Title: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K

>While it may sound great to have a "double standard law," it isn't realistic. 
 
I disagree for several reasons.
 
Recent FCC trends have showed that there should NOT be a double standard between Cable and Telcos.
The reason is that Telcos and Cable Companmies are BOTH similar types of companies as far as monoply status, franchise, and/or goliath dominant player status (in volume).
 
Wireless Broadband is NOT the same type of industry.
Wireless- limited on spectrum.
Wireless- limited on capacity (not infinately replicateable)
Wireless- predominantly serves underserved areas.
Wireless- predominantly newly installed and unsubsidized (although MUNI could changed that)
Wireless- Full of minority (record low size) small providers.
 
Laws need to protect consumer interests, to pass. Consumers want wireless providers and benefit from them.
They want policies that will allow wireless providers to grow and succeed. 
Its jsut an education problem to teach people the justification of why the double standard should exist.
 
Second double standards exist ALL the time in politics. The goal is to get the bill past, and to negotiate will all the people that potentially may protest the bill to keep it from passing.
Politics promises exceptions for special interests to buy their support for a bill that will help a larger common good if passed.
 
Its just like plea bargining, giving a small time criminal amnisty if they tetsify against the larger more evil criminal.
Or its like the new high power rules for smart antennas, which actually were put i place to accommodate 1 manufacturer that had a smart antenna technology to bring to market.
Basically rewards a company that has some unique contribution. In this case it was a smart antenna to reduce interference to others.  Wireless has a unique donation. The abilty to be able to cost effectively serve little holes of underserved areas.  Putting regulation on small wireless providers could seriously hinder their abilty to offer services without risk, and reduce deployments.
 
Exceptions can be made, if they are jsutified. Thats how a bill gets made, every aspect of the bill is negotiated to meet everyone's interests. What isn;t allowed is rule limiting or burdening specific companies. I'm not asking to target a specifc comapny or a pecific compant to be excempt. I am asking for a technology to be exempt, a technology that has different characteristics and can be used by any provider to offer services.  So is it really a double standard?
 
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K

While it may sound great to have a "double standard law," it isn't realistic.  Recent FCC ruling trends tell us that.
 
For years, telephone companies have been heavily regulated while cable companies have not.
 
DSL was subject to regulation.  Cable was not.
 
In a way, this brings us back to the Brand X Internet Supreme Court Decision.  The FCC deregulated DSL and is working toward regulatory parity for all broadband services, regardless of medium.  The FCC wants all broadband services -- cable, DSL, wireless, satellite, broadband over powerlines, whatever you can think of -- to be subject to the same rules and regulations.
 
Expecting/lobbying/hoping for rules to apply to cable and DSL and not to wireless just isn't realistic.
 
We need to support that which is good for all broadband providers.
 
If Matt Loitta doesn't want to filter, prioritize, or restrict his network, I fully support his decision to run his network that way.  If there were legislation being proposed that required operators to filter, prioritize, restrict, or otherwise manipulate network services, I would be against it, and I would support Matt's right to run his network how he wants to.  Matt's network is Matt's network.  He built it.  He designed it.  He can do with is as he wants.  My network is my network.  I built it.  I designed it.  I feel it is my right to do with is as I want.  If my customers don't like my service, they can sign up or another service.  Let supply and demand and free-market economics decide who wins and who fails, not government.  Don't let the government regulate what we do and how we do it.  I hope that all of you (and WISPA) will support my right to run my network my way and for others to run their network their way.
 
According to USIIA, this issue is largely dead and not likely to see any action this election year.  Nonetheless, I'd like to know WISPA's position on this.  This is an issue that, if passed, would have effects on many of WISPA's members.  This is the type of issue that, I think, WISPA should be encouraging its members to write congresspeople about.
 
Regards,
 
Dave
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K

The secret of Net Neutrality is that there is no harm in NOT HAVING NET NEutrality for under dog small providers. Market pressures FORCE us to not unnecessisarilly block access.  If we block, and they want, they switch.  The trouble come in when there is monopoly or large scale advantage. Just because one does not like the actions of their monoply provider, does not mean they will ahve the option to switch based on the fact that if they did, they risk being block to a much larger group of people.  Net Neutrality is required to protect against monster companies unscrupulously controling the market (or Internet ).  Thus opening up the arguement that a double standard law easilly could be justified, controlling Telcos and Cable companies but not small independants.
 
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:48 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K

Nice one Jeff...
Absolutely  right -
and our over-priced currency deserves some stick, not us (the people) ....

:-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Broadwick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 June 2006 21:07
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under
$ 6K


 "I thought it worth chipping in - just my £0.01's worth."
 
Now that's harsh...the English Pence isn't worth 2 cents...yet.

Figuring it correctly:

"just my 1.0871p worth"

:-)


--
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/


--
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