Re: [WISPA] To Break the Law or Not to BreaktheLaw...That is theQuestion

2006-02-05 Thread John Scrivner

Mark Koskenmaki wrote:


 It is the NATURE OF
GOVERNMENT REGULATION TO HARM BUSINESS.They regulate for political
purposes 

This is not based in fact. The role of government is to serve the 
interests of the people. It is not necessarily to serve the interests of 
one business sector over another or even to serve the needs of business 
as a whole. The government has always played a role in communications. 
The Internet was created by government programs to build ARPANET and 
DARPANET which later became the Internet. It was government's role that 
led to the open use of the Internet for private as well as public use. 
This was Al Gore's contribution to the Internet.


Much of the radio technology we use was created from tax based 
government programs to build advanced microwave data solutions for our 
military and NASA. These are all government supported programs that 
helped you personally to be in business today. The FCC passed rules 
allowing for large chunks of spectrum to be made available in unlicensed 
fashion ultimately creating our industry.


Let's stop the government bashing now. I am not going to stand here and 
watch as people tell half truths about the role government has played in 
this industry. This Internet itself would not exist without the work 
that has been done by our government. Let's get on track here and start 
either itemizing details you want to see changed in the form or move on 
to other issues. I am not going to change my mind in feeling it is 
paramount for our effort that we fill out these forms and stop 
suggesting any impropriety, either imagined or real, in the present or 
future intentions of the FCC regarding this information gathering.



I don't care what the "intent" is, that is
irrelevant.  It's what it can be used for that matters, because they WILL
use it for that, history has made this as clear as sunrise in the desert.

 

History has shown that the US helps build an environment that will 
inevitably lead to new innovations and technologies. Government does 
have a role in this and will not be stepping aside any time soon. Again, 
the government bashing needs to end now. If you are that upset with how 
the system is being run then you really do need to get involved in 
politics and start making change.



Wrong.   We don't want "The hammer" coming to smash us.   Giving them that
much knowledge is fatal.  period.  Doesn't matter if that's not what they
want it for, doesn't matter if the knowledge itself will "give" us other
things.   They will take far more than they give - that is indisputable.
 

Again, you assume the worst. If your representation is not assuming 
"evil" intentions then it is simply that you do not want to use that 
adjective but any other synonym saying the same thing.



We have the history of every industry that becomes regulated.   Eventually,
it evolves to one or a few monopolies.   And it took how many years of
lawsuits to break up Ma Bell?   Gee, ISP's fought tooth and nail to get
UNE's and then lost it in a court fight.
 

UNE's represent a flaw in the '96 telcom act. I would not like being 
told I had to give you access to my network either. I am not defending 
the ILECs per se'. I do understand why this went the way it did though. 
That does not mean I have to like it. It just means that there were 
reasons why it went the way it did and they were not necessarily based 
in monopoly interests of government.



I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE TO LIVE IN THAT ENVIRONMENT, where my fate hangs NOT
in my own initiative and creativity, but at the whims of someone I granted
power over me.
 

Guess what. If you do not have those fears every day with the market 
forces at work against you then you are just fooling yourself anyway. If 
you are not building a business you can gladly acknowledge to the FCC 
and any other government entity then you probably need to start looking 
for another line of work. The future is going to be tougher for making a 
business case and turning a profit in this business. It is not the FCC 
who is making it harder. It is the total inertia of efforts from all 
directions attempting to force a new revolution of broadband ubiquity by 
any means available all around us. If you are not selling low priced 
broadband to everyone around you now then someone is trying to figure 
out how to do it right now. This could be the local municipality, 
economic development commission, state, other providers, electrical 
utilities, cell carriers, you name it. The rural electric cooperatives 
around me are doing a study to build broadband now. You have more people 
looking to take business from you than the government. The FCC is likely 
the lowest priority threat you have right now concerning the future of 
your business..



If the hammer comes to smash us, certainly not.   We won't even exist, and
we, the operators, and our customers, will be the only mourners.
 

Please define what the "hammer" is and how filling out the form is 
someh

Re: [WISPA] To Break the Law or Not to BreaktheLaw...That is theQuestion

2006-02-05 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
- Original Message - 
From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] To Break the Law or Not to BreaktheLaw...That is
theQuestion


> John,
>
> I support your view.
> We can not assume that the FCC's intent for Wireless is evil, just because
> there is huge lobby efforts by our competitors (Cable and Telephone) and
> Lots of debate at the FCC to address equality issues regarding VOIP, that
> has generated much hippocracy and trouble in the FCC and Governement.  For
> example, I don't think there is any evidence that gathering Data on WISPs
is
> for the purpose to establish a basis for Taxing.

Tom, you're misunderstanding what people are saying here.   Nowhere have I
said that the present intent is "evil".   The stated goal is PROBABLY what
they say it is.   Assuming the "given" that is what it is, that does NOT
preclude future use for things that will harm us.  It is the NATURE OF
GOVERNMENT REGULATION TO HARM BUSINESS.They regulate for political
purposes ( Does "We'll give them 911 service" ring any bells?) and we, the
small guys, get whipsawed into bankruptcy.

A database doesn't have to be gathered for the purpose of taxing.   It
merely has to exist, to be USED for taxing, for regulating, for mandates.
Nothing mysterious about that.  And as we can see, mandates arrive without
any public request for them, taxes arrive without ANY recourse or warning.

Intent isn't even an issue.   I don't care what the "intent" is, that is
irrelevant.  It's what it can be used for that matters, because they WILL
use it for that, history has made this as clear as sunrise in the desert.

> The support of Wireless has been nothing but possitive from the FCC and
ALL
> their officials.  Even with lacking support for 700Mhz, its not because of
> lack of support for WISPs, but because the strength of the counter view
> broadcasting industry.  Its important that Wireless provider show proof
that
> they are a large enough size to be considered part of the solution. The
only
> way wireless providers are going to start getting grand money and funds
from
> governements to help them grow, is for them to show their possitive unique
> contributions.  The ONLY reason, I could see that reporting would be a
> negative thing, is that if most WISPs actually have fewer subscribers than
> they represent, and they don't want to let the FCC know the truth, because
> if they do, they won't be recognized adequately because their small scale,
> and WISPs do not want to lie and create a record of untruth.

Wrong.   We don't want "The hammer" coming to smash us.   Giving them that
much knowledge is fatal.  period.  Doesn't matter if that's not what they
want it for, doesn't matter if the knowledge itself will "give" us other
things.   They will take far more than they give - that is indisputable.
We have the history of every industry that becomes regulated.   Eventually,
it evolves to one or a few monopolies.   And it took how many years of
lawsuits to break up Ma Bell?   Gee, ISP's fought tooth and nail to get
UNE's and then lost it in a court fight.

I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE TO LIVE IN THAT ENVIRONMENT, where my fate hangs NOT
in my own initiative and creativity, but at the whims of someone I granted
power over me.

>
> Wireless is not a young indistry at this point. It took DSL 5 years to
reach
> mass penetration. I personally have been in this industry for 5 years, and
> haven;t met mass penetration yet :-)  Why are we growing so slowly.
Showing
> a small subscriber base, could tell the FCC they need to favor companies
> that have quicker growth potential, like the ILECs and Cable companies
that
> are taking on millions of customers. Give them the spectrum to deploy
> quicker than small WISPs can do.  Thats my fear.

Then fear away.   Registering WISP's will not affect that future one tiny
smidgeon.

>
> But the truth is, if numbers are low, that has to be shown, so we can make
> cases to the FCC why the numbers are low, and how they can help us get
past
> the barriers that are slowing us.  Does the FCC realize that Wireless
> providers in teh Urban america have such slow growth because lack of
> easements? Do Otard rules need to be expanded? Are higher power levels
> needed in spectrum, etc.  Manufacturers have to much pull with the FCC,
> because they can backup their requests with billions of dollars in sales.
> Can we the WISP community?

If the hammer comes to smash us, certainly not.   We won't even exist, and
we, the operators, and our customers, will be the only mourners.

>
> I think we have to try. We need EVERY SINGLE PERSON REPORTING making our
> num