----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 3:00 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] To Break the Law or NottoBreaktheLaw...That is theQuestion
> Mark, > > >Heck, none of them did. We have the two > >classes of industry... the unregulated and the subsidized. > > Some truth to that. However, I'd argue, that thats not the way I'd prefer > companies to be seperated by. Well, I wish there wasn't any truth to that, but... it sure seems that way. > As proud as I am to say I'm self funded, self built, and taken no hand outs > from no one, its not an easy road for success. > I would like to see more subsidees for the unregulated. Regulation is not a > requirement to receive subsidees. "regulation" is how "accountability" for government money is established, from a regulator's POV. There is no free money, ever. > Just like the governement jump started wired internet with ArpaNet, and > create monopolies and franchises to assist cable and telecom providers, > similar efforts should be offered to wireless infrastructure providers. At > minimum tax incentives offered. Why? I think we can do just fine on our own. Tax breaks? Sure, but everyone, everywhere needs that. North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net Fast Internet, NO WIRES! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Koskenmaki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 4:13 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] To Break the Law or NottoBreaktheLaw...That is > theQuestion > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 12:26 PM > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] To Break the Law or NottoBreaktheLaw...That is > > theQuestion > > > > > >> Mark, > >> > >> You made some very good points, in your response to me, and I do not > >> contradict them. > >> There is risk in all the things you bring up, when reporting. > >> Its part of the reason, I didn't file last year. > >> > >> The difference, is that we are on the opposite side of the coin, when > >> looking at the odds for good or bad commingfrom it. > > > >>From your comments, I'm not that sure we are. You are more focused on > >>short > > term, me on long term. > > > >> > >> It is my belief that the odds are higher, that reporting will accomplish > >> more good than harm, after considering everything. > >> > >> I think part of the problem here, is that it is not eveident to all what > > the > >> possible benefits are that could come out of reporting. > >> Even if the only benefit was that our large numbers as an industry were > >> recognized, that benefit could be enough alone. > > > > I always hate to state the obvious, it seems so... pedantic. But why > > can't we find a way to accomplish the good without the bad? Yeah, I > > know, > > it's a lot of energy to expend, to be a group that stands up to buck the > > tide. But then again, we'd not be here if we didn't have the energy to > > buck the tide in the first place, would we? > > > >> > >> One of the things thats Ironic, is I'm more afraid of other WISPS knowing > > my > >> true statistics than the FCC or governement, knowing my statistics. > > > > Heh... I think that turning over to the feds will result precisely the > > people you don't want having that informating getting thier hands on it. > > The government can be amazingly tight with information...and at the same > > time, amazingly loose with it when it it expedient. > > > >> > >> Long term there could be negative effect of reporting, but I'm just > >> trying > >> to get through today. And today, I think we need support, and reporting > >> is > >> likely to gain us more support. Critical legislation is getting > > considered > >> this year, and we need the support this year, so we need to report this > >> year. > >> > >> I'm not compelled to report because its the law, I'm compelled to report > >> because I need their support, and we need to let them know we are here. > > One > >> of the things I learned the passed couple years, is somethings are worth > >> paying for. For example, I've weakened and ponied up to a couple property > >> owners for commssions, which I never would have done 3 years ago, but I > > was > >> a more profitable company this year because my job was easier and more > >> productive, because I paid them. If the governement gave me moresupport > >> this year, so the ILECS didn't wipe us out with all their proposed > >> legislation this year, it would be worth it in trade to pay a few taxes > > down > >> the road, ebcause at least I'd be hear to colelct the taxes. > > > > No, you'll never get a dollar. > > > > It'll go to the big guys. Telecommunications, defense contracting, > > space > > development... You name it. Not a one has small business involved when it > > comes to Uncle Sam paying to get something done. I'm not trying to be > > cynical, but the odds are with me on this. > > > >> > >> We have got to realize we need the FCC's and governements help to survive > >> long term. Doing it on our own in the shadows will only last so long. > > > > Are you sure? > > > >> Underserved America won't be there forever. What are you going to do, > > when > >> your local ILEC is given huge funds to build a wireless network to > >> compete > >> against you with USF funds, because the governement won;y consider you as > > a > >> valid iption to fund, because you didn;t file, and as far as they know > >> you > >> don't exist, by your own choice. > > > > They already have the money to do this if they want. I don't expect that > > USF funds will make much difference. > > > >> > >> Wireless is about to become a much more political and aware of industry. > > Its > >> not going to just be our industry anymore. The taxes will come wether we > >> file or not. And they'll find you regardless of wether you file, just > >> like > >> the IRS finds people today. If you advertise, they will find you. And > > > > Nowhere was I suggesting that a few individuals refusing to file will have > > much impact. I was trying to say that we collectively tell them "The key > > to our existence and success is LEAVE US ALONE! This is one industry > > that > > cannot survive regulation. Heck, none of them did. We have the two > > classes of industry... the unregulated and the subsidized. > > > > > >> you'll need to advertise togrow. But the FCC isn;t going to go looking > >> for > >> you to help you and give you money, there is no motive to try and help > >> someone that doesn;t cooperate to be helped. BUt believe me, when they > > want > >> to collect moeny from you, they'll let you know they know you exist. > > > > Yeah, they want to collect from everyone... it's just a matter of how > > "big" > > you are in relationship to how much hassle it is to get it. > > > > I'm not suggesting the FCC or any federal agency should be "kept in the > > dark", but I am suggesting that we at least draw a line in the sand and > > tell > > them that THIS TIME you can promote success by giving the country the > > tools > > and butting out. That may be a rather novel concept to a few folks...and > > there's a good chance we won't succeed. > > > > Further, although I - personally - am in wireless, this reporting does not > > apply to JUST wireless. It's everyone. Everywhere. I tried to make > > that > > point earlier, with my comments about the scale of this thing. If some > > guy > > just buys a connection, and hooks up everyone his block... HE"S BREAKING > > THE > > LAW TO NOT FILE, or, at least the FCC's rules, which probably aren't to be > > confused with 'law'. And, for that matter, he's never going to figure > > out > > he's got the target on his back until the day the regulators come and shut > > him down. > > > > It will not gain us recognition, because if memory serves, it does not > > even > > ask what mode we use to distribute broadband. As I said, I can't open > > thier .xls file. So, will this gain us any recognition if it doesn't > > differentiate US from everyone else? I think not. It just lumps us into > > the DSL, Cable, and other operators. > > > > The only way that the FCC is going to recognize US as "wireless" is that > > if > > we as an industry catalog and make definite statements about our own size, > > which is why, if i'm not mistaken, WISPA exists in the first place. > > > > > > My little fictional and pretend story wasn't just about wireless... It was > > the complete exit by small business in the internet provision industry. > > And, it made the point that as far as 'facilities based" goes, we're about > > the last stand for small business. I think we could get a TON of allies > > in > > the "leave us alone" category outside of wireless, when it comes to the > > filing issues. Heck, we might even get the big boys on our side, sicne > > for > > them, it's a lot of work and paperwork to accomplish. > > > > But hey, what do I know... I"m just a hick from the sticks... > > > > :) > > > > > > North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 > > personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net > > sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net > > Fast Internet, NO WIRES! > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > - > > > > > >> > >> Tom DeReggi > >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Mark Koskenmaki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 2:42 PM > >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] To Break the Law or Not toBreaktheLaw...That is > >> theQuestion > >> > >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> > >> > 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 > >> >> numbers higher. Because we need to be recognized as a group that > >> >> NEEDS > >> >> assistance, Because we are helping Society today. IF more people had > >> >> reported, maybe we would ahve had more favoratism with the 700Mhz > >> >> debates? > >> > > >> > We might. But the loss will far outweigh any gains. > >> > > >> > > >> > North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 > >> > personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net > >> > sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net > >> > Fast Internet, NO WIRES! > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > > -- > >> > - > >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> Tom DeReggi > >> >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > >> >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> >> From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >> To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> > >> >> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 12:06 PM > >> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] To Break the Law or Not to Break theLaw...That is > >> >> theQuestion > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > There is going to have to be a compromise here guys. We will not be > >> >> > putting together the composite subscriber data for the FCC. There > >> >> > are > >> >> > no > >> >> > provisions for it. We can ask but then quite frankly I am not too > > keen > >> > on > >> >> > telling them that most of our members here seem to be reluctant to > > tell > >> >> > them who they are. > >> >> > > >> >> > We have to determine how the form has created this belief among you > >> >> > that > >> >> > the FCC is going to use it for harm. I want to see real answers here > >> >> > and > >> >> > not just conspiracy theories. If the FCC did not ask for the source > > of > >> > the > >> >> > information then what would stop us from telling them we had 10 > >> >> > times > >> > more > >> >> > customers than we had? There is no accountability if the data cannot > > be > >> >> > verified. Why is it assumed by all of you that the same organization > >> >> > who > >> >> > created unlicensed spectrum policy is now going to find some way of > >> >> > destroying the industry that was created by that policy:? > >> >> > Scriv > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Brian Rohrbacher wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Let's just get clear right up front... It appears you believe > > that > >> > if > >> >> >>> we > >> >> >>> all appear to be good boy scouts and have feel-good politics, > >> >> >>> we're > >> > more > >> >> >>> likely to get what we want considered. I disagree. I dont' > >> >> >>> think > >> >> >>> it'll > >> >> >>> get us even 3 seconds reconsideration. But I do believe if we > > make > >> >> >>> forceful and logical, and well-reasoned arguments, it far > >> >> >>> outweighs > >> >> >>> whether > >> >> >>> or not some of us are more than just a little atagonistic toward > >> >> >>> being > >> >> >>> counted, filed, folded, spindled, and reported. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >> If we start rolling over now, they will ask for more and more and > >> >> >> more........... If all they want is the number of subs, then lets > > all > >> >> >> turn info into WISPA and WISPA can give the lump number. Why do > > they > >> >> >> freakin need to know if I wear boxers or briefs? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Ever heard of http://www.fire-the-senate.com/ > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It's time for....... > >> >> >> http://www.fire-the-fcc.com/ > >> >> >> > >> >> > -- > >> >> > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > >> >> > > >> >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >> >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> >> > > >> >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > >> >> > >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> >> > >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> > > >> > -- > >> > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > >> > > >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> > > >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> > >> -- > >> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > >> > >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> > >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
