We can argue this back and forth all day and waste the members of WISPA
time. I will say this as nicely as possible, get off the negative soapbox.

Past experiences of others, especially those of impotent state PUC's do not
interest me, times are different and so are the issues. You voiced your
opinion at the ISP-CEO Exchange about the WBIA's announcements and let's
suffice it to say you are in the minority.

Both our directives are on a much different course and while I still have a
good day job, my involvement with forming the WBIA is a serious matter. The
creation of the WBIA was to provide a <local> presence in D.C., of which no
other (to my knowledge) association or trade group (non-profit or
for-profit) for non-xLEC service providers are representing this industry
group in D.C.

There are those here on this list that have gone to D.C. for WISPA at their
cost. Can we also be supportive and help represent WISPA, or any other group
or person for that matter in D.C. while making it cost effective to do so?
Yes, yes we can. We are an advocate and not a lobbying group. Though similar
in nature, there is a distinct difference between the two.

Educating legislators, urging support for a particular issue or cause
Asking for a vote in favor of or against a specific piece of legislation

That said, we are not on our own mission, but that of the service providers
who need assistance and or information about regulatory issues and in
dealing with the political processes. This is not about us, but about them
being either a wired, Wi-Fi, web host, VOIP etc., service provider. The WBIA
was formed to fill a need and we feel we can deliver it. I am not saying we
are going to always be successful, be we can make a difference in building
stronger relationships with those in D.C. on an ongoing basis and providing
a service cost effectively.

Does the WBIA have expenses, sure we do and have been self supported since
our inception. We feel the time has come to step it up a notch or two and
formally incorporate, as to enable the WBIA in accepting and accounting for
revenues and expenses to continue on doing what we are doing.

In closing I'll state one more time that I do not care about past
experiences of others at this time. Our legal counsel and advisory board
will help guide our attention where it will be of the greatest benefit. Sure
it is beneficial to learn from other failures' and mistakes', but it is not
worth the negative rhetoric to knock those of others working on solutions
for the future.

Frank Muto
Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee

----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

You better start collecting big $$ and handing checks to Senators or you
will never get it off the ground.

Don't you remember Penn. PSC over the VZ LD?
One week they decide to break it up.
AT&T says it will cost $250M; VZ says $1B
PSC Commissioners afraid that their car would explode.
6 weeks later they give VZ LD Relief instead.

Frank Muto wrote:

I do get it, but at a different view point. I'll agree that the USF
still be available, but let's widen the tax base and lower the
This also is a good time to look again at structural separation of the
from the CO and form a regulated utility.

It is time that the FCC and Congress forget it is not their job to worry
about a company's P&L, i.e., Bell's. Welcome the Bell's to our world and
if they can survive without the CO plants. Then you will have equal and
reasonable competition for all.

Even if the TA 96 was codified, though it was not,  in the assumption
CLEC's were to become facility based, it could have included a sunset of
such and also a move to structural separation. Now granted the latter
have caused as much grief as the TA 96 Act itself in having une-p and the
Bell's bitching about parasitic users, but it could make some other
(current) issues such as Homeland Security, USF and Network Neutrality
less the debates they are now.

Structural Separation was basically in place with the divesture of AT&T
1984 and also with the TA 96, that it was essential to create operating
systems to split the local and LD. The next step would be to separate the
plant away from the Bell's.

Frank Muto
Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee

WISPA Wireless List:



Reply via email to