We agree fully on this John.

Please note that NO where did anyone say that those not in WISPA got a vote or a say in what we send out.

However, good ideas are good ideas. I don't particularly care where they come from. And getting these out to others has proven, again and again, to be a great way to harvest good ideas even from non members.

We can, and should, still do what our paid members want us to do. And so far, the papers as written by me and edited by you seem to work for our members so I think they should be sent out as is. Today or tomorrow.

laters,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181                                   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)                    Consulting services
42846865 (icq)                                    And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



----- Original Message ----- From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: [isp-wireless] USF fund reform


You answered my questions. I know now where the source of the position paper concept came from. Thank you. I agree it is important and we need to do this. I still do not believe anyone but WISPA members has any right to read or say anything about how we develop a WISPA position paper. That is a WISPA function and is not something others get a say in. If some things are not for our members only then why should anyone ever pay for membership?
Scriv



Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

Let me take this point by point John.

more below....

Marlon
(509) 982-2181                                   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)                    Consulting services
42846865 (icq)                                    And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



----- Original Message ----- From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: [isp-wireless] USF fund reform


The unfortunate dialog below is a perfect demonstration of why Matt was correct in saying this document should have never been circulated outside of WISPA until it was in its final form.

What led to the Senate Commerce Committee position paper idea?


My discussions with MY senator's staff. She's on the committee. He said we needed one.


Who is asking for this paper?


See above. The best way to aproach the committee is to have a one page possition paper in hand. I've got the contact people to send out paper to and will do so as soon as I have a chance.

From there, I have no idea what will happen. Hopefully they'll like what we

have had to say and will ask for wispa's testimony.


What are the criteria for how this is to be drafted?


One page :-). Other than that, I don't know that there really is any. This is about us. It's what WE want to see THEM do. But only the basics. 50,000 foot type stuff.


Are there actual size constraints (number of words, content allowed, etc.)?


I was told one page. I just wasn't able to clearly line out our views and justify them in less than the 1.5 to 2 pages I typed up.


When is it due?


Don't know. The bills are in process right now. I think sooner than later is better. Like yesterday. Others are likely hammering on congress full speed right now.


How can we draft a position paper on USF when none of us even understand the inner-workings of this very complex aspect of the telecommunications infrastructure?


Easy. You saw some of the same hearings I did. Congress IS going to change the program. They are begging for ideas. We don't have to know how it works to know how we wish it worked. And that's what this is all about.


Marlon I say this with the utmost personal respect and admiration for you but I mean this, what makes you think that being the FCC Committee Chairman gives you the power to completely run the Congressional Lobbying efforts of this organization?


Um, the fact that no one else has stepped up to do it? If you want someone else to tackle these issues please feel free to put them in place. I have other things to do anyhow. So far though, very little help has been given on any of these topics. So I guess until I'm fired, I'm it eh?

These are not the same thing. It is time for us to have another teleconference and do what we all agreed we were going to do. We need to learn and understand USF before we start telling people what we want from this.


No we don't. We have to know what we think will make it a viable program for US. If congress wants to do something else that's their right. Our job is to make this good for the wisp industry not worry that much about the mess that it is today.


I say we cannot have a position paper sent out with the WISPA name on it until we know what we asking for.


I thought the papers were pretty clear about what we're asking for. It would be better if those went out with the wispa name on them, but I believe in it as written enough that I'll be happy to send them out with only my name if that's what the group wants.

I am not happy with having WISPA documentation like this becoming fodder for the Brett Glass' of the world on public list forums outside of WISPA.


Brett Glass is an idiot and a liar. We've already established that. We could have a PERFECT document and he'd pick it apart because he didn't write it. If you worry about what he's got to say you'll never accomplish anything worth while, thereby making his day.

As for the value of the public exposure on this. How can we, as wispa, claim to speak for the industry if we don't give the industry a chance to have any input? I think we're more than proving Brett's contention that we're a "good ol' boys club" that won't listen to anyone else wrong here. We want to get input from all parties, not just ourselves. That's part of what makes wispa better than any other wisp group out there. We're working hard to speak for everyone as much as possible.

These discussions don't worry me at all. Most people won't ever say anything when they agree. When only a few out of hundreds have something to say it means we're very much on the right track.

We need to discuss how anything with a WISPA name attached is handled by this group going forward. Public dissemination of WISPA internal documents is no longer good practice as far as I am concerned. What do the rest of you think?


I completely agree. HOWEVER, *this* was not and is not an "internal document". It's a paper we're going to send to congress. Part of the permanent public reccord. This type of document absolutely belongs out in public before we send it to it's final resting place.

The long and the sort of the whole thing is this. Help me do the job I've stepped up to the plate to do or find someone else that will do it. I'm fine with it either way. In fact, we're so busy here I'd LOVE for someone else to tackle these issues. I (as you've seen) don't have time to dig deeply into them. I don't think congress cares about that, they want comments from the trenches, but if you guys do you've got to do more to help.

That help?
marlon

Scriv


Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:


----- Original Message ----- From: "Brett Glass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com>
Cc: <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: [isp-wireless] USF fund reform


Some comments:

WISPA is a the WISP industry's only industry owned and operated trade association. We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 person, membership elected board.



A 501(c)(6) nonprofit corporation cannot be "owned" by anyone. WISPA's board does act as if it "owns" the group, though, so this fact may be lost on them. Also, several of the members of that board claimed that they would step down after the organization was founded and then did not.



Sigh. The MEMBERSHIP owns the corp. We can modify or change it anytime that the membership votes to do so.


The goals for USF should be clarified. Are laptops for kids part of the program goals?



Even to ask this question shows a fundamential misunderstanding of the concept of universal service.



Agreed. That's why I was shocked to find out that USF had funded 68,000 laptops for school kids. That number came up in Senate testimony about USF reform.


Was it the original intent that USF exclude small local entrepreneurs and give preferential treatment to the incumbent?



But of course! Remember, it was designed to replace cross-subsidies within the Bell System -- the original incumbents. Even most wireless carriers do not get USF funding.

As USF changes, do the changes have a clear goal? Is this just a mechanism to try to put more funds into the program otherwise leave it as is? Or does Congress want to see substantial changes in the program that do more to foster rather than stifle innovation?



Congress wants campaign contributions and votes. Anything else is incidental.

WISPA believes that market forces should mostly be left to their own.



Incorrect grammar (embarrassing).

Without government tweaking. USF should be canceled completely. If a real need for outside funding in regions or small pockets turns out to be needed, address those issues on a case by case basis. At the very least the USF program needs major reform as its cost based fee structure encourages abuse.



Poor writing style and no citations of sources. The same is true for the rest of the document. I'd be embarrassed to be a member of a group that submitted any such document.



Feel free to provide better wording at any time. The intent of releasing that doccument before submission was to get constructive input.

marlon


--Brett Glass


** ISPCON Spring 2006 - May 16 - 18 - Baltimore, MD  www.ispcon.com **
** THE EVENT for ISPs, WISPS, CLECs and WebHosts **
** Going Wireless? Visit ISPCON before the leap! **

___________   The ISP-WIRELESS Discussion List   ___________
To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-wireless/archives/
To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.

Copyright 2005 Jupitermedia Corporation All Rights Reserved.



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Reply via email to