Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread Glenn Kelley
Having pastored in the nations poorest city I would far from disagree with you.
Folks that should have never been able to have a home were given the ability to 
obtain loans - 
That is an understatement. 

The government has done all it can to push the idea that if you rent - your a 
failure
They have made it all to easy for folks to own a home -never even bothering 
to figure out if its a worthy cause.

Let's face it - Loans were written to people that made minimum wage - 
much like the first Credit card I was given with a 20K limit as a freshman in 
college without a job.

Perhaps we should take a step back and simply ask - Instead of Frannie and 
Freddy - perhaps The Government does not belong in the home ownership game. 
If you look at the price of the average home since 1890 until today - you will 
find that it appears at first to be a great investment. 
However - if you adjust that thinking with the rate of inflation - you would 
realize that for many - it is far from the American Dream... 
The Saga of Home ownership and real estate is really one of a relatively flat 
history - except for the past few years where folks were able to flip before 
the drop... (2006-2007)

Many people utilize their home as the ultimate credit card... 

They get locked into this pattern of either mortgaging to pay for their 
lifestyle - or... 
selling and getting bigger and better. 

Can anyone of us admit that we know so much about the real-estate market to 
play the odds?  
If so - then lets watch them @ the tables in Vegas for the WISPA event 

Anyhow - lets get back to the topic of the thread itself and the blog posting I 
actually posted... 

here it is in its glory (or lack there of ... links however are on the blog 
live ) 


Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates 
telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to 
oversee broadband.  FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he gave 
to the Free State Foundation asked:  (see First Do No Harm: A broadband plan 
for Amercia)
“Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory 
Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice application?” … “With 
this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t voice just another type 
of data app? As the distinction between network operators and application 
providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the government be 
able to keep up?”
Is Broadband able to be classified as a common carrier service?  The FCC most 
assuredly believes this is well within its authority – and is exercising these 
“policies” not just over the agency’s ability to regulate the NET – but if it 
can be classified as a common carrier service.
Comcast is suing the FCC over its Order sanctioning the company for P2P 
blocking – so their ability to “regulate” needs to be clearly defined – of 
course re-defining a government entity is not an easy task… however defining 
ISPs as common carriers would seem suited to the FCC’s purposes, especially if 
given Title II’s clear definition of what a common carrier can’t do:
“It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable 
discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, 
or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or 
indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or 
unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of 
persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or 
locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.”
McDowell stated, “At the same time, broadband companies create and maintain 
software with millions of lines of code inside their systems. They also own app 
stores that are seamlessly connected to their networks. As technology advances, 
will the government be able to make the distinctions between applications and 
networks necessary under a new regulatory regime?…  Will it (the government) be 
able to do so in Internet Time?”
One thing is clear -  If we were able to agree on some basic tenets providers 
could utilize to ensure all accounts are serviceable based upon not only 
“bandwidth” but also “throughput”  most of these arguments would simply be a 
mute point.
This past October (2009) The FCC laid out its draft for network neutrality 
rules which appears to allow to the greater extent a “free and open Internet.”  
The principles already existing from 2005:
Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice
Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, 
subject to the needs of law enforcement
Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not 
harm the network
Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and 
service providers, and content providers.
Those principles along with two new additional principles are 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread Mike
Jack, I actually had a biology professor who really believed in live and
let die.  He didn't believe in sending foreign aid to those countries not
able to grow enough food to sustain themselves.  He also subscribed heavily
to the Monroe Doctrine.

 

Mike

 

  _  

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:48 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

 

Just keep saying to yourself. 

1. Overpopulation is good. 

2  Political corruption does not exist. 

Good luck and best wishes. ;-) 

jack


RickG wrote: 

Jack, make that two trolls :)
 
With all due respect, isnt that exactly how liberals respond to conservative
claims - by demonizing them? Marks comments were spot on and I couldnt have
said them any better, so I'm resending them with my name on the end. I
respect your right to your viewpoint but I hope you have data to support the
claims. I know the the data is there for the more conservative claims. So,
just in case you hit delete:
 
Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government
rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce,
except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a
department of education, federal welfare, and millions upon millions of
pages of regulations that covered everything from our toilet tank size to
the tags on your mattress.
 
It is precisely and amazingly preposterous to think that we could not
possibly do without this massive nanny state that's threatening to consume
nearly 35% of everything produced, and directly control over 1/2 of every
dollar earned in this country.Your statement is utterly insulting to all
of us.Not only can we live without the federal government's nose in
everything we do, we would be MUCH better off if it were so.   To tell me
that  I and all of the rest of us are incapable of survival without massive
intrusion into our lives by politicians in Washington DC is an insult that
is simply not forgivable in the common realm.
 
Not only could we do without 80% of all the agencies, we could do without
90% of all the millions of pages of rules and laws.   We could not only do
without, we would be healthier, happier, wealthier, and more responsible if
it were so.
 
Your comment has slipped over the edge from simple discussion of the merits
of federal actions vs our businesses and how we earn a living, to a blind
ideological fantasy, where all comes from Washington DC.These things we
expect from Politicians... they are by nature self serving...   But why from
you?
 
-RickG
 
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Jack Unger  mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com
jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:
 
  

 Sorry Mark,
 
I truly appreciate and enjoy responding to all appropriate and responsible
posts but your LONG HISTORY of troll behavior will FOREVER elicit the same
response from me.
 
I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the
troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll.
 
 
 
MDK wrote:
 
Jack, it remains very  difficult to be civil, when you post this kind of
stuff.
 
Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government
rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce,
except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a
department of education, federal welfare, and millions upon millions of
pages of regulations that covered everything from our toilet tank size to
the tags on your mattress.
 
It is precisely and amazingly preposterous to think that we could not
possibly do without this massive nanny state that's threatening to consume
nearly 35% of everything produced, and directly control over 1/2 of every
dollar earned in this country.Your statement is utterly insulting to all
of us.Not only can we live without the federal government's nose in
everything we do, we would be MUCH better off if it were so.   To tell me
that  I and all of the rest of us are incapable of survival without massive
intrusion into our lives by politicians in Washington DC is an insult that
is simply not forgivable in the common realm.
 
Not only could we do without 80% of all the agencies, we could do without
90% of all the millions of pages of rules and laws.   We could not only do
without, we would be healthier, happier, wealthier, and more responsible if
it were so.
 
Your comment has slipped over the edge from simple discussion of the merits
of federal actions vs our businesses and how we earn a living, to a blind
ideological fantasy, where all comes from Washington DC.These things we
expect from Politicians... they are by nature self serving...   But why from
you?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
From: Jack Unger  mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com jun...@ask-wi.com
mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com jun...@ask-wi.com
Sent: 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread Jeff Broadwick
1.  Define overpopulation?  I saw some numbers once that the entire
world's population could have a nice size house on a decent piece of
property in Texas...can't imagine the infrastructure requirements, but
whatever.
 
2.  Political corruption is a reality in any system.  It's the best argument
for term limits.  Personally, I'd like to see the personal limits on
contributions removed and make campaigns post their contributions on the
internet.  6-7 rich guys financed McGovern's campaign before all the
post-Watergate regulations. 
 

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: Friday, February 05, 2010 12:48 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality


Just keep saying to yourself. 

1. Overpopulation is good. 

2  Political corruption does not exist. 

Good luck and best wishes. ;-) 

jack


RickG wrote: 

Jack, make that two trolls :)



With all due respect, isnt that exactly how liberals respond to conservative

claims - by demonizing them? Marks comments were spot on and I couldnt have

said them any better, so I'm resending them with my name on the end. I

respect your right to your viewpoint but I hope you have data to support the

claims. I know the the data is there for the more conservative claims. So,

just in case you hit delete:



Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government

rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce,

except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a

department of education, federal welfare, and millions upon millions of

pages of regulations that covered everything from our toilet tank size to

the tags on your mattress.



It is precisely and amazingly preposterous to think that we could not

possibly do without this massive nanny state that's threatening to consume

nearly 35% of everything produced, and directly control over 1/2 of every

dollar earned in this country.Your statement is utterly insulting to all

of us.Not only can we live without the federal government's nose in

everything we do, we would be MUCH better off if it were so.   To tell me

that  I and all of the rest of us are incapable of survival without massive

intrusion into our lives by politicians in Washington DC is an insult that

is simply not forgivable in the common realm.



Not only could we do without 80% of all the agencies, we could do without

90% of all the millions of pages of rules and laws.   We could not only do

without, we would be healthier, happier, wealthier, and more responsible if

it were so.



Your comment has slipped over the edge from simple discussion of the merits

of federal actions vs our businesses and how we earn a living, to a blind

ideological fantasy, where all comes from Washington DC.These things we

expect from Politicians... they are by nature self serving...   But why from

you?



-RickG



On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Jack Unger  mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com
jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:



  

 Sorry Mark,



I truly appreciate and enjoy responding to all appropriate and responsible

posts but your LONG HISTORY of troll behavior will FOREVER elicit the same

response from me.



I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the

troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll.







MDK wrote:



Jack, it remains very  difficult to be civil, when you post this kind of

stuff.



Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government

rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce,

except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a

department of education, federal welfare, and millions upon millions of

pages of regulations that covered everything from our toilet tank size to

the tags on your mattress.



It is precisely and amazingly preposterous to think that we could not

possibly do without this massive nanny state that's threatening to consume

nearly 35% of everything produced, and directly control over 1/2 of every

dollar earned in this country.Your statement is utterly insulting to all

of us.Not only can we live without the federal government's nose in

everything we do, we would be MUCH better off if it were so.   To tell me

that  I and all of the rest of us are incapable of survival without massive

intrusion into our lives by politicians in Washington DC is an insult that

is simply not forgivable in the common realm.



Not only could we do without 80% of all the agencies, we could do without

90% of all the millions of pages of rules and laws.   We could not only do

without, we would be healthier, happier, wealthier, and more responsible if

it were so.



Your comment has slipped over the edge 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread Robert West
I love it that they had the FCC step in to stop the consumer protest and
declare...

to purposely try to disrupt or negatively impact a network with ill-intent
is irresponsible and presents a significant public safety concern.

Such BS.  Isn't any large protest a potential safety concern?  

I'm now off to cover myself in bubble wrap.  One can't be too safe, ya know.

Bob-


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Eje Gustafsson
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 1:00 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

LOL makes me recall article I read earlier tonight. 
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-04/at-t-s-iphone-deal-swamps-networ
k-sparking-consumer-rebellion.html

/ Eje

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Robert West
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:37 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

And me and my pack of highly trained Wispa Ninja warriors will be waiting
for them to thwart their plans of conquest!

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:01 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

 

So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance
companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to
do it.

BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh 


Frank Crawford wrote: 

YES
 
Jack Unger wrote:
  

I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you 
support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown 
it in a bathtub?
 
Glenn Kelley wrote:
  


Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates
telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to
oversee broadband.  FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he
gave to the Free State Foundation asked:  (see First Do No Harm: A broadband
plan for Amercia)
Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory
Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application? . With
this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just another
type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and
application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the
government be able to keep up?
 
 
Much more on the blog:   www.HostMedic.com -- 

_
Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com 
  Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
 
 
 


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/
 
 
  





-- 
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 today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/






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


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




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

 
WISPA Wireless 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread Eje Gustafsson
Yeah I got a kick out of that article and to see the discussion re FCC and
net-neutrality and FCC probes in anticompetive behavior and application
prohibitations for the Iphone et all. Then to find out that this rebellion
was planned but FCC worked to stopped it. 

Stay safe. Don't get out of bed. It's dangerous to drive, dangerous to walk
on the streets, dangerous to operate your electronics and irresponsible to
talk on the cellphone someone that might need to make an important phone
call to might not be able to.. So just stay in bed, don't touch that
cellphone, landline phone OR your laptop... Ohh there might be dangerous
lights emitting from your TV so do not turn it on either. 

Now where did I put my foil hat. Darn weather radars and satellite signals
are getting to me today Might need more foil

/ Eje

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Robert West
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 8:55 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

I love it that they had the FCC step in to stop the consumer protest and
declare...

to purposely try to disrupt or negatively impact a network with ill-intent
is irresponsible and presents a significant public safety concern.

Such BS.  Isn't any large protest a potential safety concern?  

I'm now off to cover myself in bubble wrap.  One can't be too safe, ya know.

Bob-


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Eje Gustafsson
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 1:00 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

LOL makes me recall article I read earlier tonight. 
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-04/at-t-s-iphone-deal-swamps-networ
k-sparking-consumer-rebellion.html

/ Eje

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Robert West
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:37 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

And me and my pack of highly trained Wispa Ninja warriors will be waiting
for them to thwart their plans of conquest!

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:01 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

 

So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance
companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to
do it.

BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh 


Frank Crawford wrote: 

YES
 
Jack Unger wrote:
  

I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you 
support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown 
it in a bathtub?
 
Glenn Kelley wrote:
  


Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates
telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to
oversee broadband.  FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he
gave to the Free State Foundation asked:  (see First Do No Harm: A broadband
plan for Amercia)
Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory
Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application? . With
this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just another
type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and
application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the
government be able to keep up?
 
 
Much more on the blog:   www.HostMedic.com -- 

_
Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com 
  Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
 
 
 


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/
 
 
  





-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread RickG
Jack, The only companies that can do whatever they want to you whenever
they want to do it are the ones given a monopoly and power by guess who -
big government! So, where is the problem? Is it the companies or the
government?

On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:

  So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance
 companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to
 do it.

 BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh


 Frank Crawford wrote:

 YES

 Jack Unger wrote:


  I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you
 support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown
 it in a bathtub?

 Glenn Kelley wrote:



  Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates 
 telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to 
 oversee broadband.  FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he gave 
 to the Free State Foundation asked:  (see First Do No Harm: A broadband plan 
 for Amercia)
 “Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory 
 Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice application?” … “With 
 this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t voice just another 
 type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and 
 application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the 
 government be able to keep up?”


 Much more on the blog:   www.HostMedic.com --
 _
 Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com
   Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
 Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.



 
 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/



 --
 Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
 Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
 Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 
 1993www.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/




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] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread RickG
1. And God said Go and multiply.
2. Did I miss something? Nobody has said that where I can see.

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:

  Just keep saying to yourself.

 1. Overpopulation is good.

 2  Political corruption does not exist.

 Good luck and best wishes. ;-)

 jack


 RickG wrote:

 Jack, make that two trolls :)

 With all due respect, isnt that exactly how liberals respond to conservative
 claims - by demonizing them? Marks comments were spot on and I couldnt have
 said them any better, so I'm resending them with my name on the end. I
 respect your right to your viewpoint but I hope you have data to support the
 claims. I know the the data is there for the more conservative claims. So,
 just in case you hit delete:

 Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government
 rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce,
 except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a
 department of education, federal welfare, and millions upon millions of
 pages of regulations that covered everything from our toilet tank size to
 the tags on your mattress.

 It is precisely and amazingly preposterous to think that we could not
 possibly do without this massive nanny state that's threatening to consume
 nearly 35% of everything produced, and directly control over 1/2 of every
 dollar earned in this country.Your statement is utterly insulting to all
 of us.Not only can we live without the federal government's nose in
 everything we do, we would be MUCH better off if it were so.   To tell me
 that  I and all of the rest of us are incapable of survival without massive
 intrusion into our lives by politicians in Washington DC is an insult that
 is simply not forgivable in the common realm.

 Not only could we do without 80% of all the agencies, we could do without
 90% of all the millions of pages of rules and laws.   We could not only do
 without, we would be healthier, happier, wealthier, and more responsible if
 it were so.

 Your comment has slipped over the edge from simple discussion of the merits
 of federal actions vs our businesses and how we earn a living, to a blind
 ideological fantasy, where all comes from Washington DC.These things we
 expect from Politicians... they are by nature self serving...   But why from
 you?

 -RickG

 On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com 
 jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:



   Sorry Mark,

 I truly appreciate and enjoy responding to all appropriate and responsible
 posts but your LONG HISTORY of troll behavior will FOREVER elicit the same
 response from me.

 I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the
 troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll.



 MDK wrote:

 Jack, it remains very  difficult to be civil, when you post this kind of
 stuff.

 Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government
 rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce,
 except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a
 department of education, federal welfare, and millions upon millions of
 pages of regulations that covered everything from our toilet tank size to
 the tags on your mattress.

 It is precisely and amazingly preposterous to think that we could not
 possibly do without this massive nanny state that's threatening to consume
 nearly 35% of everything produced, and directly control over 1/2 of every
 dollar earned in this country.Your statement is utterly insulting to all
 of us.Not only can we live without the federal government's nose in
 everything we do, we would be MUCH better off if it were so.   To tell me
 that  I and all of the rest of us are incapable of survival without massive
 intrusion into our lives by politicians in Washington DC is an insult that
 is simply not forgivable in the common realm.

 Not only could we do without 80% of all the agencies, we could do without
 90% of all the millions of pages of rules and laws.   We could not only do
 without, we would be healthier, happier, wealthier, and more responsible if
 it were so.

 Your comment has slipped over the edge from simple discussion of the merits
 of federal actions vs our businesses and how we earn a living, to a blind
 ideological fantasy, where all comes from Washington DC.These things we
 expect from Politicians... they are by nature self serving...   But why from
 you?







 --
 
 From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com jun...@ask-wi.com 
 jun...@ask-wi.com jun...@ask-wi.com
 Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 2:48 PM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org wireless@wispa.org 
 wireless@wispa.org wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation 
 ofnet-neutrality Brad,


  There is really only one way to get a smaller government without
 throwing society into 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread Chuck Bartosch

On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 make campaigns post their contributions on the
 internet. 

That's already available if the donation is over $99.

Chuck







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] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread Chuck Bartosch

On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:34 AM, RickG wrote:

 Jack, The only companies that can do whatever they want to you whenever
 they want to do it are the ones given a monopoly and power by guess who -
 big government! So, where is the problem? Is it the companies or the
 government?

That statement completely ignores history. The tendency of any unconstrained 
capitalist is to form a monopoly. Hell, *I'd* do it if I could ;-). And 
unconstrained capitalism that achieves a monopoly rarely acts in its customers 
own best interests.

If nothing else, it's in our society's interest to prevent monopolies because 
innovation stagnates in a monoploy situation.

Some restraint by government is necessary to keep the system from damaging 
itself. Part of your argument is specious since by definition once government 
restrains most monopolies, the only ones left are the ones it allows (but 
there's no real content in that statement). There are very few created 
monopolies (mail still and phones from a long time ago being two of them).

Chuck


 
 On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:
 
 So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance
 companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to
 do it.
 
 BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh
 
 
 Frank Crawford wrote:
 
 YES
 
 Jack Unger wrote:
 
 
 I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you
 support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown
 it in a bathtub?
 
 Glenn Kelley wrote:
 
 
 
 Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates 
 telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to 
 oversee broadband.  FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he 
 gave to the Free State Foundation asked:  (see First Do No Harm: A broadband 
 plan for Amercia)
 “Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory 
 Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice application?” … “With 
 this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t voice just another 
 type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and 
 application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the 
 government be able to keep up?”
 
 
 Much more on the blog:   www.HostMedic.com --
 _
 Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com
  Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
 Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
 
 
 
 
 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/
 
 
 
 --
 Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
 Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
 Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 
 1993www.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/
 
 
 
 
 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/

--
Chuck Bartosch
Clarity Connect, Inc.
200 Pleasant Grove Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 257-8268

When the stars threw down their spears,
and water'd heaven with their tears,
Did He smile, His work to see?
Did He who made the Lamb make thee?

From William Blake's Tiger!, Tiger!






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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread Matt Liotta

On Feb 5, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Chuck Bartosch wrote:

 That statement completely ignores history. The tendency of any unconstrained 
 capitalist is to form a monopoly. Hell, *I'd* do it if I could ;-). And 
 unconstrained capitalism that achieves a monopoly rarely acts in its 
 customers own best interests.
 
 If nothing else, it's in our society's interest to prevent monopolies because 
 innovation stagnates in a monoploy situation.
 
It should be every capitalist desire to become a monopolist. The government's 
role should be to encourage businesses to innovate and grow towards being a 
monopoly while hoping the market has sufficient competition to stop that 
ultimate result. If not, then step in to prevent the monopoly from abusing its 
position. The government must only set the rules of the game and ensure market 
fairness through their rules. The government shouldn't participate in the 
market either with its own entity or by picking winners and losers through its 
actions.

-Matt





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] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread Chuck Bartosch
Yep, I agree with your statement (which was well put).

Chuck

On Feb 5, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Matt Liotta wrote:

 
 On Feb 5, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Chuck Bartosch wrote:
 
 That statement completely ignores history. The tendency of any unconstrained 
 capitalist is to form a monopoly. Hell, *I'd* do it if I could ;-). And 
 unconstrained capitalism that achieves a monopoly rarely acts in its 
 customers own best interests.
 
 If nothing else, it's in our society's interest to prevent monopolies 
 because innovation stagnates in a monoploy situation.
 
 It should be every capitalist desire to become a monopolist. The government's 
 role should be to encourage businesses to innovate and grow towards being a 
 monopoly while hoping the market has sufficient competition to stop that 
 ultimate result. If not, then step in to prevent the monopoly from abusing 
 its position. The government must only set the rules of the game and ensure 
 market fairness through their rules. The government shouldn't participate in 
 the market either with its own entity or by picking winners and losers 
 through its actions.
 
 -Matt
 
 
 
 
 
 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/

--
Chuck Bartosch
Clarity Connect, Inc.
200 Pleasant Grove Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 257-8268

When the stars threw down their spears,
and water'd heaven with their tears,
Did He smile, His work to see?
Did He who made the Lamb make thee?

From William Blake's Tiger!, Tiger!






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] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread Jack Unger
Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 1.  Define overpopulation?  I saw some numbers once that the entire
 world's population could have a nice size house on a decent piece of
 property in Texas...can't imagine the infrastructure requirements, but
 whatever.
   
What was your number-cruncher smoking?
  
 2.  Political corruption is a reality in any system.  
Well, were certainly seeing what political corruption has done to OUR 
system. Rather than just accept it, I'd rather try to eliminate it 
through public funding of all political campaigns.
 It's the best argument
 for term limits.  Personally, I'd like to see the personal limits on
 contributions removed and make campaigns post their contributions on the
 internet.  6-7 rich guys financed McGovern's campaign before all the
 post-Watergate regulations. 
  

 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: Friday, February 05, 2010 12:48 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
 net-neutrality


 Just keep saying to yourself. 

 1. Overpopulation is good. 

 2  Political corruption does not exist. 

 Good luck and best wishes. ;-) 

 jack


 RickG wrote: 

 Jack, make that two trolls :)



 With all due respect, isnt that exactly how liberals respond to conservative

 claims - by demonizing them? Marks comments were spot on and I couldnt have

 said them any better, so I'm resending them with my name on the end. I

 respect your right to your viewpoint but I hope you have data to support the

 claims. I know the the data is there for the more conservative claims. So,

 just in case you hit delete:



 Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government

 rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce,

 except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a

 department of education, federal welfare, and millions upon millions of

 pages of regulations that covered everything from our toilet tank size to

 the tags on your mattress.



 It is precisely and amazingly preposterous to think that we could not

 possibly do without this massive nanny state that's threatening to consume

 nearly 35% of everything produced, and directly control over 1/2 of every

 dollar earned in this country.Your statement is utterly insulting to all

 of us.Not only can we live without the federal government's nose in

 everything we do, we would be MUCH better off if it were so.   To tell me

 that  I and all of the rest of us are incapable of survival without massive

 intrusion into our lives by politicians in Washington DC is an insult that

 is simply not forgivable in the common realm.



 Not only could we do without 80% of all the agencies, we could do without

 90% of all the millions of pages of rules and laws.   We could not only do

 without, we would be healthier, happier, wealthier, and more responsible if

 it were so.



 Your comment has slipped over the edge from simple discussion of the merits

 of federal actions vs our businesses and how we earn a living, to a blind

 ideological fantasy, where all comes from Washington DC.These things we

 expect from Politicians... they are by nature self serving...   But why from

 you?



 -RickG



 On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Jack Unger  mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com
 jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:



   

  Sorry Mark,



 I truly appreciate and enjoy responding to all appropriate and responsible

 posts but your LONG HISTORY of troll behavior will FOREVER elicit the same

 response from me.



 I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the

 troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll.







 MDK wrote:



 Jack, it remains very  difficult to be civil, when you post this kind of

 stuff.



 Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government

 rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce,

 except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a

 department of education, federal welfare, and millions upon millions of

 pages of regulations that covered everything from our toilet tank size to

 the tags on your mattress.



 It is precisely and amazingly preposterous to think that we could not

 possibly do without this massive nanny state that's threatening to consume

 nearly 35% of everything produced, and directly control over 1/2 of every

 dollar earned in this country.Your statement is utterly insulting to all

 of us.Not only can we live without the federal government's nose in

 everything we do, we would be MUCH better off if it were so.   To tell me

 that  I and all of the rest of us are incapable of survival without massive

 intrusion into our lives by politicians in Washington DC is 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread Jack Unger
Good points.

When I have to choose between guns (war) or butter (peace), I'll choose 
the butter.



Robert West wrote:
 Life, Liberty, Property.

 Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us.  

 For the common defense.

 It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For the
 government. As long as there are greedy people and the what about mine?
 thinkers, it won't get any better.

 As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war tax and
 the draft.  Now hear me out on this

 Are we at war?  Where?  I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or form.
 Not directly anyhow.  So it continues to zap the life out of this country.
 We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever without
 much thought from those of us out here trying to live our lives and put food
 on the table and pay for the folly of it all.  

 If we had a war tax and kids were being drafted, we'd all be involved, more
 commonly polarized and I guarantee you we wouldn't be pouring billions every
 month down useless well.

 Just my crazy thoughts.

 Bob-







 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Brad Belton
 Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:38 PM
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
 net-neutrality

 Jack,

  

 Your police analogy is flawed.  

  

 While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of a
 larger population it does not take a larger government body with increased
 invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively.  A larger population
 requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are
 applied to all regardless of the size of population.

  

 Agreed, the more people that give up and begin to simply depend on the
 government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country)
 becomes.  This is exactly what big government wants; the people to become
 more dependent on them.  The more dependent the people become on big
 government the more power they have over your life and the fewer freedoms
 you enjoy.

  

 Why is it that so many small businesses exist?  They exist partly because
 they can provide a better service/price than the big guys.  Wireless
 providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors open)
 exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and acted
 upon.  Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government stays
 out of it.  I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big Telco's
 charge the better my business does!

  

 What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending?  GM
 is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were forced to take
 TARP haven't changed and many have repaid TARP to get the government out of
 their business.  Is it such a bad thing to own and operate a small business
 with no long term debt?  Sure, it makes getting the company off the ground
 that much harder, but it also creates a personal investment and commitment
 by the proprietor beyond any cash infusion.

  

 Unemployment is nearing record highs as those (evil guys) that employ people
 weather the storm of uncertainty.  People are losing their homes.many of
 which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if it
 were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers.

  

 I can go on, but I get the feeling none of this makes any sense to you,
 Jack.  That's fine with me.there are those that do and those that.I don't
 know.just coast along I guess?

  

 Best,

  

  

 Brad

  

 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 7:55 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
 net-neutrality

  

 Brad, 

 You are misunderstanding or ignoring what I've been saying so let's try it
 again. 

 When you have more people crowded into the same space your are going to have
 more frequent and more complex problems, including more fighting over the
 available amount of resources. Like it or not, attempting to maintain order
 is expected of government, be it large or small government. A two-person
 police force is expected to be able to maintain order in a tiny community
 and a 10,000 person police force is expected to be able to maintain order in
 a large city. A two-person (small government) police force will not be able
 to maintain order in New York or Los Angeles. Socialism (however that is
 defined or mis-defined)  has nothing to do with this basic dynamic. 

 America was built by hard-working people who thrived within the limited
 government framework that the founding fathers provided. Unfortunately
 today, 99% of the working people have lost or given up their power to govern
 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread Mike
Oh I agree wholeheartedly with the belief election reform is needed.  A
taxpayer funded system with a set, and sensible budget would keep the well
funded from swaying the electorate and becoming beholding to special
interests.  

Term limits for all congressional seats should be set at 6 years. 

What is the dollar check off for on our Federal Tax return?

Mike

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:20 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 1.  Define overpopulation?  I saw some numbers once that the entire
 world's population could have a nice size house on a decent piece of
 property in Texas...can't imagine the infrastructure requirements, but
 whatever.
   
What was your number-cruncher smoking?
  
 2.  Political corruption is a reality in any system.  
Well, were certainly seeing what political corruption has done to OUR 
system. Rather than just accept it, I'd rather try to eliminate it 
through public funding of all political campaigns.
 It's the best argument
 for term limits.  Personally, I'd like to see the personal limits on
 contributions removed and make campaigns post their contributions on the
 internet.  6-7 rich guys financed McGovern's campaign before all the
 post-Watergate regulations. 
  

 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: Friday, February 05, 2010 12:48 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation
of
 net-neutrality


 Just keep saying to yourself. 

 1. Overpopulation is good. 

 2  Political corruption does not exist. 

 Good luck and best wishes. ;-) 

 jack


 RickG wrote: 

 Jack, make that two trolls :)



 With all due respect, isnt that exactly how liberals respond to
conservative

 claims - by demonizing them? Marks comments were spot on and I couldnt
have

 said them any better, so I'm resending them with my name on the end. I

 respect your right to your viewpoint but I hope you have data to support
the

 claims. I know the the data is there for the more conservative claims. So,

 just in case you hit delete:



 Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government

 rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce,

 except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a

 department of education, federal welfare, and millions upon millions of

 pages of regulations that covered everything from our toilet tank size to

 the tags on your mattress.



 It is precisely and amazingly preposterous to think that we could not

 possibly do without this massive nanny state that's threatening to
consume

 nearly 35% of everything produced, and directly control over 1/2 of every

 dollar earned in this country.Your statement is utterly insulting to
all

 of us.Not only can we live without the federal government's nose in

 everything we do, we would be MUCH better off if it were so.   To tell me

 that  I and all of the rest of us are incapable of survival without
massive

 intrusion into our lives by politicians in Washington DC is an insult that

 is simply not forgivable in the common realm.



 Not only could we do without 80% of all the agencies, we could do without

 90% of all the millions of pages of rules and laws.   We could not only do

 without, we would be healthier, happier, wealthier, and more responsible
if

 it were so.



 Your comment has slipped over the edge from simple discussion of the
merits

 of federal actions vs our businesses and how we earn a living, to a blind

 ideological fantasy, where all comes from Washington DC.These things
we

 expect from Politicians... they are by nature self serving...   But why
from

 you?



 -RickG



 On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Jack Unger  mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com
 jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:



   

  Sorry Mark,



 I truly appreciate and enjoy responding to all appropriate and responsible

 posts but your LONG HISTORY of troll behavior will FOREVER elicit the same

 response from me.



 I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the

 troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll.







 MDK wrote:



 Jack, it remains very  difficult to be civil, when you post this kind of

 stuff.



 Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government

 rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce,

 except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a

 department of education, federal welfare, and millions upon millions of

 pages of regulations that covered everything from our 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread Brad Belton
I would hope everyone would choose peace over war, but history has proven
since the beginning of time that peace is achieved through war.  

Without a clearly defined Winner and Loser of war there will never be
peace.


Brad


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:28 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

Good points.

When I have to choose between guns (war) or butter (peace), I'll choose 
the butter.



Robert West wrote:
 Life, Liberty, Property.

 Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us.  

 For the common defense.

 It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For the
 government. As long as there are greedy people and the what about mine?
 thinkers, it won't get any better.

 As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war tax
and
 the draft.  Now hear me out on this

 Are we at war?  Where?  I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or
form.
 Not directly anyhow.  So it continues to zap the life out of this country.
 We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever without
 much thought from those of us out here trying to live our lives and put
food
 on the table and pay for the folly of it all.  

 If we had a war tax and kids were being drafted, we'd all be involved,
more
 commonly polarized and I guarantee you we wouldn't be pouring billions
every
 month down useless well.

 Just my crazy thoughts.

 Bob-







 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Brad Belton
 Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:38 PM
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation
of
 net-neutrality

 Jack,

  

 Your police analogy is flawed.  

  

 While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of
a
 larger population it does not take a larger government body with increased
 invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively.  A larger
population
 requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are
 applied to all regardless of the size of population.

  

 Agreed, the more people that give up and begin to simply depend on the
 government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country)
 becomes.  This is exactly what big government wants; the people to become
 more dependent on them.  The more dependent the people become on big
 government the more power they have over your life and the fewer freedoms
 you enjoy.

  

 Why is it that so many small businesses exist?  They exist partly because
 they can provide a better service/price than the big guys.  Wireless
 providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors
open)
 exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and
acted
 upon.  Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government
stays
 out of it.  I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big Telco's
 charge the better my business does!

  

 What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending?  GM
 is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were forced to
take
 TARP haven't changed and many have repaid TARP to get the government out
of
 their business.  Is it such a bad thing to own and operate a small
business
 with no long term debt?  Sure, it makes getting the company off the ground
 that much harder, but it also creates a personal investment and commitment
 by the proprietor beyond any cash infusion.

  

 Unemployment is nearing record highs as those (evil guys) that employ
people
 weather the storm of uncertainty.  People are losing their homes.many of
 which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if
it
 were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers.

  

 I can go on, but I get the feeling none of this makes any sense to you,
 Jack.  That's fine with me.there are those that do and those that.I don't
 know.just coast along I guess?

  

 Best,

  

  

 Brad

  

 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 7:55 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation
of
 net-neutrality

  

 Brad, 

 You are misunderstanding or ignoring what I've been saying so let's try it
 again. 

 When you have more people crowded into the same space your are going to
have
 more frequent and more complex problems, including more fighting over the
 available amount of resources. Like it or not, attempting to maintain
order
 is expected of government, be it large or small government. A two-person
 police force is expected to be able to maintain order in a tiny community
 and a 10,000 person 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread Jack Unger




Your statement is true when there is NOT enough food, clothing or
shelter for everybody. 

But when there IS enough food, clothing and shelter for everybody,
there is no need for war in order to achieve temporary "peace". 

This is why overpopulation is so bad - it creates war and makes real
peace impossible. 

jack


Brad Belton wrote:

  I would hope everyone would choose peace over war, but history has proven
since the beginning of time that peace is achieved through war.  

Without a clearly defined "Winner" and "Loser" of war there will never be
peace.


Brad


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:28 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

Good points.

When I have to choose between guns (war) or butter (peace), I'll choose 
the butter.



Robert West wrote:
  
  
Life, Liberty, Property.

Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us.  

For the common defense.

It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For the
government. As long as there are greedy people and the "what about mine?"
thinkers, it won't get any better.

As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war tax

  
  and
  
  
the draft.  Now hear me out on this

Are we at war?  Where?  I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or

  
  form.
  
  
Not directly anyhow.  So it continues to zap the life out of this country.
We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever without
much thought from those of us out here trying to live our lives and put

  
  food
  
  
on the table and pay for the folly of it all.  

If we had a war tax and kids were being drafted, we'd all be involved,

  
  more
  
  
commonly polarized and I guarantee you we wouldn't be pouring billions

  
  every
  
  
month down useless well.

Just my crazy thoughts.

Bob-







-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Brad Belton
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:38 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation

  
  of
  
  
net-neutrality

Jack,

 

Your police analogy is flawed.  

 

While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of

  
  a
  
  
larger population it does not take a larger government body with increased
invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively.  A larger

  
  population
  
  
requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are
applied to all regardless of the size of population.

 

Agreed, the more people that "give up" and begin to simply depend on the
government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country)
becomes.  This is exactly what big government wants; the people to become
more dependent on them.  The more dependent the people become on big
government the more power they have over your life and the fewer freedoms
you enjoy.

 

Why is it that so many small businesses exist?  They exist partly because
they can provide a better service/price than the "big guys".  Wireless
providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors

  
  open)
  
  
exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and

  
  acted
  
  
upon.  Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government

  
  stays
  
  
out of it.  I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big Telco's
charge the better my business does!

 

What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending?  GM
is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were forced to

  
  take
  
  
TARP haven't changed and many have repaid TARP to get the government out

  
  of
  
  
their business.  Is it such a bad thing to own and operate a small

  
  business
  
  
with no long term debt?  Sure, it makes getting the company off the ground
that much harder, but it also creates a personal investment and commitment
by the proprietor beyond any cash infusion.

 

Unemployment is nearing record highs as those (evil guys) that employ

  
  people
  
  
weather the storm of uncertainty.  People are losing their homes.many of
which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if

  
  it
  
  
were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers.

 

I can go on, but I get the feeling none of this makes any sense to you,
Jack.  That's fine with me.there are those that do and those that.I don't
know.just coast along I guess?

 

Best,

 

 

Brad

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 7:55 PM
To: 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread Jeff Broadwick
C'mon Jack, war is about trying to accumulate power, not get rid of excess
people.
 

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: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:35 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality


Your statement is true when there is NOT enough food, clothing or shelter
for everybody. 

But when there IS enough food, clothing and shelter for everybody, there is
no need for war in order to achieve temporary peace. 

This is why overpopulation is so bad - it creates war and makes real peace
impossible. 

jack


Brad Belton wrote: 

I would hope everyone would choose peace over war, but history has proven

since the beginning of time that peace is achieved through war.  



Without a clearly defined Winner and Loser of war there will never be

peace.





Brad





-Original Message-

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

Behalf Of Jack Unger

Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:28 AM

To: WISPA General List

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of

net-neutrality



Good points.



When I have to choose between guns (war) or butter (peace), I'll choose 

the butter.







Robert West wrote:

  

Life, Liberty, Property.



Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us.  



For the common defense.



It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For the

government. As long as there are greedy people and the what about mine?

thinkers, it won't get any better.



As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war tax



and

  

the draft.  Now hear me out on this



Are we at war?  Where?  I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or



form.

  

Not directly anyhow.  So it continues to zap the life out of this country.

We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever without

much thought from those of us out here trying to live our lives and put



food

  

on the table and pay for the folly of it all.  



If we had a war tax and kids were being drafted, we'd all be involved,



more

  

commonly polarized and I guarantee you we wouldn't be pouring billions



every

  

month down useless well.



Just my crazy thoughts.



Bob-















-Original Message-

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

Behalf Of Brad Belton

Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:38 PM

To: 'WISPA General List'

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation



of

  

net-neutrality



Jack,



 



Your police analogy is flawed.  



 



While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of



a

  

larger population it does not take a larger government body with increased

invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively.  A larger



population

  

requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are

applied to all regardless of the size of population.



 



Agreed, the more people that give up and begin to simply depend on the

government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country)

becomes.  This is exactly what big government wants; the people to become

more dependent on them.  The more dependent the people become on big

government the more power they have over your life and the fewer freedoms

you enjoy.



 



Why is it that so many small businesses exist?  They exist partly because

they can provide a better service/price than the big guys.  Wireless

providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors



open)

  

exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and



acted

  

upon.  Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government



stays

  

out of it.  I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big Telco's

charge the better my business does!



 



What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending?  GM

is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were forced to



take

  

TARP haven't changed and many have repaid TARP to get the government out



of

  

their business.  Is it such a bad thing to own and operate a small



business

  

with no long term debt?  Sure, it makes getting the company off the ground

that much harder, but it also creates a personal investment and commitment

by the proprietor beyond any cash infusion.



 



Unemployment is nearing record highs as those (evil guys) that employ



people

  

weather the storm of uncertainty.  People are losing their homes.many of

which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if



it

  

were not for big 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread Jack Unger
C'mon Jeff. There is NO NEED to accumulate power if you don't have 
excess people.

jack


Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 C'mon Jack, war is about trying to accumulate power, not get rid of excess
 people.
  

 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: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:35 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
 net-neutrality


 Your statement is true when there is NOT enough food, clothing or shelter
 for everybody. 

 But when there IS enough food, clothing and shelter for everybody, there is
 no need for war in order to achieve temporary peace. 

 This is why overpopulation is so bad - it creates war and makes real peace
 impossible. 

 jack


 Brad Belton wrote: 

 I would hope everyone would choose peace over war, but history has proven

 since the beginning of time that peace is achieved through war.  



 Without a clearly defined Winner and Loser of war there will never be

 peace.





 Brad





 -Original Message-

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

 Behalf Of Jack Unger

 Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:28 AM

 To: WISPA General List

 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of

 net-neutrality



 Good points.



 When I have to choose between guns (war) or butter (peace), I'll choose 

 the butter.







 Robert West wrote:

   

 Life, Liberty, Property.



 Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us.  



 For the common defense.



 It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For the

 government. As long as there are greedy people and the what about mine?

 thinkers, it won't get any better.



 As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war tax

 

 and

   

 the draft.  Now hear me out on this



 Are we at war?  Where?  I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or

 

 form.

   

 Not directly anyhow.  So it continues to zap the life out of this country.

 We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever without

 much thought from those of us out here trying to live our lives and put

 

 food

   

 on the table and pay for the folly of it all.  



 If we had a war tax and kids were being drafted, we'd all be involved,

 

 more

   

 commonly polarized and I guarantee you we wouldn't be pouring billions

 

 every

   

 month down useless well.



 Just my crazy thoughts.



 Bob-















 -Original Message-

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

 Behalf Of Brad Belton

 Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:38 PM

 To: 'WISPA General List'

 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation

 

 of

   

 net-neutrality



 Jack,



  



 Your police analogy is flawed.  



  



 While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of

 

 a

   

 larger population it does not take a larger government body with increased

 invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively.  A larger

 

 population

   

 requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are

 applied to all regardless of the size of population.



  



 Agreed, the more people that give up and begin to simply depend on the

 government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country)

 becomes.  This is exactly what big government wants; the people to become

 more dependent on them.  The more dependent the people become on big

 government the more power they have over your life and the fewer freedoms

 you enjoy.



  



 Why is it that so many small businesses exist?  They exist partly because

 they can provide a better service/price than the big guys.  Wireless

 providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors

 

 open)

   

 exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and

 

 acted

   

 upon.  Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government

 

 stays

   

 out of it.  I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big Telco's

 charge the better my business does!



  



 What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending?  GM

 is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were forced to

 

 take

   

 TARP haven't changed and many have repaid TARP to get the government out

 

 of

   

 their business.  Is it such a bad thing to own and operate a small

 

 business

   

 with no long term debt?  Sure, it makes getting the company off the ground

 that much harder, but it also creates a personal investment and commitment

 by the proprietor beyond any cash infusion.



  



 Unemployment 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread Jeff Broadwick
Human nature? 


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: Friday, February 05, 2010 4:21 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

C'mon Jeff. There is NO NEED to accumulate power if you don't have excess
people.

jack


Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 C'mon Jack, war is about trying to accumulate power, not get rid of 
 excess people.
  

 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: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:35 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in 
 regulation of net-neutrality


 Your statement is true when there is NOT enough food, clothing or 
 shelter for everybody.

 But when there IS enough food, clothing and shelter for everybody, 
 there is no need for war in order to achieve temporary peace.

 This is why overpopulation is so bad - it creates war and makes real 
 peace impossible.

 jack


 Brad Belton wrote: 

 I would hope everyone would choose peace over war, but history has 
 proven

 since the beginning of time that peace is achieved through war.  



 Without a clearly defined Winner and Loser of war there will never 
 be

 peace.





 Brad





 -Original Message-

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

 Behalf Of Jack Unger

 Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:28 AM

 To: WISPA General List

 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in 
 regulation of

 net-neutrality



 Good points.



 When I have to choose between guns (war) or butter (peace), I'll 
 choose

 the butter.







 Robert West wrote:

   

 Life, Liberty, Property.



 Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us.  



 For the common defense.



 It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For 
 the

 government. As long as there are greedy people and the what about mine?

 thinkers, it won't get any better.



 As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war 
 tax

 

 and

   

 the draft.  Now hear me out on this



 Are we at war?  Where?  I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or

 

 form.

   

 Not directly anyhow.  So it continues to zap the life out of this country.

 We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever 
 without

 much thought from those of us out here trying to live our lives and 
 put

 

 food

   

 on the table and pay for the folly of it all.  



 If we had a war tax and kids were being drafted, we'd all be involved,

 

 more

   

 commonly polarized and I guarantee you we wouldn't be pouring billions

 

 every

   

 month down useless well.



 Just my crazy thoughts.



 Bob-















 -Original Message-

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

 Behalf Of Brad Belton

 Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:38 PM

 To: 'WISPA General List'

 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in 
 regulation

 

 of

   

 net-neutrality



 Jack,



  



 Your police analogy is flawed.  



  



 While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety 
 of

 

 a

   

 larger population it does not take a larger government body with 
 increased

 invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively.  A larger

 

 population

   

 requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are

 applied to all regardless of the size of population.



  



 Agreed, the more people that give up and begin to simply depend on 
 the

 government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country)

 becomes.  This is exactly what big government wants; the people to 
 become

 more dependent on them.  The more dependent the people become on big

 government the more power they have over your life and the fewer 
 freedoms

 you enjoy.



  



 Why is it that so many small businesses exist?  They exist partly 
 because

 they can provide a better service/price than the big guys.  Wireless

 providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors

 

 open)

   

 exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and

 

 acted

   

 upon.  Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government

 

 stays

   

 out of it.  I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big 
 Telco's

 charge the better my business does!



  



 What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending?  
 GM

 is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread Jack Unger




My nature is to be peaceful, my friend. 

jack


Jeff Broadwick wrote:

  Human nature? 


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: Friday, February 05, 2010 4:21 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

C'mon Jeff. There is NO NEED to accumulate power if you don't have excess
people.

jack


Jeff Broadwick wrote:
  
  
C'mon Jack, war is about trying to accumulate power, not get rid of 
excess people.
 

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: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:35 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in 
regulation of net-neutrality


Your statement is true when there is NOT enough food, clothing or 
shelter for everybody.

But when there IS enough food, clothing and shelter for everybody, 
there is no need for war in order to achieve temporary "peace".

This is why overpopulation is so bad - it creates war and makes real 
peace impossible.

jack


Brad Belton wrote: 

I would hope everyone would choose peace over war, but history has 
proven

since the beginning of time that peace is achieved through war.  



Without a clearly defined "Winner" and "Loser" of war there will never 
be

peace.





Brad





-Original Message-

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

Behalf Of Jack Unger

Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:28 AM

To: WISPA General List

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in 
regulation of

net-neutrality



Good points.



When I have to choose between guns (war) or butter (peace), I'll 
choose

the butter.







Robert West wrote:

  

Life, Liberty, Property.



Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us.  



For the common defense.



It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For 
the

government. As long as there are greedy people and the "what about mine?"

thinkers, it won't get any better.



As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war 
tax



and

  

the draft.  Now hear me out on this



Are we at war?  Where?  I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or



form.

  

Not directly anyhow.  So it continues to zap the life out of this country.

We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever 
without

much thought from those of us out here trying to live our lives and 
put



food

  

on the table and pay for the folly of it all.  



If we had a war tax and kids were being drafted, we'd all be involved,



more

  

commonly polarized and I guarantee you we wouldn't be pouring billions



every

  

month down useless well.



Just my crazy thoughts.



Bob-















-Original Message-

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

Behalf Of Brad Belton

Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:38 PM

To: 'WISPA General List'

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in 
regulation



of

  

net-neutrality



Jack,



 



Your police analogy is flawed.  



 



While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety 
of



a

  

larger population it does not take a larger government body with 
increased

invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively.  A larger



population

  

requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are

applied to all regardless of the size of population.



 



Agreed, the more people that "give up" and begin to simply depend on 
the

government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country)

becomes.  This is exactly what big government wants; the people to 
become

more dependent on them.  The more dependent the people become on big

government the more power they have over your life and the fewer 
freedoms

you enjoy.



 



Why is it that so many small businesses exist?  They exist partly 
because

they can provide a better service/price than the "big guys".  Wireless

providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors



open)

  

exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and



acted

  

upon.  Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government



stays

  

out of it.  I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big 
Telco's

charge the better my business does!



 



What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending?  
GM

is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were forced to



take

  

TARP haven't 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread RickG
Chuck, where did I say unrestrained? The rest of my post is questions. So,
I agree with your reply in as much as that nobody should be unrestrained. As
far as history, to what do you refer to?
-RickG

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.comwrote:


 On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:34 AM, RickG wrote:

  Jack, The only companies that can do whatever they want to you whenever
  they want to do it are the ones given a monopoly and power by guess who
 -
  big government! So, where is the problem? Is it the companies or the
  government?

 That statement completely ignores history. The tendency of any
 unconstrained capitalist is to form a monopoly. Hell, *I'd* do it if I could
 ;-). And unconstrained capitalism that achieves a monopoly rarely acts in
 its customers own best interests.

 If nothing else, it's in our society's interest to prevent monopolies
 because innovation stagnates in a monoploy situation.

 Some restraint by government is necessary to keep the system from damaging
 itself. Part of your argument is specious since by definition once
 government restrains most monopolies, the only ones left are the ones it
 allows (but there's no real content in that statement). There are very few
 created monopolies (mail still and phones from a long time ago being two of
 them).

 Chuck


 
  On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:
 
  So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance
  companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want
 to
  do it.
 
  BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh
 
 
  Frank Crawford wrote:
 
  YES
 
  Jack Unger wrote:
 
 
  I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you
  support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown
  it in a bathtub?
 
  Glenn Kelley wrote:
 
 
 
  Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates
 telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to
 oversee broadband.  FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he
 gave to the Free State Foundation asked:  (see First Do No Harm: A broadband
 plan for Amercia)
  “Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this
 regulatory Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice
 application?” … “With this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t
 voice just another type of data app? As the distinction between network
 operators and application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping
 rate, how will the government be able to keep up?”
 
 
  Much more on the blog:   www.HostMedic.com --
 
 _
  Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com
   Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
  Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
 
 
 
 
 
  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/
 
 
 
  --
  Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
  Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
  Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since
 1993www.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/
 
 
 
 
 
  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/

 --
 Chuck Bartosch
 Clarity Connect, Inc.
 200 Pleasant Grove Road
 Ithaca, NY 14850
 (607) 257-8268

 When the stars threw down their spears,
 and water'd heaven with their tears,
 Did He smile, His work to see?
 Did He who made 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread Chuck Bartosch
The restraint is government. How do you restrain capitalism without the 
restraint of laws, including those that restrain monopolies?

The implication of saying the only companies that have monopolies are the ones 
that government gives monopolies to is that without government monopolies, and 
without government interference, there would be no monopolies. I'm saying that 
government *has* to play a role in restraining capitalism from self-destructing.

There's no question in my mind that I want as much freedom as possible...but I 
fully realize that if I'm given complete freedom to do as I want, I'll do 
things that are bad for me. Or bad for everyone else anyway. That's why wives 
and girlfriends are good for those of us who are men. Or for those of us who 
are women too I suppose ;-).

Chuck

On Feb 5, 2010, at 6:48 PM, RickG wrote:

 Chuck, where did I say unrestrained? The rest of my post is questions. So,
 I agree with your reply in as much as that nobody should be unrestrained. As
 far as history, to what do you refer to?
 -RickG
 
 On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Chuck Bartosch 
 ch...@clarityconnect.comwrote:
 
 
 On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:34 AM, RickG wrote:
 
 Jack, The only companies that can do whatever they want to you whenever
 they want to do it are the ones given a monopoly and power by guess who
 -
 big government! So, where is the problem? Is it the companies or the
 government?
 
 That statement completely ignores history. The tendency of any
 unconstrained capitalist is to form a monopoly. Hell, *I'd* do it if I could
 ;-). And unconstrained capitalism that achieves a monopoly rarely acts in
 its customers own best interests.
 
 If nothing else, it's in our society's interest to prevent monopolies
 because innovation stagnates in a monoploy situation.
 
 Some restraint by government is necessary to keep the system from damaging
 itself. Part of your argument is specious since by definition once
 government restrains most monopolies, the only ones left are the ones it
 allows (but there's no real content in that statement). There are very few
 created monopolies (mail still and phones from a long time ago being two of
 them).
 
 Chuck
 
 
 
 On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:
 
 So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance
 companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want
 to
 do it.
 
 BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh
 
 
 Frank Crawford wrote:
 
 YES
 
 Jack Unger wrote:
 
 
 I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you
 support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown
 it in a bathtub?
 
 Glenn Kelley wrote:
 
 
 
 Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates
 telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to
 oversee broadband.  FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he
 gave to the Free State Foundation asked:  (see First Do No Harm: A broadband
 plan for Amercia)
 “Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this
 regulatory Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice
 application?” … “With this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t
 voice just another type of data app? As the distinction between network
 operators and application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping
 rate, how will the government be able to keep up?”
 
 
 Much more on the blog:   www.HostMedic.com --
 
 _
 Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com
 Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
 Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
 
 
 
 
 
 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/
 
 
 
 --
 Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
 Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
 Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since
 1993www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 
 
 
 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread Robert West
I thought was WAS population control  I'm confused now.

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:35 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

 

Your statement is true when there is NOT enough food, clothing or shelter
for everybody. 

But when there IS enough food, clothing and shelter for everybody, there is
no need for war in order to achieve temporary peace. 

This is why overpopulation is so bad - it creates war and makes real peace
impossible. 

jack


Brad Belton wrote: 

I would hope everyone would choose peace over war, but history has proven
since the beginning of time that peace is achieved through war.  
 
Without a clearly defined Winner and Loser of war there will never be
peace.
 
 
Brad
 
 
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:28 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality
 
Good points.
 
When I have to choose between guns (war) or butter (peace), I'll choose 
the butter.
 
 
 
Robert West wrote:
  

Life, Liberty, Property.
 
Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us.  
 
For the common defense.
 
It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For the
government. As long as there are greedy people and the what about mine?
thinkers, it won't get any better.
 
As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war tax


and
  

the draft.  Now hear me out on this
 
Are we at war?  Where?  I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or


form.
  

Not directly anyhow.  So it continues to zap the life out of this country.
We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever without
much thought from those of us out here trying to live our lives and put


food
  

on the table and pay for the folly of it all.  
 
If we had a war tax and kids were being drafted, we'd all be involved,


more
  

commonly polarized and I guarantee you we wouldn't be pouring billions


every
  

month down useless well.
 
Just my crazy thoughts.
 
Bob-
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Brad Belton
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:38 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation


of
  

net-neutrality
 
Jack,
 
 
 
Your police analogy is flawed.  
 
 
 
While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of


a
  

larger population it does not take a larger government body with increased
invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively.  A larger


population
  

requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are
applied to all regardless of the size of population.
 
 
 
Agreed, the more people that give up and begin to simply depend on the
government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country)
becomes.  This is exactly what big government wants; the people to become
more dependent on them.  The more dependent the people become on big
government the more power they have over your life and the fewer freedoms
you enjoy.
 
 
 
Why is it that so many small businesses exist?  They exist partly because
they can provide a better service/price than the big guys.  Wireless
providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors


open)
  

exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and


acted
  

upon.  Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government


stays
  

out of it.  I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big Telco's
charge the better my business does!
 
 
 
What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending?  GM
is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were forced to


take
  

TARP haven't changed and many have repaid TARP to get the government out


of
  

their business.  Is it such a bad thing to own and operate a small


business
  

with no long term debt?  Sure, it makes getting the company off the ground
that much harder, but it also creates a personal investment and commitment
by the proprietor beyond any cash infusion.
 
 
 
Unemployment is nearing record highs as those (evil guys) that employ


people
  

weather the storm of uncertainty.  People are losing their homes.many of
which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if


it
  

were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers.
 
 
 
I can go on, but I get the feeling none of this makes any sense to you,
Jack.  That's fine with me.there are those that do and those that.I don't
know.just coast 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread RickG
Chuck, In the past, I'd say 99% of our posts are in agreement so I suspect
we have the same thoughts here as well. I probably failed in not being more
clear due to lack of detail with my thoughts due to time constraints. The
context of my reply was in response to Jack's fear of big companies. Perhaps
my fearlessness is naive which takes me to a new question: Which company do
you know of that has a monopoly that is not given to them by our government?

-RickG

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.comwrote:

 The restraint is government. How do you restrain capitalism without the
 restraint of laws, including those that restrain monopolies?

 The implication of saying the only companies that have monopolies are the
 ones that government gives monopolies to is that without government
 monopolies, and without government interference, there would be no
 monopolies. I'm saying that government *has* to play a role in restraining
 capitalism from self-destructing.

 There's no question in my mind that I want as much freedom as
 possible...but I fully realize that if I'm given complete freedom to do as
 I want, I'll do things that are bad for me. Or bad for everyone else anyway.
 That's why wives and girlfriends are good for those of us who are men. Or
 for those of us who are women too I suppose ;-).

 Chuck

 On Feb 5, 2010, at 6:48 PM, RickG wrote:

  Chuck, where did I say unrestrained? The rest of my post is questions.
 So,
  I agree with your reply in as much as that nobody should be unrestrained.
 As
  far as history, to what do you refer to?
  -RickG
 
  On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Chuck Bartosch 
 ch...@clarityconnect.comwrote:
 
 
  On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:34 AM, RickG wrote:
 
  Jack, The only companies that can do whatever they want to you
 whenever
  they want to do it are the ones given a monopoly and power by guess
 who
  -
  big government! So, where is the problem? Is it the companies or the
  government?
 
  That statement completely ignores history. The tendency of any
  unconstrained capitalist is to form a monopoly. Hell, *I'd* do it if I
 could
  ;-). And unconstrained capitalism that achieves a monopoly rarely acts
 in
  its customers own best interests.
 
  If nothing else, it's in our society's interest to prevent monopolies
  because innovation stagnates in a monoploy situation.
 
  Some restraint by government is necessary to keep the system from
 damaging
  itself. Part of your argument is specious since by definition once
  government restrains most monopolies, the only ones left are the ones it
  allows (but there's no real content in that statement). There are very
 few
  created monopolies (mail still and phones from a long time ago being two
 of
  them).
 
  Chuck
 
 
 
  On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:
 
  So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance
  companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they
 want
  to
  do it.
 
  BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh
 
 
  Frank Crawford wrote:
 
  YES
 
  Jack Unger wrote:
 
 
  I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you
  support the alternative of making government so small that you can
 drown
  it in a bathtub?
 
  Glenn Kelley wrote:
 
 
 
  Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates
  telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to
  oversee broadband.  FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he
  gave to the Free State Foundation asked:  (see First Do No Harm: A
 broadband
  plan for Amercia)
  “Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this
  regulatory Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice
  application?” … “With this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps?
 Isn’t
  voice just another type of data app? As the distinction between network
  operators and application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping
  rate, how will the government be able to keep up?”
 
 
  Much more on the blog:   www.HostMedic.com --
 
 
 _
  Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com
  Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
  Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
 
 
 
 
 
 
  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 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread RickG
Then I fail your test. I dont want a monopoly. In th epast, I've worked for
both electric and phone companies and all it breeds is laziness and waste.
In competitive markets, I find the challenge invigorating. -RickG

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Matt Liotta mlio...@r337.com wrote:


 On Feb 5, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Chuck Bartosch wrote:

  That statement completely ignores history. The tendency of any
 unconstrained capitalist is to form a monopoly. Hell, *I'd* do it if I could
 ;-). And unconstrained capitalism that achieves a monopoly rarely acts in
 its customers own best interests.
 
  If nothing else, it's in our society's interest to prevent monopolies
 because innovation stagnates in a monoploy situation.
 
 It should be every capitalist desire to become a monopolist. The
 government's role should be to encourage businesses to innovate and grow
 towards being a monopoly while hoping the market has sufficient competition
 to stop that ultimate result. If not, then step in to prevent the monopoly
 from abusing its position. The government must only set the rules of the
 game and ensure market fairness through their rules. The government
 shouldn't participate in the market either with its own entity or by picking
 winners and losers through its actions.

 -Matt





 
 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] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread RickG
Hitler. Just to name one of many!

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:

 C'mon Jeff. There is NO NEED to accumulate power if you don't have
 excess people.

 jack


 Jeff Broadwick wrote:
  C'mon Jack, war is about trying to accumulate power, not get rid of
 excess
  people.
 
 
  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: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:35 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation
 of
  net-neutrality
 
 
  Your statement is true when there is NOT enough food, clothing or shelter
  for everybody.
 
  But when there IS enough food, clothing and shelter for everybody, there
 is
  no need for war in order to achieve temporary peace.
 
  This is why overpopulation is so bad - it creates war and makes real
 peace
  impossible.
 
  jack
 
 
  Brad Belton wrote:
 
  I would hope everyone would choose peace over war, but history has proven
 
  since the beginning of time that peace is achieved through war.
 
 
 
  Without a clearly defined Winner and Loser of war there will never be
 
  peace.
 
 
 
 
 
  Brad
 
 
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
 
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 
  Behalf Of Jack Unger
 
  Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:28 AM
 
  To: WISPA General List
 
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation
 of
 
  net-neutrality
 
 
 
  Good points.
 
 
 
  When I have to choose between guns (war) or butter (peace), I'll choose
 
  the butter.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Robert West wrote:
 
 
 
  Life, Liberty, Property.
 
 
 
  Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us.
 
 
 
  For the common defense.
 
 
 
  It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For the
 
  government. As long as there are greedy people and the what about mine?
 
  thinkers, it won't get any better.
 
 
 
  As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war tax
 
 
 
  and
 
 
 
  the draft.  Now hear me out on this
 
 
 
  Are we at war?  Where?  I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or
 
 
 
  form.
 
 
 
  Not directly anyhow.  So it continues to zap the life out of this
 country.
 
  We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever
 without
 
  much thought from those of us out here trying to live our lives and put
 
 
 
  food
 
 
 
  on the table and pay for the folly of it all.
 
 
 
  If we had a war tax and kids were being drafted, we'd all be involved,
 
 
 
  more
 
 
 
  commonly polarized and I guarantee you we wouldn't be pouring billions
 
 
 
  every
 
 
 
  month down useless well.
 
 
 
  Just my crazy thoughts.
 
 
 
  Bob-
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
 
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 
  Behalf Of Brad Belton
 
  Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:38 PM
 
  To: 'WISPA General List'
 
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation
 
 
 
  of
 
 
 
  net-neutrality
 
 
 
  Jack,
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Your police analogy is flawed.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of
 
 
 
  a
 
 
 
  larger population it does not take a larger government body with
 increased
 
  invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively.  A larger
 
 
 
  population
 
 
 
  requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are
 
  applied to all regardless of the size of population.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Agreed, the more people that give up and begin to simply depend on the
 
  government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country)
 
  becomes.  This is exactly what big government wants; the people to become
 
  more dependent on them.  The more dependent the people become on big
 
  government the more power they have over your life and the fewer freedoms
 
  you enjoy.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Why is it that so many small businesses exist?  They exist partly because
 
  they can provide a better service/price than the big guys.  Wireless
 
  providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors
 
 
 
  open)
 
 
 
  exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and
 
 
 
  acted
 
 
 
  upon.  Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government
 
 
 
  stays
 
 
 
  out of it.  I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big
 Telco's
 
  charge the better my business does!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending?
  GM
 
  is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were forced to
 
 
 
  take
 
 
 
  TARP haven't changed and many have repaid TARP to get the government out
 
 
 
  of
 
 
 
  

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread MDK

There's never a NEED to accumulate power... ever.But, the greed and lust 
for more power is as old as politics itself.


--
From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 1:21 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in  regulation 
ofnet-neutrality C'mon Jeff. There is NO NEED to accumulate power if you don't 
have
 excess people.

 jack


 Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 C'mon Jack, war is about trying to accumulate power, not get rid of 
 excess
 people.


 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: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:35 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation 
 of
 net-neutrality


 Your statement is true when there is NOT enough food, clothing or shelter
 for everybody.

 But when there IS enough food, clothing and shelter for everybody, there 
 is
 no need for war in order to achieve temporary peace.

 This is why overpopulation is so bad - it creates war and makes real 
 peace
 impossible.

 jack


 Brad Belton wrote:

 I would hope everyone would choose peace over war, but history has proven

 since the beginning of time that peace is achieved through war.



 Without a clearly defined Winner and Loser of war there will never be

 peace.





 Brad





 -Original Message-

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

 Behalf Of Jack Unger

 Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:28 AM

 To: WISPA General List

 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation 
 of

 net-neutrality



 Good points.



 When I have to choose between guns (war) or butter (peace), I'll choose

 the butter.







 Robert West wrote:



 Life, Liberty, Property.



 Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us.



 For the common defense.



 It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For the

 government. As long as there are greedy people and the what about mine?

 thinkers, it won't get any better.



 As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war tax



 and



 the draft.  Now hear me out on this



 Are we at war?  Where?  I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or



 form.



 Not directly anyhow.  So it continues to zap the life out of this 
 country.

 We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever 
 without

 much thought from those of us out here trying to live our lives and put



 food



 on the table and pay for the folly of it all.



 If we had a war tax and kids were being drafted, we'd all be involved,



 more



 commonly polarized and I guarantee you we wouldn't be pouring billions



 every



 month down useless well.



 Just my crazy thoughts.



 Bob-















 -Original Message-

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

 Behalf Of Brad Belton

 Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:38 PM

 To: 'WISPA General List'

 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation



 of



 net-neutrality



 Jack,







 Your police analogy is flawed.







 While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of



 a



 larger population it does not take a larger government body with 
 increased

 invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively.  A larger



 population



 requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are

 applied to all regardless of the size of population.







 Agreed, the more people that give up and begin to simply depend on the

 government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country)

 becomes.  This is exactly what big government wants; the people to become

 more dependent on them.  The more dependent the people become on big

 government the more power they have over your life and the fewer freedoms

 you enjoy.







 Why is it that so many small businesses exist?  They exist partly because

 they can provide a better service/price than the big guys.  Wireless

 providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors



 open)



 exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and



 acted



 upon.  Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government



 stays



 out of it.  I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big 
 Telco's

 charge the better my business does!







 What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending? 
 GM

 is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were forced to



 take



 TARP haven't changed and many have repaid TARP to get the government out



 of



 their business.  Is it such a bad thing 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread jason bailey
 As a very small,but growing operator I have been following this list for quite 
some time.I rarely poke my nose in as I enjoy the VERY intelligent conversation 
that this list generates.I sometimes have to read 80 or more messages when I 
get through putting in 110% and picking up my Three kids after school as a 
single Dad and learn an unimaginable amount every day .I am saddened by the 
level that some will take a conversation to.I hope to see a political 
conversation as intense as this move elsewhere,But hey,I'm just a single 
person,not the whole group.I can't learn anything about the technical aspect of 
a WISP filtering the massive amount of email this topic has generated.If i'm 
out of line,someone tell me. Regards ,Jason


Sent From My PrimeCo Phone

--- On Fri, 2/5/10, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:


From: MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of 
net-neutrality
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Date: Friday, February 5, 2010, 10:44 PM



There's never a NEED to accumulate power... ever.    But, the greed and lust 
for more power is as old as politics itself.


--
From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 1:21 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in    regulation 
ofnet-neutrality C'mon Jeff. There is NO NEED to accumulate power if you don't 
have
 excess people.

 jack


 Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 C'mon Jack, war is about trying to accumulate power, not get rid of 
 excess
 people.


 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: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:35 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation 
 of
 net-neutrality


 Your statement is true when there is NOT enough food, clothing or shelter
 for everybody.

 But when there IS enough food, clothing and shelter for everybody, there 
 is
 no need for war in order to achieve temporary peace.

 This is why overpopulation is so bad - it creates war and makes real 
 peace
 impossible.

 jack


 Brad Belton wrote:

 I would hope everyone would choose peace over war, but history has proven

 since the beginning of time that peace is achieved through war.



 Without a clearly defined Winner and Loser of war there will never be

 peace.





 Brad





 -Original Message-

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

 Behalf Of Jack Unger

 Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:28 AM

 To: WISPA General List

 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation 
 of

 net-neutrality



 Good points.



 When I have to choose between guns (war) or butter (peace), I'll choose

 the butter.







 Robert West wrote:



 Life, Liberty, Property.



 Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us.



 For the common defense.



 It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For the

 government. As long as there are greedy people and the what about mine?

 thinkers, it won't get any better.



 As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war tax



 and



 the draft.  Now hear me out on this



 Are we at war?  Where?  I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or



 form.



 Not directly anyhow.  So it continues to zap the life out of this 
 country.

 We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever 
 without

 much thought from those of us out here trying to live our lives and put



 food



 on the table and pay for the folly of it all.



 If we had a war tax and kids were being drafted, we'd all be involved,



 more



 commonly polarized and I guarantee you we wouldn't be pouring billions



 every



 month down useless well.



 Just my crazy thoughts.



 Bob-















 -Original Message-

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

 Behalf Of Brad Belton

 Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:38 PM

 To: 'WISPA General List'

 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation



 of



 net-neutrality



 Jack,







 Your police analogy is flawed.







 While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of



 a



 larger population it does not take a larger government body with 
 increased

 invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively.  A larger



 population



 requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are

 applied to all regardless of the size of population.







 Agreed, the more people that give up and begin to simply depend on the

 government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country)

 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread Butch Evans
On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 22:26 -0500, RickG wrote: 
 Hitler. Just to name one of many!

Ok, folks...it's time to stop.  We've reached the reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law


-- 

* 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] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread Chuck Bartosch
I agree-I've worked for essential monopolies (like defense contractors). Or 
maybe it's just big companies. In any case, the waste boggled my mind.

To be clear my natural tendency is to want to own a market. However, I also 
recognize that you can't ever really do that, and if you do, no matter how good 
you are, people hate you because you're their only choice. If they have even a 
bad choice, you're fine, but they have to have a reasonable choice.

I've seen examples of significant abuse of market position in a past life 
from the inside (which I won't enumerate for fear of legal repercussions, 
though the details are pretty fascinating, to me anyways...). What's 
interesting to me though is that the perpetrating company in this case is today 
ridiculed for its lack of innovation and not leading markets anymore.

In other words, even though I believe the governments anti-monopoly powers are 
important, in this case I think the market corrected itself. Those abusive 
positions become addictive and then destructive.

Chuck

On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:10 PM, RickG wrote:

 Then I fail your test. I dont want a monopoly. In th epast, I've worked for
 both electric and phone companies and all it breeds is laziness and waste.
 In competitive markets, I find the challenge invigorating. -RickG
 
 On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Matt Liotta mlio...@r337.com wrote:
 
 
 On Feb 5, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Chuck Bartosch wrote:
 
 That statement completely ignores history. The tendency of any
 unconstrained capitalist is to form a monopoly. Hell, *I'd* do it if I could
 ;-). And unconstrained capitalism that achieves a monopoly rarely acts in
 its customers own best interests.
 
 If nothing else, it's in our society's interest to prevent monopolies
 because innovation stagnates in a monoploy situation.
 
 It should be every capitalist desire to become a monopolist. The
 government's role should be to encourage businesses to innovate and grow
 towards being a monopoly while hoping the market has sufficient competition
 to stop that ultimate result. If not, then step in to prevent the monopoly
 from abusing its position. The government must only set the rules of the
 game and ensure market fairness through their rules. The government
 shouldn't participate in the market either with its own entity or by picking
 winners and losers through its actions.
 
 -Matt
 
 
 
 
 
 
 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/

--
Chuck Bartosch
Clarity Connect, Inc.
200 Pleasant Grove Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 257-8268

When the stars threw down their spears,
and water'd heaven with their tears,
Did He smile, His work to see?
Did He who made the Lamb make thee?

From William Blake's Tiger!, Tiger!






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] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-05 Thread Chuck Bartosch
No, you're not out of line. I've given up suggesting these topics get moved to 
WISPA Chat. I usually try to refrain from weighing in myself ;-).

Chuck

On Feb 5, 2010, at 11:06 PM, jason bailey wrote:

  As a very small,but growing operator I have been following this list for 
 quite some time.I rarely poke my nose in as I enjoy the VERY intelligent 
 conversation that this list generates.I sometimes have to read 80 or more 
 messages when I get through putting in 110% and picking up my Three kids 
 after school as a single Dad and learn an unimaginable amount every day .I am 
 saddened by the level that some will take a conversation to.I hope to see a 
 political conversation as intense as this move elsewhere,But hey,I'm just a 
 single person,not the whole group.I can't learn anything about the technical 
 aspect of a WISP filtering the massive amount of email this topic has 
 generated.If i'm out of line,someone tell me. Regards ,Jason
 
 
 Sent From My PrimeCo Phone
 
 --- On Fri, 2/5/10, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:
 
 
 From: MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of 
 net-neutrality
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Date: Friday, February 5, 2010, 10:44 PM
 
 
 
 There's never a NEED to accumulate power... ever.But, the greed and lust 
 for more power is as old as politics itself.
 
 
 --
 From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com
 Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 1:21 PM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role inregulation 
 ofnet-neutrality C'mon Jeff. There is NO NEED to accumulate power if you 
 don't have
 excess people.
 
 jack
 
 
 Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 C'mon Jack, war is about trying to accumulate power, not get rid of 
 excess
 people.
 
 
 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: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:35 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation 
 of
 net-neutrality
 
 
 Your statement is true when there is NOT enough food, clothing or shelter
 for everybody.
 
 But when there IS enough food, clothing and shelter for everybody, there 
 is
 no need for war in order to achieve temporary peace.
 
 This is why overpopulation is so bad - it creates war and makes real 
 peace
 impossible.
 
 jack
 
 
 Brad Belton wrote:
 
 I would hope everyone would choose peace over war, but history has proven
 
 since the beginning of time that peace is achieved through war.
 
 
 
 Without a clearly defined Winner and Loser of war there will never be
 
 peace.
 
 
 
 
 
 Brad
 
 
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 
 Behalf Of Jack Unger
 
 Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:28 AM
 
 To: WISPA General List
 
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation 
 of
 
 net-neutrality
 
 
 
 Good points.
 
 
 
 When I have to choose between guns (war) or butter (peace), I'll choose
 
 the butter.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Robert West wrote:
 
 
 
 Life, Liberty, Property.
 
 
 
 Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us.
 
 
 
 For the common defense.
 
 
 
 It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For the
 
 government. As long as there are greedy people and the what about mine?
 
 thinkers, it won't get any better.
 
 
 
 As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war tax
 
 
 
 and
 
 
 
 the draft.  Now hear me out on this
 
 
 
 Are we at war?  Where?  I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or
 
 
 
 form.
 
 
 
 Not directly anyhow.  So it continues to zap the life out of this 
 country.
 
 We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever 
 without
 
 much thought from those of us out here trying to live our lives and put
 
 
 
 food
 
 
 
 on the table and pay for the folly of it all.
 
 
 
 If we had a war tax and kids were being drafted, we'd all be involved,
 
 
 
 more
 
 
 
 commonly polarized and I guarantee you we wouldn't be pouring billions
 
 
 
 every
 
 
 
 month down useless well.
 
 
 
 Just my crazy thoughts.
 
 
 
 Bob-
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 
 Behalf Of Brad Belton
 
 Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:38 PM
 
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation
 
 
 
 of
 
 
 
 net-neutrality
 
 
 
 Jack,
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Your police analogy is flawed.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of
 
 
 
 a
 
 
 
 larger population it does not take a 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Jack Unger
I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you 
support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown 
it in a bathtub?

Glenn Kelley wrote:
 Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates 
 telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to 
 oversee broadband.  FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he gave 
 to the Free State Foundation asked:  (see First Do No Harm: A broadband plan 
 for Amercia)
 “Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory 
 Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice application?” … “With 
 this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t voice just another 
 type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and 
 application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the 
 government be able to keep up?”


 Much more on the blog:   www.HostMedic.com -- 
 _
 Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com 
   Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
 Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.



 
 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 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] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Glenn Kelley
What happens if the government states you cannot block any content and or do 
traffic shaping ... ?
Understand - the talk was to the Free State Foundation - who is against 
virtually any blocking or traffic shaping 

This being said- even the plans you may offer may be out of the window on the 
other extreme.

I think some regulation is wise personally ! - However if its to broad it does 
not help - if its to narrow it does not help on the other side of the fence :-)

Like anything - it needs to be wisely thought out and dealt with

_
Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com 
  Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

On Feb 4, 2010, at 10:39 AM, Jack Unger wrote:

 I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you 
 support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown 
 it in a bathtub?
 
 Glenn Kelley wrote:
 Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates 
 telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to 
 oversee broadband.  FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he 
 gave to the Free State Foundation asked:  (see First Do No Harm: A broadband 
 plan for Amercia)
 “Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory 
 Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice application?” … “With 
 this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t voice just another 
 type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and 
 application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the 
 government be able to keep up?”
 
 
 Much more on the blog:   www.HostMedic.com -- 
 _
 Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com 
  Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
 Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
 
 
 
 
 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 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] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Jack Unger




Glenn,

I think it's important not be be overly alarmist. 

There is every reason to believe that Network Neutrality will allow and
encourage "reasonable network management" practices. 

WISPA works responsibly with the FCC and with other governmental
agencies to be sure that they understand the needs of both WISPs and
the public and to incorporate those needs into the regulatory and
legislative framework. 

Jack Unger
Chair - WISPA FCC Committee


Glenn Kelley wrote:

  What happens if the government states you cannot block any content and or do traffic shaping ... ?
Understand - the talk was to the Free State Foundation - who is against virtually any blocking or traffic shaping 

This being said- even the plans you may offer may be out of the window on the other extreme.

I think some regulation is wise personally ! - However if its to broad it does not help - if its to narrow it does not help on the other side of the fence :-)

Like anything - it needs to be wisely thought out and dealt with

_
Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com 
  Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

On Feb 4, 2010, at 10:39 AM, Jack Unger wrote:

  
  
I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you 
support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown 
it in a bathtub?

Glenn Kelley wrote:


  Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to oversee broadband.  FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he gave to the Free State Foundation asked:  (see First Do No Harm: A broadband plan for Amercia)
“Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice application?” … “With this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t voice just another type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the government be able to keep up?”


Much more on the blog:   www.HostMedic.com -- 
_
Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com 
 Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.




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 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/


  


-- 
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 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] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Mike Hammett
No, but a whirlpool tub, yes.


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



--
From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 9:39 AM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation 
ofnet-neutrality I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do 
you
 support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown
 it in a bathtub?

 Glenn Kelley wrote:
 Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates 
 telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to 
 oversee broadband.  FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he 
 gave to the Free State Foundation asked:  (see First Do No Harm: A 
 broadband plan for Amercia)
 “Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory 
 Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice application?” … 
 “With this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t voice just 
 another type of data app? As the distinction between network operators 
 and application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how 
 will the government be able to keep up?”


 Much more on the blog:   www.HostMedic.com --
 _
 Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com
   Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
 Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.



 
 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 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] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Frank Crawford
YES

Jack Unger wrote:
 I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you 
 support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown 
 it in a bathtub?

 Glenn Kelley wrote:
   
 Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates 
 telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to 
 oversee broadband.  FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he 
 gave to the Free State Foundation asked:  (see First Do No Harm: A broadband 
 plan for Amercia)
 “Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory 
 Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice application?” … “With 
 this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t voice just another 
 type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and 
 application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the 
 government be able to keep up?”


 Much more on the blog:   www.HostMedic.com -- 
 _
 Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com 
   Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
 Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.



 
 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] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Jack Unger




So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance
companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want
to do it.

BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh 


Frank Crawford wrote:

  YES

Jack Unger wrote:
  
  
I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you 
support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown 
it in a bathtub?

Glenn Kelley wrote:
  


  Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to oversee broadband.  FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he gave to the Free State Foundation asked:  (see First Do No Harm: A broadband plan for Amercia)
“Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice application?” … “With this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t voice just another type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the government be able to keep up?”


Much more on the blog:   www.HostMedic.com -- 
_
Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com 
  Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.




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/


  


-- 
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 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] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Brad Belton
The fundamental difference that Jack fails to recognize is if a bank (or
organization other than the government) does treat you unfairly you have
recourse.  If your own government treats you unfairly, you have little to no
recourse.

 

Yes, we can all only hope the majority of Americans will continue to stand
up and say no more to big government.  A smaller less intrusive government
is what America needs.  In order to achieve this we have to remove the
career politicians from office that have clearly lost touch with the people
that elected them.

 

Brad

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:01 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

 

So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance
companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to
do it.

BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh 


Frank Crawford wrote: 

YES
 
Jack Unger wrote:
  

I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you 
support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown 
it in a bathtub?
 
Glenn Kelley wrote:
  


Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates
telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to
oversee broadband.  FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he
gave to the Free State Foundation asked:  (see First Do No Harm: A broadband
plan for Amercia)
Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory
Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application? . With
this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just another
type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and
application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the
government be able to keep up?
 
 
Much more on the blog:   www.HostMedic.com -- 

_
Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com 
  Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
 
 
 


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/
 
 
  





-- 
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 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] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Jack Unger
Brad,

There is really only one way to get a smaller government without 
throwing society into total disarray. That method is to have a smaller 
country, in other words, a lower level of population. With an exploding 
population there is just no way that I can see to get a smaller government.

If only reclaiming our country for working people was as easy as voting 
the incumbents out that would be GREAT but unfortunately it's not that 
simple. Voting the incumbents out won't result in government doing a 
better job for working people because the real influence is the 
big-corporation money that finances the election campaigns for each new 
crop of political nominees. The big-money lobbyists remain when each old 
group of politicians is voted out so the big-money corporation's power 
actually becomes greater and greater as time goes on.

The solution that I propose is equal public financing for ALL political 
campaigns. Each nominee (and incumbent) would receive an equal number of 
taxpayer dollars to run their campaign. This will help ALL candidates 
remember who they are supposed to be working for (working-class 
taxpayers, not large corporations).

As to regaining some influence for working people with regard to banks, 
I'd recommend that everyone put their money in a local credit union or 
small local community bank. My money has been kept in a local community 
credit union for over 20 years and I feel good about it being there. 
It's contributing to the community instead of being used in an 
irresponsible fashion and/or used against the best interests of the 
community.

Best,
  jack


Brad Belton wrote:
 The fundamental difference that Jack fails to recognize is if a bank (or
 organization other than the government) does treat you unfairly you have
 recourse.  If your own government treats you unfairly, you have little to no
 recourse.

  

 Yes, we can all only hope the majority of Americans will continue to stand
 up and say no more to big government.  A smaller less intrusive government
 is what America needs.  In order to achieve this we have to remove the
 career politicians from office that have clearly lost touch with the people
 that elected them.

  

 Brad

  

  

 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:01 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
 net-neutrality

  

 So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance
 companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to
 do it.

 BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh 


 Frank Crawford wrote: 

 YES
  
 Jack Unger wrote:
   

 I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you 
 support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown 
 it in a bathtub?
  
 Glenn Kelley wrote:
   
 

 Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates
 telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to
 oversee broadband.  FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he
 gave to the Free State Foundation asked:  (see First Do No Harm: A broadband
 plan for Amercia)
 Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory
 Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application? . With
 this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just another
 type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and
 application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the
 government be able to keep up?
  
  
 Much more on the blog:   www.HostMedic.com -- 
 
 _
 Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com 
   Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
 Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
  
  
  
 
 
 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/
  
  
   





   

-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Brad Belton
Jack,

I completely disagree with the notion that America has to become smaller to
have a smaller less invasive government!  It is a socialist mentality to
think that only government can grow America or help Americans.

America achieved its success by people utilizing their abilities to better
themselves and their lives free of an overly burdening government.  America
was not built by grants, entitlements or anything big government can
possibly provide.  Instead our constitution provides a framework outlining
government limitations, so as to prevent government to ever be able to
control the people it governs.  The people of the republic govern not the
other way around.

Countless Americans have given their lives to protect the very freedom big
government takes away.  Government run health care just happens to be the
straw that broke the camel's back and Americans are saying enough is enough
in overwhelming numbers.


Brad


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:48 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

Brad,

There is really only one way to get a smaller government without 
throwing society into total disarray. That method is to have a smaller 
country, in other words, a lower level of population. With an exploding 
population there is just no way that I can see to get a smaller government.

If only reclaiming our country for working people was as easy as voting 
the incumbents out that would be GREAT but unfortunately it's not that 
simple. Voting the incumbents out won't result in government doing a 
better job for working people because the real influence is the 
big-corporation money that finances the election campaigns for each new 
crop of political nominees. The big-money lobbyists remain when each old 
group of politicians is voted out so the big-money corporation's power 
actually becomes greater and greater as time goes on.

The solution that I propose is equal public financing for ALL political 
campaigns. Each nominee (and incumbent) would receive an equal number of 
taxpayer dollars to run their campaign. This will help ALL candidates 
remember who they are supposed to be working for (working-class 
taxpayers, not large corporations).

As to regaining some influence for working people with regard to banks, 
I'd recommend that everyone put their money in a local credit union or 
small local community bank. My money has been kept in a local community 
credit union for over 20 years and I feel good about it being there. 
It's contributing to the community instead of being used in an 
irresponsible fashion and/or used against the best interests of the 
community.

Best,
  jack


Brad Belton wrote:
 The fundamental difference that Jack fails to recognize is if a bank (or
 organization other than the government) does treat you unfairly you have
 recourse.  If your own government treats you unfairly, you have little to
no
 recourse.

  

 Yes, we can all only hope the majority of Americans will continue to stand
 up and say no more to big government.  A smaller less intrusive government
 is what America needs.  In order to achieve this we have to remove the
 career politicians from office that have clearly lost touch with the
people
 that elected them.

  

 Brad

  

  

 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:01 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation
of
 net-neutrality

  

 So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance
 companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to
 do it.

 BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh 


 Frank Crawford wrote: 

 YES
  
 Jack Unger wrote:
   

 I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you 
 support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown 
 it in a bathtub?
  
 Glenn Kelley wrote:
   
 

 Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates
 telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to
 oversee broadband.  FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he
 gave to the Free State Foundation asked:  (see First Do No Harm: A
broadband
 plan for Amercia)
 Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory
 Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application? .
With
 this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just another
 type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and
 application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will
the
 government be able to keep up?
  
  
 Much more on the blog:   www.HostMedic.com -- 


Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread MDK
Jack, it remains very  difficult to be civil, when you post this kind of 
stuff.

Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government 
rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce, 
except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a 
department of education, federal welfare, and millions upon millions of 
pages of regulations that covered everything from our toilet tank size to 
the tags on your mattress.

It is precisely and amazingly preposterous to think that we could not 
possibly do without this massive nanny state that's threatening to consume 
nearly 35% of everything produced, and directly control over 1/2 of every 
dollar earned in this country.Your statement is utterly insulting to all 
of us.Not only can we live without the federal government's nose in 
everything we do, we would be MUCH better off if it were so.   To tell me 
that  I and all of the rest of us are incapable of survival without massive 
intrusion into our lives by politicians in Washington DC is an insult that 
is simply not forgivable in the common realm.

Not only could we do without 80% of all the agencies, we could do without 
90% of all the millions of pages of rules and laws.   We could not only do 
without, we would be healthier, happier, wealthier, and more responsible if 
it were so.

Your comment has slipped over the edge from simple discussion of the merits 
of federal actions vs our businesses and how we earn a living, to a blind 
ideological fantasy, where all comes from Washington DC.These things we 
expect from Politicians... they are by nature self serving...   But why from 
you?







--
From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 2:48 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation 
ofnet-neutrality Brad,

 There is really only one way to get a smaller government without
 throwing society into total disarray. That method is to have a smaller
 country, in other words, a lower level of population. With an exploding
 population there is just no way that I can see to get a smaller 
 government.

 If only reclaiming our country for working people was as easy as voting
 the incumbents out that would be GREAT but unfortunately it's not that
 simple. Voting the incumbents out won't result in government doing a
 better job for working people because the real influence is the
 big-corporation money that finances the election campaigns for each new
 crop of political nominees. The big-money lobbyists remain when each old
 group of politicians is voted out so the big-money corporation's power
 actually becomes greater and greater as time goes on.

 The solution that I propose is equal public financing for ALL political
 campaigns. Each nominee (and incumbent) would receive an equal number of
 taxpayer dollars to run their campaign. This will help ALL candidates
 remember who they are supposed to be working for (working-class
 taxpayers, not large corporations).

 As to regaining some influence for working people with regard to banks,
 I'd recommend that everyone put their money in a local credit union or
 small local community bank. My money has been kept in a local community
 credit union for over 20 years and I feel good about it being there.
 It's contributing to the community instead of being used in an
 irresponsible fashion and/or used against the best interests of the
 community.

 Best,
  jack


 Brad Belton wrote:
 The fundamental difference that Jack fails to recognize is if a bank (or
 organization other than the government) does treat you unfairly you have
 recourse.  If your own government treats you unfairly, you have little to 
 no
 recourse.



 Yes, we can all only hope the majority of Americans will continue to 
 stand
 up and say no more to big government.  A smaller less intrusive 
 government
 is what America needs.  In order to achieve this we have to remove the
 career politicians from office that have clearly lost touch with the 
 people
 that elected them.



 Brad





 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:01 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation 
 of
 net-neutrality



 So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance
 companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want 
 to
 do it.

 BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh


 Frank Crawford wrote:

 YES

 Jack Unger wrote:


 I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you
 support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown
 it in a bathtub?

 Glenn Kelley wrote:



 Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates
 telecommunications common carriers is now being 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Jack Unger




Brad, 

You are misunderstanding or ignoring what I've been saying so let's try
it again. 

When you have more people crowded into the same space your are going to
have more frequent and more complex problems, including more fighting
over the available amount of resources. Like it or not, attempting to
maintain order is expected of government, be it large or small
government. A two-person police force is expected to be able to
maintain order in a tiny community and a 10,000 person police force is
expected to be able to maintain order in a large city. A two-person
(small government) police force will not be able to maintain order in
New York or Los Angeles. "Socialism" (however that is defined or
mis-defined) has nothing to do with this basic dynamic. 

America was built by hard-working people who thrived within the limited
government framework that the founding fathers provided. Unfortunately
today, 99% of the working people have lost or given up their power to
govern their own lives. That power now resides in the hands of large
corporations (banks, factory farms, seed companies, meat processors,
insurance companies, news networks, incumbent telecom companies, etc.).
Government has unfortunately become complicit in this dynamic. Today,
big money corporations control government by "buying off" politicians
through large campaign contributions. It doesn't matter if the
politicians are Democrats or Republicans. Our big-money political
system has corrupted virtually all of them. Until we fix our broken
political system by removing the corrupting effect of big money, none
of us will regain the freedoms that were fought for and won by our
ancestors. 

jack



Brad Belton wrote:

  Jack,

I completely disagree with the notion that America has to become smaller to
have a smaller less invasive government!  It is a socialist mentality to
think that only government can grow America or help Americans.

America achieved its success by people utilizing their abilities to better
themselves and their lives free of an overly burdening government.  America
was not built by grants, entitlements or anything big government can
possibly provide.  Instead our constitution provides a framework outlining
government limitations, so as to prevent government to ever be able to
control the people it governs.  The people of the republic govern not the
other way around.

Countless Americans have given their lives to protect the very freedom big
government takes away.  Government run health care just happens to be the
straw that broke the camel's back and Americans are saying enough is enough
in overwhelming numbers.


Brad


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:48 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

Brad,

There is really only one way to get a smaller government without 
throwing society into total disarray. That method is to have a smaller 
country, in other words, a lower level of population. With an exploding 
population there is just no way that I can see to get a smaller government.

If only reclaiming our country for working people was as easy as voting 
the incumbents out that would be GREAT but unfortunately it's not that 
simple. Voting the incumbents out won't result in government doing a 
better job for working people because the real influence is the 
big-corporation money that finances the election campaigns for each new 
crop of political nominees. The big-money lobbyists remain when each old 
group of politicians is voted out so the big-money corporation's power 
actually becomes greater and greater as time goes on.

The solution that I propose is equal public financing for ALL political 
campaigns. Each nominee (and incumbent) would receive an equal number of 
taxpayer dollars to run their campaign. This will help ALL candidates 
remember who they are supposed to be working for (working-class 
taxpayers, not large corporations).

As to regaining some influence for working people with regard to banks, 
I'd recommend that everyone put their money in a local credit union or 
small local community bank. My money has been kept in a local community 
credit union for over 20 years and I feel good about it being there. 
It's contributing to the community instead of being used in an 
irresponsible fashion and/or used against the best interests of the 
community.

Best,
  jack


Brad Belton wrote:
  
  
The fundamental difference that Jack fails to recognize is if a bank (or
organization other than the government) does treat you unfairly you have
recourse.  If your own government treats you unfairly, you have little to

  
  no
  
  
recourse.

 

Yes, we can all only hope the majority of Americans will continue to stand
up and say no more to big government.  A smaller less intrusive government
is what 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Jack Unger




Sorry Mark, 

I truly appreciate and enjoy responding to all appropriate and
responsible posts but your LONG HISTORY of troll behavior will FOREVER
elicit the same response from me. 

I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed
the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. 



MDK wrote:

  Jack, it remains very  difficult to be civil, when you post this kind of 
stuff.

Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government 
rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce, 
except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a 
department of education, federal welfare, and millions upon millions of 
pages of regulations that covered everything from our toilet tank size to 
the tags on your mattress.

It is precisely and amazingly preposterous to think that we could not 
possibly "do without" this massive nanny state that's threatening to consume 
nearly 35% of everything produced, and directly control over 1/2 of every 
dollar earned in this country.Your statement is utterly insulting to all 
of us.Not only can we live without the federal government's nose in 
everything we do, we would be MUCH better off if it were so.   To tell me 
that  I and all of the rest of us are incapable of survival without massive 
intrusion into our lives by politicians in Washington DC is an insult that 
is simply not forgivable in the common realm.

Not only could we do without 80% of all the agencies, we could do without 
90% of all the millions of pages of rules and laws.   We could not only do 
without, we would be healthier, happier, wealthier, and more responsible if 
it were so.

Your comment has slipped over the edge from simple discussion of the merits 
of federal actions vs our businesses and how we earn a living, to a blind 
ideological fantasy, where all comes from Washington DC.These things we 
expect from Politicians... they are by nature self serving...   But why from 
you?







--
From: "Jack Unger" jun...@ask-wi.com
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 2:48 PM
To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation ofnet-neutrality Brad,
  
  
There is really only one way to get a smaller government without
throwing society into total disarray. That method is to have a smaller
country, in other words, a lower level of population. With an exploding
population there is just no way that I can see to get a smaller 
government.

If only reclaiming our country for working people was as easy as voting
the incumbents out that would be GREAT but unfortunately it's not that
simple. Voting the incumbents out won't result in government doing a
better job for working people because the real influence is the
big-corporation money that finances the election campaigns for each new
crop of political nominees. The big-money lobbyists remain when each old
group of politicians is voted out so the big-money corporation's power
actually becomes greater and greater as time goes on.

The solution that I propose is equal public financing for ALL political
campaigns. Each nominee (and incumbent) would receive an equal number of
taxpayer dollars to run their campaign. This will help ALL candidates
remember who they are supposed to be working for (working-class
taxpayers, not large corporations).

As to regaining some influence for working people with regard to banks,
I'd recommend that everyone put their money in a local credit union or
small local community bank. My money has been kept in a local community
credit union for over 20 years and I feel good about it being there.
It's contributing to the community instead of being used in an
irresponsible fashion and/or used against the best interests of the
community.

Best,
 jack


Brad Belton wrote:


  The fundamental difference that Jack fails to recognize is if a bank (or
organization other than the government) does treat you unfairly you have
recourse.  If your own government treats you unfairly, you have little to 
no
recourse.



Yes, we can all only hope the majority of Americans will continue to 
stand
up and say no more to big government.  A smaller less intrusive 
government
is what America needs.  In order to achieve this we have to remove the
career politicians from office that have clearly lost touch with the 
people
that elected them.



Brad





From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:01 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation 
of
net-neutrality



So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance
companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want 
to
do it.

BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh


Frank Crawford wrote:

YES

Jack 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Jeff Broadwick
Wow Jack!
 
99% of the working people have lost or given up their power to govern their
own lives.
 
I believe that there are a small percent of people who knowingly or
unknowingly have turned their lives over to someone else, but to say that it
is 99% is just wrong.  

Jeff 
 

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: Thursday, February 04, 2010 8:56 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality


Brad, 

You are misunderstanding or ignoring what I've been saying so let's try it
again. 

When you have more people crowded into the same space your are going to have
more frequent and more complex problems, including more fighting over the
available amount of resources. Like it or not, attempting to maintain order
is expected of government, be it large or small government. A two-person
police force is expected to be able to maintain order in a tiny community
and a 10,000 person police force is expected to be able to maintain order in
a large city. A two-person (small government) police force will not be able
to maintain order in New York or Los Angeles. Socialism (however that is
defined or mis-defined)  has nothing to do with this basic dynamic. 

America was built by hard-working people who thrived within the limited
government framework that the founding fathers provided. Unfortunately
today, 99% of the working people have lost or given up their power to govern
their own lives. That power now resides in the hands of large corporations
(banks, factory farms, seed companies, meat processors, insurance companies,
news networks, incumbent telecom companies, etc.). Government has
unfortunately become complicit in this dynamic. Today, big money
corporations control government by buying off politicians through large
campaign contributions. It doesn't matter if the politicians are Democrats
or Republicans. Our big-money political system has corrupted virtually all
of them.  Until we fix our broken political system by removing the
corrupting effect of big money, none of us will regain the freedoms that
were fought for and won by our ancestors. 

jack



Brad Belton wrote: 

Jack,

I completely disagree with the notion that America has to become
smaller to
have a smaller less invasive government!  It is a socialist
mentality to
think that only government can grow America or help Americans.

America achieved its success by people utilizing their abilities to
better
themselves and their lives free of an overly burdening government.
America
was not built by grants, entitlements or anything big government can
possibly provide.  Instead our constitution provides a framework
outlining
government limitations, so as to prevent government to ever be able
to
control the people it governs.  The people of the republic govern
not the
other way around.

Countless Americans have given their lives to protect the very
freedom big
government takes away.  Government run health care just happens to
be the
straw that broke the camel's back and Americans are saying enough is
enough
in overwhelming numbers.


Brad


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:48 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in
regulation of
net-neutrality

Brad,

There is really only one way to get a smaller government without 
throwing society into total disarray. That method is to have a
smaller 
country, in other words, a lower level of population. With an
exploding 
population there is just no way that I can see to get a smaller
government.

If only reclaiming our country for working people was as easy as
voting 
the incumbents out that would be GREAT but unfortunately it's not
that 
simple. Voting the incumbents out won't result in government doing a

better job for working people because the real influence is the 
big-corporation money that finances the election campaigns for each
new 
crop of political nominees. The big-money lobbyists remain when each
old 
group of politicians is voted out so the big-money corporation's
power 
actually becomes greater and greater as time goes on.

The solution that I propose is equal public financing for ALL
political 
campaigns. Each nominee (and incumbent) would receive an equal
number of 
taxpayer 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread RickG
Jack, make that two trolls :)

With all due respect, isnt that exactly how liberals respond to conservative
claims - by demonizing them? Marks comments were spot on and I couldnt have
said them any better, so I'm resending them with my name on the end. I
respect your right to your viewpoint but I hope you have data to support the
claims. I know the the data is there for the more conservative claims. So,
just in case you hit delete:

Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government
rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce,
except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a
department of education, federal welfare, and millions upon millions of
pages of regulations that covered everything from our toilet tank size to
the tags on your mattress.

It is precisely and amazingly preposterous to think that we could not
possibly do without this massive nanny state that's threatening to consume
nearly 35% of everything produced, and directly control over 1/2 of every
dollar earned in this country.Your statement is utterly insulting to all
of us.Not only can we live without the federal government's nose in
everything we do, we would be MUCH better off if it were so.   To tell me
that  I and all of the rest of us are incapable of survival without massive
intrusion into our lives by politicians in Washington DC is an insult that
is simply not forgivable in the common realm.

Not only could we do without 80% of all the agencies, we could do without
90% of all the millions of pages of rules and laws.   We could not only do
without, we would be healthier, happier, wealthier, and more responsible if
it were so.

Your comment has slipped over the edge from simple discussion of the merits
of federal actions vs our businesses and how we earn a living, to a blind
ideological fantasy, where all comes from Washington DC.These things we
expect from Politicians... they are by nature self serving...   But why from
you?

-RickG

On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:

  Sorry Mark,

 I truly appreciate and enjoy responding to all appropriate and responsible
 posts but your LONG HISTORY of troll behavior will FOREVER elicit the same
 response from me.

 I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the
 troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll.



 MDK wrote:

 Jack, it remains very  difficult to be civil, when you post this kind of
 stuff.

 Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government
 rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce,
 except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a
 department of education, federal welfare, and millions upon millions of
 pages of regulations that covered everything from our toilet tank size to
 the tags on your mattress.

 It is precisely and amazingly preposterous to think that we could not
 possibly do without this massive nanny state that's threatening to consume
 nearly 35% of everything produced, and directly control over 1/2 of every
 dollar earned in this country.Your statement is utterly insulting to all
 of us.Not only can we live without the federal government's nose in
 everything we do, we would be MUCH better off if it were so.   To tell me
 that  I and all of the rest of us are incapable of survival without massive
 intrusion into our lives by politicians in Washington DC is an insult that
 is simply not forgivable in the common realm.

 Not only could we do without 80% of all the agencies, we could do without
 90% of all the millions of pages of rules and laws.   We could not only do
 without, we would be healthier, happier, wealthier, and more responsible if
 it were so.

 Your comment has slipped over the edge from simple discussion of the merits
 of federal actions vs our businesses and how we earn a living, to a blind
 ideological fantasy, where all comes from Washington DC.These things we
 expect from Politicians... they are by nature self serving...   But why from
 you?







 --
 From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com jun...@ask-wi.com
 Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 2:48 PM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation 
 ofnet-neutrality Brad,


  There is really only one way to get a smaller government without
 throwing society into total disarray. That method is to have a smaller
 country, in other words, a lower level of population. With an exploding
 population there is just no way that I can see to get a smaller
 government.

 If only reclaiming our country for working people was as easy as voting
 the incumbents out that would be GREAT but unfortunately it's not that
 simple. Voting the incumbents out won't result in government doing a
 better job for working people because the real 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Brad Belton
Jack,

 

Your police analogy is flawed.  

 

While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of a
larger population it does not take a larger government body with increased
invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively.  A larger population
requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are
applied to all regardless of the size of population.

 

Agreed, the more people that give up and begin to simply depend on the
government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country)
becomes.  This is exactly what big government wants; the people to become
more dependent on them.  The more dependent the people become on big
government the more power they have over your life and the fewer freedoms
you enjoy.

 

Why is it that so many small businesses exist?  They exist partly because
they can provide a better service/price than the big guys.  Wireless
providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors open)
exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and acted
upon.  Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government stays
out of it.  I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big Telco's
charge the better my business does!

 

What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending?  GM
is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were forced to take
TARP haven't changed and many have repaid TARP to get the government out of
their business.  Is it such a bad thing to own and operate a small business
with no long term debt?  Sure, it makes getting the company off the ground
that much harder, but it also creates a personal investment and commitment
by the proprietor beyond any cash infusion.

 

Unemployment is nearing record highs as those (evil guys) that employ people
weather the storm of uncertainty.  People are losing their homes.many of
which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if it
were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers.

 

I can go on, but I get the feeling none of this makes any sense to you,
Jack.  That's fine with me.there are those that do and those that.I don't
know.just coast along I guess?

 

Best,

 

 

Brad

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 7:55 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

 

Brad, 

You are misunderstanding or ignoring what I've been saying so let's try it
again. 

When you have more people crowded into the same space your are going to have
more frequent and more complex problems, including more fighting over the
available amount of resources. Like it or not, attempting to maintain order
is expected of government, be it large or small government. A two-person
police force is expected to be able to maintain order in a tiny community
and a 10,000 person police force is expected to be able to maintain order in
a large city. A two-person (small government) police force will not be able
to maintain order in New York or Los Angeles. Socialism (however that is
defined or mis-defined)  has nothing to do with this basic dynamic. 

America was built by hard-working people who thrived within the limited
government framework that the founding fathers provided. Unfortunately
today, 99% of the working people have lost or given up their power to govern
their own lives. That power now resides in the hands of large corporations
(banks, factory farms, seed companies, meat processors, insurance companies,
news networks, incumbent telecom companies, etc.). Government has
unfortunately become complicit in this dynamic. Today, big money
corporations control government by buying off politicians through large
campaign contributions. It doesn't matter if the politicians are Democrats
or Republicans. Our big-money political system has corrupted virtually all
of them.  Until we fix our broken political system by removing the
corrupting effect of big money, none of us will regain the freedoms that
were fought for and won by our ancestors. 

jack



Brad Belton wrote: 

Jack,
 
I completely disagree with the notion that America has to become smaller to
have a smaller less invasive government!  It is a socialist mentality to
think that only government can grow America or help Americans.
 
America achieved its success by people utilizing their abilities to better
themselves and their lives free of an overly burdening government.  America
was not built by grants, entitlements or anything big government can
possibly provide.  Instead our constitution provides a framework outlining
government limitations, so as to prevent government to ever be able to
control the people it governs.  The people of the republic govern not the
other way around.
 
Countless Americans have given their lives to protect the very freedom big
government takes 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Robert West
They'll keep up by slowing us down with regulation.  They're good at such
activity.



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Glenn Kelley
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 9:55 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates
telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to
oversee broadband.  FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he
gave to the Free State Foundation asked:  (see First Do No Harm: A broadband
plan for Amercia)
Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory
Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application? . With
this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just another
type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and
application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the
government be able to keep up?


Much more on the blog:   www.HostMedic.com -- 

_
Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com 
  Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.





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] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Robert West
And me and my pack of highly trained Wispa Ninja warriors will be waiting
for them to thwart their plans of conquest!

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:01 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

 

So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance
companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to
do it.

BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh 


Frank Crawford wrote: 

YES
 
Jack Unger wrote:
  

I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you 
support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown 
it in a bathtub?
 
Glenn Kelley wrote:
  


Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates
telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to
oversee broadband.  FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he
gave to the Free State Foundation asked:  (see First Do No Harm: A broadband
plan for Amercia)
Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory
Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application? . With
this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just another
type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and
application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the
government be able to keep up?
 
 
Much more on the blog:   www.HostMedic.com -- 

_
Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com 
  Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
 
 
 


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/
 
 
  





-- 
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 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] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Jack Unger
Good point Jeff ! :)

Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 Wow Jack!
  
 99% of the working people have lost or given up their power to govern their
 own lives.
  
 I believe that there are a small percent of people who knowingly or
 unknowingly have turned their lives over to someone else, but to say that it
 is 99% is just wrong.  

 Jeff 
  

 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: Thursday, February 04, 2010 8:56 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
 net-neutrality


 Brad, 

 You are misunderstanding or ignoring what I've been saying so let's try it
 again. 

 When you have more people crowded into the same space your are going to have
 more frequent and more complex problems, including more fighting over the
 available amount of resources. Like it or not, attempting to maintain order
 is expected of government, be it large or small government. A two-person
 police force is expected to be able to maintain order in a tiny community
 and a 10,000 person police force is expected to be able to maintain order in
 a large city. A two-person (small government) police force will not be able
 to maintain order in New York or Los Angeles. Socialism (however that is
 defined or mis-defined)  has nothing to do with this basic dynamic. 

 America was built by hard-working people who thrived within the limited
 government framework that the founding fathers provided. Unfortunately
 today, 99% of the working people have lost or given up their power to govern
 their own lives. That power now resides in the hands of large corporations
 (banks, factory farms, seed companies, meat processors, insurance companies,
 news networks, incumbent telecom companies, etc.). Government has
 unfortunately become complicit in this dynamic. Today, big money
 corporations control government by buying off politicians through large
 campaign contributions. It doesn't matter if the politicians are Democrats
 or Republicans. Our big-money political system has corrupted virtually all
 of them.  Until we fix our broken political system by removing the
 corrupting effect of big money, none of us will regain the freedoms that
 were fought for and won by our ancestors. 

 jack



 Brad Belton wrote: 

   Jack,
   
   I completely disagree with the notion that America has to become
 smaller to
   have a smaller less invasive government!  It is a socialist
 mentality to
   think that only government can grow America or help Americans.
   
   America achieved its success by people utilizing their abilities to
 better
   themselves and their lives free of an overly burdening government.
 America
   was not built by grants, entitlements or anything big government can
   possibly provide.  Instead our constitution provides a framework
 outlining
   government limitations, so as to prevent government to ever be able
 to
   control the people it governs.  The people of the republic govern
 not the
   other way around.
   
   Countless Americans have given their lives to protect the very
 freedom big
   government takes away.  Government run health care just happens to
 be the
   straw that broke the camel's back and Americans are saying enough is
 enough
   in overwhelming numbers.
   
   
   Brad
   
   
   -Original Message-
   From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
 On
   Behalf Of Jack Unger
   Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:48 PM
   To: WISPA General List
   Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in
 regulation of
   net-neutrality
   
   Brad,
   
   There is really only one way to get a smaller government without 
   throwing society into total disarray. That method is to have a
 smaller 
   country, in other words, a lower level of population. With an
 exploding 
   population there is just no way that I can see to get a smaller
 government.
   
   If only reclaiming our country for working people was as easy as
 voting 
   the incumbents out that would be GREAT but unfortunately it's not
 that 
   simple. Voting the incumbents out won't result in government doing a

   better job for working people because the real influence is the 
   big-corporation money that finances the election campaigns for each
 new 
   crop of political nominees. The big-money lobbyists remain when each
 old 
   group of politicians is voted out so the big-money corporation's
 power 
   actually becomes greater and greater as time goes on.
   
   The solution that I propose is equal public financing for ALL
 political 
   campaigns. Each nominee 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Robert West
Ah, but what about the newly found free speech rights of corporations?
You aren't allowed to limit their speech (DOLLARS) now according to most
of the fine folks over at the supreme court.  

Of course, OURS will then be drowned out by their deep pockets full of
speech  

Bob-



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 5:48 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

Brad,

There is really only one way to get a smaller government without 
throwing society into total disarray. That method is to have a smaller 
country, in other words, a lower level of population. With an exploding 
population there is just no way that I can see to get a smaller government.

If only reclaiming our country for working people was as easy as voting 
the incumbents out that would be GREAT but unfortunately it's not that 
simple. Voting the incumbents out won't result in government doing a 
better job for working people because the real influence is the 
big-corporation money that finances the election campaigns for each new 
crop of political nominees. The big-money lobbyists remain when each old 
group of politicians is voted out so the big-money corporation's power 
actually becomes greater and greater as time goes on.

The solution that I propose is equal public financing for ALL political 
campaigns. Each nominee (and incumbent) would receive an equal number of 
taxpayer dollars to run their campaign. This will help ALL candidates 
remember who they are supposed to be working for (working-class 
taxpayers, not large corporations).

As to regaining some influence for working people with regard to banks, 
I'd recommend that everyone put their money in a local credit union or 
small local community bank. My money has been kept in a local community 
credit union for over 20 years and I feel good about it being there. 
It's contributing to the community instead of being used in an 
irresponsible fashion and/or used against the best interests of the 
community.

Best,
  jack


Brad Belton wrote:
 The fundamental difference that Jack fails to recognize is if a bank (or
 organization other than the government) does treat you unfairly you have
 recourse.  If your own government treats you unfairly, you have little to
no
 recourse.

  

 Yes, we can all only hope the majority of Americans will continue to stand
 up and say no more to big government.  A smaller less intrusive government
 is what America needs.  In order to achieve this we have to remove the
 career politicians from office that have clearly lost touch with the
people
 that elected them.

  

 Brad

  

  

 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:01 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation
of
 net-neutrality

  

 So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance
 companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to
 do it.

 BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh 


 Frank Crawford wrote: 

 YES
  
 Jack Unger wrote:
   

 I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you 
 support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown 
 it in a bathtub?
  
 Glenn Kelley wrote:
   
 

 Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates
 telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to
 oversee broadband.  FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he
 gave to the Free State Foundation asked:  (see First Do No Harm: A
broadband
 plan for Amercia)
 Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory
 Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application? .
With
 this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just another
 type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and
 application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will
the
 government be able to keep up?
  
  
 Much more on the blog:   www.HostMedic.com -- 


 _
 Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com 
   Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
 Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
  
  
  


 
 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] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Jack Unger




Just keep saying to yourself. 

1. Overpopulation is good. 

2 Political corruption does not exist. 

Good luck and best wishes.  ;-) 

jack


RickG wrote:

  Jack, make that two trolls :)

With all due respect, isnt that exactly how liberals respond to conservative
claims - by demonizing them? Marks comments were spot on and I couldnt have
said them any better, so I'm resending them with my name on the end. I
respect your right to your viewpoint but I hope you have data to support the
claims. I know the the data is there for the more conservative claims. So,
just in case you hit delete:

Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government
rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce,
except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a
department of education, federal welfare, and millions upon millions of
pages of regulations that covered everything from our toilet tank size to
the tags on your mattress.

It is precisely and amazingly preposterous to think that we could not
possibly "do without" this massive nanny state that's threatening to consume
nearly 35% of everything produced, and directly control over 1/2 of every
dollar earned in this country.Your statement is utterly insulting to all
of us.Not only can we live without the federal government's nose in
everything we do, we would be MUCH better off if it were so.   To tell me
that  I and all of the rest of us are incapable of survival without massive
intrusion into our lives by politicians in Washington DC is an insult that
is simply not forgivable in the common realm.

Not only could we do without 80% of all the agencies, we could do without
90% of all the millions of pages of rules and laws.   We could not only do
without, we would be healthier, happier, wealthier, and more responsible if
it were so.

Your comment has slipped over the edge from simple discussion of the merits
of federal actions vs our businesses and how we earn a living, to a blind
ideological fantasy, where all comes from Washington DC.These things we
expect from Politicians... they are by nature self serving...   But why from
you?

-RickG

On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:

  
  
 Sorry Mark,

I truly appreciate and enjoy responding to all appropriate and responsible
posts but your LONG HISTORY of troll behavior will FOREVER elicit the same
response from me.

I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the
troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll.



MDK wrote:

Jack, it remains very  difficult to be civil, when you post this kind of
stuff.

Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government
rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce,
except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a
department of education, federal welfare, and millions upon millions of
pages of regulations that covered everything from our toilet tank size to
the tags on your mattress.

It is precisely and amazingly preposterous to think that we could not
possibly "do without" this massive nanny state that's threatening to consume
nearly 35% of everything produced, and directly control over 1/2 of every
dollar earned in this country.Your statement is utterly insulting to all
of us.Not only can we live without the federal government's nose in
everything we do, we would be MUCH better off if it were so.   To tell me
that  I and all of the rest of us are incapable of survival without massive
intrusion into our lives by politicians in Washington DC is an insult that
is simply not forgivable in the common realm.

Not only could we do without 80% of all the agencies, we could do without
90% of all the millions of pages of rules and laws.   We could not only do
without, we would be healthier, happier, wealthier, and more responsible if
it were so.

Your comment has slipped over the edge from simple discussion of the merits
of federal actions vs our businesses and how we earn a living, to a blind
ideological fantasy, where all comes from Washington DC.These things we
expect from Politicians... they are by nature self serving...   But why from
you?







--
From: "Jack Unger" jun...@ask-wi.com jun...@ask-wi.com
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 2:48 PM
To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation ofnet-neutrality Brad,


 There is really only one way to get a smaller government without
throwing society into total disarray. That method is to have a smaller
country, in other words, a lower level of population. With an exploding
population there is just no way that I can see to get a smaller
government.

If only reclaiming our country for working people was as easy as voting
the incumbents out that would be GREAT but unfortunately 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Jack Unger
On the contrary Brad. Not all but a lot of what you just said I agree 
with. You are obviously a sharp thinker and I absolutely respect that.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your thinking.

Best of luck.

Respectfully,
  jack


Brad Belton wrote:
 Jack,

  

 Your police analogy is flawed.  

  

 While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of a
 larger population it does not take a larger government body with increased
 invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively.  A larger population
 requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are
 applied to all regardless of the size of population.

  

 Agreed, the more people that give up and begin to simply depend on the
 government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country)
 becomes.  This is exactly what big government wants; the people to become
 more dependent on them.  The more dependent the people become on big
 government the more power they have over your life and the fewer freedoms
 you enjoy.

  

 Why is it that so many small businesses exist?  They exist partly because
 they can provide a better service/price than the big guys.  Wireless
 providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors open)
 exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and acted
 upon.  Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government stays
 out of it.  I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big Telco's
 charge the better my business does!

  

 What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending?  GM
 is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were forced to take
 TARP haven't changed and many have repaid TARP to get the government out of
 their business.  Is it such a bad thing to own and operate a small business
 with no long term debt?  Sure, it makes getting the company off the ground
 that much harder, but it also creates a personal investment and commitment
 by the proprietor beyond any cash infusion.

  

 Unemployment is nearing record highs as those (evil guys) that employ people
 weather the storm of uncertainty.  People are losing their homes.many of
 which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if it
 were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers.

  

 I can go on, but I get the feeling none of this makes any sense to you,
 Jack.  That's fine with me.there are those that do and those that.I don't
 know.just coast along I guess?

  

 Best,

  

  

 Brad

  

 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 7:55 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
 net-neutrality

  

 Brad, 

 You are misunderstanding or ignoring what I've been saying so let's try it
 again. 

 When you have more people crowded into the same space your are going to have
 more frequent and more complex problems, including more fighting over the
 available amount of resources. Like it or not, attempting to maintain order
 is expected of government, be it large or small government. A two-person
 police force is expected to be able to maintain order in a tiny community
 and a 10,000 person police force is expected to be able to maintain order in
 a large city. A two-person (small government) police force will not be able
 to maintain order in New York or Los Angeles. Socialism (however that is
 defined or mis-defined)  has nothing to do with this basic dynamic. 

 America was built by hard-working people who thrived within the limited
 government framework that the founding fathers provided. Unfortunately
 today, 99% of the working people have lost or given up their power to govern
 their own lives. That power now resides in the hands of large corporations
 (banks, factory farms, seed companies, meat processors, insurance companies,
 news networks, incumbent telecom companies, etc.). Government has
 unfortunately become complicit in this dynamic. Today, big money
 corporations control government by buying off politicians through large
 campaign contributions. It doesn't matter if the politicians are Democrats
 or Republicans. Our big-money political system has corrupted virtually all
 of them.  Until we fix our broken political system by removing the
 corrupting effect of big money, none of us will regain the freedoms that
 were fought for and won by our ancestors. 

 jack



 Brad Belton wrote: 

 Jack,
  
 I completely disagree with the notion that America has to become smaller to
 have a smaller less invasive government!  It is a socialist mentality to
 think that only government can grow America or help Americans.
  
 America achieved its success by people utilizing their abilities to better
 themselves and their lives free of an overly burdening government.  America
 was not built by grants, 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Jack Unger
On the contrary Brad. Not all but a lot of what you just said I agree 
with. You are obviously a sharp thinker and I absolutely respect that.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your thinking.

Best of luck.

Respectfully,
  jack


Brad Belton wrote:
 Jack,

  

 Your police analogy is flawed.  

  

 While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of a
 larger population it does not take a larger government body with increased
 invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively.  A larger population
 requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are
 applied to all regardless of the size of population.

  

 Agreed, the more people that give up and begin to simply depend on the
 government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country)
 becomes.  This is exactly what big government wants; the people to become
 more dependent on them.  The more dependent the people become on big
 government the more power they have over your life and the fewer freedoms
 you enjoy.

  

 Why is it that so many small businesses exist?  They exist partly because
 they can provide a better service/price than the big guys.  Wireless
 providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors open)
 exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and acted
 upon.  Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government stays
 out of it.  I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big Telco's
 charge the better my business does!

  

 What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending?  GM
 is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were forced to take
 TARP haven't changed and many have repaid TARP to get the government out of
 their business.  Is it such a bad thing to own and operate a small business
 with no long term debt?  Sure, it makes getting the company off the ground
 that much harder, but it also creates a personal investment and commitment
 by the proprietor beyond any cash infusion.

  

 Unemployment is nearing record highs as those (evil guys) that employ people
 weather the storm of uncertainty.  People are losing their homes.many of
 which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if it
 were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers.

  

 I can go on, but I get the feeling none of this makes any sense to you,
 Jack.  That's fine with me.there are those that do and those that.I don't
 know.just coast along I guess?

  

 Best,

  

  

 Brad

  

 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 7:55 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
 net-neutrality

  

 Brad, 

 You are misunderstanding or ignoring what I've been saying so let's try it
 again. 

 When you have more people crowded into the same space your are going to have
 more frequent and more complex problems, including more fighting over the
 available amount of resources. Like it or not, attempting to maintain order
 is expected of government, be it large or small government. A two-person
 police force is expected to be able to maintain order in a tiny community
 and a 10,000 person police force is expected to be able to maintain order in
 a large city. A two-person (small government) police force will not be able
 to maintain order in New York or Los Angeles. Socialism (however that is
 defined or mis-defined)  has nothing to do with this basic dynamic. 

 America was built by hard-working people who thrived within the limited
 government framework that the founding fathers provided. Unfortunately
 today, 99% of the working people have lost or given up their power to govern
 their own lives. That power now resides in the hands of large corporations
 (banks, factory farms, seed companies, meat processors, insurance companies,
 news networks, incumbent telecom companies, etc.). Government has
 unfortunately become complicit in this dynamic. Today, big money
 corporations control government by buying off politicians through large
 campaign contributions. It doesn't matter if the politicians are Democrats
 or Republicans. Our big-money political system has corrupted virtually all
 of them.  Until we fix our broken political system by removing the
 corrupting effect of big money, none of us will regain the freedoms that
 were fought for and won by our ancestors. 

 jack



 Brad Belton wrote: 

 Jack,
  
 I completely disagree with the notion that America has to become smaller to
 have a smaller less invasive government!  It is a socialist mentality to
 think that only government can grow America or help Americans.
  
 America achieved its success by people utilizing their abilities to better
 themselves and their lives free of an overly burdening government.  America
 was not built by grants, 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Jack Unger
Thank God you're here!!

Can I please join the pack ???  :-[



Robert West wrote:
 And me and my pack of highly trained Wispa Ninja warriors will be waiting
 for them to thwart their plans of conquest!

  

  

  

 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:01 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
 net-neutrality

  

 So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance
 companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to
 do it.

 BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh 


 Frank Crawford wrote: 

 YES
  
 Jack Unger wrote:
   

 I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you 
 support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown 
 it in a bathtub?
  
 Glenn Kelley wrote:
   
 

 Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates
 telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to
 oversee broadband.  FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he
 gave to the Free State Foundation asked:  (see First Do No Harm: A broadband
 plan for Amercia)
 Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory
 Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application? . With
 this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just another
 type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and
 application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the
 government be able to keep up?
  
  
 Much more on the blog:   www.HostMedic.com -- 
 
 _
 Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com 
   Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
 Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
  
  
  
 
 
 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/
  
  
   





   

-- 
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 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] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Eje Gustafsson
LOL makes me recall article I read earlier tonight. 
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-04/at-t-s-iphone-deal-swamps-networ
k-sparking-consumer-rebellion.html

/ Eje

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Robert West
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:37 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

And me and my pack of highly trained Wispa Ninja warriors will be waiting
for them to thwart their plans of conquest!

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:01 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

 

So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance
companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to
do it.

BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh 


Frank Crawford wrote: 

YES
 
Jack Unger wrote:
  

I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you 
support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown 
it in a bathtub?
 
Glenn Kelley wrote:
  


Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates
telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to
oversee broadband.  FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he
gave to the Free State Foundation asked:  (see First Do No Harm: A broadband
plan for Amercia)
Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory
Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application? . With
this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just another
type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and
application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the
government be able to keep up?
 
 
Much more on the blog:   www.HostMedic.com -- 

_
Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com 
  Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
 
 
 


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/
 
 
  





-- 
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 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] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Robert West
Life, Liberty, Property.

Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us.  

For the common defense.

It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For the
government. As long as there are greedy people and the what about mine?
thinkers, it won't get any better.

As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war tax and
the draft.  Now hear me out on this

Are we at war?  Where?  I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or form.
Not directly anyhow.  So it continues to zap the life out of this country.
We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever without
much thought from those of us out here trying to live our lives and put food
on the table and pay for the folly of it all.  

If we had a war tax and kids were being drafted, we'd all be involved, more
commonly polarized and I guarantee you we wouldn't be pouring billions every
month down useless well.

Just my crazy thoughts.

Bob-







-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Brad Belton
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:38 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

Jack,

 

Your police analogy is flawed.  

 

While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of a
larger population it does not take a larger government body with increased
invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively.  A larger population
requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are
applied to all regardless of the size of population.

 

Agreed, the more people that give up and begin to simply depend on the
government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country)
becomes.  This is exactly what big government wants; the people to become
more dependent on them.  The more dependent the people become on big
government the more power they have over your life and the fewer freedoms
you enjoy.

 

Why is it that so many small businesses exist?  They exist partly because
they can provide a better service/price than the big guys.  Wireless
providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors open)
exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and acted
upon.  Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government stays
out of it.  I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big Telco's
charge the better my business does!

 

What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending?  GM
is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were forced to take
TARP haven't changed and many have repaid TARP to get the government out of
their business.  Is it such a bad thing to own and operate a small business
with no long term debt?  Sure, it makes getting the company off the ground
that much harder, but it also creates a personal investment and commitment
by the proprietor beyond any cash infusion.

 

Unemployment is nearing record highs as those (evil guys) that employ people
weather the storm of uncertainty.  People are losing their homes.many of
which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if it
were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers.

 

I can go on, but I get the feeling none of this makes any sense to you,
Jack.  That's fine with me.there are those that do and those that.I don't
know.just coast along I guess?

 

Best,

 

 

Brad

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 7:55 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

 

Brad, 

You are misunderstanding or ignoring what I've been saying so let's try it
again. 

When you have more people crowded into the same space your are going to have
more frequent and more complex problems, including more fighting over the
available amount of resources. Like it or not, attempting to maintain order
is expected of government, be it large or small government. A two-person
police force is expected to be able to maintain order in a tiny community
and a 10,000 person police force is expected to be able to maintain order in
a large city. A two-person (small government) police force will not be able
to maintain order in New York or Los Angeles. Socialism (however that is
defined or mis-defined)  has nothing to do with this basic dynamic. 

America was built by hard-working people who thrived within the limited
government framework that the founding fathers provided. Unfortunately
today, 99% of the working people have lost or given up their power to govern
their own lives. That power now resides in the hands of large corporations
(banks, factory farms, seed companies, meat processors, insurance companies,
news networks, incumbent telecom companies, etc.). Government 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Tom DeReggi
Brad,

  People are losing their homes.many of
 which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if 
 it
 were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers.

You had me, until the above paragraph.  That is a crock of ShXX.

Most housing foreclosures are conscious business decissions by the middle 
class, to improve their finance and cash flow. They ask, Is it worth 
continuing to sink money into this bad investment losing money?  I will say 
that there are a shortage of buyer. So when an investor cant offload their 
losing investment (House) to someone else, they resort to less ethical 
choices.
What does someone do if their house jsut lost 50k in value? IF they go to 
foreclosure, they can pretty much live rent free for a year in their home, 
before they are forced out. If they put their rent check in hidden savings 
instead, they earn 50k that year. That combined with gettting out of a loan 
taht is valued at mor ethan the house, it is a net $100k earning, for doing 
nothing. They learn they can earn more losing their home than some people do 
holding on to their home as an investment to resale.

And governments were not the ones forcing lenders to lend. Its the 
opposite Government regulation is unnecessarilly setting regulations to 
make buying harder for consumers, to address a problem that didn't exist.

Some People loose homes because a home is a 30 year commitment, and its 
hard for anyone to predict how one's life will pan out every year for 30 
years. All it takes is one bad year, and there goes the house. People loose 
houses because they loose jobs.  People loose houses because most personal 
debt is secured by their house, and loosing the house is the easiest way to 
get rid of the other debt. People lose houses because they cant live within 
their mean in other areas of their life. Or because they set their sights to 
high. But the biggest reason people default, is because they develop a sense 
of satisfaction or entitlement in screwing their lender when they feel they 
were taken advantage of by their lendor. Even with Bankruptcy, there are 
some interesing stats, for example, almost all people that go bankrupt 
religiously paid their bills the many years prior to, and that they had an 
average interest increase of 80-100% the year they filed.  The borrower 
could have paid and wanted to pay, but whenthey felt there was no way out of 
getting screwed by the lender, they make a business decission.

Part of the problem was dishonest overstated appraisals, and greedy lenders 
approving loans at values higher than the homes should be worth. Sure there 
is a percentage of foreclosure that are legitimate cases where the homeowner 
can no longer afford to pay their mortgage. But many are conscience business 
decissions on their investment. Why do you think Obama decided to help 
Middle class save their homes, while they let the most needy loose their 
homes? A Interest rate savings canbe justified as a clear business decission 
that might influence the middle class home owner to want to keep their home, 
instead of purposely defaulting.

I will agree that the Government is not taking the right approach to solve 
the problems.  But they surely are not the cause of the problem.  Assisting 
Americans into HomeOwnership is one of the largest success stories for 
America. And government assistance (such as FHA loan) was one of the answers 
to when the private sector was not willing to solve the problem on their 
own.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

 Brad Belton wrote:
 Jack,



 Your police analogy is flawed.



 While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of 
 a
 larger population it does not take a larger government body with 
 increased
 invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively.  A larger 
 population
 requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are
 applied to all regardless of the size of population.



 Agreed, the more people that give up and begin to simply depend on the
 government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country)
 becomes.  This is exactly what big government wants; the people to become
 more dependent on them.  The more dependent the people become on big
 government the more power they have over your life and the fewer freedoms
 you enjoy.



 Why is it that so many small businesses exist?  They exist partly because
 they can provide a better service/price than the big guys.  Wireless
 providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors 
 open)
 exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and 
 acted
 upon.  Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government 
 stays
 out of it.  I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big 
 Telco's
 charge the better my business does!



 What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending? 
 GM
 

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

2010-02-04 Thread Robert West
Yes.  You shall be admitted to the Brave Order of the Wispa Ninja Warriors
and will be permitted to enjoy all the benefits of this association.  This
includes, but is not limited to, being declared Right and Correct to any
one post of your choosing to the Wispa list per month.  

We only ask that if you are secretly a member of the Motorola Knights of
Cover, you renounce your allegiance to this faux society and swear
allegiance to your brothers here.

Welcome, Brother.



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 12:58 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of
net-neutrality

Thank God you're here!!

Can I please join the pack ???  :-[



Robert West wrote:
 And me and my pack of highly trained Wispa Ninja warriors will be waiting
 for them to thwart their plans of conquest!

  

  

  

 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:01 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation
of
 net-neutrality

  

 So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance
 companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to
 do it.

 BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh 


 Frank Crawford wrote: 

 YES
  
 Jack Unger wrote:
   

 I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you 
 support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown 
 it in a bathtub?
  
 Glenn Kelley wrote:
   
 

 Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates
 telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to
 oversee broadband.  FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he
 gave to the Free State Foundation asked:  (see First Do No Harm: A
broadband
 plan for Amercia)
 Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory
 Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application? .
With
 this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just another
 type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and
 application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will
the
 government be able to keep up?
  
  
 Much more on the blog:   www.HostMedic.com -- 


 _
 Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com 
   Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
 Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
  
  
  


 
 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/
  
  
   





   

-- 
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 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/