COMMENTS INLINE -
Where have we asked to "identify" WISPs at all? I am not looking to
"identify" WISPs. I do get asked all the time by regulators, legislators,
press, investors, etc. how many WISPs there are and how much of the US we
serve. I cannot give a qualified answer. Nobody can because many WISPs
won't file their 477s. How can I answer this question when people will not
stand and be counted?
I suppose I jumped to the conclusion that it would be important to identify
the WISPs rather than just to count up the WISPs. Numerical statistics
might be enough to back the claims of coverage, density, and
strength-in-numbers.
If WISPA can identify WISPs across the nation, then how can WISPA
convince WISPs to self-report?
All we can do is try to promote the importance of filling out these
reports. After that it is up to the WISP themselves to decide. It is out
of my hands beyond that.
This is where the identity of WISPs would be useful. If WISPA were to
identify and contact all of the nation's WISPs, it could do a mass mailing
to inform WISPs of their need for compliance, let them know that safe-harbor
standards are being created, and in a little self-serving - WISPA could
promote itself.
Is WISPA planning to use strong-arm tactics (report
or we'll report you) or is WISPA hoping to just inform WISPs of their
federal obligations and hope for the best?
I have never pushed for strong-arm anything and will not start now. This
would be a serious step over the line of trying to build the large
representative scale we want to see in WISPA. We are not the police. We
are a group of operators and others who want to help promote and improve
the industry. That is straight from the by-laws.
Fair enough.... I really did not think that WISPA would try to force
compliance. In fact, that is EXACTLY why I asked. I expected you to state
for the record (archives) that WISPA was not trying to force compliance but
rather WISPA was just looking out for the interests of the WISP community.
We want to see our customers numbers represented more accurately in order
to gain more justification for spectrum and policy reform for our industry.
If we cannot prove we are serving the public interest then we cannot expect
the public to represent our interests. FCC Form 477 is the most important
tool we have in proving we are serving the public good.
If you have an idea then please share it. I think we have been very vocal
that this form is important to the future representation of our interests
in D.C. If WISPs do not act on this they are hurting themselves. I do not
think anything else could be presented to a WISP which would make this
point any more clear.
The main suggestion that I can make is to contact as many WISPs as can be
identified within the US and let them know about the FCC reporting
requirements, about form 477, about CALEA in general, about WISPA's efforts
to enable reasonable CALEA compliance. As you noted... you have used this
forum to get the word out. But many WISPs are not on this forum. I think
that the WISPA community needs outreach (mail, phone calls, etc) to WISPs
offlist if efforts to educate are going to succeed.
Reading the CALEA R&O's it amazes me that either the FCC or the DoJ believe
that broadband ISPs have effectively been put on notice regarding their need
to comply with CALEA. The way the Order reads, it appears the agency
assumes that ISPs have always held themselves out as "telecommunications
carriers" and that broadband ISPs know or should have known about their
obligations to comply with CALEA since CALEA was created in 1995.
Furthermore, it indicates that ISPs know that they have an affirmative
obligation to obtain a registration number from the FCC and to file with the
FCC as a "telecommunications provider".
I don't believe that poor compliance with regards to CALEA regulations is
necessisarily due to the obstanence of ISPs. I contend that the poor
compliance with regards to CALEA is due to a severe lack of information and
lack of understanding. Lets face it... just a few years ago, broadband ISPs
were told that they were "information service providers" and not
"telecommunications providers". Therefore, we did not qualify for
unbundled-network-elements or co-location facilities within a CO but we were
exempt from collecting USF fees. Now, the R&O for CALEA has
re-interpretted the term and re-classified broadband internet providers as
"telecommunications providers" for the purposes of CALEA. This
reinterpretation is at very least confusing and it leaves many ISPs with the
feeling that they are or should be exempt from CALEA regulation.
Because the FCC has taken such a drastic change in position regarding the
regulation and classification of broadband internet service providers, it
seems that actual notice to the effected parties would have been more
appropriate (during the promulgation of the rule and order). Now that the
order has already been made and the deadline is quickly approaching, there
is no more time to wait for government intervention. Its up to industry
groups like WISPA to fill the gap and contact WISPs and let them know about
their obligations.
- Larry Yunker
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
