the
 analysis from it because Brian HAS purchased it and combined it with
 publicly available data.
 
 Chuck
 
 On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
 
 Heya Brian,
 
 That's the take I had on this.  That the number of households services
 was
 based on the 477 data.  I didn't see any other data sets that would 
 give
 an
 indication of the number of actually services households.
 
 If the study is based only on the consumers reported via the 477 it's
 likely
 to be quite inaccurate.
 
 People in government etc. are often quite amazed at the number of
 customers
 that I service out here.  And I'm just one of a great many companies
 offering services in the area.
 
 I'm trying to get a handle on what additional sources of fact based
 information are out there.  It's important to know what the real number
 is
 and yours seems very high to me.  I don't think it'll be helpful in the
 long
 term if we have a number that gets blown out of the water in the 
 upcoming
 census.
 
 marlon
 
 - Original Message - 
 From: Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:00 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
 
 
 Marlon,
 Read this take rate brief I wrote with one of the data companies I 
 work
 with. It will take you about 10 minutes. It goes in to specific detail
 of
 how the study was conducted and the sources of the data. It was 
 written
 for
 the 10 minute managers of the world. The key to being able to come up
 with
 the numbers was having the data at the census block level in the first
 place. Prior to July of this year there were no sources that I am 
 aware
 of.
 The only information drawn from the form 477 is the total number of
 residential subscribers by state. The number

[WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-20 Thread Jeff Broadwick
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht
ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop



* REVIEW  OUTLOOK
* JANUARY 20, 2010

A 'National Broadband Plan'
One more solution in search of a problem.


The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will
miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband plan and
requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly
everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet.

As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a plan
to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a
worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false
presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that
broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of
Internet connections.

Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 million
from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy
Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is 94%,
and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A
typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless
bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a 500-fold
increase since 2000.

Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in 2008
alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment. Nominal
capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5
trillion.

Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this private
progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD estimates,
the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But
because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has
relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A
better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per
person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th.

Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband penetration
is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy Institute
notes that at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is behind
the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries will
reach a saturation point within the next few years.

Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market
failure thesis. In any industry subject to significant technological
change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be
forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products and
services, said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to the FCC. In
the case of broadband services, it's clear that the market is shifting
generally in the direction of faster speeds and additional mobility.

Justice concludes that while enacting some form of regulation to prevent
certain providers from exercising monopoly control may be tempting . . .
care must be taken to avoid stifling the infrastructure investments needed
to expand broadband access.

No matter, the default position of the Obama Administration is that little
useful happens without government, so the FCC is busy planning. Chairman
Julius Genachowski is sympathetic to net neutrality regulations that would
prevent Internet service providers from using differentiated pricing to
manage Web traffic. Liberal interest groups like Public Knowledge and
Harvard's Berkman Center for the Internet and Society are urging the agency
to reinstitute open access mandates that would force cable operators and
phone companies to share their infrastructure with rivals at government-set
prices.

The irony is that the private investment and innovation of recent years have
occurred in the wake of the FCC rolling back similar rules that held back
telecom in the 1990s. Consumers continue to have access to more and more
broadband services, while Google, YouTube, iTunes, Facebook and Netflix
originated in the U.S.

Doesn't the Obama Administration have enough to do than mess with a part of
the U.S. economy that is working well?







Regards,

Jeff


Jeff Broadwick
Sales Manager, ImageStream
800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
+1 574-935-8488   (Fax) 




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] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-20 Thread Jack Unger
Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more 
likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American 
households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece 
(especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

jack


Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht
 ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop



 * REVIEW  OUTLOOK
 * JANUARY 20, 2010

 A 'National Broadband Plan'
 One more solution in search of a problem.


 The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will
 miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband plan and
 requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly
 everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet.

 As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a plan
 to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a
 worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false
 presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that
 broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of
 Internet connections.

 Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 million
 from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy
 Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is 94%,
 and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A
 typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless
 bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a 500-fold
 increase since 2000.

 Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in 2008
 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment. Nominal
 capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5
 trillion.

 Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this private
 progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD estimates,
 the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But
 because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has
 relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A
 better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per
 person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th.

 Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband penetration
 is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy Institute
 notes that at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is behind
 the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries will
 reach a saturation point within the next few years.

 Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market
 failure thesis. In any industry subject to significant technological
 change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be
 forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products and
 services, said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to the FCC. In
 the case of broadband services, it's clear that the market is shifting
 generally in the direction of faster speeds and additional mobility.

 Justice concludes that while enacting some form of regulation to prevent
 certain providers from exercising monopoly control may be tempting . . .
 care must be taken to avoid stifling the infrastructure investments needed
 to expand broadband access.

 No matter, the default position of the Obama Administration is that little
 useful happens without government, so the FCC is busy planning. Chairman
 Julius Genachowski is sympathetic to net neutrality regulations that would
 prevent Internet service providers from using differentiated pricing to
 manage Web traffic. Liberal interest groups like Public Knowledge and
 Harvard's Berkman Center for the Internet and Society are urging the agency
 to reinstitute open access mandates that would force cable operators and
 phone companies to share their infrastructure with rivals at government-set
 prices.

 The irony is that the private investment and innovation of recent years have
 occurred in the wake of the FCC rolling back similar rules that held back
 telecom in the 1990s. Consumers continue to have access to more and more
 broadband services, while Google, YouTube, iTunes, Facebook and Netflix
 originated in the U.S.

 Doesn't the Obama Administration have enough to do than mess with a part of
 the U.S. economy that is working well?







 Regards,

 Jeff


 Jeff Broadwick
 Sales Manager, ImageStream
 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
 +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
 +1 574-935-8488   (Fax) 



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
  
 WISPA 

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-20 Thread Marlon K. Schafer
I still don't buy that number in the first place.  I wish I knew more about 
how Brian came up with it.

What % of rural households does that work out to be?
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
 likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
 households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
 (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

 jack


 Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht
 ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop



 * REVIEW  OUTLOOK
 * JANUARY 20, 2010

 A 'National Broadband Plan'
 One more solution in search of a problem.


 The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will
 miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband plan and
 requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly
 everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet.

 As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a 
 plan
 to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a
 worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false
 presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that
 broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of
 Internet connections.

 Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 
 million
 from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy
 Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is 
 94%,
 and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A
 typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless
 bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a 
 500-fold
 increase since 2000.

 Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in 
 2008
 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment. 
 Nominal
 capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5
 trillion.

 Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this 
 private
 progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD 
 estimates,
 the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But
 because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has
 relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A
 better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per
 person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th.

 Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband 
 penetration
 is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy Institute
 notes that at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is behind
 the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries 
 will
 reach a saturation point within the next few years.

 Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market
 failure thesis. In any industry subject to significant technological
 change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be
 forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products and
 services, said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to the FCC. 
 In
 the case of broadband services, it's clear that the market is shifting
 generally in the direction of faster speeds and additional mobility.

 Justice concludes that while enacting some form of regulation to prevent
 certain providers from exercising monopoly control may be tempting . . .
 care must be taken to avoid stifling the infrastructure investments 
 needed
 to expand broadband access.

 No matter, the default position of the Obama Administration is that 
 little
 useful happens without government, so the FCC is busy planning. Chairman
 Julius Genachowski is sympathetic to net neutrality regulations that 
 would
 prevent Internet service providers from using differentiated pricing to
 manage Web traffic. Liberal interest groups like Public Knowledge and
 Harvard's Berkman Center for the Internet and Society are urging the 
 agency
 to reinstitute open access mandates that would force cable operators 
 and
 phone companies to share their infrastructure with rivals at 
 government-set
 prices.

 The irony is that the private investment and innovation of recent years 
 have
 occurred in the wake of the FCC rolling back similar rules that held back
 telecom in the 1990s. Consumers continue to have access to more and more
 broadband services, while Google, YouTube, iTunes, Facebook and Netflix
 originated in the U.S.

 Doesn't the Obama Administration have enough to do than mess with a part 
 of
 the U.S. economy that is working well

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-20 Thread Mike Hammett
We have no one but ourselves to blame for that one.


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



--
From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:27 AM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

 Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
 likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
 households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
 (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

 jack


 Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht
 ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop



 * REVIEW  OUTLOOK
 * JANUARY 20, 2010

 A 'National Broadband Plan'
 One more solution in search of a problem.


 The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will
 miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband plan and
 requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly
 everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet.

 As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a 
 plan
 to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a
 worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false
 presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that
 broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of
 Internet connections.

 Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 
 million
 from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy
 Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is 
 94%,
 and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A
 typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless
 bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a 
 500-fold
 increase since 2000.

 Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in 
 2008
 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment. 
 Nominal
 capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5
 trillion.

 Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this 
 private
 progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD 
 estimates,
 the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But
 because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has
 relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A
 better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per
 person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th.

 Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband 
 penetration
 is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy Institute
 notes that at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is behind
 the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries 
 will
 reach a saturation point within the next few years.

 Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market
 failure thesis. In any industry subject to significant technological
 change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be
 forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products and
 services, said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to the FCC. 
 In
 the case of broadband services, it's clear that the market is shifting
 generally in the direction of faster speeds and additional mobility.

 Justice concludes that while enacting some form of regulation to prevent
 certain providers from exercising monopoly control may be tempting . . .
 care must be taken to avoid stifling the infrastructure investments 
 needed
 to expand broadband access.

 No matter, the default position of the Obama Administration is that 
 little
 useful happens without government, so the FCC is busy planning. Chairman
 Julius Genachowski is sympathetic to net neutrality regulations that 
 would
 prevent Internet service providers from using differentiated pricing to
 manage Web traffic. Liberal interest groups like Public Knowledge and
 Harvard's Berkman Center for the Internet and Society are urging the 
 agency
 to reinstitute open access mandates that would force cable operators 
 and
 phone companies to share their infrastructure with rivals at 
 government-set
 prices.

 The irony is that the private investment and innovation of recent years 
 have
 occurred in the wake of the FCC rolling back similar rules that held back
 telecom in the 1990s. Consumers continue to have access to more and more
 broadband services, while Google, YouTube, iTunes, Facebook and Netflix
 originated in the U.S.

 Doesn't the Obama Administration have enough to do than mess with a part 
 of
 the U.S. economy that is working well?







 Regards

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-20 Thread Jack Unger




Good point

Mike Hammett wrote:

  We have no one but ourselves to blame for that one.


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



--
From: "Jack Unger" jun...@ask-wi.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:27 AM
To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

  
  
Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
(especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

jack


Jeff Broadwick wrote:


  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht
ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop



* REVIEW  OUTLOOK
* JANUARY 20, 2010

A 'National Broadband Plan'
One more solution in search of a problem.


The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will
miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband plan" and
requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly
everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet.

As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a 
plan
to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a
worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false
presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that
broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of
Internet connections.

Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 
million
from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy
Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is 
94%,
and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A
typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless
bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a 
500-fold
increase since 2000.

Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in 
2008
alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment. 
Nominal
capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5
trillion.

Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this 
private
progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD 
estimates,
the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But
because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has
relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A
better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per
person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th.

Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband 
penetration
is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy Institute
notes that "at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is behind
the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries 
will
reach a saturation point within the next few years."

Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market
failure thesis. "In any industry subject to significant technological
change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be
forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products and
services," said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to the FCC. 
"In
the case of broadband services, it's clear that the market is shifting
generally in the direction of faster speeds and additional mobility."

Justice concludes that while "enacting some form of regulation to prevent
certain providers from exercising monopoly control may be tempting . . .
care must be taken to avoid stifling the infrastructure investments 
needed
to expand broadband access."

No matter, the default position of the Obama Administration is that 
little
useful happens without government, so the FCC is busy planning. Chairman
Julius Genachowski is sympathetic to net neutrality regulations that 
would
prevent Internet service providers from using differentiated pricing to
manage Web traffic. Liberal interest groups like Public Knowledge and
Harvard's Berkman Center for the Internet and Society are urging the 
agency
to reinstitute "open access" mandates that would force cable operators 
and
phone companies to share their infrastructure with rivals at 
government-set
prices.

The irony is that the private investment and innovation of recent years 
have
occurred in the wake of the FCC rolling back similar rules that held back
telecom in the 1990s. Consumers continue to have access to more and more
broadband services, while Google, YouTube, iTunes, Facebook and Netflix
originated in the U.S.

Doesn't the Obama Administration have enough to do than mess wit

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-20 Thread Jeff Broadwick
I don't think it ignores that, it is suggesting that the private sector is
in the process of closing that gap, without government investment and/or
intervention.

I don't believe that it is arguable that coverage is increasing...that's the
net effect of the whole WISP industry. 


Regards,

Jeff


Jeff Broadwick
ImageStream
800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:28 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
(especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

jack


Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376
 552.ht
 ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop



 * REVIEW  OUTLOOK
 * JANUARY 20, 2010

 A 'National Broadband Plan'
 One more solution in search of a problem.


 The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it 
 will miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband 
 plan and requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing 
 deadlines, nearly everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed
Internet.

 As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a 
 plan to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. 
 That's a worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a 
 false presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality 
 is that broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and 
 speed of Internet connections.

 Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 
 million from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of 
 Entropy Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users 
 at home is 94%, and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet 
 with broadband. A typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a 
 decade ago. Wireless bandwidth growth per capita has been no less 
 impressive, showing a 500-fold increase since 2000.

 Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment 
 in 2008 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital 
 investment. Nominal capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 
 2008 was more than $3.5 trillion.

 Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this 
 private progress and point to international rankings. According to 
 OECD estimates, the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband 
 penetration per capita. But because household sizes differ from 
 country to country, and the U.S. has relatively large households, the 
 per capita figures can be misleading. A better way to gauge wired 
 broadband connections is per household, not per person. By that measure
the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th.

 Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband 
 penetration is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology 
 Policy Institute notes that at the current rates of broadband 
 adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of months, 
 and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within the
next few years.

 Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market 
 failure thesis. In any industry subject to significant technological 
 change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be 
 forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products 
 and services, said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to 
 the FCC. In the case of broadband services, it's clear that the 
 market is shifting generally in the direction of faster speeds and
additional mobility.

 Justice concludes that while enacting some form of regulation to 
 prevent certain providers from exercising monopoly control may be tempting
. . .
 care must be taken to avoid stifling the infrastructure investments 
 needed to expand broadband access.

 No matter, the default position of the Obama Administration is that 
 little useful happens without government, so the FCC is busy planning. 
 Chairman Julius Genachowski is sympathetic to net neutrality 
 regulations that would prevent Internet service providers from using 
 differentiated pricing to manage Web traffic. Liberal interest groups 
 like Public Knowledge and Harvard's Berkman Center for the Internet 
 and Society are urging the agency to reinstitute open access 
 mandates that would force cable operators and phone companies to share 
 their infrastructure with rivals at government-set prices.

 The irony is that the private investment and innovation of recent 
 years have occurred in the wake of the FCC rolling back similar rules 
 that held back telecom in the 1990s. Consumers

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-20 Thread Jack Unger




Sure coverage is "increasing" but that's just a distraction. The issue
is that the current level of home broadband Internet access is way too
low and millions of people are deprived of Internet access at home (or
in a home-based business). The article is nothing more than a
thinly-veiled hit piece for the telcos. Without saying so, the article
argues for keeping millions living in the past, without having the
benefits of the Internet to improve their lives. This is as clear as
the nose on my face. (No, a picture is NOT attached) :)

jack



Jeff Broadwick wrote:

  I don't think it ignores that, it is suggesting that the private sector is
in the process of closing that gap, without government "investment" and/or
intervention.

I don't believe that it is arguable that coverage is increasing...that's the
net effect of the whole WISP industry. 


Regards,

Jeff


Jeff Broadwick
ImageStream
800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:28 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
(especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

jack


Jeff Broadwick wrote:
  
  
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376
552.ht
ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop



* REVIEW  OUTLOOK
* JANUARY 20, 2010

A 'National Broadband Plan'
One more solution in search of a problem.


The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it 
will miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband 
plan" and requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing 
deadlines, nearly everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed

  
  Internet.
  
  
As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a 
plan to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. 
That's a worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a 
false presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality 
is that broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and 
speed of Internet connections.

Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 
million from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of 
Entropy Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users 
at home is 94%, and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet 
with broadband. A typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a 
decade ago. Wireless bandwidth growth per capita has been no less 
impressive, showing a 500-fold increase since 2000.

Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment 
in 2008 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital 
investment. Nominal capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 
2008 was more than $3.5 trillion.

Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this 
private progress and point to international rankings. According to 
OECD estimates, the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband 
penetration per capita. But because household sizes differ from 
country to country, and the U.S. has relatively large households, the 
per capita figures can be misleading. A better way to gauge wired 
broadband connections is per household, not per person. By that measure

  
  the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th.
  
  
Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband 
penetration is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology 
Policy Institute notes that "at the current rates of broadband 
adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of months, 
and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within the

  
  next few years."
  
  
Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market 
failure thesis. "In any industry subject to significant technological 
change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be 
forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products 
and services," said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to 
the FCC. "In the case of broadband services, it's clear that the 
market is shifting generally in the direction of faster speeds and

  
  additional mobility."
  
  
Justice concludes that while "enacting some form of regulation to 
prevent certain providers from exercising monopoly control may be tempting

  
  . . .
  
  
care must be taken to avoid stifling the infrastructure investments 
needed to expand broadband access."

No matter, the default position of the Obama Administration is that 
little useful hap

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-20 Thread Jeff Broadwick
I suppose you could look at it that way, but I didn't read that in there at
all. 
 

Regards,

Jeff


Jeff Broadwick
ImageStream
800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)


 

  _  

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:17 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


Sure coverage is increasing but that's just a distraction. The issue is
that the current level of home broadband Internet access is way too low and
millions of people are deprived of Internet access at home (or in a
home-based business). The article is nothing more than a thinly-veiled hit
piece for the telcos. Without saying so, the article argues for keeping
millions living in the past, without having the benefits of the Internet to
improve their lives. This is as clear as the nose on my face. (No, a picture
is NOT attached) :)

jack



Jeff Broadwick wrote: 

I don't think it ignores that, it is suggesting that the private sector is

in the process of closing that gap, without government investment and/or

intervention.



I don't believe that it is arguable that coverage is increasing...that's the

net effect of the whole WISP industry. 





Regards,



Jeff





Jeff Broadwick

ImageStream

800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)

+1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)



-Original Message-

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

Behalf Of Jack Unger

Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:28 AM

To: WISPA General List

Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ



Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more

likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American

households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece

(especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.



jack





Jeff Broadwick wrote:

  

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376

552.ht

ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop







* REVIEW  OUTLOOK

* JANUARY 20, 2010



A 'National Broadband Plan'

One more solution in search of a problem.





The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it 

will miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband 

plan and requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing 

deadlines, nearly everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed



Internet.

  

As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a 

plan to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. 

That's a worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a 

false presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality 

is that broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and 

speed of Internet connections.



Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 

million from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of 

Entropy Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users 

at home is 94%, and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet 

with broadband. A typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a 

decade ago. Wireless bandwidth growth per capita has been no less 

impressive, showing a 500-fold increase since 2000.



Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment 

in 2008 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital 

investment. Nominal capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 

2008 was more than $3.5 trillion.



Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this 

private progress and point to international rankings. According to 

OECD estimates, the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband 

penetration per capita. But because household sizes differ from 

country to country, and the U.S. has relatively large households, the 

per capita figures can be misleading. A better way to gauge wired 

broadband connections is per household, not per person. By that measure



the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th.

  

Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband 

penetration is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology 

Policy Institute notes that at the current rates of broadband 

adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of months, 

and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within the



next few years.

  

Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market 

failure thesis. In any industry subject to significant technological 

change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be 

forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products 

and services, said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to 

the FCC. In the case of broadband services, it's clear that the 

market is shifting generally in the direction of faster speeds and



additional mobility

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-20 Thread Mike Hammett
http://www.wispa.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/Jack.JPG

:-p


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




From: Jack Unger 
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:16 PM
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


Sure coverage is increasing but that's just a distraction. The issue is that 
the current level of home broadband Internet access is way too low and millions 
of people are deprived of Internet access at home (or in a home-based 
business). The article is nothing more than a thinly-veiled hit piece for the 
telcos. Without saying so, the article argues for keeping millions living in 
the past, without having the benefits of the Internet to improve their lives. 
This is as clear as the nose on my face. (No, a picture is NOT attached) :)

jack



Jeff Broadwick wrote: 
I don't think it ignores that, it is suggesting that the private sector is
in the process of closing that gap, without government investment and/or
intervention.

I don't believe that it is arguable that coverage is increasing...that's the
net effect of the whole WISP industry. 


Regards,

Jeff


Jeff Broadwick
ImageStream
800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:28 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
(especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

jack


Jeff Broadwick wrote:
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376
552.ht
ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop



* REVIEW  OUTLOOK
* JANUARY 20, 2010

A 'National Broadband Plan'
One more solution in search of a problem.


The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it 
will miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband 
plan and requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing 
deadlines, nearly everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed
Internet.
  As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a 
plan to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. 
That's a worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a 
false presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality 
is that broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and 
speed of Internet connections.

Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 
million from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of 
Entropy Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users 
at home is 94%, and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet 
with broadband. A typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a 
decade ago. Wireless bandwidth growth per capita has been no less 
impressive, showing a 500-fold increase since 2000.

Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment 
in 2008 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital 
investment. Nominal capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 
2008 was more than $3.5 trillion.

Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this 
private progress and point to international rankings. According to 
OECD estimates, the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband 
penetration per capita. But because household sizes differ from 
country to country, and the U.S. has relatively large households, the 
per capita figures can be misleading. A better way to gauge wired 
broadband connections is per household, not per person. By that measure
the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th.
  Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband 
penetration is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology 
Policy Institute notes that at the current rates of broadband 
adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of months, 
and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within the
next few years.
  Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market 
failure thesis. In any industry subject to significant technological 
change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be 
forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products 
and services, said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to 
the FCC. In the case of broadband services, it's clear that the 
market is shifting generally in the direction of faster speeds and
additional mobility.
  Justice concludes that while enacting some form of regulation to 
prevent certain providers from exercising monopoly control may be tempting
. . .
  care must be taken to avoid stifling the infrastructure investments 
needed to expand

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-20 Thread Jack Unger
Thanks Mike. Now you can see what I mean !!!

Mike Hammett wrote:
 http://www.wispa.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/Jack.JPG

 :-p


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




 From: Jack Unger 
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:16 PM
 To: WISPA General List 
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 Sure coverage is increasing but that's just a distraction. The issue is 
 that the current level of home broadband Internet access is way too low and 
 millions of people are deprived of Internet access at home (or in a 
 home-based business). The article is nothing more than a thinly-veiled hit 
 piece for the telcos. Without saying so, the article argues for keeping 
 millions living in the past, without having the benefits of the Internet to 
 improve their lives. This is as clear as the nose on my face. (No, a picture 
 is NOT attached) :)

 jack



 Jeff Broadwick wrote: 
 I don't think it ignores that, it is suggesting that the private sector is
 in the process of closing that gap, without government investment and/or
 intervention.

 I don't believe that it is arguable that coverage is increasing...that's the
 net effect of the whole WISP industry. 


 Regards,

 Jeff


 Jeff Broadwick
 ImageStream
 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
 +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:28 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

 Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
 likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
 households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
 (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

 jack


 Jeff Broadwick wrote:
   http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376
 552.ht
 ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop



 * REVIEW  OUTLOOK
 * JANUARY 20, 2010

 A 'National Broadband Plan'
 One more solution in search of a problem.


 The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it 
 will miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband 
 plan and requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing 
 deadlines, nearly everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed
 Internet.
   As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a 
 plan to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. 
 That's a worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a 
 false presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality 
 is that broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and 
 speed of Internet connections.

 Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 
 million from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of 
 Entropy Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users 
 at home is 94%, and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet 
 with broadband. A typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a 
 decade ago. Wireless bandwidth growth per capita has been no less 
 impressive, showing a 500-fold increase since 2000.

 Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment 
 in 2008 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital 
 investment. Nominal capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 
 2008 was more than $3.5 trillion.

 Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this 
 private progress and point to international rankings. According to 
 OECD estimates, the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband 
 penetration per capita. But because household sizes differ from 
 country to country, and the U.S. has relatively large households, the 
 per capita figures can be misleading. A better way to gauge wired 
 broadband connections is per household, not per person. By that measure
 the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th.
   Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband 
 penetration is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology 
 Policy Institute notes that at the current rates of broadband 
 adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of months, 
 and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within the
 next few years.
   Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market 
 failure thesis. In any industry subject to significant technological 
 change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be 
 forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products 
 and services, said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to 
 the FCC. In the case of broadband services, it's clear that the 
 market is shifting generally in the direction of faster speeds and
 additional mobility.
   Justice concludes that while enacting some form of regulation to 
 prevent certain

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-20 Thread Marlon K. Schafer
OK, as I understand that the report is based upon the 477 data?
marlon

  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Unger 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:41 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


  Marlon, 

  See the attached report. Go to Table 2 on page 11. Look at the last cell in 
the lower, right-hand corner. 

  jack


  Marlon K. Schafer wrote: 
I still don't buy that number in the first place.  I wish I knew more about 
how Brian came up with it.

What % of rural households does that work out to be?
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


  Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
(especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

jack


Jeff Broadwick wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht
ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop



* REVIEW  OUTLOOK
* JANUARY 20, 2010

A 'National Broadband Plan'
One more solution in search of a problem.


The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will
miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband plan and
requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly
everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet.

As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a 
plan
to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a
worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false
presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that
broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of
Internet connections.

Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 
million
from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy
Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is 
94%,
and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A
typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless
bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a 
500-fold
increase since 2000.

Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in 
2008
alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment. 
Nominal
capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5
trillion.

Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this 
private
progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD 
estimates,
the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But
because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has
relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A
better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per
person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th.

Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband 
penetration
is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy Institute
notes that at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is behind
the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries 
will
reach a saturation point within the next few years.

Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market
failure thesis. In any industry subject to significant technological
change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be
forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products and
services, said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to the FCC. 
In
the case of broadband services, it's clear that the market is shifting
generally in the direction of faster speeds and additional mobility.

Justice concludes that while enacting some form of regulation to prevent
certain providers from exercising monopoly control may be tempting . . .
care must be taken to avoid stifling the infrastructure investments 
needed
to expand broadband access.

No matter, the default position of the Obama Administration is that 
little
useful happens without government, so the FCC is busy planning. Chairman
Julius Genachowski is sympathetic to net neutrality regulations that 
would
prevent Internet service providers from using differentiated pricing to
manage Web traffic. Liberal interest groups like Public Knowledge and
Harvard's Berkman Center for the Internet and Society are urging the 
agency
to reinstitute open access mandates that would force cable operators 
and
phone companies to share their infrastructure with rivals at 
government-set
prices.

The irony is that the private investment and innovation of recent years 
have
occurred in the wake of the FCC rolling back similar

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-20 Thread Marlon K. Schafer
Nice teddy bear!

- Original Message - 
From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 http://www.wispa.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/Jack.JPG
 
 :-p
 
 




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] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-20 Thread Jack Unger




Thanks! 

I feel real affectionate towards the little guy. That's why I keep him
here, real close by me for 18 hours every day. 

Here's here right now and he just said "Hi Marlon".

BTW, he's wearing his Studebaker hat again. 

jack


Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

  Nice teddy bear!

- Original Message - 
From: "Mike Hammett" wispawirel...@ics-il.net
To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


  
  
http://www.wispa.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/Jack.JPG

:-p



  
  



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/


  


-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Writing - Technical Training
Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities Since 1993
www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com









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] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-20 Thread RickG
Right: The Technology Policy Institute notes that at the current rates of
broadband adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of
months, and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within
the next few years.

Now, how many here are updating their business models to compete with the
government?
-RickG

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.netwrote:

 I don't think it ignores that, it is suggesting that the private sector is
 in the process of closing that gap, without government investment and/or
 intervention.

 I don't believe that it is arguable that coverage is increasing...that's
 the
 net effect of the whole WISP industry.


 Regards,

 Jeff


 Jeff Broadwick
 ImageStream
 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
 +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:28 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

 Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
 likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
 households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
 (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

 jack


 Jeff Broadwick wrote:
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376
  552.ht
  ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
 
 
 
  * REVIEW  OUTLOOK
  * JANUARY 20, 2010
 
  A 'National Broadband Plan'
  One more solution in search of a problem.
 
 
  The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it
  will miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband
  plan and requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing
  deadlines, nearly everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed
 Internet.
 
  As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a
  plan to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband.
  That's a worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a
  false presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality
  is that broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and
  speed of Internet connections.
 
  Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80
  million from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of
  Entropy Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users
  at home is 94%, and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet
  with broadband. A typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a
  decade ago. Wireless bandwidth growth per capita has been no less
  impressive, showing a 500-fold increase since 2000.
 
  Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment
  in 2008 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital
  investment. Nominal capital investment in telecom between 2000 and
  2008 was more than $3.5 trillion.
 
  Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this
  private progress and point to international rankings. According to
  OECD estimates, the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband
  penetration per capita. But because household sizes differ from
  country to country, and the U.S. has relatively large households, the
  per capita figures can be misleading. A better way to gauge wired
  broadband connections is per household, not per person. By that measure
 the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th.
 
  Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband
  penetration is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology
  Policy Institute notes that at the current rates of broadband
  adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of months,
  and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within the
 next few years.
 
  Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market
  failure thesis. In any industry subject to significant technological
  change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be
  forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products
  and services, said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to
  the FCC. In the case of broadband services, it's clear that the
  market is shifting generally in the direction of faster speeds and
 additional mobility.
 
  Justice concludes that while enacting some form of regulation to
  prevent certain providers from exercising monopoly control may be
 tempting
 . . .
  care must be taken to avoid stifling the infrastructure investments
  needed to expand broadband access.
 
  No matter, the default position of the Obama Administration is that
  little useful happens without government, so the FCC is busy planning.
  Chairman Julius Genachowski is sympathetic to net neutrality
  regulations that would prevent Internet service providers from using
  differentiated pricing to manage Web traffic. Liberal

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-20 Thread RickG
Forgive me if I'm reading the report wrong but isnt deprived a strong word
considering the take rate according to the report is only 75%? My take rate
here is only about 20% of the LOS customers. Most people here either dont
want it or cant afford it. So, why waste resources building out to them?
-RickG

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:

  Sure coverage is increasing but that's just a distraction. The issue is
 that the current level of home broadband Internet access is way too low and
 millions of people are deprived of Internet access at home (or in a
 home-based business). The article is nothing more than a thinly-veiled hit
 piece for the telcos. Without saying so, the article argues for keeping
 millions living in the past, without having the benefits of the Internet to
 improve their lives. This is as clear as the nose on my face. (No, a picture
 is NOT attached) :)

 jack




 Jeff Broadwick wrote:

 I don't think it ignores that, it is suggesting that the private sector is
 in the process of closing that gap, without government investment and/or
 intervention.

 I don't believe that it is arguable that coverage is increasing...that's the
 net effect of the whole WISP industry.


 Regards,

 Jeff


 Jeff Broadwick
 ImageStream
 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
 +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org 
 wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:28 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

 Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
 likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
 households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
 (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

 jack


 Jeff Broadwick wrote:


  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht
 ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop



 * REVIEW  OUTLOOK
 * JANUARY 20, 2010

 A 'National Broadband Plan'
 One more solution in search of a problem.


 The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it
 will miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband
 plan and requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing
 deadlines, nearly everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed


  Internet.


  As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a
 plan to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband.
 That's a worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a
 false presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality
 is that broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and
 speed of Internet connections.

 Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80
 million from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of
 Entropy Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users
 at home is 94%, and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet
 with broadband. A typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a
 decade ago. Wireless bandwidth growth per capita has been no less
 impressive, showing a 500-fold increase since 2000.

 Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment
 in 2008 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital
 investment. Nominal capital investment in telecom between 2000 and
 2008 was more than $3.5 trillion.

 Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this
 private progress and point to international rankings. According to
 OECD estimates, the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband
 penetration per capita. But because household sizes differ from
 country to country, and the U.S. has relatively large households, the
 per capita figures can be misleading. A better way to gauge wired
 broadband connections is per household, not per person. By that measure


  the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th.


  Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband
 penetration is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology
 Policy Institute notes that at the current rates of broadband
 adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of months,
 and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within the


  next few years.


  Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market
 failure thesis. In any industry subject to significant technological
 change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be
 forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products
 and services, said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to
 the FCC. In the case of broadband services, it's clear that the
 market is shifting generally in the direction of faster speeds and


  additional mobility.


  Justice concludes that while enacting some form

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-20 Thread RickG
Is that before or after the book?

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.netwrote:

 http://www.wispa.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/Jack.JPG

 :-p


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




 From: Jack Unger
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:16 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 Sure coverage is increasing but that's just a distraction. The issue is
 that the current level of home broadband Internet access is way too low and
 millions of people are deprived of Internet access at home (or in a
 home-based business). The article is nothing more than a thinly-veiled hit
 piece for the telcos. Without saying so, the article argues for keeping
 millions living in the past, without having the benefits of the Internet to
 improve their lives. This is as clear as the nose on my face. (No, a picture
 is NOT attached) :)

 jack



 Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 I don't think it ignores that, it is suggesting that the private sector is
 in the process of closing that gap, without government investment and/or
 intervention.

 I don't believe that it is arguable that coverage is increasing...that's
 the
 net effect of the whole WISP industry.


 Regards,

 Jeff


 Jeff Broadwick
 ImageStream
 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
 +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:28 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

 Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
 likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
 households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
 (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

 jack


 Jeff Broadwick wrote:
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376
 552.ht
 ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop



* REVIEW  OUTLOOK
* JANUARY 20, 2010

 A 'National Broadband Plan'
 One more solution in search of a problem.


 The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it
 will miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband
 plan and requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing
 deadlines, nearly everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed
Internet.
  As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a
 plan to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband.
 That's a worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a
 false presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality
 is that broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and
 speed of Internet connections.

 Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80
 million from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of
 Entropy Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users
 at home is 94%, and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet
 with broadband. A typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a
 decade ago. Wireless bandwidth growth per capita has been no less
 impressive, showing a 500-fold increase since 2000.

 Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment
 in 2008 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital
 investment. Nominal capital investment in telecom between 2000 and
 2008 was more than $3.5 trillion.

 Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this
 private progress and point to international rankings. According to
 OECD estimates, the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband
 penetration per capita. But because household sizes differ from
 country to country, and the U.S. has relatively large households, the
 per capita figures can be misleading. A better way to gauge wired
 broadband connections is per household, not per person. By that measure
the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th.
  Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband
 penetration is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology
 Policy Institute notes that at the current rates of broadband
 adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of months,
 and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within the
next few years.
  Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market
 failure thesis. In any industry subject to significant technological
 change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be
 forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products
 and services, said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to
 the FCC. In the case of broadband services, it's clear that the
 market is shifting generally in the direction of faster speeds and
additional mobility.
  Justice concludes that while enacting some form of regulation to
 prevent certain

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-20 Thread RickG
Brian, nice job btw. -RickG

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Brian Webster 
bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com wrote:

 Marlon,
Read this take rate brief I wrote with one of the data companies I
 work
 with. It will take you about 10 minutes. It goes in to specific detail of
 how the study was conducted and the sources of the data. It was written for
 the 10 minute managers of the world. The key to being able to come up with
 the numbers was having the data at the census block level in the first
 place. Prior to July of this year there were no sources that I am aware of.
 The only information drawn from the form 477 is the total number of
 residential subscribers by state. The number of households without access
 to
 broadband has no relationship to the 477 data. That should be spelled out
 in
 the report.



 Thank You,
 Brian Webster

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on
 Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:32 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 OK, as I understand that the report is based upon the 477 data?
 marlon

  - Original Message -
  From: Jack Unger
  To: WISPA General List
  Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:41 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


   Marlon,

  See the attached report. Go to Table 2 on page 11. Look at the last cell
 in the lower, right-hand corner.

  jack


  Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
 I still don't buy that number in the first place.  I wish I knew more about
 how Brian came up with it.

 What % of rural households does that work out to be?
 marlon

 - Original Message -
 From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


  Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
 likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
 households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
 (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

 jack


 Jeff Broadwick wrote:

 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870365210457465250160837655
 2.ht
 ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop



* REVIEW  OUTLOOK
* JANUARY 20, 2010

 A 'National Broadband Plan'
 One more solution in search of a problem.


 The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will
 miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband plan and
 requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly
 everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet.

 As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a
 plan
 to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a
 worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false
 presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that
 broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of
 Internet connections.

 Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80
 million
 from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy
 Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is
 94%,
 and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A
 typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless
 bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a
 500-fold
 increase since 2000.

 Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in
 2008
 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment.
 Nominal
 capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5
 trillion.

 Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this
 private
 progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD
 estimates,
 the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But
 because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has
 relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A
 better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per
 person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th.

 Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband
 penetration
 is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy Institute
 notes that at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is behind
 the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries
 will
 reach a saturation point within the next few years.

 Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market
 failure thesis. In any industry subject to significant technological
 change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be
 forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products and
 services, said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-20 Thread Marlon K. Schafer
Heya Brian,

That's the take I had on this.  That the number of households services was 
based on the 477 data.  I didn't see any other data sets that would give an 
indication of the number of actually services households.

If the study is based only on the consumers reported via the 477 it's likely 
to be quite inaccurate.

People in government etc. are often quite amazed at the number of customers 
that I service out here.  And I'm just one of a great many companies 
offering services in the area.

I'm trying to get a handle on what additional sources of fact based 
information are out there.  It's important to know what the real number is 
and yours seems very high to me.  I don't think it'll be helpful in the long 
term if we have a number that gets blown out of the water in the upcoming 
census.

marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 Marlon,
 Read this take rate brief I wrote with one of the data companies I work
 with. It will take you about 10 minutes. It goes in to specific detail of
 how the study was conducted and the sources of the data. It was written 
 for
 the 10 minute managers of the world. The key to being able to come up with
 the numbers was having the data at the census block level in the first
 place. Prior to July of this year there were no sources that I am aware 
 of.
 The only information drawn from the form 477 is the total number of
 residential subscribers by state. The number of households without access 
 to
 broadband has no relationship to the 477 data. That should be spelled out 
 in
 the report.



 Thank You,
 Brian Webster

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on
 Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:32 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 OK, as I understand that the report is based upon the 477 data?
 marlon

  - Original Message -
  From: Jack Unger
  To: WISPA General List
  Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:41 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


  Marlon,

  See the attached report. Go to Table 2 on page 11. Look at the last cell
 in the lower, right-hand corner.

  jack


  Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
 I still don't buy that number in the first place.  I wish I knew more 
 about
 how Brian came up with it.

 What % of rural households does that work out to be?
 marlon

 - Original Message -
 From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


  Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
 likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
 households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
 (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

 jack


 Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 
 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870365210457465250160837655
 2.ht
 ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop



* REVIEW  OUTLOOK
* JANUARY 20, 2010

 A 'National Broadband Plan'
 One more solution in search of a problem.


 The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will
 miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband plan and
 requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly
 everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet.

 As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a
 plan
 to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a
 worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false
 presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that
 broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of
 Internet connections.

 Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80
 million
 from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy
 Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is
 94%,
 and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A
 typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless
 bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a
 500-fold
 increase since 2000.

 Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in
 2008
 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment.
 Nominal
 capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5
 trillion.

 Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this
 private
 progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD
 estimates,
 the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But
 because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has
 relatively

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-20 Thread MDK
Is that directly off the pages of the Democrat National Committee Blast 
Fax talking points of the day?

Shame on you, Jack.

There's easily 24 million households THAT DO NOT WANT OR WILL NOT PAY FOR 
broadband.

I have some areas where I cover 100% of the households, nobody else does, 
and yet, I can only get 60 percent of them to subscribe.   The rest?Too 
expensive (even 25.50/mo is 'too much') or we don't even have a computer 
is still something I hear semi regularly.

I don't think my demographics are specifically average... but they're not 
THAT far off the norm.

In the last 2 years I've lost 5 customers to cable and dsl.   1 to another 
provider (was glad to see them go),  but that's less than the number who 
have moved or died.   I think we've seen nearly the limits of cable and dsl 
expansion where I am.   And they've covered a good 75% of the population, 
even as rural as we are.The WSJ article is dead on right, from what I 
can tell.   My growth is now the niche areas that aren't high on the cable 
or dsl deployment priority, yet I'm seeing the want for broadband to be 
under 80%, even in affluent areas.

Since our install costs are now as low as free, depending on location, 
we're seeing signficant not heavy user adoption.

Now, the growth of actual data moved...   The percentage increase every 
month is near or at double digits.


--
From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

 Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
 likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
 households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
 (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

 jack


 Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht
 ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop



 * REVIEW  OUTLOOK
 * JANUARY 20, 2010

 A 'National Broadband Plan'
 One more solution in search of a problem.


 The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will
 miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband plan and
 requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly
 everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet.

 As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a 
 plan
 to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a
 worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false
 presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that
 broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of
 Internet connections.

 Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 
 million
 from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy
 Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is 
 94%,
 and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A
 typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless
 bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a 
 500-fold
 increase since 2000.

 Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in 
 2008
 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment. 
 Nominal
 capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5
 trillion.

 Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this 
 private
 progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD 
 estimates,
 the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But
 because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has
 relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A
 better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per
 person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th.

 Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband 
 penetration
 is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy Institute
 notes that at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is behind
 the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries 
 will
 reach a saturation point within the next few years.

 Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market
 failure thesis. In any industry subject to significant technological
 change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be
 forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products and
 services, said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to the FCC. 
 In
 the case of broadband services, it's clear that the market is shifting
 generally in the direction of faster speeds and additional mobility.

 Justice concludes that while enacting some form of regulation to prevent
 certain providers

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-20 Thread Brian Webster
Marlon,
You are not reading the report. The census block consumer reported data 
is
NOT FROM THE 477 DATA. This is information compiled from various large
marketing companies around the US and gets tabulated every 60 days. The
version I used was from the first two quarters of 2009 so it is very fresh.
If you know WHERE the broadband activity is reported and you know how many
active households there are in each census block, you also know the number
of households that DON'T have access to broadband by simply adding up the
household counts in the blocks without reported broadband. The household
counts are established by the number of active addresses in the block for
the same period and are not projections from the 2000 census numbers. We are
NOT talking about the number of households that don't subscribe where
broadband is available when speaking about the number of households without
ACCESS to broadband. One only has to total the households in the census
blocks that do not report any broadband activity to figure out the number
not served.

The reason there has never been a report like this before is because 
there
has never been a company that compiled the marketing data at the census
block level prior to July.



Thank You,
Brian Webster

-Original Message-
From: Marlon K. Schafer [mailto:o...@odessaoffice.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:46 PM
To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


Heya Brian,

That's the take I had on this.  That the number of households services was
based on the 477 data.  I didn't see any other data sets that would give an
indication of the number of actually services households.

If the study is based only on the consumers reported via the 477 it's likely
to be quite inaccurate.

People in government etc. are often quite amazed at the number of customers
that I service out here.  And I'm just one of a great many companies
offering services in the area.

I'm trying to get a handle on what additional sources of fact based
information are out there.  It's important to know what the real number is
and yours seems very high to me.  I don't think it'll be helpful in the long
term if we have a number that gets blown out of the water in the upcoming
census.

marlon

- Original Message -
From: Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 Marlon,
 Read this take rate brief I wrote with one of the data companies I work
 with. It will take you about 10 minutes. It goes in to specific detail of
 how the study was conducted and the sources of the data. It was written
 for
 the 10 minute managers of the world. The key to being able to come up with
 the numbers was having the data at the census block level in the first
 place. Prior to July of this year there were no sources that I am aware
 of.
 The only information drawn from the form 477 is the total number of
 residential subscribers by state. The number of households without access
 to
 broadband has no relationship to the 477 data. That should be spelled out
 in
 the report.



 Thank You,
 Brian Webster

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on
 Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:32 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 OK, as I understand that the report is based upon the 477 data?
 marlon

  - Original Message -
  From: Jack Unger
  To: WISPA General List
  Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:41 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


  Marlon,

  See the attached report. Go to Table 2 on page 11. Look at the last cell
 in the lower, right-hand corner.

  jack


  Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
 I still don't buy that number in the first place.  I wish I knew more
 about
 how Brian came up with it.

 What % of rural households does that work out to be?
 marlon

 - Original Message -
 From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


  Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
 likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
 households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
 (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

 jack


 Jeff Broadwick wrote:

 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870365210457465250160837655
 2.ht
 ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop



* REVIEW  OUTLOOK
* JANUARY 20, 2010

 A 'National Broadband Plan'
 One more solution in search of a problem.


 The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will
 miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband plan and
 requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-20 Thread RickG
I knew Mark would chime in :)
Per my last post, my experience is the same.
The broadband debate reminds me a lot of the healthcare debate. Everybody
wants it but nobody wants to pay for it. I'm still waiting for my free
electicity, natural gas, water, sewer, television, etc, etc.
The bottom line is that ISP's (or any private business for that matter) are
in business to provide a service while making a few bucks (hopefully). The
only thing the government can and will do is become an obstacle in that
process. But we digress to a topic heavily discussed several weeks ago and
before that.
-RickG

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:58 PM, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:

 Is that directly off the pages of the Democrat National Committee Blast
 Fax talking points of the day?

 Shame on you, Jack.

 There's easily 24 million households THAT DO NOT WANT OR WILL NOT PAY FOR
 broadband.

 I have some areas where I cover 100% of the households, nobody else does,
 and yet, I can only get 60 percent of them to subscribe.   The rest?Too
 expensive (even 25.50/mo is 'too much') or we don't even have a computer
 is still something I hear semi regularly.

 I don't think my demographics are specifically average... but they're not
 THAT far off the norm.

 In the last 2 years I've lost 5 customers to cable and dsl.   1 to another
 provider (was glad to see them go),  but that's less than the number who
 have moved or died.   I think we've seen nearly the limits of cable and dsl
 expansion where I am.   And they've covered a good 75% of the population,
 even as rural as we are.The WSJ article is dead on right, from what I
 can tell.   My growth is now the niche areas that aren't high on the cable
 or dsl deployment priority, yet I'm seeing the want for broadband to be
 under 80%, even in affluent areas.

 Since our install costs are now as low as free, depending on location,
 we're seeing signficant not heavy user adoption.

 Now, the growth of actual data moved...   The percentage increase every
 month is near or at double digits.


 --
 From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

  Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
  likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
  households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
  (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.
 
  jack
 
 
  Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 
 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht
  ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
 
 
 
  * REVIEW  OUTLOOK
  * JANUARY 20, 2010
 
  A 'National Broadband Plan'
  One more solution in search of a problem.
 
 
  The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it
 will
  miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband plan and
  requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly
  everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet.
 
  As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a
  plan
  to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's
 a
  worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false
  presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that
  broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of
  Internet connections.
 
  Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80
  million
  from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy
  Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is
  94%,
  and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A
  typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless
  bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a
  500-fold
  increase since 2000.
 
  Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in
  2008
  alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment.
  Nominal
  capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5
  trillion.
 
  Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this
  private
  progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD
  estimates,
  the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita.
 But
  because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has
  relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A
  better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not
 per
  person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th.
 
  Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband
  penetration
  is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy
 Institute
  notes that at the current rates of broadband adoption

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-20 Thread Jack Unger




I refuse to feed the troll. I refuse to feed the troll. I refuse to
feed the troll. I refuse to feed the troll. I refuse to feed the troll.


MDK wrote:

  Is that directly off the pages of the Democrat National Committee "Blast 
Fax" talking points of the day?

Shame on you, Jack.

There's easily 24 million households THAT DO NOT WANT OR WILL NOT PAY FOR 
broadband.

I have some areas where I cover 100% of the households, nobody else does, 
and yet, I can only get 60 percent of them to subscribe.   The rest?Too 
expensive (even 25.50/mo is 'too much') or "we don't even have a computer" 
is still something I hear semi regularly.

I don't think my demographics are specifically average... but they're not 
THAT far off the norm.

In the last 2 years I've lost 5 customers to cable and dsl.   1 to another 
provider (was glad to see them go),  but that's less than the number who 
have moved or died.   I think we've seen nearly the limits of cable and dsl 
expansion where I am.   And they've covered a good 75% of the population, 
even as rural as we are.The WSJ article is dead on right, from what I 
can tell.   My growth is now the niche areas that aren't high on the cable 
or dsl deployment priority, yet I'm seeing the "want" for broadband to be 
under 80%, even in affluent areas.

Since our install costs are now as low as "free", depending on location, 
we're seeing signficant "not heavy user" adoption.

Now, the growth of actual data moved...   The percentage increase every 
month is near or at double digits.


--
From: "Jack Unger" jun...@ask-wi.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM
To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

  
  
Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
(especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

jack


Jeff Broadwick wrote:


  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht
ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop



* REVIEW  OUTLOOK
* JANUARY 20, 2010

A 'National Broadband Plan'
One more solution in search of a problem.


The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will
miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband plan" and
requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly
everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet.

As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a 
plan
to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a
worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false
presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that
broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of
Internet connections.

Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 
million
from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy
Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is 
94%,
and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A
typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless
bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a 
500-fold
increase since 2000.

Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in 
2008
alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment. 
Nominal
capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5
trillion.

Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this 
private
progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD 
estimates,
the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But
because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has
relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A
better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per
person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th.

Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband 
penetration
is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy Institute
notes that "at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is behind
the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries 
will
reach a saturation point within the next few years."

Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market
failure thesis. "In any industry subject to significant technological
change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be
forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products and
services," said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 fili

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-20 Thread Josh Luthman
Jack wrote and published a book...

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

The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.
--- Albert Einstein


On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:54 AM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:

  I refuse to feed the troll. I refuse to feed the troll. I refuse to feed
 the troll. I refuse to feed the troll. I refuse to feed the troll.

 MDK wrote:

 Is that directly off the pages of the Democrat National Committee Blast
 Fax talking points of the day?

 Shame on you, Jack.

 There's easily 24 million households THAT DO NOT WANT OR WILL NOT PAY FOR
 broadband.

 I have some areas where I cover 100% of the households, nobody else does,
 and yet, I can only get 60 percent of them to subscribe.   The rest?Too
 expensive (even 25.50/mo is 'too much') or we don't even have a computer
 is still something I hear semi regularly.

 I don't think my demographics are specifically average... but they're not
 THAT far off the norm.

 In the last 2 years I've lost 5 customers to cable and dsl.   1 to another
 provider (was glad to see them go),  but that's less than the number who
 have moved or died.   I think we've seen nearly the limits of cable and dsl
 expansion where I am.   And they've covered a good 75% of the population,
 even as rural as we are.The WSJ article is dead on right, from what I
 can tell.   My growth is now the niche areas that aren't high on the cable
 or dsl deployment priority, yet I'm seeing the want for broadband to be
 under 80%, even in affluent areas.

 Since our install costs are now as low as free, depending on location,
 we're seeing signficant not heavy user adoption.

 Now, the growth of actual data moved...   The percentage increase every
 month is near or at double digits.


 --
 From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com jun...@ask-wi.com
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ



  Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
 likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
 households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
 (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

 jack


 Jeff Broadwick wrote:


  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht
 ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop



 * REVIEW  OUTLOOK
 * JANUARY 20, 2010

 A 'National Broadband Plan'
 One more solution in search of a problem.


 The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will
 miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband plan and
 requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly
 everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet.

 As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a
 plan
 to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a
 worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false
 presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that
 broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of
 Internet connections.

 Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80
 million
 from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy
 Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is
 94%,
 and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A
 typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless
 bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a
 500-fold
 increase since 2000.

 Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in
 2008
 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment.
 Nominal
 capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5
 trillion.

 Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this
 private
 progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD
 estimates,
 the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But
 because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has
 relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A
 better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per
 person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th.

 Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband
 penetration
 is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy Institute
 notes that at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is behind
 the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries
 will
 reach a saturation point within the next few years.

 Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market
 failure thesis. In any industry

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2010-01-20 Thread Mike Hammett
I won't comment on the first parts.  ;-)

The rest is completely true, other than Brian is talking about 24 million 
households can't get it in the first place vs. 24 million households that 
don't want it that you (and others on the list) took it to mean.


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



--
From: MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:58 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

 Is that directly off the pages of the Democrat National Committee Blast
 Fax talking points of the day?

 Shame on you, Jack.

 There's easily 24 million households THAT DO NOT WANT OR WILL NOT PAY FOR
 broadband.

 I have some areas where I cover 100% of the households, nobody else does,
 and yet, I can only get 60 percent of them to subscribe.   The rest? 
 Too
 expensive (even 25.50/mo is 'too much') or we don't even have a computer
 is still something I hear semi regularly.

 I don't think my demographics are specifically average... but they're not
 THAT far off the norm.

 In the last 2 years I've lost 5 customers to cable and dsl.   1 to another
 provider (was glad to see them go),  but that's less than the number who
 have moved or died.   I think we've seen nearly the limits of cable and 
 dsl
 expansion where I am.   And they've covered a good 75% of the population,
 even as rural as we are.The WSJ article is dead on right, from what I
 can tell.   My growth is now the niche areas that aren't high on the cable
 or dsl deployment priority, yet I'm seeing the want for broadband to be
 under 80%, even in affluent areas.

 Since our install costs are now as low as free, depending on location,
 we're seeing signficant not heavy user adoption.

 Now, the growth of actual data moved...   The percentage increase every
 month is near or at double digits.


 --
 From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com
 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

 Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more
 likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American
 households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece
 (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos.

 jack


 Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht
 ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop



 * REVIEW  OUTLOOK
 * JANUARY 20, 2010

 A 'National Broadband Plan'
 One more solution in search of a problem.


 The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it 
 will
 miss a February deadline for delivering a national broadband plan and
 requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly
 everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet.

 As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a
 plan
 to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's 
 a
 worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false
 presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that
 broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of
 Internet connections.

 Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80
 million
 from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy
 Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is
 94%,
 and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A
 typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless
 bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a
 500-fold
 increase since 2000.

 Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in
 2008
 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment.
 Nominal
 capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5
 trillion.

 Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this
 private
 progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD
 estimates,
 the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. 
 But
 because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has
 relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A
 better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not 
 per
 person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th.

 Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband
 penetration
 is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy 
 Institute
 notes that at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is 
 behind
 the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries
 will
 reach a saturation point within the next few years.

 Even the Obama Justice

[WISPA] from today's WSJ

2009-12-30 Thread Chuck Profito
ENJOY;

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126221116097210861.html 


OH, LATH, PLASTER AND CHICKEN WIRE, A near Perfect 2.4 Faraday cage!




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] From Today's WSJ

2009-02-02 Thread Jeff Broadwick
Congress Approves Broadband to Nowhere
Why the U.S. lags in Internet speed.

*
  By L. GORDON CROVITZ


In Japan, wireless technology works so well that teenagers draft novels on
their cellphones. People in Hong Kong take it for granted that they can
check their BlackBerrys from underground in the city's subway cars. Even in
France, consumers have more choices for broadband service than in the U.S.

The Internet may have been developed in the U.S., but the country now ranks
15th in the world for broadband penetration. For those who do have access to
broadband, the average speed is a crawl, moving bits at a speed roughly
one-tenth that of top-ranked Japan. This means a movie that can be
downloaded in a couple of seconds in Japan takes half an hour in the U.S.
The BMW 7 series comes equipped with Internet access in Germany, but not in
the U.S.
The Opinion Journal Widget

Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials
and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.

So those of us otherwise wary of how wisely the stimulus package will be
spent were happy to suspend disbelief when Congress invited ideas on how to
upgrade broadband. Maybe there are shovel-ready programs to bring broadband
to communities that private providers have not yet reached, and to upgrade
the speed of accessing the Web. These goals sound like the digital-era
version of Eisenhower's interstate highway projects, this time bringing
Americans as consumers and businesspeople closer together on a faster
information highway.

But broadband, once thought to be in line for $100 billion as part of the
stimulus legislation, ended up a low priority, set to get well under $10
billion in the package of over $800 billion. This is a reminder that even
with a new president whose platform focused on technology, and even with the
fully open spigot of a stimulus bill, technology gets built by private
capital and initiative and not by government.

The relatively small appropriation is not for want of trying. A partial list
of the lobbying groups involved in the process is a reminder of how
Washington's return to industrial policy requires lobbying by all: the
Information Technology Industry Council, Telecommunications Industry
Association, National Cable  Telecommunications Association,
Fiber-to-the-Home Council, National Association of Telecommunications
Officers and Advisors, National Telecommunications Cooperative Association,
Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance and Organization for
the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies.

The result was a relatively paltry $6 billion for broadband in the House
bill and $9 billion in the Senate, with each bill micromanaging the spending
differently. The bills include different standards, speeds and other
requirements for providers that would use the public funds. This may balance
competing interests among cable, telecom and local phone companies, but it
doesn't address the underlying problems of too few providers delivering too
few options to consumers.

Techies may be surprised by how these funds would be dispersed. The House
would give the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service control
over half the grants and the Commerce Department's National
Telecommunications and Information Administration control of the other half.
Tax credits would have been a faster way to make a difference than
government agencies dividing spoils across the country.

The House bill also calls for open access. This phrase can include hugely
controversial topics such as net neutrality, which in its most radical
version would bar providers from charging different amounts for different
kinds of broadband content. Now that video, conferencing and other
heavy-bandwidth applications are growing in popularity, price needs to be
one tool for allocating scarce resources. Analysts at Medley Global Advisors
warn that if these provisions remain in the bill, it will keep most
broadband providers out of the applicant pool for the funds intended
specifically for them.
In Today's Opinion Journal
 
More fundamentally, nothing in the legislation would address the key reason
that the U.S. lags so far behind other countries. This is that there is an
effective broadband duopoly in the U.S., with most communities able to
choose only between one cable company and one telecom carrier. It's this
lack of competition, blessed by national, state and local politicians, that
keeps prices up and services down.

In contrast, most other advanced countries have numerous providers, using
many technologies, competing for consumers. A recent report by the Pew
Research Center entitled Stimulating Broadband: If Obama Builds It, Will
They Log On? concluded that for many people, the answer is no, often due to
high monthly prices. By one estimate, the lowest monthly price per standard
unit of millions of bits per second is nearly $3 in the U.S., versus about
13 cents in Japan and 33 cents 

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2009-02-02 Thread reader
I'd like to ponit out that the article leaves out some information, and it 
leaves you with a false impression because of it.  It made note of the 
price of broadband being cheaper in Japan and other places.   That's true, 
but much of the infrastructure was funded by tax dollars, instead of the 
customers of the ISP's.

I believe if this were properly acounted for, internet would be cheapest in 
the US, and more everywhere else.   It's not the price, it's the COST that 
matters, and cost must include the publicly financed portions of the 
equation.   Everyone pays for that, not everyone uses it, and that cost is 
rarely factored in these articles.   That leaves a false impression of it 
being cheap, which it is not and has not ever been.





insert witty tagline here

- Original Message - 
From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 8:38 AM
Subject: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 Congress Approves Broadband to Nowhere
 Why the U.S. lags in Internet speed.

*
  By L. GORDON CROVITZ


 In Japan, wireless technology works so well that teenagers draft novels on
 their cellphones. People in Hong Kong take it for granted that they can
 check their BlackBerrys from underground in the city's subway cars. Even 
 in
 France, consumers have more choices for broadband service than in the U.S.

 The Internet may have been developed in the U.S., but the country now 
 ranks
 15th in the world for broadband penetration. For those who do have access 
 to
 broadband, the average speed is a crawl, moving bits at a speed roughly
 one-tenth that of top-ranked Japan. This means a movie that can be
 downloaded in a couple of seconds in Japan takes half an hour in the U.S.
 The BMW 7 series comes equipped with Internet access in Germany, but not 
 in
 the U.S.
 The Opinion Journal Widget

 Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important 
 editorials
 and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.

 So those of us otherwise wary of how wisely the stimulus package will be
 spent were happy to suspend disbelief when Congress invited ideas on how 
 to
 upgrade broadband. Maybe there are shovel-ready programs to bring 
 broadband
 to communities that private providers have not yet reached, and to upgrade
 the speed of accessing the Web. These goals sound like the digital-era
 version of Eisenhower's interstate highway projects, this time bringing
 Americans as consumers and businesspeople closer together on a faster
 information highway.

 But broadband, once thought to be in line for $100 billion as part of the
 stimulus legislation, ended up a low priority, set to get well under $10
 billion in the package of over $800 billion. This is a reminder that even
 with a new president whose platform focused on technology, and even with 
 the
 fully open spigot of a stimulus bill, technology gets built by private
 capital and initiative and not by government.

 The relatively small appropriation is not for want of trying. A partial 
 list
 of the lobbying groups involved in the process is a reminder of how
 Washington's return to industrial policy requires lobbying by all: the
 Information Technology Industry Council, Telecommunications Industry
 Association, National Cable  Telecommunications Association,
 Fiber-to-the-Home Council, National Association of Telecommunications
 Officers and Advisors, National Telecommunications Cooperative 
 Association,
 Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance and Organization for
 the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies.

 The result was a relatively paltry $6 billion for broadband in the House
 bill and $9 billion in the Senate, with each bill micromanaging the 
 spending
 differently. The bills include different standards, speeds and other
 requirements for providers that would use the public funds. This may 
 balance
 competing interests among cable, telecom and local phone companies, but it
 doesn't address the underlying problems of too few providers delivering 
 too
 few options to consumers.

 Techies may be surprised by how these funds would be dispersed. The House
 would give the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service control
 over half the grants and the Commerce Department's National
 Telecommunications and Information Administration control of the other 
 half.
 Tax credits would have been a faster way to make a difference than
 government agencies dividing spoils across the country.

 The House bill also calls for open access. This phrase can include 
 hugely
 controversial topics such as net neutrality, which in its most radical
 version would bar providers from charging different amounts for different
 kinds of broadband content. Now that video, conferencing and other
 heavy-bandwidth applications are growing in popularity, price needs to be
 one tool for allocating scarce resources. Analysts

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2009-02-02 Thread Jonathan Schmidt
Most of the innuendos and descriptions were ill-defined making the
conclusion flawed but it makes a good story yet pretty bad information.

First, I'm in San Antonio and if I drive IH-10 to El Paso, I see nothing
for 1,000 kilometers and I'm still in Texas.  How do you compare that with
the cheek-to-jowl population in Asian countries?  Deployment problems are
entirely different.

Second, I get about 1Mbps on my Nokia browser virtually anywhere I've been
in the country on ATT's 3G MediaNet and it costs me $19.95 a month.  I
get that on my laptop using the same phone as a modem.  ATT makes money
from this.

Third, I've got plain old RoadRunner at home and get nearly 20Mbps which
is nothing compared to what Comcast and others are rolling out but, with
typical latency to various sources, it is rarely the limitation.  I could
have low-end DSL for $14.95 a month at home if price were a consideration.
Both providers make money on this service.

Geeze, WSJ, get the information right.

. . . j o n a t h a n





-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of rea...@muddyfrogwater.us
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 1:30 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

I'd like to ponit out that the article leaves out some information, and it

leaves you with a false impression because of it.  It made note of the 
price of broadband being cheaper in Japan and other places.   That's
true, 
but much of the infrastructure was funded by tax dollars, instead of the 
customers of the ISP's.

I believe if this were properly acounted for, internet would be cheapest
in 
the US, and more everywhere else.   It's not the price, it's the COST that

matters, and cost must include the publicly financed portions of the 
equation.   Everyone pays for that, not everyone uses it, and that cost is

rarely factored in these articles.   That leaves a false impression of it 
being cheap, which it is not and has not ever been.





insert witty tagline here

- Original Message - 
From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 8:38 AM
Subject: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 Congress Approves Broadband to Nowhere
 Why the U.S. lags in Internet speed.

*
  By L. GORDON CROVITZ


 In Japan, wireless technology works so well that teenagers draft novels
on
 their cellphones. People in Hong Kong take it for granted that they can
 check their BlackBerrys from underground in the city's subway cars. Even

 in
 France, consumers have more choices for broadband service than in the
U.S.

 The Internet may have been developed in the U.S., but the country now 
 ranks
 15th in the world for broadband penetration. For those who do have
access 
 to
 broadband, the average speed is a crawl, moving bits at a speed roughly
 one-tenth that of top-ranked Japan. This means a movie that can be
 downloaded in a couple of seconds in Japan takes half an hour in the
U.S.
 The BMW 7 series comes equipped with Internet access in Germany, but not

 in
 the U.S.
 The Opinion Journal Widget

 Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important 
 editorials
 and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.

 So those of us otherwise wary of how wisely the stimulus package will be
 spent were happy to suspend disbelief when Congress invited ideas on how

 to
 upgrade broadband. Maybe there are shovel-ready programs to bring 
 broadband
 to communities that private providers have not yet reached, and to
upgrade
 the speed of accessing the Web. These goals sound like the digital-era
 version of Eisenhower's interstate highway projects, this time bringing
 Americans as consumers and businesspeople closer together on a faster
 information highway.

 But broadband, once thought to be in line for $100 billion as part of
the
 stimulus legislation, ended up a low priority, set to get well under $10
 billion in the package of over $800 billion. This is a reminder that
even
 with a new president whose platform focused on technology, and even with

 the
 fully open spigot of a stimulus bill, technology gets built by private
 capital and initiative and not by government.

 The relatively small appropriation is not for want of trying. A partial 
 list
 of the lobbying groups involved in the process is a reminder of how
 Washington's return to industrial policy requires lobbying by all: the
 Information Technology Industry Council, Telecommunications Industry
 Association, National Cable  Telecommunications Association,
 Fiber-to-the-Home Council, National Association of Telecommunications
 Officers and Advisors, National Telecommunications Cooperative 
 Association,
 Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance and Organization
for
 the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies.

 The result was a relatively paltry $6 billion for broadband in the House

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2009-02-02 Thread Anthony Will
It is also seems to be citing that way over used and mostly irrelevant 
OECD statistics.  
http://www.ultra-high-speed-mn.org/CM/MeetingAgendasandMinutes/MeetingAgendasandMinutes54.asp
Had a presentation and there are links to a power point and very 
extensive study on the OECD numbers by Scott Wallsten a Berkly grad 
working with http://www.techpolicyinstitute.org/ .  In the end when all 
counties have 100% penetration due to household size the US will be 
ranted around 18th in the world. 
But it just sells papers to have the US look bad I guess. 

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:
 I'd like to ponit out that the article leaves out some information, and it 
 leaves you with a false impression because of it.  It made note of the 
 price of broadband being cheaper in Japan and other places.   That's true, 
 but much of the infrastructure was funded by tax dollars, instead of the 
 customers of the ISP's.

 I believe if this were properly acounted for, internet would be cheapest in 
 the US, and more everywhere else.   It's not the price, it's the COST that 
 matters, and cost must include the publicly financed portions of the 
 equation.   Everyone pays for that, not everyone uses it, and that cost is 
 rarely factored in these articles.   That leaves a false impression of it 
 being cheap, which it is not and has not ever been.




 
 insert witty tagline here

 - Original Message - 
 From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 8:38 AM
 Subject: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


   
 Congress Approves Broadband to Nowhere
 Why the U.S. lags in Internet speed.

*
  By L. GORDON CROVITZ


 In Japan, wireless technology works so well that teenagers draft novels on
 their cellphones. People in Hong Kong take it for granted that they can
 check their BlackBerrys from underground in the city's subway cars. Even 
 in
 France, consumers have more choices for broadband service than in the U.S.

 The Internet may have been developed in the U.S., but the country now 
 ranks
 15th in the world for broadband penetration. For those who do have access 
 to
 broadband, the average speed is a crawl, moving bits at a speed roughly
 one-tenth that of top-ranked Japan. This means a movie that can be
 downloaded in a couple of seconds in Japan takes half an hour in the U.S.
 The BMW 7 series comes equipped with Internet access in Germany, but not 
 in
 the U.S.
 The Opinion Journal Widget

 Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important 
 editorials
 and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.

 So those of us otherwise wary of how wisely the stimulus package will be
 spent were happy to suspend disbelief when Congress invited ideas on how 
 to
 upgrade broadband. Maybe there are shovel-ready programs to bring 
 broadband
 to communities that private providers have not yet reached, and to upgrade
 the speed of accessing the Web. These goals sound like the digital-era
 version of Eisenhower's interstate highway projects, this time bringing
 Americans as consumers and businesspeople closer together on a faster
 information highway.

 But broadband, once thought to be in line for $100 billion as part of the
 stimulus legislation, ended up a low priority, set to get well under $10
 billion in the package of over $800 billion. This is a reminder that even
 with a new president whose platform focused on technology, and even with 
 the
 fully open spigot of a stimulus bill, technology gets built by private
 capital and initiative and not by government.

 The relatively small appropriation is not for want of trying. A partial 
 list
 of the lobbying groups involved in the process is a reminder of how
 Washington's return to industrial policy requires lobbying by all: the
 Information Technology Industry Council, Telecommunications Industry
 Association, National Cable  Telecommunications Association,
 Fiber-to-the-Home Council, National Association of Telecommunications
 Officers and Advisors, National Telecommunications Cooperative 
 Association,
 Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance and Organization for
 the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies.

 The result was a relatively paltry $6 billion for broadband in the House
 bill and $9 billion in the Senate, with each bill micromanaging the 
 spending
 differently. The bills include different standards, speeds and other
 requirements for providers that would use the public funds. This may 
 balance
 competing interests among cable, telecom and local phone companies, but it
 doesn't address the underlying problems of too few providers delivering 
 too
 few options to consumers.

 Techies may be surprised by how these funds would be dispersed. The House
 would give the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service control
 over half the grants and the Commerce

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2009-02-02 Thread Jeff Broadwick
Agreed, I don't like the international comparisons because they are
apples/oranges.  It's not fair to compare a small country with a lot of
people to the vast expanse of the US.  There really isn't another developed
country to compare to with the challenges we face for broadband deployment.
There is also a question of who's numbers do you believe. 

Additionally, those blazing speeds tend to end at the nation's border.  If
you are downloading from a site in-country great, out of country, not so
great.

The reason I posted the article was for the info on the stimulus package
and it's broadband component.

Jeff
 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jonathan Schmidt
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 2:52 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

Most of the innuendos and descriptions were ill-defined making the
conclusion flawed but it makes a good story yet pretty bad information.

First, I'm in San Antonio and if I drive IH-10 to El Paso, I see nothing for
1,000 kilometers and I'm still in Texas.  How do you compare that with the
cheek-to-jowl population in Asian countries?  Deployment problems are
entirely different.

Second, I get about 1Mbps on my Nokia browser virtually anywhere I've been
in the country on ATT's 3G MediaNet and it costs me $19.95 a month.  I get
that on my laptop using the same phone as a modem.  ATT makes money from
this.

Third, I've got plain old RoadRunner at home and get nearly 20Mbps which is
nothing compared to what Comcast and others are rolling out but, with
typical latency to various sources, it is rarely the limitation.  I could
have low-end DSL for $14.95 a month at home if price were a consideration.
Both providers make money on this service.

Geeze, WSJ, get the information right.

. . . j o n a t h a n





-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of rea...@muddyfrogwater.us
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 1:30 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

I'd like to ponit out that the article leaves out some information, and it

leaves you with a false impression because of it.  It made note of the 
price of broadband being cheaper in Japan and other places.   That's
true,
but much of the infrastructure was funded by tax dollars, instead of the
customers of the ISP's.

I believe if this were properly acounted for, internet would be cheapest in 
the US, and more everywhere else.   It's not the price, it's the COST that

matters, and cost must include the publicly financed portions of the 
equation.   Everyone pays for that, not everyone uses it, and that cost is

rarely factored in these articles.   That leaves a false impression of it 
being cheap, which it is not and has not ever been.





insert witty tagline here

- Original Message -
From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 8:38 AM
Subject: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 Congress Approves Broadband to Nowhere
 Why the U.S. lags in Internet speed.

*
  By L. GORDON CROVITZ


 In Japan, wireless technology works so well that teenagers draft novels
on
 their cellphones. People in Hong Kong take it for granted that they can
 check their BlackBerrys from underground in the city's subway cars. Even

 in
 France, consumers have more choices for broadband service than in the
U.S.

 The Internet may have been developed in the U.S., but the country now 
 ranks
 15th in the world for broadband penetration. For those who do have
access 
 to
 broadband, the average speed is a crawl, moving bits at a speed roughly
 one-tenth that of top-ranked Japan. This means a movie that can be
 downloaded in a couple of seconds in Japan takes half an hour in the
U.S.
 The BMW 7 series comes equipped with Internet access in Germany, but not

 in
 the U.S.
 The Opinion Journal Widget

 Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important 
 editorials
 and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.

 So those of us otherwise wary of how wisely the stimulus package will be
 spent were happy to suspend disbelief when Congress invited ideas on how

 to
 upgrade broadband. Maybe there are shovel-ready programs to bring 
 broadband
 to communities that private providers have not yet reached, and to
upgrade
 the speed of accessing the Web. These goals sound like the digital-era
 version of Eisenhower's interstate highway projects, this time bringing
 Americans as consumers and businesspeople closer together on a faster
 information highway.

 But broadband, once thought to be in line for $100 billion as part of
the
 stimulus legislation, ended up a low priority, set to get well under $10
 billion in the package of over $800 billion. This is a reminder that
even
 with a new president whose platform focused on technology, and even

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2009-02-02 Thread Jonathan Schmidt
Jeff, it doesn't have to be in-country...although a few thousand miles
does add latency that a 300 mile-wide country doesn't have.  By the way,
that's our East coast to West coast problem.

Akamai provides nearly-modem-limit downloads for things like
upgrades...for participants.

Other than that, unless the provider has their own video servers on their
fiber backbone, 20Mbps is sufficient for any server across the USA.  This
is certainly a subject to consider when contemplating the complexities of
New Neutrality, by the way.

. . . J o n a t h a n

 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 2:28 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

Agreed, I don't like the international comparisons because they are
apples/oranges.  It's not fair to compare a small country with a lot of
people to the vast expanse of the US.  There really isn't another
developed country to compare to with the challenges we face for broadband
deployment.
There is also a question of who's numbers do you believe. 

Additionally, those blazing speeds tend to end at the nation's border.  If
you are downloading from a site in-country great, out of country, not so
great.

The reason I posted the article was for the info on the stimulus package
and it's broadband component.

Jeff
 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jonathan Schmidt
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 2:52 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

Most of the innuendos and descriptions were ill-defined making the
conclusion flawed but it makes a good story yet pretty bad information.

First, I'm in San Antonio and if I drive IH-10 to El Paso, I see nothing
for 1,000 kilometers and I'm still in Texas.  How do you compare that with
the cheek-to-jowl population in Asian countries?  Deployment problems are
entirely different.

Second, I get about 1Mbps on my Nokia browser virtually anywhere I've been
in the country on ATT's 3G MediaNet and it costs me $19.95 a month.  I
get that on my laptop using the same phone as a modem.  ATT makes money
from this.

Third, I've got plain old RoadRunner at home and get nearly 20Mbps which
is nothing compared to what Comcast and others are rolling out but, with
typical latency to various sources, it is rarely the limitation.  I could
have low-end DSL for $14.95 a month at home if price were a consideration.
Both providers make money on this service.

Geeze, WSJ, get the information right.

. . . j o n a t h a n





-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of rea...@muddyfrogwater.us
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 1:30 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

I'd like to ponit out that the article leaves out some information, and it

leaves you with a false impression because of it.  It made note of the 
price of broadband being cheaper in Japan and other places.   That's
true,
but much of the infrastructure was funded by tax dollars, instead of the
customers of the ISP's.

I believe if this were properly acounted for, internet would be cheapest
in 
the US, and more everywhere else.   It's not the price, it's the COST that

matters, and cost must include the publicly financed portions of the 
equation.   Everyone pays for that, not everyone uses it, and that cost is

rarely factored in these articles.   That leaves a false impression of it 
being cheap, which it is not and has not ever been.





insert witty tagline here

- Original Message -
From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 8:38 AM
Subject: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 Congress Approves Broadband to Nowhere Why the U.S. lags in Internet 
 speed.

*
  By L. GORDON CROVITZ


 In Japan, wireless technology works so well that teenagers draft 
 novels
on
 their cellphones. People in Hong Kong take it for granted that they 
 can check their BlackBerrys from underground in the city's subway 
 cars. Even

 in
 France, consumers have more choices for broadband service than in the
U.S.

 The Internet may have been developed in the U.S., but the country now 
 ranks 15th in the world for broadband penetration. For those who do 
 have
access 
 to
 broadband, the average speed is a crawl, moving bits at a speed 
 roughly one-tenth that of top-ranked Japan. This means a movie that 
 can be downloaded in a couple of seconds in Japan takes half an hour 
 in the
U.S.
 The BMW 7 series comes equipped with Internet access in Germany, but 
 not

 in
 the U.S.
 The Opinion Journal Widget

 Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important 
 editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.

 So those of us otherwise wary of how wisely

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2009-02-02 Thread Mike Hammett
It's far less expensive to run 100 megabit to 10M people in a highly urban 
setting like Japan than 5 megabit to rural America.  That's no excuse why 
Chicago and New York don't have 100 megabits everywhere for $30, though.

Yes, many countries do heavily subsidize broadband.


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



--
From: rea...@muddyfrogwater.us
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 1:30 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

 I'd like to ponit out that the article leaves out some information, and it
 leaves you with a false impression because of it.  It made note of the
 price of broadband being cheaper in Japan and other places.   That's 
 true,
 but much of the infrastructure was funded by tax dollars, instead of the
 customers of the ISP's.

 I believe if this were properly acounted for, internet would be cheapest 
 in
 the US, and more everywhere else.   It's not the price, it's the COST that
 matters, and cost must include the publicly financed portions of the
 equation.   Everyone pays for that, not everyone uses it, and that cost is
 rarely factored in these articles.   That leaves a false impression of it
 being cheap, which it is not and has not ever been.




 
 insert witty tagline here

 - Original Message - 
 From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 8:38 AM
 Subject: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


 Congress Approves Broadband to Nowhere
 Why the U.S. lags in Internet speed.

*
  By L. GORDON CROVITZ


 In Japan, wireless technology works so well that teenagers draft novels 
 on
 their cellphones. People in Hong Kong take it for granted that they can
 check their BlackBerrys from underground in the city's subway cars. Even
 in
 France, consumers have more choices for broadband service than in the 
 U.S.

 The Internet may have been developed in the U.S., but the country now
 ranks
 15th in the world for broadband penetration. For those who do have access
 to
 broadband, the average speed is a crawl, moving bits at a speed roughly
 one-tenth that of top-ranked Japan. This means a movie that can be
 downloaded in a couple of seconds in Japan takes half an hour in the U.S.
 The BMW 7 series comes equipped with Internet access in Germany, but not
 in
 the U.S.
 The Opinion Journal Widget

 Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important
 editorials
 and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.

 So those of us otherwise wary of how wisely the stimulus package will be
 spent were happy to suspend disbelief when Congress invited ideas on how
 to
 upgrade broadband. Maybe there are shovel-ready programs to bring
 broadband
 to communities that private providers have not yet reached, and to 
 upgrade
 the speed of accessing the Web. These goals sound like the digital-era
 version of Eisenhower's interstate highway projects, this time bringing
 Americans as consumers and businesspeople closer together on a faster
 information highway.

 But broadband, once thought to be in line for $100 billion as part of the
 stimulus legislation, ended up a low priority, set to get well under $10
 billion in the package of over $800 billion. This is a reminder that even
 with a new president whose platform focused on technology, and even with
 the
 fully open spigot of a stimulus bill, technology gets built by private
 capital and initiative and not by government.

 The relatively small appropriation is not for want of trying. A partial
 list
 of the lobbying groups involved in the process is a reminder of how
 Washington's return to industrial policy requires lobbying by all: the
 Information Technology Industry Council, Telecommunications Industry
 Association, National Cable  Telecommunications Association,
 Fiber-to-the-Home Council, National Association of Telecommunications
 Officers and Advisors, National Telecommunications Cooperative
 Association,
 Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance and Organization 
 for
 the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies.

 The result was a relatively paltry $6 billion for broadband in the House
 bill and $9 billion in the Senate, with each bill micromanaging the
 spending
 differently. The bills include different standards, speeds and other
 requirements for providers that would use the public funds. This may
 balance
 competing interests among cable, telecom and local phone companies, but 
 it
 doesn't address the underlying problems of too few providers delivering
 too
 few options to consumers.

 Techies may be surprised by how these funds would be dispersed. The House
 would give the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service 
 control
 over half the grants and the Commerce Department's National
 Telecommunications and Information Administration control

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2009-02-02 Thread Nathan Stooke
Hello,

I do not know about you, but I am kind of glad the US government and
the BIG guys can not get it right.  With the money they have wasted we
should have at least had 1 mb if not 10mb to everyone in the us, man, woman
and child.

This is where we come in.  Because the could not we looked at the
opportunity and said we could and did.

Hats off to all of us that live, breath and hopefully not die for
this stuff every day.  Keep up the good work and it will pay off.

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 10:39 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

Congress Approves Broadband to Nowhere
Why the U.S. lags in Internet speed.

*
  By L. GORDON CROVITZ


In Japan, wireless technology works so well that teenagers draft novels on
their cellphones. People in Hong Kong take it for granted that they can
check their BlackBerrys from underground in the city's subway cars. Even in
France, consumers have more choices for broadband service than in the U.S.

The Internet may have been developed in the U.S., but the country now ranks
15th in the world for broadband penetration. For those who do have access to
broadband, the average speed is a crawl, moving bits at a speed roughly
one-tenth that of top-ranked Japan. This means a movie that can be
downloaded in a couple of seconds in Japan takes half an hour in the U.S.
The BMW 7 series comes equipped with Internet access in Germany, but not in
the U.S.
The Opinion Journal Widget

Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials
and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.

So those of us otherwise wary of how wisely the stimulus package will be
spent were happy to suspend disbelief when Congress invited ideas on how to
upgrade broadband. Maybe there are shovel-ready programs to bring broadband
to communities that private providers have not yet reached, and to upgrade
the speed of accessing the Web. These goals sound like the digital-era
version of Eisenhower's interstate highway projects, this time bringing
Americans as consumers and businesspeople closer together on a faster
information highway.

But broadband, once thought to be in line for $100 billion as part of the
stimulus legislation, ended up a low priority, set to get well under $10
billion in the package of over $800 billion. This is a reminder that even
with a new president whose platform focused on technology, and even with the
fully open spigot of a stimulus bill, technology gets built by private
capital and initiative and not by government.

The relatively small appropriation is not for want of trying. A partial list
of the lobbying groups involved in the process is a reminder of how
Washington's return to industrial policy requires lobbying by all: the
Information Technology Industry Council, Telecommunications Industry
Association, National Cable  Telecommunications Association,
Fiber-to-the-Home Council, National Association of Telecommunications
Officers and Advisors, National Telecommunications Cooperative Association,
Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance and Organization for
the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies.

The result was a relatively paltry $6 billion for broadband in the House
bill and $9 billion in the Senate, with each bill micromanaging the spending
differently. The bills include different standards, speeds and other
requirements for providers that would use the public funds. This may balance
competing interests among cable, telecom and local phone companies, but it
doesn't address the underlying problems of too few providers delivering too
few options to consumers.

Techies may be surprised by how these funds would be dispersed. The House
would give the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service control
over half the grants and the Commerce Department's National
Telecommunications and Information Administration control of the other half.
Tax credits would have been a faster way to make a difference than
government agencies dividing spoils across the country.

The House bill also calls for open access. This phrase can include hugely
controversial topics such as net neutrality, which in its most radical
version would bar providers from charging different amounts for different
kinds of broadband content. Now that video, conferencing and other
heavy-bandwidth applications are growing in popularity, price needs to be
one tool for allocating scarce resources. Analysts at Medley Global Advisors
warn that if these provisions remain in the bill, it will keep most
broadband providers out of the applicant pool for the funds intended
specifically for them.
In Today's Opinion Journal
 
More fundamentally, nothing in the legislation would address the key reason
that the U.S. lags so far behind other countries

[WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2008-02-07 Thread Jeff Broadwick

REVIEW  OUTLOOK

Purblind Auction
February 7, 2008; Page A18

The Federal Communications Commission is bragging about its latest wireless
auction, with total bids of more than $19 billion after two weeks. But dig
beneath those numbers and the picture is less rosy.

This wireless spectrum is on the market because of the transition to
digital television broadcast. As of February 17, 2009, TVs without digital
tuners or cable or satellite hook-ups will go dark, and a big swath of the
airwaves will be free for other uses. This spectrum can transmit data over
long distances and penetrates walls much better than most current wireless
phone spectrum.
[Kevin Martin]

But FCC Chairman Kevin Martin wasn't content to sell this real estate to the
highest bidder. Instead, he embarked on a central-planning experiment,
setting aside the two biggest blocks for special uses. The FCC's procedures
require blind, confidential bidding, so there is much about the auction that
we won't know until it wraps up. But it already seems clear that Mr.
Martin's rules have damaged the value of otherwise choice spectrum and are
harming the overall auction.

For example, the FCC restricted the single biggest spectrum license for a
public-private public safety partnership. The idea was that someone would
buy it to create a nationwide network for first responders -- fire and
police departments and the like -- with secondary use as a commercial
wireless network. But the main lobbyist for that spectrum, former FCC
Chairman Reed Hundt's Frontline Wireless, closed up shop before the auction
began. So far, this so-called D block of spectrum has attracted exactly
one bid in 40 rounds, and that bid is less than $500 million -- well below
the FCC's $1.3 billion reserve price.

The FCC designated the next-biggest block -- the C block -- for open
access at the urging of Google, among others. The C block is not only
large, but it divides the country into eight large regional groups, with the
possibility of bidding on all eight as a package. It should be a top prize.
But it only passed its $4.6 billion reserve price late last week, and the
reason is almost certainly the FCC's open access rule. That rule requires
whoever wins to open the network to all compatible phones or software. If
you're spending billions on spectrum and billions more building the network,
the fact that the feds might force you to share your network means greater
investment risk.

The bidding bears this out. Of the $19 billion bid so far, nearly
three-quarters has gone toward the smaller bits of spectrum in the A, B and
E blocks. Building a national network by cobbling together hundreds of these
bits is inefficient and risky, and it doesn't serve consumers, who would get
faster service and more flexibility from the larger blocks.

But there's more. The FCC made these small blocks to encourage start-ups and
new entrants to bid for a piece of the next-generation wireless pie. If the
conditions placed on the C and D blocks are driving the big established
players into the smaller auctions, then the new, little guys may well be
playing in the same sandbox with the big, bad incumbents.

The FCC's previous experiments with rigging auctions also flopped; witness
the NextWave bankruptcy, which tied up billions of dollars of spectrum for
years. Mr. Martin will claim victory in the auction no matter what happens.
But what we'll never know is how much would have been bid -- and thus how
much more the Treasury would have received -- if Mr. Martin had auctioned
this spectrum without his favors for special interests attached.

Jeff Broadwick
Sales Manager, ImageStream
800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
+1 574-935-8488   (Fax) 




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] From Today's WSJ

2008-02-07 Thread Tom DeReggi
What this author so quickly forgets is, Spectrum is to serve the public 
interest not the treasury's pocket.
And the Public pays more, when the providers pay more for spectrum.
The auctiioon clearly will be a victory, if it means more than one or tow 
big companies get a peice.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Jeff Broadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:48 PM
Subject: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ



 REVIEW  OUTLOOK

 Purblind Auction
 February 7, 2008; Page A18

 The Federal Communications Commission is bragging about its latest 
 wireless
 auction, with total bids of more than $19 billion after two weeks. But dig
 beneath those numbers and the picture is less rosy.

 This wireless spectrum is on the market because of the transition to
 digital television broadcast. As of February 17, 2009, TVs without digital
 tuners or cable or satellite hook-ups will go dark, and a big swath of the
 airwaves will be free for other uses. This spectrum can transmit data over
 long distances and penetrates walls much better than most current wireless
 phone spectrum.
 [Kevin Martin]

 But FCC Chairman Kevin Martin wasn't content to sell this real estate to 
 the
 highest bidder. Instead, he embarked on a central-planning experiment,
 setting aside the two biggest blocks for special uses. The FCC's 
 procedures
 require blind, confidential bidding, so there is much about the auction 
 that
 we won't know until it wraps up. But it already seems clear that Mr.
 Martin's rules have damaged the value of otherwise choice spectrum and are
 harming the overall auction.

 For example, the FCC restricted the single biggest spectrum license for a
 public-private public safety partnership. The idea was that someone 
 would
 buy it to create a nationwide network for first responders -- fire and
 police departments and the like -- with secondary use as a commercial
 wireless network. But the main lobbyist for that spectrum, former FCC
 Chairman Reed Hundt's Frontline Wireless, closed up shop before the 
 auction
 began. So far, this so-called D block of spectrum has attracted exactly
 one bid in 40 rounds, and that bid is less than $500 million -- well below
 the FCC's $1.3 billion reserve price.

 The FCC designated the next-biggest block -- the C block -- for open
 access at the urging of Google, among others. The C block is not only
 large, but it divides the country into eight large regional groups, with 
 the
 possibility of bidding on all eight as a package. It should be a top 
 prize.
 But it only passed its $4.6 billion reserve price late last week, and the
 reason is almost certainly the FCC's open access rule. That rule 
 requires
 whoever wins to open the network to all compatible phones or software. If
 you're spending billions on spectrum and billions more building the 
 network,
 the fact that the feds might force you to share your network means greater
 investment risk.

 The bidding bears this out. Of the $19 billion bid so far, nearly
 three-quarters has gone toward the smaller bits of spectrum in the A, B 
 and
 E blocks. Building a national network by cobbling together hundreds of 
 these
 bits is inefficient and risky, and it doesn't serve consumers, who would 
 get
 faster service and more flexibility from the larger blocks.

 But there's more. The FCC made these small blocks to encourage start-ups 
 and
 new entrants to bid for a piece of the next-generation wireless pie. If 
 the
 conditions placed on the C and D blocks are driving the big established
 players into the smaller auctions, then the new, little guys may well be
 playing in the same sandbox with the big, bad incumbents.

 The FCC's previous experiments with rigging auctions also flopped; witness
 the NextWave bankruptcy, which tied up billions of dollars of spectrum for
 years. Mr. Martin will claim victory in the auction no matter what 
 happens.
 But what we'll never know is how much would have been bid -- and thus how
 much more the Treasury would have received -- if Mr. Martin had auctioned
 this spectrum without his favors for special interests attached.

 Jeff Broadwick
 Sales Manager, ImageStream
 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
 +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
 +1 574-935-8488   (Fax)



 
 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

[WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2007-02-16 Thread Jeff Broadwick
Note the Wireless portion of the growth from last year:


 REVIEW  OUTLOOK



Broadband Breakout
February 16, 2007; Page A14

I love the free market, but the fact is more concentration means less
competition, and these markets are less free than they should be. And this
Commission is about regulation -- regulators. I always worry a little when I
hear regulators shy away from regulation talk.

-- Senator Byron Dorgan (D., North Dakota) addressing members
of the Federal Communications Commission at a recent hearing.

If you're wondering where the new Democratic majority in Congress is
inclined to steer telecom policy, look no further than Mr. Dorgan's comment
above. Note how he pays lip service to free markets while ultimately
favoring more regulation for its own sake.

But more regulation is the last thing today's telecom industry needs, at
least if empirical evidence is any indication. As FCC Chairman Kevin Martin
reported at a Senate hearing earlier this month, the industry is now taking
risks in a way it hasn't since the tech bubble burst six years ago.

In 2006, the SP 500 telecommunications sector was the strongest performing
sector, up 32% over the previous year, said Mr. Martin. Markets and
companies are investing again, job creation in the industry is high, and in
almost all cases, vigorous competition -- resulting from free-market
deregulatory policies -- has provided the consumer with more, better and
cheaper services to choose from.

Much of this growth has been fueled by increased broadband deployment, which
makes high-speed Internet services possible. The latest government data show
that broadband connections increased by 26% in the first six months of 2006
and by 52% for the full year ending in June 2006.

Also noteworthy, notes telecom analyst Scott Cleland of the Precursor Group,
is that of the 11 million broadband additions in the first half of last
year, 15% were cable modems, 23% were digital-subscriber lines (DSL) and 58%
were of the wireless variety. Between June 2005 and June 2006, wireless
broadband subscriptions grew to 11 million from 380,000.

This gives the lie to claims that some sort of cable/DSL duopoly has
hampered competition among broadband providers and limited consumer options.
That's the charge of those who want network neutrality rules that would
allow the government to dictate what companies like Verizon and ATT can
charge users of their networks. But the reality is that the telecom industry
has taken advantage of this deregulatory environment to provide consumers
with more choices at lower prices. Verizon's capital investments since 2000
exceed $100 billion, and such competitors as Cingular, T-Mobile and Sprint
are following suit. So are the cable companies.

It's also worth noting that the deregulatory telecom policies pushed by Mr.
Martin and his immediate predecessor, Michael Powell, have accompanied a
wave of mergers -- SBC/ATT, Sprint/Nextel, Verizon/MCI, ATT/BellSouth.
Most of these marriages were opposed by consumer groups and other fans of
regulation on the grounds that they would lead to fewer choices and higher
costs. In fact, these combinations have created economies of scale, and
customers are clearly better off.

The result has been more high-speed connections, along with greater economic
productivity, but also an array of new services. The popular video-sharing
Web site YouTube is barely two years old. And it wouldn't exist today but
for the fact that there's enough broadband capacity to allow millions of
people to view videos over the Web.

Increased broadband demand has also been good news for Internet hardware
companies like Cisco and Juniper, where annual sales are up by nearly 50%. A
Journal report this week notes that North American telecom companies are
projected to spend $70 billion on new infrastructure this year, which is up
67% from 2003.

And prices are falling, by the way. Between February 2004 and December 2005,
the average monthly cost for home broadband fell nearly 8%. For DSL
subscribers, it fell nearly 20%. Which means that consumers are benefiting
from new services and different pricing packages, as well as getting better
deals.

The one sure way to stop these trends is by bogging down industry players
with regulations or price controls that raise the risk that these mammoth
investments will never pay off. Yet that seems to be the goal of Senator
Dorgan and other Democrats such as Representative Ed Markey, another Net
neutrality cheerleader, who is planning his own hearings. Consumers will
end up paying for such policies in fewer choices and higher prices.
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117159640486710826.html

Jeff Broadwick
Sales Manager, ImageStream
800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
+1 574-935-8488   (Fax) 


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: 

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2007-02-16 Thread Peter R.

Jeff,

Who wrote this?

One fact worth noting is the wireless number. It mostly means cellular.
Cellular is not a third competitor.

- Peter


Jeff Broadwick wrote:


Note the Wireless portion of the growth from last year:


REVIEW  OUTLOOK



Broadband Breakout
February 16, 2007; Page A14

I love the free market, but the fact is more concentration means less
competition, and these markets are less free than they should be. And this
Commission is about regulation -- regulators. I always worry a little when I
hear regulators shy away from regulation talk.

-- Senator Byron Dorgan (D., North Dakota) addressing members
of the Federal Communications Commission at a recent hearing.

If you're wondering where the new Democratic majority in Congress is
inclined to steer telecom policy, look no further than Mr. Dorgan's comment
above. Note how he pays lip service to free markets while ultimately
favoring more regulation for its own sake.

But more regulation is the last thing today's telecom industry needs, at
least if empirical evidence is any indication. As FCC Chairman Kevin Martin
reported at a Senate hearing earlier this month, the industry is now taking
risks in a way it hasn't since the tech bubble burst six years ago.

In 2006, the SP 500 telecommunications sector was the strongest performing
sector, up 32% over the previous year, said Mr. Martin. Markets and
companies are investing again, job creation in the industry is high, and in
almost all cases, vigorous competition -- resulting from free-market
deregulatory policies -- has provided the consumer with more, better and
cheaper services to choose from.

Much of this growth has been fueled by increased broadband deployment, which
makes high-speed Internet services possible. The latest government data show
that broadband connections increased by 26% in the first six months of 2006
and by 52% for the full year ending in June 2006.

Also noteworthy, notes telecom analyst Scott Cleland of the Precursor Group,
is that of the 11 million broadband additions in the first half of last
year, 15% were cable modems, 23% were digital-subscriber lines (DSL) and 58%
were of the wireless variety. Between June 2005 and June 2006, wireless
broadband subscriptions grew to 11 million from 380,000.

This gives the lie to claims that some sort of cable/DSL duopoly has
hampered competition among broadband providers and limited consumer options.
That's the charge of those who want network neutrality rules that would
allow the government to dictate what companies like Verizon and ATT can
charge users of their networks. But the reality is that the telecom industry
has taken advantage of this deregulatory environment to provide consumers
with more choices at lower prices. Verizon's capital investments since 2000
exceed $100 billion, and such competitors as Cingular, T-Mobile and Sprint
are following suit. So are the cable companies.

It's also worth noting that the deregulatory telecom policies pushed by Mr.
Martin and his immediate predecessor, Michael Powell, have accompanied a
wave of mergers -- SBC/ATT, Sprint/Nextel, Verizon/MCI, ATT/BellSouth.
Most of these marriages were opposed by consumer groups and other fans of
regulation on the grounds that they would lead to fewer choices and higher
costs. In fact, these combinations have created economies of scale, and
customers are clearly better off.

The result has been more high-speed connections, along with greater economic
productivity, but also an array of new services. The popular video-sharing
Web site YouTube is barely two years old. And it wouldn't exist today but
for the fact that there's enough broadband capacity to allow millions of
people to view videos over the Web.

Increased broadband demand has also been good news for Internet hardware
companies like Cisco and Juniper, where annual sales are up by nearly 50%. A
Journal report this week notes that North American telecom companies are
projected to spend $70 billion on new infrastructure this year, which is up
67% from 2003.

And prices are falling, by the way. Between February 2004 and December 2005,
the average monthly cost for home broadband fell nearly 8%. For DSL
subscribers, it fell nearly 20%. Which means that consumers are benefiting
from new services and different pricing packages, as well as getting better
deals.

The one sure way to stop these trends is by bogging down industry players
with regulations or price controls that raise the risk that these mammoth
investments will never pay off. Yet that seems to be the goal of Senator
Dorgan and other Democrats such as Representative Ed Markey, another Net
neutrality cheerleader, who is planning his own hearings. Consumers will
end up paying for such policies in fewer choices and higher prices.
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117159640486710826.html

Jeff Broadwick
Sales Manager, ImageStream
800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
+1 574-935-8488