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